Knowing what we did about President Saakashvili's predilections the US should have been very clear to him that any aggression such as this would not be OK w/o prior permission. Failing to do this can be considered encouragement in my book.

One of the reasons why the idea that we helped prompt this conflict isn't so much that WE did. It's people like John McCain who did, when Saakashvili specifically cites him and his rhetoric as tacit American support for us, as well as McCain having a paid lobbyist for Georgia on his campaign.

All this proves is that you can elect a screwball to the presidency, but we knew that already, right ?

Yah, but John McCain sin't in charge; isn't favored to assume the Presidency. Anyone who can read newspapers ought to figure that out. The US bears very minor responsibility for the Georgian fiasco if any.

Put yourself in Sash's shoes. He may have thought Bush said "no, no," but there was "yes, yes" in the U.S. eyes.
More prosaically, Sash probably thought that if Russia reacted the U.S. would HAVE to get involved. Based on his constant presence on cable TV this week, the guy doesn't strike me as overly bright.

McCain isn't President of the US, isn't about to assume the Presidency anytime soon. He has very little say in foreign policy, even as a Senator. Anyone who reads a newspaper would know this. The US bears very minor responsibility for this fiasco.

Sorry for the multiple posts.

Oh, Bush administration officials say it, so they must be telling the truth? Really, you are a sucker Kevin. These people will lie about anything at anytime for any reason. Lets stick to the public record on their diplomatic posture.

If there's push back to be made on this case, let them make it - they've earned the credibility - why are you wasting your time?

Oh, Bush administration officials say it, so they must be telling the truth? Really, you are a sucker Kevin. These people will lie about anything at anytime for any reason. Lets stick to the public record on their diplomatic posture.

If there's push back to be made on this case, let them make it - they've earned the credibility - why are you wasting your time?

Anyone care to try and describe or even prove the existence of a coherent US-Russia policy for the last eight years?

Shorter Kevin: "Josh Marshall is a wanker".

It took you this long to work that out?

Look, if your world view is that everything
which Democrats do is perfect and pure, and that
everything which Republicans do is corrupt and
evil then you MUST lie your head off to sustain it.

And that is what Marshall does. He is so unreliable,
deceitful and selective that there is no net gain in reading his output.

I really don't understand this defense of an obviously failed policy toward Russia. Kevin agrees that Bush's overall policy toward Russia has failed, but then defends him on "micro-policy" when it comes to Georgia. The overall strategy of missile defense and aggressive NATO expansion to Russia's borders and so on understandably pissed Russia off and they finally responded.

Trying to analyze what went on Georgia just before the war is useless, we'll never know what really happened, it's too complicated. But we do know the overall U.S. strategy was a failure. That's what's important.

What has McCain been telling Saakashvili? What has Scheuneman been telling McCain? The way McCain has been mouthing off makes guessing the worst not implausible. And when you have lunatics like John Bolton lurking in the shadows, and the clear evidence that the war-happy VP has for most of the Bush years been calling the shots (as opposed to the State Department, which supposedly controls the official channels of communication), it's not hard to imagine that the Georgian president heard what he wanted to hear. There is certainly enough blame to go around, but a good deal of it must lodge in the places where it has been for all too long: the upper reaches of the US neocon government. We can't have any say in what the Russian government does, but at least theoretically (and more so all the time) we might have responsibility for what ours does...that is, if it is still ours (which I despair of more every day, especially afte reading comment sections of blogs.)

Now sure, in general, Kosovo + missile shield + NATO enlargement + resurgent Russian nationalism formed the background for this war, and maybe the U.S. has played a bad hand on this score.

In general? Maybe??? The US has an enormous hand in the first three items you list, with the inevitable result of pouring gasoline on the bonfire of the fourth. (Frankly, only one of those first three issues, Kosovar independence, possesses any legitimacy.) This is nothing less than bearbaiting, and, considering how much of Europe is dependent on Russia for its energy supplies, it's incredibly stupid to be doing these things under the auspices of NATO.

But really, what jhm said at 1:47. Knowing that the US has been conducting an antagonistic policy of this sort while simultaneously developing Georgia's military & advocating their membership in NATO, then claiming that Saakashvili's just some loose cannon that strayed from the script is a strained explanation, at best.

