It's certainly easy to say, "Hey, Russia has some nerve! They're invading Georgia under false pretenses in order to gain oil and project military power!" The analogy made with the second US invasion of Iraq (or even the first, depending on how you view it) is certainly clear. However, I think the similarities end there. Russia is facing very direct strategic and (most importantly, in my opinion) economic threats from NATO and felt the need to act. One can point out that the US acted in a unilateral manner with respect to Iraq, but Russia is acting even more unilaterally - it didn't consult anyone, didn't engage in any diplomacy, didn't send inspectors, and is acting without any allies at all. I'm of the opinion that Russia would have acted in this manner even without any precedent set or any contribution to the global environment by the actions of the US.
Even if I don't agree with the article, I find it very surprising that the author completely fails to make the comparison between Iraq-US and Georgia-Russia with respect to oil. If there's a point to be made here, it's that military action will still be used for economic interests, despite how democratic and civilized a nation may be. I think Cole is too distracted by the thin veils of "nation building", "sovereignty", and "self-determination" - and a Salon writer should know better than that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-14 08:43 pm (UTC)Even if I don't agree with the article, I find it very surprising that the author completely fails to make the comparison between Iraq-US and Georgia-Russia with respect to oil. If there's a point to be made here, it's that military action will still be used for economic interests, despite how democratic and civilized a nation may be. I think Cole is too distracted by the thin veils of "nation building", "sovereignty", and "self-determination" - and a Salon writer should know better than that.