Modern History of Sovereign Freedom in America, Europe, and Asia

I believe that congressmen, who are involved in ratifying treaties of the United States and charged with representing our country, should know history and diplomacy. This is their job. I hate needing to remind politicians of their job. Nevertheless, I press on. This is not to say that the situation in Georgia is our fault. We did agree to admit Georgia as our ally, which Russia does not like (they being a selfish political power hoping to re-aquire the land of Georgia).

Rather than the most recent war in Iraq, perhaps a better illustration of the need to proceed with wisdom in Georgia would be the conflict between Afghanistan and Russia, in which the US armed the Taliban in order to defeat the Soviets. Certainly neither party needed us to be helping them. However, Georgia has been advancing toward a democratic, "westernized" government and culture, despite serious economic and military opposition from its closest most powerful neighbor. The US, because of the fundamental beliefs that make us a democracy: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", believes that these rights apply to all people, and wishes to aid the sovereign governments who share our concern to promote liberty in their own countries. It is also strategic for us to have allies like Georgia, the Ukraine, and Poland, whence we can maintain vigil over the growing threat of Russia's imperialism.

Another good example would be World War II, which could actually have been prevented as a world war if the other superpowers in the world had stood against Hitler when he took over Austria and Czechoslavakia, citing similar reasons as Putin's Russia now claims. Because Hitler was undeterred in his conquest, he gained confidence and military positional advantage by which he launched his near-complete takeover of Europe. Too much appeasement, and too many empty threats, are what allow world wars to come to fruition.

Thus, the United States was acting in this prudent manner of putting out a spark rather than a raging forest fire, when we "preemptively" struck Iraq. A little history (which it is good to know, before you judge a situation): In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in order to add its natural resources to the larger, but economically depleted, Iraq. The US and a UN-supported coalition defended Kuwait. Iraq was forced to surrender, on very favorable terms considering the nature of war. They submitted at the time to the UN as enforcers of these terms. When after several years Sadaam Hussein began to put his toe across the line, and found himself unchecked, he gained confidence and gradually became more and more blatant in disregarding the terms of his surrender over a decade prior. As it became evident that he was committing atrocities and defying the UN resolutions (an act by all accounts punishable if the UN meant anything); harboring and aiding the professed terror-wielding enemies of the US and her allies; and moving towards if not already possessing the means of restarting his quest for more money and power at the cost of human lives at home and abroad, the US led the way in collecting the Coalition of the Willing and specific UN resolutions in order to redress the transgressions Sadaam Hussein's Iraq made against international post-Gulf War agreements.

The resulting war, Operation Iraqi Freedom, was so shocking and awe-ful to Sadaam that the real fighting was over in a few days. What has taken so long in Iraq was the establishment of a democracy among a people used to oppression. The South needed to be reconstructed, and the freed slaves equipped for life and industry after the Civil War in the United States. Georgia needed the support and example of democracies to build its government on the true, God-fearing principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the case of Georgia, they have met insurgent opposition to democratic government, and have endured opposition sponsored by neighbors with ulterior motives - all very reminiscent of the situation in Iraq where Iran continued to supply and train the insurgency. Interestingly, Putin and Ahmadinejad are themselves allies, who have no doubt consulted on tactics.

Georgia, a sovereign nation, has the right to use force to suppress violent uprisings in its land. That is what governments do. If the government is being oppressive and abusive, that is another story, but then one wonders why most of Georgia is NOT in revolt. (See Declaration of Independence). I find it sad that Americans seem willing to accept ethnic differences as explanations for conflict and wanting one's own country divided according to race all the while recognizing the great fact (which has been largely successful in its American implementation) that race has nothing to do with the value of a human life, with relationships, or with the principles of government by the people for the people. Being of a different ethnicity than a portion of your country is no reason either to revolt against your government or to oppress your people.

When America broke away from the Crown, it was not a matter of race or even of disapproval of the laws so much as it was outcry against the king's making rules and breaking them. The charters by which America was colonized gave specific rights and powers to the colonists, which the king then usurped. Since the Magna Carta, England had recognized that the king was not himself above the law, and Americans expected the present king to honor that. However, when he did not, they declared their independence. Unlike the implications some have made, the king did not immediately recognize his fault and repent, but invaded their land with violence. By the providence of God, America was able to defeat the armies of the tyrant king, winning independence and teaching England a lesson on human rights and the nature of government that the Crown has yet to forget. America is free not because of the benevolence of England, but because England surrendered their object in the colonies.

My letters were addressed to my congressmen because, as the Constitution of the United States presently stands, they are my representatives to the world. World leaders are not my concern beyond my own country. I am not a globalist. America is my nation, and her leaders are my focus.

My position maintains that we were not so utterly wrong in Iraq or in Afghanistan as is popularly argued. Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, and there is some evidence that more may have been shipped to likeminded countries. Good has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. No further terrorist attacks have been perpetrated on America. Lives have been lost, tragically, but most American lives were willingly laid on the line in service of country. Alongside wars of history, the human toll has been remarkably small. Peace reigns over the Middle East more than ever. There is still violence, but there is violence in New York City, in San Francisco, and in my city, Denver. To quote Tolkien, "It takes but one foe to breed a war..."

To God be all glory.