Georgia on my mind

It's unfortunate the Russians decided to launch an invasion in an unfamiliar corner of the world during the height of a U.S. presidential campaign. The timing of their move makes it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to make heads or tails of what's going on. At the risk of exposing myself as a complete ignoramus, here is what I have been able to gather:

Evidently, Georgia was an independent nation until the early 1920s, when it was swallowed up by the U.S.S.R. (or what became the U.S.S.R.). After the fall of European Communism, Russia never quite reconciled itself to the notion of Georgian sovereignty. The geopolitical situation there has been highly unstable due to the existence of two semi-automonous regions within the borders of Georgia known as Ossetia and Ajaria. Naturally, these areas represent distinct ethnic enclaves (because what's a good international crisis anymore without the scourge of rampant tribalism?). Moscow supports the Ossetian and Ajarias autonomy movements because of Russia's rich tradition of liberty and self-government. Actually, it's because Moscow views Georgia's internal struggles as a source of weakness and vulnerability for the government in Tiblisi.

Given the mess there, you're probably thinking it's a good thing there's no oil in Georgia and no perceived strategic interest at stake for the U.S. Unfortunately, both of those assumptions are wrong. Oil from the Caspian Sea transits Georgia via the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. And the U.S. has been actively courting Georgia for years as an ally and possible future member of NATO.

Vladimir Putin and his criminal cohorts in the Kremlin evidently decided the opening of the Olympic games would be a good time to send a column of tanks into Georgia in order to bring the former satellite back into the Russian fold. Of course, this was done under the pretext of responding to Georgia's persecution of the Ossetians. Russia's action leaves the West in a bit of a bind. Although the U.S. properly regards the move as an intolerable act of aggression, there doesn't appear to be any practicable military response available to us.

Here in the U.S., Barack Obama initially responded to the outbreak of hostilities with a plea for the parties to work toward restoring peace to the troubled region, fueling speculation that he might appoint Barney the Dinosaur as a special envoy. John McCain's response was, predictably, more bellicose in tone. While not explicitly advocating a military response, McCain has made it clear he would take a tough stand against Russia.

McCain has also used the occasion to make several important points with voters. First, he never bought into the starry-eyed notion that Russia could become a force for peace and justice on the world stage. In other words, he was right about Putin just as he was right about the surge in Iraq. Second, and again as in the case of the surge, McCain saw the unvarnished truth of the matter immediately, without succumbing to the false optimism that infected Bush's perception of the situation. In other words, he's not "McSame" at all, but foreign policy realist with impeccable judgment. Third, he's an experienced hand at foreign policy, who's known Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili well enough to call him "Misha." Barack Obama probably thinks Misha is a sushi bar in Harvard Square.

All of that would seem to make the emergence of this crisis something of an unexpected boon for McCain's candidacy. I'm not sure that's the case, however. While Americans in large numbers would probably agree that McCain is better equipped to deal with a crisis such as this, the country is also quite war-weary. They would welcome a Clintonesque "vacation from history." What people like about vacations, most of all, is taking a break from responsibility. In a sense, Obama's vacuous initial statement on the crisis, issued from the beaches of Hawaii, is exactly what America wants to hear. By the same token, McCain's response is about as welcome as receiving an urgent message from a dutiful assistant back at the office. You say to yourself, "What now?" So the apparent benefit McCain derives from the sudden flare-up of an international crisis is mitigated, I think, by the temptation of American people to avoid having to deal with the issue beyond the level of simply expressing disapproval for the Russians' actions.

In the end, however, I think McCain will come out ahead as a result of all this. I say this because I think the "crisis" part of this episode is going to pass rather quickly. Russia will achieve (if it hasn't already) its military objectives and some semblance of stability will emerge from the ashes. As noted above, there really doesn't seem to be much the U.S. can do about it beyond simply condemning the action in one form or another. Or, put it this way: whatever we do in the immediate aftermath, it won't involve preparing troops to march into battle. McCain can still trumpet his superior judgment in perceiving the Russian threat while tacitly acknowledging that our hands are tied, militarily. In this way, he can still play the role of the responsible statesman without spoiling Americans' hoped-for day at the beach.