By The River

So, do you ever wonder how many Americans think Soviet troops invaded the U.S. state of Georgia?

Given the state of geographical and political knowledge here, there have to be at least a few. Sad, really. But let's take this a little further and imagine that the Atlanta government had clamped down hard on its northern counties, say an area of about 31x31 miles. In that enclave, which once was a part of Tennessee, the Atlanta government imposed a language not spoken by 90 percent of the population and took away their right to vote. The enclave declared its independence, attacked state officials send from Atlanta to enforce the new rules, and appealed to the rest of America for help. In response, the Atlanta government sends in the National Guard to brutally suppress the rebellion, burning towns and killing hundreds of old people, women and children in the breakaway counties.

Meanwhile, the Federal government in Washington moves troops across the Tennessee border to free the northern enclave from Atlanta control. Fighting between American troops and the Georgia National Guard is fierce, but the National Guard quickly retreats. American troops continue beyond the enclave and march on Atlanta to punish the state for its murderous actions against the breakaway counties. This draws harsh condemnation from Vladimir Putin in Russia, who is close to the governor of Georgia thanks to a lobbyist on his staff who until recently represented Georgia interests in Moscow. Putin says "We are all Georgians" and urges his country to back Georgia. The European Union sends diplomats to America to try to broker a ceasefire.

Who would you back in this situation? The state government in Atlanta or the federal government in Washington? Would Putin seem like a belligerant, meddling idiot, seeking to interfere in matters clearly within Washington's legitimate sphere of influence?

The point I'm trying to make, of course, is that Sen. John McCain is pursuing a wrong-headed, dangerous course in his unabashed, unqualified backing for the country of Georgia in the fight it picked with Russia over the breakaway province of South Ossetia (yes, there is a North Ossetia--it is part of Russia). Ossetians are not Georgians. Georgia did oppress them, including imposing Georgian as the national language. Moscow sent troops into Georgia--part of Russia and then the Soviet Union from 1801 to 1991.

I'm no fan of Putin and his efforts to drag Russia back to the oppressive years of Communism. But this is no more our fight than it was Russia's fight when we invaded Grenada in 1983. We can be unhappy about the situation in Georgia, as much of the world was with us after Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada and the deaths of more than 100 people. But ultimately, Grenada was seen to be within our sphere of influence and things calmed down pretty quickly.

What makes the real Georgia situation disturbing is that it appears to be yet another effort by the far right in America to mess with foreign policy in ways that endanger America. They remember history and have learned nothing from it, chafing over the past refusal of the United States to go to war with the Soviet Union over its suppression of independence or liberalization movements in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Tragedies both. No doubt about it. But were they worth a nuclear war with Moscow that might have killed tens of millions of people on both sides?

The neo-cons who brought us the Iraq disaster say we must "stand with" Georgia because it sent 2000 troops to help us in the Iraq disaster, withdrawing many of them to suppress the rebellion in South Ossetia. I find it particularly disturbing that McCain appears to have been steered toward his support of Georgia as much by lobbyists as neo-cons, echoing the run-up to the Iraq war, when the neo-cons fell all over Ahmed Chalabi and the myths he spread about how our invasion supposedly would be met with flower petals, not bullets and bombs. McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheuneman, was a lobbyist for Georgia until several months ago.

McCain's approach to foreign policy, as I've written before, is rooted in his belief that the U.S. should have continued fighting the Vietnam War until it won. He does not seem able to rise above reflexive belligerency. A war with Russia in the 21st century would be long and bloody. Even if we pushed them out of Georgia, where would we stop?

On the road to Moscow? A million dead soldiers later, assuming no resort to nuclear weapons? It isn't worth it, or necessary, except in the minds of rightwing bitter-enders.