There has been a great deal of disinformation, ignoring of facts and downright lying on the part of the Bush Administration and members of the media this week pertaining to events in the Caucasus region.  The Russo-Georgian War has really brought out the worst in the president and certain members of the so called “mainstream” media. 

For starters, as far as I can tell from my vantage point in Zambia, the western media generally has been remiss in detailing the historical facts as they relate to the conflict.  The history behind a crisis is vitally important to ultimately determine who started the problem and what should be done to rectify it.  Contrary to the views of President Bush and his media buddies, the Georgians, not the Russians are clearly at fault in this situation.  As recently as yesterday the president said that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are a part of Georgia.  Historically, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have never been a part of Georgia except at times when they were made so by the force of an oppressor.  This happened twice to South Ossetia - in the 18^th Century when it was absorbed into Russia through an agreement with the Ottoman Empire and in the 1920s when the communists under Joseph Stalin made it a part of Georgia.  As for Abkhazia, it was a separate entity historically until Stalin incorporated it into Georgia in 1931.  Now, I don’t expect this president to know this since it would involve reading what he probably considers ancient history, but Bush should know that in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union fell apart there were two wars fought over South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence.  Both peoples sought to rid themselves of the oppressive yolk placed upon them by their Soviet masters.  A ceasefire agreement brought de facto independence to both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  A peacekeeping force largely made up of Russian troops was left responsible for maintaining order in the territories.

With minor exceptions, order was in place until the night of August 7th 2008.  On that night Georgian peacekeepers turned on their Russian comrades killing 10 and wounding dozens as Georgian president Saakashvili’s army invaded South Ossetia.  According to the international news network Russia Today, the Georgian army began perpetrating a campaign of ethnic cleansing by assassinating clergy, shooting women and children in the streets and throwing grenades into random houses.  These reports came complete with televised pictures of the carnage.  As the Russians reacted to the aggression of the Georgians by coming to the aid of the defenseless South Ossetians, President Bush and his media cronies stirred up old Cold War sentiments in the U.S. by blasting the Russians for disproportionate use of force and imperialistic actions toward Georgia.  In particular, Bush criticized Russian bombing of strategic locations inside Georgia even though this was precisely the same strategy his father pursued against Iraq to extract its army from Kuwait 17 years ago. 

In reality the Russian bombing was measured and incredibly effective.  Saakashvili’s troops withdrew almost immediately from South Ossetia back to Georgia.  It has been speculated that the Georgian president expected military support from the U.S. once he made his move into South Ossetia.  Why else would he have attempted, foolishly, to fight a much bigger and better trained force and then blast the West after hostilities ended for not helping Georgia?  In any event, after Georgian troops departed South Ossetia, Russian troops did pursue them into Georgia to put out any fire that was left in the Georgians to fight another day.  This was a reasonable move given the U.S. did the same thing in Korea and Iraq (the road to Baghdad was a testament to the U.S. killing retreating Iraqi troops on Iraqi soil and the U.S. imposed no fly zone over two-thirds of Iraq after the war speaks for itself). 

Besides ignoring the history behind the crisis and giving the perception through fanning the flames of Cold War feelings that Russia was mostly to blame for the war, the president and his media cohorts have also left the impression that the U.S. alone is providing relief to the victims in the region.  This is not true.  Refugees from South Ossetia have taken shelter in hospitals, schools, and hastily organized camps in North Ossetia and Southern Russia.  Additionally, Russia has pledged $400 million in aid to rebuild the region.  Granted, with Saakashvili still in charge in Georgia probably no Russian money will make its way to Tbilisi. 

This brings us to another interesting aspect of the crisis omitted or denied by the president and his media comrades. Who is the president of Georgia, their ally, Mikhail Saakashvili?  Who is this man that is American educated, fluent in English and slick in front of TV cameras?  Well, many experts on Georgia believe he was the man most responsible for protests in Tbilisi last November because of his refusal to meet with opposition leaders, listen to criticism, and communicate with his people.  You know all things that democratically elected leaders do.  After the street protests fizzled down to several hundred protestors he was the man who dispersed them by employing police truncheons, rubber bullets, and tear gas.  He also pulled the opposition television stations from the airwaves.  Under international pressure, he did call for early elections, but they took place one month after the protests, which gave the opposition party no time to organize, and according to international observers were fraught with vote rigging.  It’s no wonder Bush prefers to divert attention away from Saakashvili and on to the Russians.  It’s allies like that that make some of our enemies look good.