I really don't understand this defense of an obviously failed policy toward Russia. Kevin agrees that Bush's overall policy toward Russia has failed, but then defends him on "micro-policy" when it comes to Georgia. The overall strategy of missile defense and aggressive NATO expansion to Russia's borders and so on understandably pissed Russia off and they finally responded.

There's your answer Kevin. Thanks g.

I suspect Saakashvili put more credence in what the US seemed to be doing behind the scenes than what US officials were saying before the cameras.

He may have been delusional to believe the US would come to his aid, but the delusion was based on actions: the military aid we've been providing since 2002, our championing of their NATO membership aspirations, Bush's enthusiastic praise of all things Georgian, and who knows what kind of whispers coming out of the McCain camp?

Anyone care to try and describe or even prove the existence of a coherent US-Russia policy for the last eight years?

Almost makes you wish they had an expert in Russian affairs somewhere in the State Department.

With due respect Mr. Drum, rather than accusing the Georgian government of being delusional and the US of playing a "bad hand," it seems that the US was a party to extremely bad communication. Accusing an actor of delusional behavior is just stupid in that it prevents an analysis of the behavior. Assume a rational actor. The US does bear significant responsibility for the bad communication between it and the Georgian government.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Look, sometimes leaders of small states just go off the reservation with delusions of grandeur. Serbia in 1913-4 being just one example. Backed by Russia, they pretty much provoked Austria-Hungary, eventually backing an assassination attempt on archduke Ferdinand... and the rest you know.

i'm pretty sure Russia in its wildest imaginings never thought that its pledge to back Serbia would lead to its backing an assassination attempt on the crown prince of AH... but there you are.

Like so many here, I can't agree with Kevin. From what I've seen of Saakashvili the guy is just a little pisher, granted, and he's got illusions about the US. But if you saw his patron on McNeil-Lehrer yesterday, you know he's got big backers in DC (when did I ever think a guy from the Nixon Center would sound rational? Sheesh.)

And you have to factor in that other little pisher, george bush, who's too weak to control his own administration.

Result: the Neocon First International (Cheney Front) had its own channels to Georgia, and McCain and Scheunemann had their own channels, and they had to have been egging the guy on and promising God only knows what. Only bush and Rice apparently had no interest in contacting the Georgians until it was too late.

And think about this: these warmongers just couldn't lose. If Putin rolled over, they'd have had a hero of western democracy on their leash, much stronger for having stared down the Russians, and in position to expand oil flows out of the Caspian (a major policy focus in the neocon universe).

And if the Russians stomped the Georgians, as they did, the neocon cabal would have a bigger, nastier world bogeyman to hate, and they'd just roll out the phrases they used in Kuwait and Kosovo and Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere. As they've done.

And when the Russians stomped the Georgians there was McCain with his little "we are all Georgians" melodrama all scripted, he staring steely-eyed into the middle distance and lowering his determined brow. Looking presidential and all.

So I'm sorry, Kevin. Saakashvili is a flake, but in my book he was given lots of outright encouragement by people willing to sacrifice him and hundreds of innocents in the region for a scheme. It'll just take some time before the extent of it becomes known.

We'll likely never know the whole truth about this, but I can bet on one thing, Dick "Dick" Cheney's filthy paws are involved. Is this the distraction needed to forestall Russian intervention when we attack Iran?

Well, one thing I do know is - Russia thinks Condoleeza Rice is stupid! Click here for details.

Russia has good reason to think she is stupid.

Christ, she was an "expert" on the S.U., fluent in Russian, and she fucking missed the collapse of the S.U.??

Now that IS fucking stupid.

All three: Stupid, Evil, and Incompetent.

Kevin why on earth do you give any play to Bush and his little band of boneheads? Have they done a single thing in the past 7 and 1/2 years to indicate that they didn't fuck this situation up as well?

The U.S. should have played a smarter, longer-term game here. But that said, supporting Georgia's future entry into NATO and helping to modernize their military really isn't the same thing as encouraging Saakashvili to start a war with Russia. It just isn't.

Agree. However--and not to excuse Saakashvili's judgment--it's far from clear that he intended or expected to start a war with Russia.

It's worth noting that since the effective dissolution of the JCC earlier this year (nominally justified IMHO), things went downhill rapidly. Then there were major flare-ups beginning Aug 1, with subsequent attempts to reestablish the ceasefire, then it finally went in the pot Aug 7-8.

