Getting Real on Georgia Troop Training
Thom Shanker reports that “The United States is resuming a combat training mission in the republic of Georgia to prepare its army for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, despite the risks of angering Russia, senior Defense Department officials said Thursday.”
This strikes me as very, very, very silly. If we want to decide, as a matter of foreign policy, that we want to train Georgian troops in order to bolster Tblisi’s efforts to stand up to Moscow despite the risk of angering Russia, then fine. We should look at the costs and benefits of that strategy and maybe decide to adopt it. But it’s mighty dumb to be pretending that the reason we’re training Georgian troops is so that they might be prepared for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. It’s perfectly clear to everyone that Afghanistan is being used as a pretext to provide training, and that Georgia is participating in the Afghan operation in order to obtain the training. The only people who we could possibly be fooling with this gambit is ourselves, and fooling yourself is a dangerous thing in foreign policy.
Meanwhile, before condemning Russia’s anger over this sort of thing as representative of Russian evil and irrationality, people should give some consideration to how our government would likely react if China started training the Mexican military as part of preparation for Mexico to join a formal defensive alliance with China. I think you’d see a massive freakout.
44 Responses to “Getting Real on Georgia Troop Training”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Jesus. If I wanted this kind of stupid policy I could have voted for McPain.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
We need Georgia’s 400 troops. Without them, the Battle for Afghanistan will be lost. Better to anger Russia than risk defeat.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Strikes me as a negotiating ploy. It’s important to the Russians that we not train Georgian troops, whereas it’s basically a matter of indifference for the United States whether we do or not. Let’s see what they’re willing to give us to stop. China could do the same thing to us by exploring deeper military ties with Mexico.
That’s not to say such a ploy isn’t potentially foolish and provocative or indeed potentially catastrophic (see, e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis), but in these matters much depends on implementation.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Hector isn’t here to recommend Daniel Larison on this issue, so I’ll do it for him. One of the better referrals I’ve ever received.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
BUT BUT BUT we are the GOOD guys. We get to do things that BAD countries don’t get to do, like invade other countries on false pretenses with impunity and torture innocent people to justify our actions in violation of international and our own laws, again with impunity. BAD countries can’t do what we do.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
agree that this is counterinsurgency training is silly-there’s no way the georgian military can stand up to russia in any case-
but if mexico had received military aid from france in say the 1850s right after we invaded them (and I think France did intervene militarily then) then it would be a lot more plausible/less objectionable.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Meh. No one is fooling themselves and frankly, as long as the Georgians don’t get into one of their nationalist snits and invade this has no down side. And no I would have no problem with China training mexican troops. Because Georgia is not going to be in NATO. BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN THE FUCKING NORTH ATLANTIC!
August 14th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Actually, no. The Georgian government’s strategy has been to ingratiate itself with the US by participating in these operations, e.g., Iraq. The counterinsurgency training won’t be any use to them against the Russians; part of the problem in the August conflict was that their best-trained soldiers we’re trained for duties in Iraq, not for fighting a conventional war.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
NATO counterinsurgency training for 750 troops would be, of course, completely useless against Russia’s conventional military force. No insurgency materialized during Russia’s brief occupation of Tbilisi in the first place, and anyway, how is COIN training supposed to help Georgians mount an insurgency? Only in an elliptical sense, and only for a tiny force.
On the other hand, Tbilisi might be making this gesture to help with Afghanistan and receive NATO-standard training to further its connection with NATO. Which is maybe silly and objectionable and provocative, too. The desire for NATO membership seems like a more plausible objective than the desire for further war with Russia among Georgians.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Are you fucking serious? Care to explain Turkey, Italy, Greece and all the other decidedly non-northern-Atlantic countries who are in the clubhouse?
August 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
It’s very much all three, and that’s precisely the problem.
By the way, I hope some people are not just falling for right-wing propaganda about the poor oppressed Georgians. Ask an Ossetian and you’ll get a VERY different point of view.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
This isn’t very meaningful. Condemnations of Russia’s anger are even less real than calling it “counter insurgency training”.
