Hi Ho, Silver

The occupied White House went from sabre rattling yesterday to action that courts disaster, sending in 'humanitarian' aid that includes military assistance. There is a growing speculation that candidate McAyn spurred the lame ducks to hobble along faster, in tune with his militant stance.

"The Pentagon emphasized that its initial concern would be providing relief supplies, but announced Wednesday that it would also begin efforts to rebuild the Georgian military," they write.

"'Our focus right now is on delivering humanitarian aid and taking care of the immediate needs of those who are caught in this conflict,' said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. 'When the dust settles, I am sure that we will help this sovereign nation and ally rebuild its military.' . . .

"Since 1997, the U.S. military has spent approximately $277 million in military aid to Georgia on uniforms, ammunition, communications equipment and vehicles.

"A senior military officer involved in planning the mission said the new military assistance under consideration for Georgia could include more joint exercises, stepped-up military training, closer ties to the Georgian military command, and sales of equipment to replace vehicles and weapons destroyed in the five days of fighting before the cease-fire agreement.

"The official acknowledged that there were risks to sending additional U.S. military equipment and personnel into the war-torn region. But the official said U.S. European Command, the Belgium-based headquarters responsible for organizing the mission, had determined that because Russia acquiesced to U.S. military flights bringing Georgian troops back to Tbilisi from Iraq, the chances of conflict were minimal.

"'It's never zero risk, but I think it will be OK,' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the mission."

At a morning press conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that "the mission the president has given us at this point is humanitarian." And he declared: "I don't see any prospect of the use of military force by the United States on this mission."

Richard Beeston writes in a Times of London commentary: "Sending US forces into Georgia, albeit to deliver humanitarian supplies, represents the most serious military escalation between Washington and Moscow since the end of the Cold War.
(snip)
"So what prompted Mr Bush to come out with such a tough response against his erstwhile ally, after six days of dithering? One clue could be the sabre-rattling by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who said at the weekend that the Kremlin's move would not go unanswered. Mr Cheney may have persuaded Mr Bush that a more robust response was needed. The White House may have felt the need to reimpose its authority after the tough stand taken by John McCain, the Republican nominee for the presidency, who has used the crisis to demonstrate his leadership on national security matters."

Those hundred years of war don't have to be in Iraq, after all. Since the government there is hanging on by its fingernails only as long as it insists the U.S. is being sent packing, going back to the Cold War may have a lot of promise for continued war profiteering.

There is about 20% that seem to go along with whatever promises more war, more bloodshed. Without that war, of course, war powers will be harder to insist are justified. The constitution would be feasible again even to the hardcore militarists. That would risk a return to the rule of law, and many members of this administration feel quite threatened by that.