Moreover, while "Kosovo + missile shield + NATO enlargement + ..." may be significant contributing factors, there were more immediate issues and indicators as to why now, and why South Ossetia (vs. Abkhazia, where until very recently most thought it would hit the fan fist).

What was communicated, or as importantly not communicated, between Washington, Tbilisi and Moscow, in the last few weeks, and most especially the first week of Aug, would have been critical. Maybe someday we'll know. (FWIW, and admittedly with no facts to go on, I'd guess the administration was asleep at the wheel.)

The self-important Josh Marshall is generally the epitome of Beltway-based pomposity, but even a broken watch tells the correct time twice daily.

All I know is that the United States has made no effort to distance itself from Georgia even though it and its cause is a looser.

( Don't feed me any line about its leadership being "democratically elected." Iran, Venezuela, and the Palestinians all have democratically elected leadership. )

And if the Europeans aren't seriously nervous about being tied to the United States through NATO, then they are much less intelligent than I think they are.

(You don't think Russia was able to mount a highly precise counterattack within 24 hours just by coincidence, do you?)

This is wrong. It's not a 'highly precise counter-attack'. Wikipedia says (along with Stratfor):

Russion OB
South Ossetian Sector

* Unnamed units formerly used for peacekeeping
* At least two strengthened battalions of 19th Motor Rifle Division (North Ossetia) of 58th Army.
* Units of Airborne Troops (VDV)
o Units of 76th Airborne Division (Pskov)
o Units of 98th Airborne Division (Ivanovo)
* Units of GRU (direct or operational subordination)
o Spetsnaz of 45th Detached Reconnaissance Regiment of VDV (Moscow)
o One company of Special Battalion Vostok of 42nd Motor Rifle Division (Chechnya)
o One company of Special Battalion Zapad of 42nd Motor Rifle Division (Chechnya)

The airborne units are based in the northern Russia, but the Motor Rifle units are all based in either North Ossetia or Chechnya, meaning they were no more than 50 miles away from the South Ossetian border at the time the fighting started. Meanwhile in Abkhaz:

Abkhazian Sector

* Units of 131st Separate Motor-Rifle Brigade (formerly used for peacekeeping)
* Unnamed units of VDV
* Army (land and air forces) of Abkhazia

* Naval Task Force consisting of following units from the Black Sea Fleet
o Slava Class Cruiser RFS Moskva
o Kashin Class (Upgraded) Destroyer Smetlivy
o Alligator Class Landing Ships Saratov.
o Ropucha-I Class Landing Ships Tsezar Kunikov and Yamal.
o Grisha-V Anti-Submarine Corvettes Kasimov, Povarino and Suzdalets.
o Nanuchka-III Class Corvette Mirazh.
o Bora Class Missile Boat Samum
o Moma Class Surveillance ship Ekvator.
o Natya Class Minesweepers Zhukov and Turbinist.
o Small Landing Ship Koida
o Sorum Class Fleet Tug MB-31.

Basically, they have some airborne units, the units that were already there, a small naval task group and not much else.

So, Georgia attacks, and the Russians wait some 12-24 hours and then commits some ground units they have on hand nearby, airborne units sent in by... air, and a small task group from nearby bases. (If those ships were near the Crimean bases, they were no more than 400 statue miles away - the group should be able to make 25 knots cruising speed, so that's less than 20 hours cruising time to get to the Abkhazia coast.)

Finally the apparent size of the Russian forces involved seem to be at most 30,000 including all naval, air, peacekeeping and ground forces, keeping in mind that the Russians have ~3-4 million men under arms at all time. The Georgians seem to number about 35,000 or so.

The best part is, is that it seems to have taken the Russians four entire days to arrive at Ts'khinvali. That means some of those ground units were moving at the lighting speed of nearly 10 miles per day.

That's not some pre-planned massive (or precision) invasion, that's a scratch response force the Russians pulled out of their ass at the last minute.

And that's also why US spy satellites 'missed' preparations for an 'invasion'. That's because they were seeing the same garrison units that had been sitting in North Ossetia for year after year after year. There was nothing to see.

Consider the US. Let's say that the Mexicans for some decidedly stupid reason declared on multiple occasions over the years that they intended to retake New Mexico, starting with El Paso all the way north to Santa Fe. And further, over the years, there were frequent potshots exchanged over the border. One day, the Mexican army sends two divisions into El Paso. There is lots of urban fighting going on in El Paso and the Mexican force isn't advancing very quickly. Meanwhile, they also have one regiment of troops move a little ways into the Imperial Valley in California.