One reason the US can train Georgia’s army without worrying about China doing the same in Mexico is that China isn’t going to do the same in Mexico. A considerable part of foreign policy is about implementing double standards to your advantage.
We train troops on Russia’s border because no one is going to train troops on our border. China engages in wholesale piracy, cybercrime and patent infringement because they know their capacity to supply us with cheap consumer goods and loans will deter us from complaining about it effectively (though it seems they might have miscalculated). Looking for fairness in international relations is less productive than looking for fairness in capitalism.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
WTF? Matt/CAP aren’t selling this stupidity as yet another one of Obama’s fiendishly clever political ploys?
August 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Biden is probably driving this for the Israelis.
Not only is he a self-proclaimed zionist, he’s mischpuche too.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
But President McCain said we are all Georgians now.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Another depressing carry over of Bushite policies. It isn’t only the angering of Russia, it is the siding with the incredibly undemocratic poppycock Georgian president that is depressing. Mikheil Saakashvili has already shown he is a hotheaded type. He’s attached his political career to his shows of ’strength’ and this is the kind of thing that might well encourage him to throw the dice again.
Another moderate Dem stupidity.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Counterinsurgency training wouldn’t likely be helpful against the Russian military, but it could potentially come in handy in South Ossetia.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Counterinsurgency training wouldn’t likely be helpful against the Russian military, but it could potentially come in handy in South Ossetia.
After President McCain nukes the Russian troops there?
August 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
if China started training the Mexican military as part of preparation for Mexico to join a formal defensive alliance with China. I think you’d see a massive freakout.
Sort of like Cuba in the Sixties, yo.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Observing Michael O’Hanlon’s “US Troops to the Congo” riff today, and now this, I can’t help thinking, at what point do we stop debating whether Georgia, Somalia, the Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or wherever might be a good place to send American troops and just say WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? What are we doing? And why did Obama take Bush’s ridiculously bloated defense budget and, with the country about to go bankrupt, increase it by five percent? Just, What the fucking hell are we doing?
August 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I forgot the link to Israel/Georgia in my prior post:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1834785,00.html
August 14th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Actually, that one’s easy: because his budget includes costs in Iraq and Afghanistan that we were already paying for, but which Bush didn’t include in his defense budget.
Obama’s “increase” isn’t a real increase. In apples-to-apples terms, it’s actually a cut. An insufficient cut, but a cut nonetheless.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
jamie Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
agree that this is counterinsurgency training is silly-there’s no way the georgian military can stand up to russia in any case-
but if mexico had received military aid from france in say the 1850s right after we invaded them (and I think France did intervene militarily then) then it would be a lot more plausible/less objectionable.
============================================================
Holy cow – read some history. The French invaded Mexico in 1862 on the pretext of collecting debt payments and later installed a puppet government headed by Austrian prince Maximilian. The US condemned this and supported the native Mexican government under President Juarez. However, we were a LITTLE preoccupied with the Civil War and couldn’t take a direct hand. Really the only reason the French invaded was because of the Civil War.
After the Civil War was over, President Johnson sent Grant with 50,000 troops to the Mexican border to make threatening manuevers. Substantial war surplus arms were given to Juarez’s army. In early 1866, the US demanded that the French leave and began a naval blockade of Mexico that prevented the French from reinforcing their army. They withdrew their army that Spring and the puppet government lasted another year before collapsing
August 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Obama’s “increase” isn’t a real increase. In apples-to-apples terms, it’s actually a cut. An insufficient cut, but a cut nonetheless.
. . . And an “increase” and/or “cut” that nicely provides him with political cover while he tries to restore two-party democracy to the United States. As you may have noticed over the last few weeks, the right-wing thugocracy and their media allies still hold the balance of power in this country. Clinton’s greatest early mistake was in thinking that he would be accepted as president by the Beltway just like any other president. The establishment in the senate and the media refused to do so and fought him for eight years.
