Month: October 2006

How The Geneva Convention Protects Western Troops

A coroner’s inquest in the UK concluded that two British soldiers, captured by Iraqis in March 2003, were executed by Saddam’s officers after a few hours of torture. The finding confirms accusations made by Tony Blair during the operation:

IRAQI officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush.
An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.
The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

The Geneva Conventions do not appear to have helped Allsopp and Cullingworth. Iraq entered into the covenant in 1956, and so operated under its strictures, at least in theory. Neither Iran nor Iraq bothered to fake compliance during their long war despite both having adopted the GC, and Saddam didn’t worry too much about it in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The British soldiers were captured during open hostilities and in uniform, and should have received POW status. Instead, Saddam’s officer corps decided to execute them, and to film their crime as well.
This shows yet again that many signatories to the GC rarely apply them during conflicts, preferring to fall back on their own brutal traditions. Treating the GC as some sort of talisman that will ward off the brutality of tyrants allows people to fall prey to a utopianism that simply does not exist in modern warfare between any nations except those in the West — and since the advent of democracy, those nations do not war with each other. And even at that, Germany certainly qualified as a Western country during World War II and still dispensed with the GC in all but the thinnest veneer of appearances.
The coroner’s finding and the film of the execution does bring up another question. Can Britain charge Saddam Hussein and the army officers in custody with war crimes? Saddam likely will not survive the trials he already faces with the Iraqis, but the British should consider formal charges against Saddam and his henchmen for this crime. If people want to invoke the GC to limit the options of Western nations in defending themselves, then the Western nations need to prosecute the enemies we face for violating them as well. If the British feel their invocation in this case would serve no purpose, then why abide by the GC at all?

Whatever Happened To … Katie Barge?

A couple of local bloggers have tracked down one of the Democratic operatives responsible for stealing Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele’s confidential credit report last year. My NARN colleague Michael Brodkorb found Katie Barge, late of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, now working for Media Matters:

Prior to founding Media Matters, David Brock met with a number of leading Democratic Party figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and former Vice President Al Gore. Today, more than a few of the organization’s roughly 30 staff members are Democratic operatives. Among these are Media Matters’ chief communications strategist Dennis Yedwab, who is also the Director of Strategic Resources at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Brock’s personal assistant, Mandy Vlasz, is a Democratic pollster and a veteran consultant to Democratic campaigns, including the 2000 Gore/Lieberman campaign. Katie Barge, the Director of Research at Media Matters, formerly presided over opposition research for Senator John Edwards’ unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign.

Gary Gross recognized the name and tracked down what happened to Barge and Laura Weiner for their crime. It’s not much, especially considering DSCC chair Chuck Schumer’s crusade against identity theft. Be sure to read all of Gary’s post. Culture of corruption, indeed.

Frist Didn’t Surrender To The Taliban

An earlier AP report on Bill Frist and comments he made on the status of Afghanistan had some Republicans reaching for their hemlock, but as it turns out, Frist claims that the report misquotes his remarks. Here’s what the AP reported:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.
The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means.
“You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government,” Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. “And if that’s accomplished we’ll be successful.” …
The senator said he had been warned to expect attacks in Afghanistan to increase. There appears to be an “unlimited flow” of Afghans and foreigners, he said, “willing to pick up arms and integrate themselves with the Taliban.”
He said the only way to win in places like Qalat is to “assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government.”

Frist, however, calls foul at his VOLPAC blog after I contacted his office this afternoon to get a confirmation of his remarks:

I’m currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled, “Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov’t.” The story badly distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.
First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.
Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.
National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority … but America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry into Afghanistan’s government.

