Leslie Gelb doesn't think much of our decision to welcome a Georgian army battalion to the war in Afghanistan.
He thinks the help is minimal considering the needs and that we not only risk resetting relations with Russia but also encourage recklessness by the Georgians in provoking Russia.
What rot.
First of all, I suppose it is refreshing to hear, after years of hearing how "unilateral" George W. Bush was, that getting an ally willing to fight and die with our troops is no big deal now.
Second, is Gelb seriously arguing that we can do anything to calm down Russian paranoia? Seriously, what price are we willing to pay in re-subjugated people to "reset" relations with Russia? As if it is our fault they are nuts and our relations are suffering.
Besides, isn't Russia helping us in Afghanistan by letting us use their territory for supply missions? Why should Russia mind if we get help from someone else to win a war that Russia presumably has an interest is us winning?
Third, is it not possible that by fighting side by side with Georgians we gain some influence in restraining Georgia? I assume we are telling the Georgians to behave and move smoothly toward NATO membership without provoking Russia. I surely wouldn't want to have the US dragged into a war to recover South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Also note that surely the Georgians learned that having many more troops in Iraq at our side than they will deploy in Afghanistan didn't get us to militarily intervene when Russia invaded last August.
Fourth, is Gelb really saying that Russia has a veto on our choice of allies to fight at our side?
We got an ally to fight with us without caveats. How many of our established NATO allies can that be said of?
Celebrate this success, for it is a success. Deal with Russia separately. This issue isn't making the Russians more paranoid than they'll be all on their own. Seriously, we're in bounce the rubble territory if that's the issue.