Ralph Peters on Russia's Invasion of Georgia
Russia Goes Rogue. Excerpt:
Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.
As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Tuesday August 12, 2008 at 1:36pm
Why should anyone be surprised by what the Russians did? The leopard doesn't change its spots, and one way or another the Russians are going to rebuild their empire -- if we let them get away with it. Is it possible that all the lessons of the Cold War have been lost in less than twenty years?
It seems so with Bush, who has preferred to play pattycake with the Russians and the ChiComs. (Thanks for returning that fine Cold War term to my vocabulary.) Remember his homoerotic encounter with Putin, looking deeply into his eyes to find a man he could trust? Remember his hand-wringing after the Red Chinese captured a Navy P-3 and its crew? Bush is keen on not upsetting our "friends" and has acted more like the nuke-freeze appeasement liberals of the '80s than a conservative who understands that Russian and Chinese dictators respond as we want only in the face of superior force and our willingness to use it.
Of course, Bush will soon be out. But then Obama never learned those lessons. He's clueless. McCain however spoke forcefully in defense of Georgia and against the Russians that shows he hasn't forgotten the lessons. If he keeps that up, I may -- may -- pull the lever for him come November.
Regards, Bill T
You might be right. I am not yet up to speed on the situation.
Bill,
In a dangerous world, how could you not do your bit to support McCain (both by voting for him and blogging your support of him)? He spoke out forcefully on the Russo-Georgian matter while Obama enjoyed the Hawaiian beaches. On foreign policy issues, Obama would be a disaster, while McCain is competent and determined. McCain is weak on domestic issues, but politics is always about the lesser (or least) of evils.
But just when I think I will pull the lever for him, I'll hear the old fool make an assinine statement about taking the fight to Big Oil, Wall Street, and other boogeymen right out of the Left's demonology. Then I have to wonder if a man who is such an idiot about what makes it possible for us to resist and defeat this country's real enemies is up to the job. I wonder if we're better off enduring four years of Carter, Mark II, to make it clear we need another Reagan in the White House.
Of course, the problem with this bit of wishful thinking is that there is no new Reagan waiting in the wings. So reality sets in again, and I'm back to relying upon McCain to prevent manageable problems with the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and jihadists from becoming disasters. After all, whatever reservations I have about McCain matching action to rhetoric, clearly the quasi-Marxist muddle-headed Obama can't get that job done.
At the end of the day, I am a practical man when it comes to politics. I always hold out for principle come election day when it is reasonable to do so, but if events dictate a compromise, I can stomach that if I must.
Regards, Bill T
Since you care about writing well, perhaps you will not be put off by a bit of pedantry from my side. I have noticed you misspell 'asinine' as 'assinine.' The word is from the Latin asinus, donkey, and not from 'ass.'
Also, 'boogeymen' should be 'bogeymen.'
As for the substantive issue, though, we pretty much agree.
I should know better, especially after having learned Latin in high school, but it is an odd thing. I was a champion speller, but it seems the older I get, the more frequently I make spelling errors.
As for "boogeymen", that's the way we say it in this neck of the woods, although I think "bogeymen" is more common elsewhere. Whether it is an accepted variation, I suppose I should crack open the OED.
Regards, Bill T
P.S. Now to what matters: I thought McCain did very well in Rick Warren's Q&A on Saturday. (All "debates" should follow Warren's format.) Clearly he spoke as a man of substance versus Obama the empty suit. If that was all I knew about McCain, I'd have few misgivings about him.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.