Blog posts ...Again?

[Chuck Stromme]

I was wrong. Professor Burgos wrote two new essays and called me out in them HERE and in the one just prior to that one. So, not being one to run from a fight or to quit while I'm not too far behind, I posted a response that is not yet up. Here's what I wrote.
__________

In the course of this dialogue Georgia has morphed from a semi-autocracy to a nascent democracy, passing only momentarily through the NEARLY ALMOST PRETTY MUCH MORE-OR-LESS FULLY FLEDGED JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY stage. I’m not sure why I feel good about that, but I do.

Danger Close has become Splunge! That’s a funny video clip. I’m going to miss Danger Close, though. It gave me a freebie to poke at.

I doubt Prof B hates revisiting past debates in International Relations theory. In fact – and here I give him the maximum credit I can muster – revisiting them allows him to explore the possibility of delivering his next class in more relevant, meaningful and exciting ways than his last class. For students it can be the difference between passing the test and learning.

It is important that I remember my limitations. Some folks have broad, deep understandings of international relations. Mine, to the extent it exists at all, is narrow and shallow. I know what I’ve read, I know what I’ve seen and I know what I believe based on the two. That’s it. When that conflicts with someone else’s outlook, I almost always … don’t care.

Prof B loves labels. Of all the labels thrown around here the most common pejorative is neocon. When discourse devolves to label-slinging there is no more to be learned. The slingers would have the labels themselves be the argument. Dirty rotten neocons. The dirty rotten commies of our time, no need to bother thinking for yourself.

John Bolton, well-known loud-mouth, is a neocon because of what he said about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Really? Prof B’s response: “Andersonville.” I love Civil War history, but Andersonville as a rejoinder to Abu Ghraib? Please. Andersonville, a pre-Kitchener concentration camp, was a manifestation of a national policy of brutality and murder. Abu Ghraib, whatever it was, was not that.

Andersonville might still be on the fringe of American awareness. I grant that possibility even though I don’t believe it. Elmira and Danville are even more forgotten. Those contemporary hellholes wouldn’t work in Prof B’s allusion. Had he said “Elmira” the effect would have been entirely different – a collective “What?” -- and by extension JB wouldn’t fit the neocon label. Labels and allusions can be conveniently misleading. JB might well be a neocon but not because of Prof B’s Andersonville stunt. And Gitmo? No, not Gitmo either. Apples, oranges.

Anonymous II wonders whether I think neocons are patriotic. Or maybe just stupid. That’s a hard one I’ll admit. Stupid jumps right out at you often enough so no, I don’t think they’re stupid. Prof B thinks they are, not surprisingly, but that’s another easy label to affix and not worthy of attention.

Patriotic is a harder call for me. Maybe it’s easier if you’re fonder of labels than I am. Patriotism is too easily conditioned on “if you’re like me”. As I first discovered on my return from war, most people aren’t like me, yet I think of myself as a patriot. Could all those people be unpatriotic? Probably not.

It’s odd that Prof B would have us learn from George Washington but not Woodrow Wilson and ignore WW II as if there were no lessons to be learned from it. That’s a myopic world view. Twist Andersonville as you like but ignore Dachau? There’s that label again: “Neoconland: Where It’s Always WW II”.

Even I earn Prof B’s neocon label because I said something that was “value-laden”. Namely, Mr. Putin is an irredeemably bad guy. Prof B left out my cautions but that’s OK because when you get down to it, that’s what I believe. The logical inference is, of course, “You can ignore Chuck. He’s just a neocon.” It’s another way to say “Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?” (Punchline of an old joke.) Values? When did having values become a bad thing?

Prof B writes “Georgia, on the other hand, does have oil and gas interests…” Where are they, Prof B? Where are the wells, the refineries? “Minor coal and oil deposits” the CIA Factbook tells us. Minor as in “almost but not quite zero”. I’ve driven in most of the generally accessible areas of Georgia except for the far eastern provinces near Azerbaijan. There’s an old Soviet well in the hills beyond the airport and another 1-2 on the way to Telavi. There likely are a few more but those are the only wells I saw. Where did you see the things that I missed, the oil and gas interests that drive your arguments?

The Azeris, now they’ve got petro interests in spades. Yet when the not-irredeemably-bad Mr. Putin gratuitously dropped not-irredeemably-bad bombs on those interests in August the US did nothing. If we didn’t so much as object to the attempted destruction of those Azeri interests and their pipe line to the world, how can one extrapolate that we might intervene on behalf of just a corner of that same pipeline?

Anonymous III makes this an Obama issue and claims (I’ve been waiting for this one) of Obama “Domestic police was only like, HIS ENTIRE PLATFORM FOR 18 MONTHS OF CAMPAIGNING.” Oh really? I thought it was only like, “Hillary voted for the war, I was against it” until the economy began to unravel and the war in Iraq entered a period of calm and he needed something different. But don’t worry, Prof B says “He’ll deliver on domestic policy…” I feel better already. It’s all Bush’s fault and he’s outta here in (let me check Prof B’s countdown clock) 16 days and 15 hours.

I saw a caged bear once. Not a zoo bear, a bear in a cage maybe twice as big as it was. The cage was on wheels so it could be moved for the convenience of its owner and subjected to the tease of the moment. It was every bit as sad an exhibition as you imagine.

The caged bear was outside the restaurant Venice, probably the best joint in Gori. It was on the Russian/South Ossetian route of march last August, straight down the highway from Tskhinvali on the way to downtown Gori. My bet? No way that Venice or the bear survived. What a miserable way to go, shot by people you’ve never seen before while you’re waiting in your cage to be fed. Or so I imagine.

Caging bears offends my sensibilities but I’m not going to waste much time on “Free the Bears!” I might, though, go out of my way to prevent someone shooting one in its cage. And if I didn’t do that, when that someone moved down the road I might try to stop them from shooting kids in schools, if only because the next time it might be my kids they’re shooting.

I’m playing the part of the caged bear here, subject to the tease of the moment. You get to play the part of the spectator. If the owner shoots the bear, that’s no loss to you is it? Isn’t that the owner’s right and besides, the owner is smarter than the bear, isn’t he? Why take sides, you’re just a spectator? Why have values if the bear’s going to die anyway?

Shooting the kids in the schools? Well, how much did you grieve over Beslan? Gori? And yes,Tskhinvali? Probably none. Grozny? Nah. So what’s it going to take before you do something? Will you have to live closer to the school? Will you have to know some of the kids? Will they have to be your kids before you take an interest, before you remember your values?

That’s one of the countless lessons from WW II, and from Korea and Indonesia and Algeria and Vietnam and Libya and Serbia and the list goes on. Allow me to twist a ‘60s saying that re-surfaces every now and then: “If not now, when? If not me, who?” Will no one say “Stop! Not on my watch.” Are we so completely devoid of Raoul Wallenbergs today that we teach our students that values have no meaning?

Interests and values do not live separate lives, they co-exist. That’s why you should care about Georgia. It’s in your own best interest.