How long does it take the US to respond? Well, think about how many army, air force and naval bases we have in those two areas. I'm pretty sure the United States could commit 101st Airborne and get it to El Paso, commit a regiment of the 82nd Airborne to the Imperial Valley, send a cruiser down the Baja California coasts, and move a coupla battalions of National Giard units to the Rio Grande Valley and get all that done in four days, even with our forces as massively overextended as they are now. And note that I've changed the scale of the territory involved (but not the amount of manpower); the scale is much much large than the Caucasus and it would STILL be no problem to get all that done in four days. And surely the USAF could commit bombers to ground support missions in El Paso in just a few hours.

Ergo, the Russians got attacked and they eventually responded.

The idea that we somehow prompted Mikheil Saakashvili to undertake his invasion of South Ossetia last week just doesn't bear scrutiny.

By we, I assume you mean the USG. And I agree; Bush was drunk and out of it in Beijing and Gates appears to have no interest in starting World War III.

However, if you listen to Saakashvili in say Haaretz

Saakashvili's statements are part of his government's attempt to bring other countries into its war against Russia. During the briefing, Saakashvili noted that he is in constant contact with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He promised that U.S. warships would be docking in Georgian ports within a few days to make sure they remain open.

Saakashvili tried to project confidence during the interview, but could not completely hide the stress he is under. A few hours earlier, refugees from Gori held a spontaneous demonstration in front of parliament, calling for Saakashvili to resign.

"We will fight to the death until the last Russian soldier leaves Georgian territory," Saakashvili told reporters. "We will never surrender."

He characterized the announcements against him by Russia's government, blaming him for the suffering of the Georgian people, as "typical Nazi propaganda." He accused Russia of ethnic cleansing in the Georgian villages in the north of the country. "If Georgia falls, all of the energy supply routes will be blocked," he said.

Besides that, the offensive the Georgians launched made no sense (map at link). Instead of cutting of the Roki Tunnel and preventing the advance of Russian forces, they instead launched a frontal assault uphill. And they didn't get very far. Meanwhile, however, in the US and in Europe there was an all-out propaganda blitz that was based on an untruth, that Russia had launched an unprovoked attack on Georgia, and there are normal people out there who still believe that that's what happened.

Since I know Sasha there is on the phone to every neo-con in the phonebook, including Dick Cheney, there is every reason to think that our friends the neo-cons urged Sasha to launch an attack that he knew would fail, in an attempt to get the US involved on the side of the Georgians.

Recall, these are the same guys who brought us Iran-Contra, the Niger forgery, Plame, and of course, the ever-popular Ahmed Chalabi. Given that, there is every reason to believe those guys have gone off the reservation again and that this therefore is a MANUFACTURED INCIDENT.

But that said, supporting Georgia's future entry into NATO and helping to modernize their military really isn't the same thing as encouraging Saakashvili to start a war with Russia.

The problem is, is that historically, everytime someone takes over all of Europe military and then takes control of Poland, shortly thereafter there's a foreign army marching on Smolensk, headed for Moscow. Neither Hitler nor Napoleon had the means to ALSO place bases near Russia's southern borders in Asia. So the Ivans are paranoid about what's going for excellent reasons.

And then the Georgians attack out of nowhere, basically. So the Ivans are feeling more than a little touchy and paranoid. And our government is behaving as though we are resisting aggression in an area of vital interest to the United States, as opposed to what we are actually doing which is bailing out an aggressor.

Unfortunately, the Russians having put together a scratch force means there aren't enough boots on the ground to patrol everywhere, and there are also problems of individual commanders attempting to remain in control of their area while exchanging fire with Georgians, which is leading them to expand their areas of control, which looks aggressive, when it is actually mostly unplanned.

So, do you think McCain and friends are willing to risk WWIII to win a presidential election? Because the evidence to hand suggests yes. (This would be same John McCain that says we're worse off than we were four years ago, that he supports alternative energy and otherwise is apparently running as Democrat during this election.)