So what happened? I think that someone confused “Taliban” with “Taliban supporters” at some point, and whether that was Frist or the reporter will probably remain a point of contention between the two. At any rate, Bill Frist is not calling for the return of the Taliban and an end to democracy in Afghanistan.
However, it does bring up an important point about the eventual end game in Afghanistan. If we want a representative democracy in Afghanistan, it will probably be heavily influenced by the Pashtuns, who have a strong Islamist bent. They did, after all, push the Taliban into power. At some point, we have to find a way to convince these Islamists to buy into democracy, and we have to be willing to allow that democracy to develop its own laws and customs. Otherwise, we will have to prop up a strongman who can keep the Pashtuns oppressed, which will create an even greater Islamist impulse in Afghanistan.
I believe that is what Frist meant, however awkwardly it was put — and Allahpundit at Hot Air has a point regarding that. In the end, that’s just common sense. Democracy brings people the government they desire, in theory and in practice, and we need to convince the Pashtuns that such a structure will be responsive to their goals as well as those of the other tribal communities in Afghanistan. Only democracy protects the minority from the majority, and only representative government gives people the free expression of their political will. We certainly will not convince the Pashtuns to cooperate in a democracy if we outlaw their expression of policy within a constitutional framework.

Political Dishonesty In Minnesota Politics

One of the most jaw-droppingly dishonest ads that I have seen in years comes from the Patty Wetterling campaign in Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District. The ads have appeared on prime-time television throughout the state, and not only display dishonesty but sheer ignorance. Wetterling accuses Michelle Bachmann of wanting to raise taxes through an increase in the sales tax:

Michele Bachmann says she’s for lowering taxes, and yet she supports replacing the income tax with a national sales tax,” says Wetterling. Under a national sales tax, all taxable goods and services – including daily basics like milk, bread, groceries, clothing, new tires and prescription drugs – could cost 23% more.
Lower and middle-class Minnesotans would pay more taxes under this plan, up to $4,077 more per year,” says Wetterling. “I find it incredible that Michele Bachmann wants to place a heavier burden on the people who can least afford to pay more for basic goods and services.

Yeah, well, that tells only half of the story. The 23% sales tax Bachmann suggested was a replacement for the federal income tax, not an additional tax. Bachmann hasn’t even endorsed the Fair Tax Plan, which would replace the income tax and is designed to be revenue-neutral — which means that taxpayers will pay no more and no less than they already do. In fact, the Fair Tax Plan has the ability to be far more progressive than the federal income tax, as it taxes consumption rather than income, and cannot easily be subverted through tax shelters and the like. Enforcement resources would be minimal, and a major headache for employers and employees alike would disappear.
Leaving out the Fair Tax Plan’s elimination of the income tax and the fact that Bachmann didn’t endorse it at all creates a falsehood so obvious that “lie” is not too strong a word. Eric Black at the Star Tribune has called the ad misleading, and Bachmann has demanded a retraction from Wetterling. So far, however, the Democrat continues to allow the spot to run and continues to mislead voters on her campaign website. That tells Minnesotans all they need to know about the Democrats in this state.
Note: Michele Bachmann is one of the many fine candidates to whom CQ readers can contribute at Rightroots. Be sure to make your donations now.

New Iran Policy Toughens Sanctions

Condoleezza Rice will have a new tool in her pocket in the showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. The Senate quietly passed a new Iran policy on Saturday, one which President Bush is expected to sign, that allows for sanctions on any business that supports Iran’s nuclear or advanced weapons programs. When she travels to Cairo tomorrow, Rice intends on unveiling the implications of the new policy in an attempt to further isolate Teheran:

Bolstered by a new sanctions bill against Iran, Secretary of State Rice will press Arab foreign ministers tomorrow in Cairo to instruct banks in the region to cut ties to any entities contributing to Iran’s nuclear program, support for terror, or pursuit of advanced conventional weapons.
If the gambit in Cairo succeeds, it will boost American efforts to punish Iran for its defiance of international resolutions on its nuclear program. In the last 18 months, the Bush administration has quietly succeeded in pressing four large European banks, including London-based HSBC, to stop doing business with Iran.
Indeed, when the Treasury Department announced earlier this month that Iran’s Bank Saderat would be barred from American financial markets, three large Japanese banks also cut ties with the bank. Yesterday, the Iranian press announced that talks between Iran and Japan on a $2 billion deal to develop the Azadegan oil field had collapsed.
The Iran Freedom and Support Act, which the Senate passed Saturday and President Bush is expected to sign this week, threatens to bar from American financial markets all banks and companies that are found to be contributing to the Iranian nuclear project or its development of advanced weapons.

