Comments on: Georgia on My Mind

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:26:40 +0000

Rob Citino wrote:

“But in “the world as we would like it to be” (the place I try to inhabit as much as possible), the Georgians had every right to put down threats to their authority in their own sovereign territory, without having to worry about the Wrath of Putin. Here, Saakashvili appears not so much as a tyrant, but as Pres. Eduard Benes in 1938. ”

IIRC, South Ossetia had been effectively independent since the early 1990’s, when the USSR broke up.

So perhaps the correct analogy would be if, after a successful War of Seccession, Virginia invades West Virginia, and gets smacked down by the USA, which had been looking for an opportunity to teach the world that the USA was not to be trifled with.

By: Terry.Tucker

Terry.Tucker — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:45:15 +0000

BJ,
Interesting.
I think that a proper and balanced analysis is crucial to the “context” in which we intend to employ the lessons learned. Are we “what ifing” potential scenarios for an MDMP analysis? Are we attempting to gain strategic insight and its implications for FP? Are we learning generalized macro lessons in history? I like to have fun as well. I failed to mention this because I took it for granted that the “Context” would be framed with the introduction in terms of what we are looking for.

By: BJ

BJ — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:33:18 +0000

I agree with Andrea and Terry that care must be taken with historical analogy. However, as Prof. G points out, proper/balanced analysis can lead to understanding. Plus, its kinda fun.

Here’s an analogy that the Georgians would love. How about the War of 1812? A former colony, about 2 decades after gaining their freedom, struggling to make democracy work, reaches too far strategically against the the former Empire and gets spanked for it.

Where the situation goes from here dictates how well this analogy goes. Do the Georgians play their hand in the media and international community well or do the Russians end up absorbing them again?

By: Terry.Tucker

Terry.Tucker — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:26:10 +0000

I happen to agree with Andrea. How the analogy is framed leads to preconceptions that influence the response.

I see an analogy here, The first is related to Quantum Mechanics; When the question was framed in terms of “Light” then the researchers “discovered” the properties of light. when they framed the question in terms of “matter” the researchers then discovered the properties of matter.

Similarly, framing the analogy then may potentially influence an inappropriate or unintentional response.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:01:15 +0000

Hi Mark I agree with you and I’ve discusses the now vs. past references a little further on the blog
http://www.warhistoryfans.com/the-georgia-situation-it-is-happening-now-86.html
It is that the “wrong” analogy can sometimes lead to “wrong” interpretations and reactions and I think I just prefer wider analogies that enable more place to be flexible

By: Mark Grimsley

Mark Grimsley — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:08:26 +0000

Andrea, I think I understand what you’re driving at, and you’re right to think that to invoke a historical analogy in a dogmatic way is unhelpful. A current event resembles a previous one in some ways but is different in others. The utility of historical analogy as a tool for analysis lies in noticing the similarities and the differences. Sometimes the differences are so blatant you realize the analogy is unhelpful. At other times the differences are subtle enough that they heighten awareness of the salient dynamics and suggest good questions to explore to better understand the event.

Also, as a practical matter, I don’t think we can just forget about the past. It shapes our impressions of the present no matter what we do. Better then to be intentional about thinking about the ways in which previous events color our interpretation of present ones.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:15:23 +0000

I would avoid using equivalences from the past as each equivalent tells us not only what to think about the current situation but also the possible ways to respond.
Why not clean the pre conceptions and the old response patterns and just see the current situation

By: Mark Grimsley

Mark Grimsley — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:17:39 +0000

Mikheil Saakashvili, president of Georgia, in a Washington Post op/ed, Aug. 14: "The historical parallels are stark: Russia's war on Georgia echoes events in Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Perhaps this is why so many Eastern European countries, which suffered under Soviet occupation, have voiced their support for us."

By: Mark Grimsley

Mark Grimsley — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:28:38 +0000

I have a terrific colleague with whom I teach who has got, hands down, the best historical analogy I’ve heard. (He ought to: like me, he’s on loan to the Army War College, and in his case, he’s a distinguished career foreign service officer in the State Department. I’ve asked the students in my seminar group to come up with historical analogies in anticipation of a lesson block next week on the uses of history. Therefore I won’t reveal my colleague’s answer until after the lesson. Actually, with any luck, I’ll persuade him to do a guest post, so that he can explain it himself.

By: Rob Citino

Rob Citino — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:31:31 +0000

Great stuff here, Mark (and everyone else). Seems to me we have the classic confrontation between “the world as it is” and “the world as we would like it to be.” Seen through the eyes of the former, the Georgians erred badly in trying to use force to establish their authority in the enclaves (South Ossetia and Abhazia). They punched the bear in the nose and got mauled for their efforts. In “the world as it is,” this is all Pres. Saakashvili’s fault (and perhaps ever the fault of the US, for encouraging him).

But in “the world as we would like it to be” (the place I try to inhabit as much as possible), the Georgians had every right to put down threats to their authority in their own sovereign territory, without having to worry about the Wrath of Putin. Here, Saakashvili appears not so much as a tyrant, but as Pres. Eduard Benes in 1938.

A tough call, and I lack the data to say much more (and so does everyone here).
But in the interests of a partial rehabilitation of one of the most reviled figures of the 20th Century, I hve to admit this: even WRITING names like “South Ossetia” and “Abhazia” makes me have a strange new respect for Neville Chamberlain, bemoaning the possibility of a war over “a faraway land” and a quarrel “between peoples of whom we know nothing.”

Like Mark, looks like “I’ll just have to keep reading and learning and contextualizing.”

–Rob Citino