Georgian Warriors in Iraq
As conflict in Iraq continues to grab international headlines while the citizens of many countries with troops making up part of the U.S.-led coalition question their deployment, former Soviet and Eastern bloc republics seem more eager to send troops. In January, Armenia sent a fresh contingent of troops to Iraq despite criticism from the country’s ethnic Armenian population. Earlier this week, two ethnic Armenian women were killed by foreign security guards.
However, while the Armenian and Azerbaijani contingents in Iraq are reported to number 46 and 150 personnel respectively, the Georgian force numbers 2,000. Keen to prove itself and eventually join NATO, the Georgian contingent is now the subject of a New York Times photo story. The Travel Photographer has more.
The New York Times featured photographs of Georgian troops being sent to Kut, an area near Iran, in a recent slideshow. Its accompanying article tells us that at a time when other countries (such as Great Britain) are pulling troops out as fast as they can, Georgia has more than doubled its troop levels in Iraq to 2,000 soldiers.
What’s in it for Georgia, you ask? Ah, well…Georgia seeks NATO membership as a security guarantee against Russia, and by sending its troops to Iraq, its politicians hope that the United States will reciprocate by supporting Georgia’s membership. This is what is defined as realpolitik.
The NYT photo story, From the Caucasus to the Fertile Crescent, is here.
It’s a good decision by the Georgian leaders. It has two benefits for the country:
1. It reaffirms that Georgia is an American ally. If they are shrewd, they will reap some benefits for being buddies with the US - if the US doesn’t abandon them at a time of crisis.
2. It provides valuable skills to the Georgian armed forces. They gain experience in Iraq which could be used in the future to defend their country.
I would welcome if Armenia took a similar approach. Unfortunately, we have an Armenian diaspora in Iraq and the deployment of Armenian forces would create dangers for them. Afghanistan would be a much better choice for Armenian troops as the terrain is similar to where Armenian forces would fight in case of a conflict, and there are no Armenians living in Afghanistan. The problem with that location is that Armenia would not gain any points outlined in benefit number 1 above.
Comment by nazarian — October 12, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Well, I remember when the conflict in Afghanistan started. Lots of Armenians were even volunteering to go, or at least probably offering their services for compensation or something. After all, not only is the terrain similar, but Armenians have fought their before, but as part of the Soviet army.
As for the Georgians, well, I agree with your points and they’re valid. However, I do find it ironic that as many countries are trying to get their boys back home, others relish the opportunity to be part of the coalition forces. Still, for an aspiring NATO member, yes, it makes perfect sense.
Comment by Onnik — October 12, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
It’s now that they are able to show that Georgia is not a wuss like the rest of the allies. They can earn much bigger points this way.
Comment by nazarian — October 12, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Bush must love these pictures, particularly the ones where the cross or priest are present. F_head crusaders. They are debating monarchy too.
Comment by GT — October 14, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Tblisi Royal Academic Theatre…
Comment by Armen — October 14, 2007 @ 5:23 pm