Americans Must Take a Stand Some Place!

What does it mean to us if we sit on our hands and let George fall to Russian aggression? What will it do to harm our way of life? Why should we care what happens to such a small country that is so far away?

It has looked to the West for help ever since it decided to become independent and a Democracy.

They are about to have their faith in the American dream shoved into a dumpster. What will we do? What will we do when Iran attacks Israel?

Keep the faith.

Author Unknown -

*Russian aggression meets "anticipatory capitulation"posted 08/11/08

Why won't the West help Georgia -- say, by immediately admitting the nation to NATO? How to explain the West's impotent tsk-tsking in the face of this latest Russian aggression?

The answer lies in what I call the "anticipatory capitulation" factor. The greatest terror of postmodern Westerners is "confrontation": to be compelled into situations in which they must actually face down a bully. And, of course, taking a moral stand may sometimes lead to such "confrontations."

So, in anticipation of any course of action that could possibly lead to a "confrontation," postmoderns never take a moral stand. They look into the future, at where such a stand might lead them -- and, terrified by the prospect, they back down /pre-emptively/. Often, they seek some sort of "compromise" with thugs that takes the "confrontation" option off the table.

"Compromise" here means: anticipatory capitulation. This is the policy that Border's Books, Comedy Central, and the entire MSM adopted when contemplating even a /hypothetical/ "confrontation" with Islamists who /might/ become angry about their circulation of those Muhammad cartoons: They capitulated and refused to publish the cartoons, in mere /anticipation/ of a possible showdown.

This is the policy that has, in fact, lay beneath much of Western foreign policy -- as in endless, toothless UN resolutions (when they can even agree on one), and in our State Department's anemic practice of tepidly voicing "concern" about this or that international bully's actions, while evading any "provocative" language of condemnation that might "escalate" to a direct confrontation.

And this is the same policy we see in the "international community's" moral, rhetorical, economic, and (of course) military paralysis in the face of naked Russian aggression in Georgia -- including the U.S.'s muted, invertebrate response. President Bush spoke of his "grave concern about the disproportionate response" by the Russians. In fact, we have U.S. diplomats openly acknowledging that we won't do a damned thing about it.

Bullies, of course, can always smell fear: It's their special talent. They accurately perceive the cowardice that underlies responses of whining, pleading, dithering, and mollycoddling, and know that they will confront no barriers on the paths of aggression.

One could make a very good argument that the war in Iraq was the result of the West's long history of accommodating tyrannical bullies generally, and Saddam Hussein in particular. Consider the years and years of empty rhetoric and vacuous UN resolutions that had followed Saddam's flagrant defiance of international demands. Based on that history, Saddam no doubt calculated that, despite tough talk, we would /never/ respond with force. He miscalculated and continued to thumb his nose right up until the invasion -- but who gave him good reason to do so? How has the West responded to the threat of North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons?

With "anticipatory capitulation." The lone exception to this cowardly policy has been -- so far, and somewhat sporadically -- Israel (as Syria learned recently). Now, we're giving Vladimir Putin similar signals that his invasion of a province in neighboring Georgia will have absolutely no downside for him. The West will just sit on its hands, avoiding even the "provocation" of using "inflammatory rhetoric" to condemn him. This collective cowardice gives his tanks a bright green light to thunder down the highways of the rest of Georgia, unopposed , annexing the nation back into a new Russian empire. Where next? The Ukraine? I think you can bank on it -- or count on the Ukraine to engage in its own "anticipatory capitulation," acceding to Russian demands since it now realizes that, as in Georgia, no Western allies will stand by its side. And where after that? Just about anywhere else Putin wants to dispatch them. Who will stand up to him? The French?Doesn't this scenario sound familiar? Remember the international response to Hitler's early aggressions in the run-up to World War II? Europe sat on its collective hands while he annexed first one neighbor, then another. Well, who gave him grounds to believe he could get away with it?I'll have more to say about "the politics of 'anticipatory calculation'" in the future.*UPDATE* -

- Uh oh. Insta-lanche!!! UPDATE #2* -- Hate to say "I told you so," but the electrons of this post had no sooner settled on the Web page than news comes of Russia invading the rest of Georgia. So much for Russia's lame excuse that its invasion was only in response to Georgian "aggression" against its two breakaway provinces. Thanks to the policy of "anticipatory capitulation" in the West, push has come to shove. This is about conquest, folks. The question: What will the West now do about it? (So far, it hasn't dared even to pass a UN resolution.)

*UPDATE #3* -- Even these former Clinton officials have a more realistic perspective, and advocate a tougher position against Russia, than we have seen to date from the current administration. (And believe me, I'm no fan of the Clintonistas.)

*UPDATE #4* -- Refreshingly, John McCain is distinguishing himself by taking a much harder line on the Russian aggression than is the Bush administration or Obama: John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, on Monday upstaged George W. Bush’s administration over the Georgia crisis with his strongest statement so far calling on the US and its allies to come together in "universal condemnation of Russian aggression". . . ."Russia’s aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States," said Mr. McCain. "The implications go beyond their threat to . . .  a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine, for choosing to associate with the West.

"Mr. McCain’s statement -- his third since the crisis began -- stood in clear contrast on Monday to the relatively low-key response of the Bush administration and the Obama campaign. . . .Mr. McCain’s response, which included recommended policy actions for the administration, has also enabled his campaign to restate its support for a "league of democracies," which would exclude Russia and include countries such as Georgia. Mr. McCain pointed out at the weekend that Russia’s membership of the United Nations Security Council had prevented that body from taking any "meaningful action.

"Mr. McCain also called on the Bush administration to redouble its efforts to offer Georgia and Ukraine a membership action plan to join NATO.