"It's a new kind of ideology that we have from this president that's kind of crystallized now. It is idealistic. It's a much more moral position. It's also a very winning positive position," Mr. Saakashvili said.If there is a 'moral' position in foreign affairs, this is one. However, I'm not so sure it's a "winning" position. President Bush is on some form of mission here, but I'm not sure it's right for the US.
If I weren't American I'd only see reason to applause. However, I worry that the President is over-committing the United States. I don't think the American people are willing to see their troops die in wars around the world to keep the Georgians (or Taiwanese or others) free. Yet, that's exactly the position the President might find himself in.
The other day the President's biggest cheer-leader, Mr. Saakashvili upped the ante in his dispute with Russia. Would this have happened if President Bush were more circumspect and less forceful in his promotion of the cause of freedom and democracy in Georgia? From the Washington Times article (link above):
"We didn't ask President Bush for cash here or for some special statement, even on the Russian bases. No. What we asked for was not to be abandoned. That's what matters," he said.Are we really willing to not "abandon" the Georgians if things get really hot between them and the Russians? Has NATO okayed this or is the US all alone on it? I wish the Georgians well, but I can't see going to wall with the Russians for the sake of Georgia.
