Planet Pundit: Domino Effect for WWIII?

Since the end of World War II, journalists and politicians have speculated on the event of a Third World War.

Some say the Cold War between the United States and Russia was in a way a kind of Third World War while a few years ago Bush referred to the "War on Terror" as such.

But for the most part, everyone agrees this event has not taken place. The Cold War is more accurately looked upon as a time of serious tensions and uncertainty with conflicts popping up at different times and for different reasons around the world.

A war on a global scale at this time could without much stretch of the imagination cause images of the destruction of the majority of humanity.

I want to be clear that this article is not predicting such an event but examining the potential for some serious danger is vital.

What Happened This Weekend

While China dazzled the world with their opening ceremonies for the Beijing Olympics on Friday, a different kind of fireworks were going off 3,600 miles away in South Ossetia.

The fireworks came as bombs, tank blasts, and gunfire mostly between their northern neighbor the Russia Federation and Georgia--with the tiny territory of South Ossetia caught in the middle.

South Ossetia is a breakaway region of Georgia, a country of the former Soviet Union. Although they operate under an independent government, their secession and autonomy is not recognized by the majority of the world despite the results of an election they held in November 2006 that produced a 95% turnout that voted 99% in favor of independence.

So why is Russia getting involved in this matter that is seemingly none of their business? Here's the catch. Seventy percent of the population has been given Russian citizenship.

This is where Russia justifies their right--their obligation--to jump in to protect its citizens when they're under attack by the Georgian military.

It is also important to note that the territory of Ossetia is split between North Ossetia and South Ossetia by the Caucasus Mountains. North Ossetia is indeed part of Russia.

This fact and the glaring statistic that 70% of South Ossetians have Russian citizenship must cause one to pause with some skepticism.

Would it be more likely that the Georgian government and the rest of the world wakes up one morning and decides to give legitimacy to South Ossetia or is it more likely that with the help of the Russian military they gain their independence?

If the latter, what loyalties would South Ossetia feel toward Russia? Would they forego their independence and join the Russian Federation?

The fighting quickly escalated from a conflict to a full blown war--although a lopsided one with Russia crushing the Georgians.

One estimated a death toll of almost 1,500 after just one day of fighting.

Over the weekend, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke told MSNBC that his columns in the Washington Post over the past months predicted this conflict would happen near the end of the summer.

Shockingly, he claimed that the Russians real goal was to "overthrow the pro-western, pro-democracy Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili" and to "gain control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, an important enclave near the Black Sea coast."

Holbrooke's bold exclamation registered three for three in just over a day later.

Georgia's cry for a truce fell upon deaf ears of the Russian military on Sunday when they took their bombing campaign to the Georgian capital Tbilisi. The city now in ruins with hundreds, if not thousands, dead or injured--many civilians.

Russia has also called for the removal of President Mikheil.

They have also blockaded the Black Sea and sent 4,000 troops to Abkhazia where they have been joined by 1,000 rebel forces also to break away from Georgia.

Georgian government official David Bakradze is now claiming he has "irrefutable proof" that this entire operation was masterminded by the Russian military.

Whether this is true remains to be seen but so far Holbrooke's predictions were eerily accurate.

Effect on the United States

This is where the situation gets sticky for the United States. I doubt very many people are aware, but Georgia has deployed the third most number of troops in Iraq behind of course the United States and Great Britain.

For a country as young and small as Georgia to help the United States out in their conflict in such a big way, it would be hard to imagine that they would not demand the help of the United States.

Despite the remarkable mistakes and scandals the current Washington administration has been a part of over the past eight years, how they handle this situation could prove to be the most crucial one it makes--and just in time to pass it off to the next sorry soul who "wins" the White House and has to deal with these astronomical problems.

As the Georgians continued to get crushed, more pressure will fall upon the United States for aide. Can you see it now? Should we take a look at the current state of America?

It is a time where the United States has the lowest reputation in polls across nearly every country in the world--including our friends.

It is a time where the value of the dollar continues to plummet, millions of Americans are losing their homes, an energy crisis is unsolved, and the overall economy is at its worst since the Great Depression.

The moral and support for further war by the American people has been destroyed by six years of two disastrous campaigns in the Middle East.

The last thing the United States needs is to start another war--much less with a former superpower, much less a war that could trigger world wide violence.

How Responding Carelessly with Georgia Could Cause Global Fighting

Coming to the aide of Georgia would likely, if not certainly, mean attacking Russia.

The United States has already added Iran and North Korea to its list of great enemies and despite a low level of tension, it is no secret China is emerging as the next superpower to challenge the United States--if they aren't already there.

Remember, we're giving them billions of dollars.

So let's get everything straight: Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia while trying to fight a war on a tactic(terrorism) in two Middle East countries Afghanistan and Iraq.

Coming together like a script of a movie, these proclaimed enemies of the United States are tied in far more with each other than just being in the "America's Hate Club."

In 2001 Russia and China signed the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. The most controversial element of this 20 year agreement: a military alliance.

In 2005 Iran and China's trade totaled over $9 billion. China has also openly supported Iran's nuclear ambitions and has denounced the political and economic isolation the United Nations and United States have imposed on the country.

North Korea also supports Iran's nuclear development, as well as their own.

A Third World War would not need to involve a complete coalition between these countries, as Russia and North Korea have recently had some rocky political relations despite being very involved in trade.

Russia was part of the Six-Party Talks to denuclearize North Korea and in 2007 then President Putin signed a decree prohibiting any industry in Russia from giving North Korea anything that could help them advance their nuclear program.

But as we gain more enemies throughout the Middle East, see a potential war between two dangerous nations with potential nuclear ability, owe billions of dollars to the world's rising superpower, should America really bring her former enemy back into the fold with a military response against Russia?

Some serious compromise needs to be made and some kind of aide sent to Georgia, just not an offensive one against Russia. America literarily and metaphorically can't afford to do that.

President Bush adamantly states that he believes in the spread and protection of democracy. But perhaps America should sit this one out militarily to protect its own democracy--it could one day be at stake.