Chickens Come Home to Roost

Malcolm X was criticized heavily as "insensitive" for using an old cliché with respect to the assassination of President Kennedy. He said that the policies, attitude and actions of the US government promoting indiscriminate violence and clandestine attacks should yield no surprised when a covert plot results in an attack on the US government even at the highest levels. He said that America's "chickens had come home to roost." He did not condone the assassination, but merely observed that actions have consequences. In retrospect, such a statement was not very “radical” at all.

Now the Bush administration is faced with a problem that brings to mind the same cliché in the former Soviet state of Georgia. The Russian military invasion in response to a Georgian attack on the separatist region of South Ossetia calls for a credible response from Georgia's “ally,” the US government. President Bush wants to scold or admonish Russia for a “disproportionate” military response to the Georgian military offensive, but he has no credibility or standing to criticize Russia in light of US policies and actions, especially in Iraq.

Russia is acting in a very cynical and calculated manner in Georgia by supporting the separatist movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia provinces. The provinces are part of Georgia, but have enjoyed a measure of independence. In both cases, Russia has granted Russian passports to a large number of citizens of these provinces, perhaps as a prelude to annexing those provinces should they effectively secede from Georgia. When Georgia took concrete steps to reassert its control of South Ossetia, Russia used the pretext of protecting its “citizens” [passport holders] and peace keepers stationed in the region to launch a major military offensive against Georgia. The degree of the response, including seizure of critical parts of Georgia, was more than necessary to halt the Georgian offensive and has led some to speculate that Russia is attempting to reconstruct a Soviet Union. Two factors support this conjecture. Georgia has been pushing very hard to become a member of NATO, a step that Russia sees as a direct threat it would never accept. Secondly, the US is stretched so thin as a result of its adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is perceived to pose no serious or credible threat of a military response to counter the Russian incursion in Georgia, or any other muscle flexing by the Kremlin.

Consider also the following quote from an Associated Press story:

In a report released Friday, Human Rights Watch said it has collected evidence of Russian warplanes using cluster bombs against civilian areas in Georgia. The international rights group urged Russia to stop using the weapons, which more than 100 nations have agreed to outlaw.

One might recall that Israel used cluster bombs supplied by the US in Southern Lebanon. After the cessation of hostilities, horrific reports of children picking up unexploded fragments of cluster bombs that resemble broken toys and being killed or maimed by them were widely broadcast. Israel not only failed to accomplish its declared mission, but it lost considerable sympathy among the members of the international community for the inhumane tactics it employed. Expedience does not justify every means to an end. Critics of Bush policies involving torture, for example, have repeatedly warned that such conduct limits or destroys the right of the US to complain about torture of US military personnel and civilians.

One of the most serious and disturbing side effects of the US escapade in Iraq is the destruction of credibility and moral authority that the US formerly had to “jawbone” other nations into behaving in a more moderate and responsible manner. When the Bush administration flaunted international law with what could legitimately be characterized as a unilateral invasion of Iraq or illegal pre-emptive war, it lost the ability to criticize any other nation for similar conduct. The actions by Russia, while deplorable, do have a more credible pretext than did the US invasion of Iraq. At least it can point to the deaths of civilians and peace keepers resulting from the Georgian attack, even if Russia's true agenda is more sinister. But what right does Bush have to criticize Russia for seeking control and regime change in Georgia when Bush has committed the same wrongs in Iraq with even less pretext or foundation?

What it will take for the US to regain international credibility in order to be able to effectively constrain or deter other nations from excessive military measures is unknown. Like trust, it is an asset that is more easily lost that it is regained.

At present, Bush can only offer the meek admonition that Russia risks losing the goodwill of the US in the future if it does not moderate its actions now and respect the sovereignty of Georgia. Having completely disregarded the sovereignty of Iraq by the initial invasion and by its policy of indefinite occupation against the will of the majority of Iraqi citizens, Bush might just as well be spitting in the wind. His words carry no force and no concrete significance.

Russia is in a far better economic situation than it was during the cold war. Its petroleum reserves and other resources make it less dependent upon the US or the international community. Maintenance of the role as a leader among nations has seldom been as important for the US than it is now. But the Bush administration has abdicated that role. Despite playing the role of a lone wolf and refusing to work sincerely and cooperatively with multinational groups, including the United Nations, the only real option for Bush at present is to borrow the legitimacy and moral authority of other nations to attempt to force a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Georgia. Any credibility or moral authority that the US President had to pressure Russia to back down has been squandered by Bush during the past 5 years or more.

Thus, “chickens come home to roost.”