Lastly, there has been at least one incident of blatant dishonesty and one incident of cover-up in the coverage of the war by the U.S. media.  Aleksandr Zhukov, a cameraman from the Russia Al-Yaum channel indicated that footage he shot of wrecked tanks and destroyed buildings in the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali was later used by CNN who then claimed it showed damage done by the Russian military in the Georgian town of Gori.  This is clear dishonesty or at the very least incredibly shoddy journalism.  The cover-up involved Fox News’ Shepard Smith interviewing young American Amanda Kokoava and her aunt who happened to be in Tskhinvali when the Georgians invaded.  As the pair was retelling their firsthand account of the Georgian invasion for the TV audience, old Shep cut them off and went to a commercial break.  After the break, they were cut off again as they attempted to again describe the brutality of the Georgian invasion.  Perhaps Fox News needs to better screen their interviewees in the future?

The bottom line is that it is one thing for a U.S. president to manipulate the facts to suit his policy; it is another thing for the media to help him do it.  Life experience has taught me not to expect too much from this president or really any president for that matter.  The media in a democracy serves a very important role in holding elected officials accountable.  During the Russo-Georgian conflict the U.S. media has let us down by assisting the president in his campaign of disinformation, ignoring the facts and downright lying.  If there is a second Cold War which results from the actions of this president during this conflict, the U.S. media will have to bear a large part of the blame for its complicity in the events leading to it.   

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.

Several years ago, President Bush told other countries that as far as he was concerned there were two sides to the war on terrorism.  You were either with us in fighting the terrorists or against us.  The president’s parameters were black and white.  After all, how could any civilized nation refuse an opportunity to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism?  Well, Russia was one such country, choosing not to directly support U.S. military action in Afghanistan and U.S. military imperialism in Iraq with troops of her own.  According to Bush, Russia’s noninterventionist stand meant that she was against the U.S. in its war on terror.  This delusional mindset toward Russia is currently responsible for the administration’s posture on the war between Russia and Georgia – a posture that is hypocritical and based on one of those entangling alliances that both Washington and Jefferson warned us about.

From comments made by senior administration officials, the U.S. has clearly taken the side of Georgia in the conflict.  Specifically, the U.S. has been critical of Russia’s use of “overwhelming” military force against Georgia which has included strategic bombers and ballistic missiles.  U.S. officials have also voiced displeasure that Russia has attacked strategic territory near the Georgian capital Tbilisi which is far away from the concentration of the fighting in South Ossetia.  These comments coming from this administration are hypocritical to say the least.

To begin with, Georgia started this conflict by invading its breakaway republic South Ossetia.  Russia’s main justification for getting involved militarily was the killing of 10 Russian peacekeepers as a result of Georgian aggression.  Additionally, many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia and the Russia military intervened to protect their lives and property.  Would the U.S. military not get involved in a place abroad where American citizens and property were threatened?  The invasion of Grenada in the early 1980s comes to mind.  Secondly, when Iraq invaded Kuwait didn’t the United States and its allies use overwhelming military force including strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Iraq to extricate it from the Gulf nation?  Lastly, wasn’t the initial U.S. military strategy in the first Gulf War to cut off the Iraqi army in Kuwait from command control facilities in Baghdad by …attacking strategic locations in Baghdad which was far from Kuwait?  The Administration’s criticism of Russia’s handling of this conflict is hypocritical given how our government has handled previous conflicts in our history.

Besides hypocrisy, the U.S.’s posture on the war is based upon our country’s entangling alliance with Georgia.  One problem with alliances of course is that sometimes your ally does bad things.  Georgia has done a bad thing.  It has walked away from the negotiating table and preemptively invaded a disputed territory killing foreign soldiers and civilians.  However, because Georgia is at odds with our foe, Russia, and wants to join NATO, the Bush Administration is willing to overlook her aggression.  Further, and here is the crux of the matter, because Georgia is a partner in the war on terror (she has the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq behind the U.S. and Britain) and Russia is not, it is easy for the Administration to pick sides.  Georgia is for us and Russia is not.

The Bush Administration’s position on the Russo-Georgian War is indicative of a foreign policy that is inflexible, archaic, and downright stupid.  It is based on contradictions and an alliance that is not worth preserving.  Hopefully, the U.S. will not assist in transporting Georgian troops in Iraq to the front in South Ossetia as has been suggested by one administration official.  That move would be provocative and threatening to Russia.  But then again what do we expect from a president that has perpetrated an illegal war against a sovereign nation under false pretenses?  What do we expect from a leader that calls other nations the Axis of Evil?  What do we expect from an individual that sees the world in black and white – you are for us or against us?

Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.