For those with really good memories, the question from last night about “Don’t ask, don’t tell” will remember the first video evidence of the revolt against Clinton. Sam Nunn, the senate’s Democratic leader on military affairs, openly conspired with his friends on the joint chiefs to sabotage Clinton’s policy on gays. He did so right out in public, humiliating the new president, deliberately subverting his authority as commander in chief, and effectively declaring open season on this hick loser who thought he could replace King Ronnie and Queen Nancy with the Beltway crowd.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It’s bizarre how our government spits in Russia’s face and then pretends like they’ve just given the ‘ole bear big hug.
Don’t get me wrong, the Russians are paranoid, but they’ve always have been, that’s been their vice for 500 years and we should know better that talking about extending NATO into Ukraine and sponsoring Georgia might piss them off. Why do we still continue to do this?
August 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Five percent more money is five percent more money, no matter what the inflationary dynamics behind it. In order to provide political cover in a country that already spends nearly ten times as much as our next leading competitor (nearly 40 times more per capita), it was necessary to spend even more?
Great moments in political cover:
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Defense of Marriage Act
Iraq War
Telecom immunity
Single payer off the table.
Problem with political cover is the thing it’s supposed to make it possible for you to do still doesn’t get done, and the consequence of the cover doesn’t go away.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Why is the US meddling in Georgia anyway?
August 14th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
What exactly do the Russians have that you want?
August 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I surmise that Georgia will keep it in it’s pants after that ass-kicking it got. I can’t see us risking great ire with the Russians over Georgia. It’s not like we’re going to train them to be superheroes that can withstand a nuclear blast. It does look bad, but not as bad as selling them major weapons systems would.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
It’s not five percent more money, and it has nothing to do with inflation.
MORE MONEY was being spent on military costs before Obama. He has merely moved some items that were off the Pentagon budget onto the Pentagon budget. Do you imagine that the Iraq and Afghan Wars didn’t actually cost anything because they weren’t listed in the DoD budget, and suddenly did start costing money as part of their costs were accounted for in that budget?
In order to provide political cover in a country that already spends nearly ten times as much as our next leading competitor (nearly 40 times more per capita), it was necessary to spend even more? Apparently not, since he is SPENDING LESS.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
“What exactly do the Russians have that you want?”
Several things. They can supply Iran and Syria with their most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile systems or not. They can let us supply troops in Afghanistan through Central Asia or not (trucking through mountain passes on Af-Pak border is not always reliable).
Then there is a problem that Georgians seem to be Italians of the Caucasus. While admirable in the area of fine arts, much less so in martial arts. Which kind of helped Georgia during their last conflict with Russia, as it limited the hostilities to small modicum of real destructive war and huge amount of theatrics (compare with the recent Israel-Lebanon war).
So Russian tanks and trucks were driving unchallenged all around central and western Georgia, destroying military facilities and not much else, while Georgians retreated to the capital in the eastern part of the country, and Russia did not challenged them there, then Russian withdrew, but not without taking every scrap of Ossetia and Abkhasia that they wanted.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Which suggests that they have yet to do so. Which suggests that the extreme confrontational attitude the U.S. is taking might goad them into doing so. So again I ask…
Could you possibly translate these observations into something a little less obtuse? What exactly is the U.S.’s interest in Georgia, relative to the enormous potential cost of provoking the Russians in their own back yard?
August 15th, 2009 at 6:35 am
@24 Midland: “Clinton’s greatest early mistake was in thinking that he would be accepted as president by the Beltway just like any other president. The establishment in the senate and the media refused to do so and fought him for eight years.”
Good points. Depressing but true.
The big difference, in my opinion, in how the Right viewed Clinton then, as opposed to Obama now; the Right was never afraid of Clinton. He had glaring weaknesses. His personal life could be exploited. The Right believed Clinton would at some point generously plant the seeds of his own undoing. And he did. Breaking Clinton was a matter of patience. A kind of ruthless vigilance.