What we really need right now is for some third-party to give the Russians several platefuls of candy, cookies and cake, and we need somebody else to put the neo-cons in a sack and sit on them. It would also be helpful if Congress started some inquiries, and likewise, it would be helpful if 'centrist Democrats' figured out that at a minimum, playing along with this charade could cost them the election. Or, if it goes the distance, all those lovely think tanks will be shortly orbiting the stratosphere as radioactive dust. Along with lots of formerly living people from places like NYC and Southern California. And no one will put Humpty-Dumpty and his NATO expansion back together again.

max
['As the guy said in Blade Runner, 'Wake up! Time to die.'']

I'm seeing more evidence that maybe, just maybe, it's the Georgians who are the bad guys and the Russians are the good guys. It was Georgia who sent troops into Ossetia first; Ossetia wants to repatriate to Russia; it's Russia that stopped Georgian aggression against Ossestian civilians.

Maybe U.S. and McCain are really wrong about this whole thing? I wish we had better reporting on what really happened.

Elliott: I'm seeing more evidence that maybe, just maybe, it's the Georgians who are the bad guys and the Russians are the good guys.

It's far from clear that "It was Georgia who sent troops into Ossetia first...", or even if they did, if that was the match that started this fire. NB: This didn't suddenly start on Aug 7. Russian/CIS troops have been present in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia since the early 90's, and the provocations have been increasing for some time.

There is evidence of South Ossetian shelling Georgians prior to Aug 7-8. There is evidence of Abkhazia issuing passports requiring applicants to renounce their Georgian citizenship (and in South Ossetia?) over the last few months. There is evidence of CIS and Russian troop movements beyond the agreed-upon Abkhazia demarks in the last weeks.

There is evidence of increasing hostility and casualties on both sides, targeted it appears at fomenting conflict and tensions, and which resulted in both military and civilian casualties prior to Aug 7-8 in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is evidence of Georgian troops reacting in disproportional force against Tskhinvali, and Russian forces reacting in disproportional force against Tskhinvali, Gori, Poti, ...

In short, it's clear as mud. But I agree, better reporting on what really happened would nice.

Josh Marshall is a joke. He hasn't read a single story in the news during the past 8 years, not even in the Gardening section, that didn't have an anti-Bush angle in his reading of it. He works hard, and blogs about 10,000 posts per day, but the guy just has zero credibility as an analyst. Not that this should be surprising - it's called Talking Points Memo for a reason...

The United States military is so over-extended that we can scarce influence anybody. Certainly can't back up the McCain line of escalation. And that is Bush's fault. The very tenuous nature of a thousand flash-points is Bush's fault. And Condi vacationing while the war played out was just dumb luck. I do not believe antagonizing the Russians, and pandering to Georgia worked out very well. Considering they had 2,000 troops in Iraq, the U.S. was going to be drawn into the conflict at least in getting them back home. Abysmal intel, abysmal foreign policy, and thousands dead. Sounds like we should give Bush a pat on the back, Kevin.

Hey, where are McCain's paid trolls? All we get are these pathetic Josh Marshall-bashing fucktards. We deserve PAID fucktards!

Josh Marshall is an interesting political analyst. But in general, I think he gives too much credit for good intentions to Republicans. You never go wrong if you assume Republicans have no scruples. It's likely that all along Cheney and crew have been grooming Saakashvili as a sacrifice for domestic political purposes. Kind of a Manchurian candidate, with Condi the Queen of Diamonds. So you can't say the war in Georgia is the US's 'fault' when everything is going according to plan. How the plan develops is hard to predict but chances are it comes to a climax in October.

Whenever I heard some leader of a country described as a "mad man", I reach for my wallet. I doubt Saakashvili didn't know the capabilities of Russia, or the most likely response from Russia; can't imagine he was looking forward to having his head handed to him on a plate by the Russians. This incident reeks of behind the scenes politics, most likely driven by our friends in Washington.

Foreign policy in the Cheney administration is driven by 1.) Domestic politics or 2.) Oil. The Georgia incident has significant aspects for both.

The republicans desperately need a foreign "war" to bolster McSame; it's all he's got. Iran is too risky, this Georgia thing looks like a stroke of genius to me. I got to hand it Cheney, he may be evil, but he is good at it. Don't think it is a coincidence that this happened 3 months before a US Presidential election.

What can the Dems do? Absolutely nothing.

The bear has arisen. Yeeeeeehah.

You think Americans are smart enough to understand it is the Repubs that screwed this up? How many people do you know that blame 911 on the Cheney administration?

As others have noted, IT WAS SURELY MCCAIN (and his lobbyists) who greenlighted Saakashvili.

