Is Russia Right?

I just watched feed from the U.N. on CNN. Russia's U.N. ambassador to the Security Council argued that it had no obligation, under its agreement with France and Georgia, to "immediate withdrawal." Instead, he argues they will withdraw as the international community can ensure the Georgian army stands down and its weapons and bases are secured. He also asserts the Russian army entered the disputed territories to protect the people from the Georgian army and that it only entered Georgia's soverign area, including the cities it now occupies, when Georgians fired upon them.

When our nation has worked to interject its will into other nations using force, we have justified these actions. The U.S. has preturbed the international community by acting on its own. These actions have usually resulted in little more than strong disapproval. Latin America, Middle East, Southeast Asia have all seen American involvement at the detriment of "national integrity." In light of such a history, American censure ring hypocritical.

Americans are critical of the media in its coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan, whether we charge them as biased against the administration or acting as puppets of the same. Surely coverage of items across the globe deserve similar scrutiny. Perhaps we are too complacent as our daily comforts are in jeopardy or we just have short memories for this nation's own indiscretions abroad. Either way, we should hear both sides before falling lock in step with rhetoric and propaganda.

Korean Hostages Released: Mixed blessings

Yesterday brought the announcement that the South Korean government had come to an agreement with Taliban leaders who vowed to release all of the surviving hostages. This agreement solidified plans for the Asian country to withdraw its soldiers and cease missionary work in Afghanistan. They insist the decision had already been made to do so.

The story is a relief to families of the hostages and people around the world who have hoped and prayed for their release. It certainly encourages many who feared the worst. However -- as much as I work to stay on the lighter side, I must confess -- this apparent compromise may prove a setback to efforts to restrain Islamists worldwide.

Considering the tremendous resources spent to turn the tide of control, any setback is tremendously costly. Not that human lives are not worthy of saving. In fact, a culture of life demands one to work to protect lives. But we must also consider the risks and responsibilities for our actions. As a soldier enters the service, he is laying his life on the line for others. In the same way, contractors, missionaries and volunteers who go to war-torn areas risk their lives. Knowing this risk, they choose to become hostages or even martyrs if it happens.

So, who bears the responsibility? When governments warn their citizens that an area is a risk, they have done their part. When military work to empower local communities to stand up to insurgents, they have done their part. When aide agencies and churches worldwide work with local community leaders, they have done their part.

There is a need for help in desperate areas of the world and many feel obliged to help. If that leads them to go there in person, they should "count the cost." For families and friends left behind, it is heart-wrenching to see a loved one in peril. They should not petition their government to cave in or sabotage efforts to illigetimize a group that only takes hostages to get credibility and stir fear.