But Obama presents a tougher nut for the Right to crack. Obama they fear. Obama has great discipline, it seems, in his public and private life. There is more real devotion to him, amongst his followers. Obviously, he has more power, majorities etc. And there is a kind of class about him. It seems like he will be able to forever ride above the fray. He is hard to get to. He will frustrate them. And he is black.
I fear for the man.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Uh, the Russians have been selling anti ship missiles to Iran for some time (about 70 percent of Iran’s weapons purchases are from Russia)
Russian has also been giving Iran cover for the nuclear development program. All in all, if aiding Georgia is a response for Russia playing games with us…then fair is fair.
They screw with us…we do something back…and the game continues.
BTW…for those of you whining about the military budget. Obama was quite clear that some parts of the military budget would have to increase since equipment was worn out and had to be replaced, as well as he is adding two divisions to the Army. We have stretched and overused the Army to the breaking point, and they deserve every dollar they get. Don’t like it? F*ck off.
August 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
This is particularly stupid because the Russians are now being very cooperative to the US war effort in Afghanistan and indeed the US effort there is becoming deeply dependent on rail transit thru Russia and overflight rights over it to even maintain the US/NATO troop presence in Afghanistan.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Are you insane? I don’t know how to break this to you, but forming a military alliance with Georgia is practically a declaration of war on Russia. The minor aid that Russia has given to Iran over the years is understandable given the almost daily existential threats that the U.S. and Israel issue, not to mention that Iran is also on Russia’s doorstep. Your sense of proportionality is, to put it charitably, whacked beyond belief.
This answers the question I posed at the top.
I’m at an age where I don’t expect the U.S. to collapse in my lifetime. Saving the economy from depression, doing healthcare, maintaining a far-flung empire, AND starting a new cold war with Russia will slowly bleed this country to a wizened old shell of itself, probably about the time I’m set to shuffle off this mortal coil in a few decades. I do feel sorry for younger people, however. They’re the ones who will have to learn Chinese late in life and live off of microscopic pensions because it’s all been stolen and stashed by arms manufacturers.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Bring the good old bugle, boys, we’ll sing another song
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along
Sing it as we used to sing it, 50,000 strong
While we were marching through Georgia.
Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea
While we were marching through Georgia.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
if russians have georgia
then they will be connected with iran and russian bases in armenia by land
central asia also feels into russians hands
georgia kind of gate between two seas from europe to asia n vise verso into four directions
so predators fight for pray
August 16th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
to keep ya people worm and happy some other nations have to suffer
and someone has to do lil dirty work to keep you comfortable
don’t be silly in this world you have to fight to survave or tommorow russians will come and get you too and rape you and your family and other nations will say oh what we care for?
how would you feel then?
August 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am
[...] in Afghanistan. Matt Yglesias seems to think that the training is actually about Russia. He writes:This strikes me as very, very, very silly. If we want to decide, as a matter of foreign policy, [...]
August 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
It strikes me that Yglesias doesn’t understand the details of this region of the world. And Mexico? Why not just skip straight forward to Venezuela, which carried out naval war games with some serious nuclear powered Russian ships not all that far from Miami. Nobody minded too much in Washington, and certainly there was no freak out.
Support for Georgia is not a Bush policy, it is a bi-partisan policy. They have been dealt a very unfortunate lot, and have been severely abused by a Kremlin leadership bent on imperial nostalgia. I still can’t understand why the American left is so unable to have any sympathy for Georgia … I guess it was McCain’s unfortunate touch.
Georgia wants this relationship with the United States, as it contributes to their survival and security. Shouldn’t they be free to be allies with whomever they choose?
August 18th, 2009 at 3:02 am
[...] Matt Yglesias thinks that we should start calling a spade a spade in terms of U.S. military training for Georgia [...]
August 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Yes, and so should Cuba. If Cuba wants missiles on their soil they should be able to have them, right?
August 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
[...] against Russian militarism. Matthew Yglesias, blogging at ThinkProgress, is of the opinion that we need Russia too much to provoke them by training Georgian forces. He also makes an apology for Russian disquiet over the [...]