Alan Tomlinson: The US does bear significant responsibility for the bad communication between it and the Georgian government.

maybe its genetic...

remember president g.h.w. bush and april gillespie and saddam's invasion of kuwait...

Arming Russia's neighbors is like throwing rocks at a sleeping dog because we think it is on a chain. No harm until the day the dog is not on the chain.

is giving these countries rocks to throw at the dog a good idea?

Is this writer that stupid? Really? I mean, wow! Everything is our fault. right? OK, was it Bush or Cheney? Or maybe the EEEEEVILLL corporations. Who? My Lord, I am so sick of these people. And I live next to them. HALF OF AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE STUPID...

The cries of Russia did not get the UN Approval is deafening in it's silience. It is just deafening the silence of the blame America first crowd when any country, not an ally of the U.S,. or terrorist do bad things.

And the outcry of the failure of diplomacy by the Russians is breathtaking in it's silence.

Next thing we will not hear is how the Russians have violated human rights, We won't here about the lack of the Red Cross involvement.We will not hear how journalist are being censored. We certainly won't hear about the innocent civilians killed or injured.

If you, or the people you support ever made those outcries about US involvement in Iraq Afganistan etc....I better be hearing them from you now. OR just up and let the adults deal with the real problems. Grow up.

You are not impressive in you "analysis" of how of course this is America's fault. Your hatred of bush (who is no hero of mine) and your anti America bias is childish.

No matter who the next President is we have real problems that he will need to deal with. Not everything that goes bad is America's Fault.

Do those on the political left, ever wonder why it is hard to take you serious? Of course everything is AMERICA'S FAULT. LONG LIVE THE SOVIET UNION!

Dick Cheney is the magic man. I swear he can do anything and not leave behind a finger print. Boys some of you Bush/Cheney haters are friggin hilarious. Years of substandard education paying off for the Dems.

The West is much at fault not because of what we did do, but because of what we didn't do. Certain European nations have blood on their hands, and it isn't going to wash away soon. They refused the NATO membership action plan for Georgia, and as Saakashvili said, the Russians perceived this as the new Munich.

Europe was neutered years ago, and they haven't recovered their collective cojones since; Russia supplies crucial energy. They caved to the Russians months ago. Putin looks at the West and sees a group of weak leaders and weak people. He is brutal, clever, and very bold.

Putin hates Saakashvili personally, and had the intent to invade long before Georgia's supposed 'provocation'.

All in all, a disgusting display of Western weakness and appeasement, and an absolute tragedy for Georgia. They aren't the first to be abandoned by the West; they join a long line that includes the Kurds murdered in the 1990's in Iraq, the Hungarians after WW11, the CIA operatives in the 1960's in Cuba, the Rangers in Mogadishu in the 1990's. The Vietnamese who were slaughtered after we left in Vietnam.

Was there something we could have done after Russia invaded? Probably not. No, the cowardice and the tragedy lies in the months and years prior to the invasion. We can talk tough now, and we can certainly make Russia pay for what they did. But we should look away in collective shame for what we did not do.

Sorry, but if russia wants to support a mideast country that boasts about the range of their missiles (they can reach europe!) and how they'll burn another one of our allies (Israel) then russia blew its chance to prevent a missile shield next door. Russia is the one thats screwing up here. Trying to please them before this invasion required too much kowtowing and agreeing to shove off our allies to the plans of aggressive dictators.

And would you like some polonium with your whine, sir?

I was about to ask about the chain of events that began this invasion. I've read reports about a long string of russian provocations (violating air space, arming separatists, who went on to shell Georgian positions) does anyone have any information on these incidents? I'm trying to find out what role the russian backed militias had in this, finally providing the russians with the excuse to invade.
And please stop with the neocon conspiracy fantasies. If anything, the bush administration has just been turning a blind eye to this region since nothing was blowing up. More of the rush and catch up foreign policy, but its too late.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that our government in staffed by idiots? Yes, they should have seen this coming, and yes, they made the necessary pro forma public statements for CYA purposes. But in the end they didn't think anything bad would happen. Because they're morons. Which is why they're a lot more dangerous than Nixon ever was.

Saakashvili's provocations are analogous to Milosevic.

If you arm a deranged dog (Saakashvili) to his teeth and tie it to the neighbor's fence, one day he will byte the neighbor.