In fact, most of the audience in Cairo will not shed many tears over this new initiative. Most Gulf states already fear the threat of Iranian hegemony for a number of reasons. None of them want a non-Arab state dictating policy, nor do they want to kowtow to the Shi’ites. The new American policy will give them an excuse to do what they would probably want to do anyway, and this policy allows them to act in concert.
The new policy has already made a dent in Iranian economics, with the loss of the Japanese development deal on oil-field development. Iran will respond to the economic pressure by attempting to turn up the prices at the pumps. They convinced Venezuela and Nigeria to cut back production on Friday by 170,000 barrels a day. However, the same nations that want to see Teheran contained have the biggest production capability, and they could make up for any shortfalls by Iranian allies, if they want to keep pressure on the Iranians. Neither Venezuela nor Nigeria can afford to significantly reduce production for very long without some support from the rest of OPEC.
This, of course, reminds us that we need to move away from foreign oil as soon as possible.
The US appeared to have waited far too long to respond to Iranian stall tactics in the nuclear showdown. Bush’s new efforts abroad to tighten the economic noose around the mullahs shows that the White House has gotten back into the game. Given the mediocre state of Iranian economics, which relies on oil for 80% of its income, the new push should have an immediate effect, and one noticeable to Iranian citizens. Perhaps this will motivate them to rethink their leadership.

Behold The Power Of Pork

The power of appropriators to shape legislation in all other areas of policy gets amplified through the use of pork-barrel politics, and John Murtha in particular has mastered this technique. The New York Times profiles Murtha and gets him on the record, bragging about his effectiveness in using pork to gain power:

Members have watched with envy as Mr. Murtha has used earmarks to remake Johnstown, Pa., an impoverished former steel town that now includes a Murtha highway, a Murtha airport and Murtha health centers. He has steered billions of dollars to his district over the years, including more than $80 million in the defense spending bill passed Friday, according to a preliminary tally.
Mr. Murtha’s patronage has transformed Johnstown into a national hub of the defense business, attracting giants like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. He even built one contractor from scratch. In 1988, Mr. Murtha asked the chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh to set up a nonprofit that could use Navy money to establish a Center for Excellence in Metalworking in Johnstown.
Since then, Mr. Murtha has delivered earmarks to the organization, now called Concurrent Technologies Corporation, for work like consulting on counterterrorism, designing ejection seats for pilots and developing software. The military and other federal agencies have paid Concurrent nearly a billion dollars in grants and contracts since 1999. In the most recent defense bill, Mr. Murtha inserted $1.3 million for Concurrent to research Army tank designs.
“It is Murtha’s pet rock,” said Stephen Gage, chief executive of an Ohio economic development organization that once worked with Concurrent.
Concurrent’s executives, in turn, have given more than $114,000 to the congressman’s campaigns over the last three elections, making it one of his biggest corporate donors. The organization pays about $500,000 a year to a lobbying firm, the PMA Group, whose executives and clients have given Mr. Murtha more than $1.2 million in donations since 1999.

