I believe one of the reasons Russia did what it did was to discourage Georgia from joining NATO as well as to pressure Ukraine refrain as well.

Palin’s thoughts on this really matter little to me. If Washington “foreign policy experts” can’t agree on it, why would we knock Palin for picking one side or the other.

Russia should not feel like they could test NATO. NATO’s strength and deterrance only exist if Russia and other aggressors feel like NATO will abide by Article 4. NATO needs to be strengthened not weakened.

When you get down to it NATO is a military alliance. Article 4 of the NATO Treaty of 1949 states that all of the countries should be consulted when territorial integrity of one country is threatened. The next article affirms that an attack on one country is an attack on all.

If we relate this to Georgia, not only was Georgia attacked but soon there after its territorial integrity was threatened, and continues to be. I don’t know what the situation would be like if Georgia was a member of NATO. Maybe Russia would have thought twice about their actions. I hope they would have. But as Russia becomes more beligerant can we really predict their actions? Would they have invaded Georgia anyway to test the resolve of NATO? Then if it looked like NATO was going to act, they simply back out? Personally that would be my guess.

NATO’s goal is to avoid conflict and to use diplomatic and other means to resolve conflict. However we should be aware that including countries in NATO who have shaky relations with Russia or other countries increase the risk of conflict for NATO and does not decrease it. Regardless of how many courses in International Relations you may have taken this should be obvious. Including Georgia into NATO does not increase NATO’s security but actually puts the alliance at greater risk for conflict.

While I disagree with Jeff I certainly understand his position. I too like Dan have my own doubts, but I currently still support including Georgia in NATO.

The media and Jeff Smithpeters and perhaps Dan Greenberg need to go back and review their International Relations textbook from Freshman year college.

To me, this story is much ado about nothing. Gibson’s question really did not need to be asked because anyone who understands how NATO works knows that if a member nation is invaded by a nonmember nation, the other member nations are obligated to help in their defense. That is basically the whole point of NATO.

I wish Gov. Palin had replied that she would be willing to consider Georgia joining NATO rather than saying for sure she would support it and in response to Gibson’s question as to whether she would defend a Georgia if invaded by Russia, I wish she had simply replied “Charlie, the United States has consistently supported our obligations under the NATO agreement since 1949 and I don’t plan to change that now.”

I personally have doubts about extending NATO membership as a general matter. But I don’t think there is a major-party candidate who shares these qualms. Both Senator Obama and Senator Biden are on record as sharing the desire of Governor Palin to extend NATO membership to Georgia.

See

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080303-obama_statement_128/

and

http://biden.senate.gov/press/opeds/oped/?id=32de6895-94b4-47fb-b413-0f776630f369

In short, if you can’t bring yourself to vote for someone who favors NATO membership expansion to Georgia, you’ll either have to find a third-party candidate to support or stay away from the voting booth this November.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

I’d really like your reply Dan on why we should vote for someone willing to risk the incineration of you, me, your children, and everything else over South Ossettia?