On Friday 8th August 2008, coinciding with the Olympics, Georgian troops launched a military offensive in South Ossetia. South Ossetia broke away from Georgian control in 1992. The Georgian attack has prompted a furious response from Russia – which vowed retaliation and sent more than 150 tanks into the region. Source Daily Mail Saturday 9th August.
Mark Almond, a university lecturer at Oxford and writer for the Daily Mail made some interesting comparisons with the start of World War 1. During World War 1 the super powers of the day took opposing sides. Germany and ally Austria wished to punish Serbia but Great Britain backed Russia in Supporting Serbia. Today South Ossetia have the support of Russia and Georgia is looking for support from America. So the potential for major conflict is very real. In Mondays Daily Mail one comment from a South Ossetian was something like, “my best friend is Georgian and their relatives are Russian they have no conflict with each other they are friends”. Unfortunately those that carry the gun tend to be more extreme than the major of peace loving individuals e.g.. Looking at the internet today Canadian press report MOSCOW — Human Rights Watch says it has witnessed South Ossetian fighters looting ethnic Georgians’ houses and has recorded multiple accounts of Georgian militias intimidating ethnic Ossetians. Both sides committing what are war crimes. (N.B Not the Russian Troops).
Like America in Kuwait I guess the Russian forces could argue they are a liberating Force, but how far will they go? I believe the French have some initiative to end hostilities so our hopes lie with the French. I feel we are to close to America to be considered trustworthy from a Russian prospective to produce an objective plan.
A slight aside; the other night I watched part of the film Crimson Tide, where the Captain and his second command could not agree on what action to take. What thought comes to mind is not the fact that they had the power to make the decision to start a nuclear war scary though that would be or the fact that the decision to start a War has been moved to the President, an equally scary prospect with mad man George Bush at the helm, but that any responsible nation is prepared to carry out pre-emptive strikes. Pre-emptive strikes are totally wrong morally. Doing a pre-emptive strikes means that who ever does such a thing becomes the aggressor, the starter of the War. It may give you some military advantage but you lose the morale high ground. I, as an ex serviceman, never had a morale dilemma for being the liberating army because the other side committed the crime but as soon as your side start the war as did The USA and Britain in Iraq 2 then you are fighting the wronged. How can you give you all to a fight you had no right to start. Descent people do not start fights.
So My Question.
Is it ok to do a pre-emptive strike?

By Trevor Cooper