It goes beyond the remaking of Johnstown, however. The power Murtha exercises affects more than just his own extensive use of earmarking; he uses the earmarks of others to twist arms on all kinds of legislation. Those who follow Murtha’s advice on votes will see their earmarks sail through Appropriations, while those who oppose Murtha in either party will see their districts starve for federal funding.
Do you wonder why debate on bills seem to occur in inverse proportion to their cost? At least with defense bills, we can thank John Murtha. In the late 1980s, he created a new process for defense spending. Instead of having the bill go through weeks of debate, Murtha and the ranking Republican would simply lard the bill with so much pork spending that neither side could resist voting for the bill. No one wanted to debate the bill, because no one wanted to reveal the pork spending within it. The Republicans have continued this tradition, which is why the defense appropriation last week for $437 billion only endured 20 minutes of debate.
His power has even helped unseat members of his own party. Allyson Schwartz beat out a fellow Democrat for her seat after the reformer tangled with Murtha over pork-barrel spending. Schwartz learned from her predecessor’s experience not to cross Murtha, and he has rewarded her complicity with millions of dollars in earmarks for her district to keep her seat safe. Not all of this largesse that Murtha offers assists in professional security for politicians; some, such as Paul Kanjorski, get earmarks for family. Murtha helped put $9.5 million in earmarks into the pockets of Kanjorski’s nephews, who own a business that uses water jets for demolition work, which Kanjorski says is the only firm capable of doing the work.
The New York Times profile provides a clear look at the power and corruption that earmarks create on Capitol Hill. John Murtha should represent his own district in Congress, but thanks to his ability to appropriate funds, he controls large blocks of votes on all legislation. He uses the power of pork to play kingmaker. It’s hard to see a better example of how pork corrupts the political system.
UPDATE: Veterans For Truth held a rally to retire John Murtha yesterday, and here are the pictures.

Iran Sending Jihadists Into Afghanistan?

The Guardian reports that Western intelligence agencies have discovered a new source of jihadists in Afghanistan, and it comes as a bit of a surprise. The Sunni-based Taliban have apparently received a boost in personnel from the Shi’ites in Iran:

Knock-kneed with fear, the young prisoner perched on the edge of his chair in the windowless Afghan intelligence office. Eyes bloodshot and hands trembling, he blurted out his story.
Abdullah had reached the end of a pitifully short career as a Taliban fighter. He had been arrested hours earlier, just 10 days after signing up to the insurgency. But the 25-year-old with a soft face and a neat beard had something unusual that aroused the intelligence agents’ curiosity.
“I come from Iran,” he said in a quavering voice, wringing his hands nervously. “They told me the Americans had invaded Afghanistan and I should go and fight jihad. But I was cheated. Now I am very sorry that I ever left.” …
Military and diplomatic sources said they had received numerous reports of Iranians meeting tribal elders in Taliban-influenced areas, bringing offers of military or more often financial support for the fight against foreign forces. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the meetings took place in Helmand province, where more than 3,000 British troops are based, and neighbouring Nimroz, a lawless desert province bordering eastern Iran.
Although the reports are hard to confirm due to security fears, officials say the direction of flow is unmistakable. “There’s definitely an Iranian hand,” insisted one western official, who said the phenomenon was being quietly monitored by western intelligence and militaries. A top-ranking Afghan military official said he had received similar information. “The Iranians were offering money and weapons. This is a very sensitive issue,” he said.

This seems very strange indeed. Afghanistan, as the Guardian points out, is one of Iran’s critical trading partners. They cooperate on drug interdiction and they have normal diplomatic relations. Even more to the point, the Taliban are radical Sunnis, the exact kind of Islamists the Iranians have opposed for a long time. Why would they suddenly want to bolster the Taliban and give the Sunnis back power on the Iranian doorstep?
It gets back to the tribal issues that Eric Margolis noted yesterday. Western intelligence believes that the jihadis come from the minority Baluchis in Iran, which have actively operated against the Iranian mullahcracy. They want to encourage the drug trade, and they want to encourage Sunni jihad. The Baluchis comprise a small area in Afghanistan, but they comprise almost all of western Pakistan, and it appears that their tribal area would reach significantly into Iran.
The captured terrorist believed himself to be an agent of the Iranian government. He attended a training camp in Iran, he told interrogators, and the main point seemed to be training Shi’ites to fight for a Shi’ite theocracy in Iraq. Most of his classmates went to Baghdad. Abdullah, though, went to Afghanistan, and he claims that the camp was run by Abdullah Shafi — a former leader of Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaeda group that should therefore be fighting for Sunni/Wahhabi domination.
If this information is on the level, it looks like the Islamists have either become very confused or less inclined to reject each other than in the past. It still doesn’t look like an alliance, but perhaps Iran is willing to use whatever tools are at hand to disrupt the American effort to remake the region through democracy. After all, the only constant between the two are that Iraq and Afghanistan have democratically-elected governments, and Iran fears the effect that more secular democracies will have on the region.

