I agree that we should be suspicious when people and nations do things apparently out of altruism, but when we put them to the test over the course of history and find that they are not exploiting these situations, then they deserve a bit of leeway and a bit of trust.

In the case of the US, although much has been made about exploitation of natural resources, the historical record shows that the US doesn't, as a rule, do this. For example, there has been no exploitation of Iraq's oil by the United States. The US could easily have taken all of the oil from Iraq. Who would have stopped it from happening? Yet years later, Iraq is making record profits on its oil sales and the Unites States is paying record prices at the gas pumps. Clearly the fears about he United States stealing Iraqi oil did not materialize. In the aftermath of World War II, there was no force, except for possibly the Soviet Union, capable of preventing an United States takeover of all of Europe (and much of Asia). Nonetheless, this did not happen either. For example, the Philipines were restored their sovereignty in 1946. The United States has historically chosen to not exploit other nations in times of war and since 1900 has not engaged in a war of conquest for the purpose of controlling or ruling another nation (prior to 1900, one could make a case about Native Americans and parts of Mexico that wanted to join the US). In fact, the United States has, many times, in that same period, engaged in war only to establish, in their view, a free self-governing country (yes, a government that is somewhat friendly to the US, although this hasn't always occurred).

As to Vietnam, just under 60,000 US troops (out of 3 million that served) were killed in about 12 years of war as well as roughly 6 million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians (some killed by US/UN troops, some by North Vietnamese troops or Chinese troops). So in 12 years, the average death rate was 500,000/year in southeast Asia. In the 2 years immediately following (1976-1978), that rate jumped to 750,000/year in Cambodia alone during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. Other purges occurred in Laos and Vietnam re-education camps where millions were imprisioned. Perhaps you recall the "boat people" who fled these countries on rickety boats in the open ocean for a chance to escape to Australia, New Zealand, the Philipines and the United States. We don't know how many died on these boats, but we know that many did. We do know that over 1 million survived to live in other nations due to the horrible conditions that arose after the United States left.

As to "Why the US?", it is simply that the US is the most willing. Nobody disregards the contributions made by the other members of the coalition in Iraq, but the US was simply willing to put more of its troops and equipment on the line. Certainly the US would have welcomed it if other countries wanted to contributed equal amounts, but at the end of the day, if a mission calls for 200,000 troops and the other countries are only willing to contribute 50,000, then the remaining 150,000 will have to come from somewhere. The US appears to be willing to make such an investment for people that may turn on them once they have their freedom. Note that I don't feel that the US should send any troops to Georgia without Georgia requesting full military support; something that hasn't happened yet.

I agree with your analysis that the situation in Georgia was a power play, and a good one at that. The US, and really anyone else could do nothing about it. Since Georgia wasn't part of NATO, Russia didn't have to fear a NATO response. Since the US is pretty much committed right now in two wars, it doesn't have the manpower to do much in Georgia, plus the geography of the region doesn't lend itself to US support (the US would have to get permission to fly/drive over other nations to get there and that would be difficult). The United Nations could do nothing because Russia, being a permanent Security Council member with full veto power, can unlaterally veto any resolutions about the situation. This was a pretty smart play by Putin and even if Russia fully withdraws, it sends the message that they can and will move about in their area and the challenge is whether or not anyone will do anything about it.

On the flipside, the US is indeed sounding impotent "demanding" that Russia withdrawl, but being unable to back it up. The US appears almost like a juvenile that isn't getting its way. True it is busy elsewhere, but the feeling is that the US believes it is "entitled" to tell Russia what to do and that Russia should listen. Certainly Georgia and the US are friendly, so that gives the US some grounds, but realistically, they are trying to stick their nose in where it really doesn't belong. Unless Georgia were to request full support from the US, the US should simply allow the UN and perhaps the US State Department to negotiate a resolution properly rather than the rancor and empty threats.

On a broader note, I was still interested in what you thought other bodies (NATO, the UN, etc.) should be doing in this situation? What stance should they take?

-- Jeff

ps Hard to be completely unbiased, given that I live in the US, but I do try to present a fair accounting.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan