Politicians of the Nation-State are some of the most dangerous people in the world
Sean Scallon
September 12, 2008
Do generals and soldiers love war more than most? There are those who do. There are war junkies in uniform who want to put all their training to good use instead of sitting behind a desk doing the everyday routine. But a large majority of such people view war and combat as part of their job. It´s not´s something they look forward to but they´ll do their duty when called upon.
No it´s not the professional military that´s the most dangerous in this world of nation states, it´s politicians who control their usage that are the most dangerous and in the wrong hands the results can be disasterous.
We´ve seen a clear example of this in the personage of one Mikhail Saakashvili, the President of Georgia, who recklessly sent his small army to attack the quasi-state/rebellious province (depending upon your point of view) of South Ossetia, only to watched them be routed by Russian forces and their civilian militia allies responding to their provocation. Then they watched the Russians run roughshod all over northern Georgia, destroying and looting the infrastructure.
Why would such an educated man (graduated from Columbia) engage in such a reckless and foolish policy? Indeed, a wise leader of Georgia, realizing that military force would probably not be a good option considering the size of the Russian forces that could be arrayed against them, would adopt a policy of encouraging friendly relations between Russia, Georgia and the two rebellious provinces (Abkhazia being the other one) and hope that immigration of Georgians back into these two places along with neighborly goodwill would entice them back into the fold.
This was the policy that Saakashvili´s predecessor Eduard Shevardnadze perused. But that wasn´t good enough for Saakashvili and the claque of Georgian nationalists around him. With Western help they staged the so-called "Rose Revolution" that overthrew Shevardnadze´s elected government in 2003 and took power themselves. Saakashvili bases his support from the people on the desire to gain back South Ossetia and Abkhazia by any means necessary.
Indeed, there is never a more dangerous figure in the nation-state than nationalist politician. He or (she in the case of Yulia Timoshenko, Ukraine harpy nationalist and Russian-phobe) sees themselves as the embodiment of the nation-state and one that will carry out its desire for martial glory and their vague notions of independence while they´re busy lining up for their IMF and World Bank loans. They whore themselves to the people by playing on their fears, or dreams of past glory or desire for revenge of past humiliations (indeed, Saakashvili changed the flag of Georgia to a design that reflected the old 5th century Christian kingdom. He even wished to be compared to David the Builder, one Georgia´s great kings.) If they gain power, at their disposal is the military, which they can use as the muscle for their grand schemes of glory.
It was sad to watch Christian slaughtering Christian in Caucuses just for one man´s madness, one man´s grandiosity. What did a Georgian gain shooting his brother in war that he could not have gained by kindness and friendship in peace? It may have taken longer, but such was the path to eventual reunification. You can forget it now. Regardless of whether you think Abkhazia or South Ossetia should be independent states (and this writer thinks it´s just as absurd as Kosovo being "independent") there´s one thing for certain; there´s no chance of them ever going back over to Georgia for the next century and beyond. Too much bitterness and recrimination has been sown thanks to this silly war.
Hopefully Russia´s response to Georgia´s invasion of South Ossetia will provide some forbearance to would-be Saakashvilis in the Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic States that living peacefully with one´s neighbor, even if they are Russian-speaking, is a lot better than war. Can you imagine how destructive such a conflict would be, especially in the Ukraine, divided evenly between Ukrainian and Russian ethnic groups? Sadly however, more of the nation-state´s politicians are beating the war drums for a new conflict with Russia. We see it here in the United States, politicians of both major parties: Obama, Biden, McCain, advocating a new Cold War with Russia. Not the Godless, Communist Russia of days gone by but the Christian Russia of today who would be a valuable ally against Islamic extremism if the politicians would look past the next election cycle and plays on people´s old fears instead of looking towards the future. It´s only the non-major parties´ politicians that aren´t joining in this call to their credit. Unfortunately they don´t speak for a lot of people.
Of course, the war in Iraq was the same way, ambitious politicians looking to cement the support of a scared, angry people after 9-11 and using a war to do so. The Wars of the Yugoslav Secession had many of the same kind of people behind the conflict as well.
One upon a time kings and princes did send their nations to war for land or wealth but at least they used foreign mercenaries within their limited armies. Since the French Revolution, the nation state can control vast quantities of men and material for war. All it takes is for ambitious and amoral men to unleash such forces for their own desires of martial glory. The misery they can cause to very people they claim to speak for is incredible. So it is for poor Georgia, which let itself be led to its destruction because a ballot box beckoned.