My Teams Make The Playoffs

It came down to the end of the baseball season, but the two teams I follow both made the playoffs, which means I will have to watch some playoff games this year. For my favorite baseball team, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the wild card spot tasted even sweeter as they clinched it at the end of a San Francisco sweep. The Dodgers finished off their traditional rivals and got to celebrate on their turf:

Los Angeles beat San Francisco 4-3 in what might’ve been Barry Bonds’ last game for the Giants, and ended up even in the standings with San Diego. The Padres held the tiebreaker based on head-to-head record and earned the West crown.
“We’re looking forward to getting this thing started,” Los Angeles manager Grady Little said. “What’s taken place here started last year. Everything has been positive.”

The Dodgers could have won the divisional championship had San Diego lost their final game. However, Trevor Hoffman held off the Arizona Diamondbacks 7-6 in Phoenix to clinch their second straight divisional title. That sends LA to New York to play the Mets in the first round, a selection that the Dodgers say they wanted. LA wouldn’t mind avoiding the Padres, as they went 5-13 this year against their southern rivals.
The Minnesota Twins, meanwhile, came out of nowhere to steal their divisional title from the Detroit Tigers. They only led on the final day of the season as the lowly Kansas City Royals swept the Tigers in Detroit this weekend:

On the season’s final day, Joe Mauer won a historic batting title, the Twins defeated the Chicago White Sox 5-1, and then the players settled in with about 35,000 of their fans for a little TV.
Together, they watched on the stadium’s two JumboTrons as Kansas City finished a 10-8, 12-inning victory over Detroit that knocked the Tigers behind the Twins for the first time all season.
After coming from 12 games back, the Twins won their fourth American League Central title in five years, setting up a first-round playoff matchup with Oakland that starts Tuesday at the Metrodome.

Twelve games back? Twelve games back? We’ve seen an amazing comeback by the Twins this year. They managed to play themselves back into the wild-card slot, but no one expected the Tigers to collapse the way they did in September. Detroit will have a difficult task ahead of them, recovering from this blow in time to go on the road for their playoff series as the wild card.
Both teams improved themselves significantly from their 2005 seasons. Dare I hope for a Twin Cities-LA Series?

Convention Security ‘Bigger Than The Super Bowl’

Think of it as the hangover after an awards celebration. In the aftermath of winning the Republican National Convention, the magnitude of the security preparations has dawned on state and local officials. Estimates of personnel go between 5,000 and 10,000 police officers, while the Twin Cities currently employ 1,400 combined:

Security will be the biggest concern — and the biggest expense — for the convention, with plans for as many as 10,000 officers to be deployed and $50 million to be spent to protect delegates, media and high-profile politicians.
“Everything we do is different after 9/11,” said Rob Allen, a deputy chief with the Minneapolis Police Department. “A Twins playoff game, a Vikings game, a parade, all are different. You can’t turn back the clock on how you do security.”
Although the Twin Cities has attracted larger crowds — such as at the 1992 Super Bowl — it has never held an event with the importance, scrutiny or magnitude of a modern presidential convention. …
This is probably the first time that a national political convention will be held in two cities, and that large geographical footprint will be one of the biggest security challenges of the event.

Obviously, officials in both cities will have to rely on outside help for staffing, while simultaneously providing all of the normal police services to Minnesota residents. Those will likely come from cities and counties from all over the Upper Midwest and perhaps beyond, and we will need every last one of those who volunteer. Boston used 5,000 police for the Democratic National Convention in a city with the same approximate size as Minneapolis and St. Paul, and in the end that number fell somewhat short of optimum. The lack of personnel forced the city to “lock down” venues.
In New York, I can tell you that the police kept a highly visible presence the entire convention. Large numbers of them could be seen at all times throughout the entire area where Madison Square Garden is located. Streets surrounding the venue were shut down and barricaded, and even foot traffic was curtailed. I got stuck at one such point, which turned out to be the high point of my travel day. That kind of security will no doubt get deployed by the Twin Cities, and it is personnel-intensive.
We have hosted high-visibility events before, such as the 1992 Super Bowl, but that was in a different era. National conventions for either party present very attractive terrorist targets, and the presence of the President (whom I assume will attend) makes it even more so. This will be on a much higher scale than 1992 or any of the presidential visits we often get. The cost will be enormous, although the Star-Tribune reports that the federal government will pick up most of the security tab through the Department of Homeland Security. It’s a mighty challenge, and the Twin Cities will have to work with a wide range of police departments and sheriff’s offices in order to meet it.

Putin Has Georgia On His Mind

Russia appears to be on the verge of war with the former Soviet republic of Georgia after watching four of its citizens arrested on espionage allegations. Vladimir Putin put his forces in Georgia on high alert and instructed them to defend their bases, a major point of contention between the two nations. He also warned Georgia that it couldn’t count on American support if hostilities broke out:

Infuriated by the arrests of four Russian officers on spying charges, Moscow has put its troops in Georgia on high alert and ordered them to “shoot to kill” to defend their bases in the former Soviet republic.
In his first public comments on the escalating crisis, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, yesterday accused Georgia of “state terrorism” and compared the arrests to the repressions of Stalin’s secret police chief, Lavrenty Beria.
The commander of Russian military forces in Georgia, General Andrei Popov, said Russian law authorises the use of force to defend bases abroad from aggression. “We are ready to thwart any possible attempts to penetrate our facilities using all means, including shoot to kill,” he said. Mr Putin held an urgent meeting with armed forces chiefs, top ministers and the heads of intelligence services to discuss Russia’s response to the arrests.
“As a result of his meeting … the president termed the actions of Georgia’s leadership as an act of state terrorism with hostage taking,” the Kremlin said in a statement. Mr Putin said on national television that the arrests were “a sign of the political legacy of Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria”. A Georgian – like Stalin – Beria ran the feared NKVD secret police that purged millions of Soviet citizens in the 1930s and 1940s. In a clear reference to US support for Georgia, Mr Putin also warned Georgia not to count on foreign backing in the crisis. “These people think that under the roof of their foreign sponsors they can feel comfortable … is it really so?” he said.

As often pointed out here, Putin has gone backwards on Russian reform, pushing towards a greater authoritarian role for the Russian government. He has also worked hard to increase Russian influence in the former republics, using charm and threats in equal balance to maintain power in the region. In Georgia, he has used both to maintain his military bases, a strategic necessity in the Caucasus where nationalist forces try to carve even more republics away from Russia.
Putin uses typically histrionic language, calling arrests “terrorism” and issuing “shoot to kill” orders. In truth, while no one knows for sure whether these suspects worked for Russian intelligence specifically, the notion that Russia actively spies on the West-leaning Georgian government is a very safe assumption. The hysterical nature of Putin’s reaction demonstrates that Georgian counterespionage forces must have gotten the right men.
Will Putin press this enough to start a war in the Caucasus? One would think not. The Russian military has enough troubles in the area without starting a border war with Georgia. While the US and the West back Putin against Islamists in Chechnya, we would immediately change our position with regards to Russia if they attack Georgia. This is why Putin has made this much of a fuss. Nothing they have done has turned Georgia back to the Moscow sphere of influence, and a threat of war is Putin’s last card.
The US needs to trump this card quickly. We cannot have Russia invading Georgia, or even think that it could do so, without serious consequences. The US needs to make clear to Putin that we will not stand idly by while Putin starts taking back the independent former republics by force. Whether that means military aid to Georgia or an effort to kick Russia out of the G-8 and economic marginalization should be options we keep open.