No it´s not the professional military that´s the most dangerous in this world of nation states, it´s politicians who control their usage that are the most dangerous and in the wrong hands the results can be disasterous.
We´ve seen a clear example of this in the personage of one Mikhail Saakashvili, the President of Georgia, who recklessly sent his small army to attack the quasi-state/rebellious province (depending upon your point of view) of South Ossetia, only to watched them be routed by Russian forces and their civilian militia allies responding to their provocation. Then they watched the Russians run roughshod all over northern Georgia, destroying and looting the infrastructure.
Why would such an educated man (graduated from Columbia) engage in such a reckless and foolish policy? Indeed, a wise leader of Georgia, realizing that military force would probably not be a good option considering the size of the Russian forces that could be arrayed against them, would adopt a policy of encouraging friendly relations between Russia, Georgia and the two rebellious provinces (Abkhazia being the other one) and hope that immigration of Georgians back into these two places along with neighborly goodwill would entice them back into the fold.
This was the policy that Saakashvili´s predecessor Eduard Shevardnadze perused. But that wasn´t good enough for Saakashvili and the claque of Georgian nationalists around him. With Western help they staged the so-called "Rose Revolution" that overthrew Shevardnadze´s elected government in 2003 and took power themselves. Saakashvili bases his support from the people on the desire to gain back South Ossetia and Abkhazia by any means necessary.
Indeed, there is never a more dangerous figure in the nation-state than nationalist politician. He or (she in the case of Yulia Timoshenko, Ukraine harpy nationalist and Russian-phobe) sees themselves as the embodiment of the nation-state and one that will carry out its desire for martial glory and their vague notions of independence while they´re busy lining up for their IMF and World Bank loans. They whore themselves to the people by playing on their fears, or dreams of past glory or desire for revenge of past humiliations (indeed, Saakashvili changed the flag of Georgia to a design that reflected the old 5th century Christian kingdom. He even wished to be compared to David the Builder, one Georgia´s great kings.) If they gain power, at their disposal is the military, which they can use as the muscle for their grand schemes of glory.
It was sad to watch Christian slaughtering Christian in Caucuses just for one man´s madness, one man´s grandiosity. What did a Georgian gain shooting his brother in war that he could not have gained by kindness and friendship in peace? It may have taken longer, but such was the path to eventual reunification. You can forget it now. Regardless of whether you think Abkhazia or South Ossetia should be independent states (and this writer thinks it´s just as absurd as Kosovo being "independent") there´s one thing for certain; there´s no chance of them ever going back over to Georgia for the next century and beyond. Too much bitterness and recrimination has been sown thanks to this silly war.
Hopefully Russia´s response to Georgia´s invasion of South Ossetia will provide some forbearance to would-be Saakashvilis in the Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic States that living peacefully with one´s neighbor, even if they are Russian-speaking, is a lot better than war. Can you imagine how destructive such a conflict would be, especially in the Ukraine, divided evenly between Ukrainian and Russian ethnic groups? Sadly however, more of the nation-state´s politicians are beating the war drums for a new conflict with Russia. We see it here in the United States, politicians of both major parties: Obama, Biden, McCain, advocating a new Cold War with Russia. Not the Godless, Communist Russia of days gone by but the Christian Russia of today who would be a valuable ally against Islamic extremism if the politicians would look past the next election cycle and plays on people´s old fears instead of looking towards the future. It´s only the non-major parties´ politicians that aren´t joining in this call to their credit. Unfortunately they don´t speak for a lot of people.
Of course, the war in Iraq was the same way, ambitious politicians looking to cement the support of a scared, angry people after 9-11 and using a war to do so. The Wars of the Yugoslav Secession had many of the same kind of people behind the conflict as well.
One upon a time kings and princes did send their nations to war for land or wealth but at least they used foreign mercenaries within their limited armies. Since the French Revolution, the nation state can control vast quantities of men and material for war. All it takes is for ambitious and amoral men to unleash such forces for their own desires of martial glory. The misery they can cause to very people they claim to speak for is incredible. So it is for poor Georgia, which let itself be led to its destruction because a ballot box beckoned.
Print
Email
