Subscribe via RSS Feed

More Blather About Georgia

[ 0 ] August 11, 2008 |

For alcoholics, angry loners, and the unemployable who happen to have 50 minutes to kill…. Heilbrunn is a little bit more Realist than myself, but I think that we have pretty similar instincts regarding the crisis. On the other hand, we disagreed about the appropriateness of the John Edwards coverage; that comes in about the last five minutes or so.

In other news, the Georgians appear to be displeased at the lack of a more forceful American response. This, as much as anything, gives an indication as to what Georgia thought it was buying with its Iraq deployment:

As a Russian jet bombed fields around his village, Djimali Avago, a Georgian farmer, asked me: “Why won’t America and Nato help us? If they won’t help us now, why did we help them in Iraq?”

John McCain: Staunch Opponent of a Woman’s Right To Choose

[ 13 ] August 11, 2008 |

Sarah Blustain powerfully reminds us of what should be obvious: John McCain is a strong opponent of reproductive freedom. He’s certainly no moderate on the issue. Make sure to read the whole thing, but a taste:

McCain’s views may matter especially to Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom are pro-choice; according to syndicated columnist Froma Harrop, “[T]hey’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?” But, she writes, “The answer is unclear but probably ‘no.’ While McCain has positioned himself as ‘pro-life’ during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.”

That, however, is simply not true. There is no “latitude” in McCain’s position on abortion. Interviews with dozens of people who have dealt with him on the issue–pro-choice and pro-life activists, Hill staffers, McCain confidants, pollsters, and staffers–along with a two-and-a-half-decade-long perfectly anti-abortion voting record, make that clear. And his record on related issues, like contraception, is no better. “I think it is outrageous that people give him a pass, as they gave George W. Bush a pass,” reflects Feldt. “John McCain will be that and worse.”


During his political career, McCain has participated in 130 reproductive health-related votes on Capitol Hill; of these, he voted with the anti-abortion camp in 125. McCain has consistently backed rights for the unborn, voting to cover fetuses under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allowed a “child in utero” to be recognized as a legal victim of a crime. He has voted in favor of the global gag rule, which prevents U.S. funds from going to international family-planning clinics that use their own money to perform abortions, offer information about abortion, or take a pro-choice stand. And he has voted to appoint half a dozen anti-abortion judges to the federal bench, as well as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. During the Bork hearings, McCain attacked the Court’s creation of a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade: “Whether one is pro-or anti-abortion,” McCain said in an October 1987 hearing, “it is difficult to argue that the Court’s opinion is not constitutionally suspect.”

Blustain also hasn’t gotten the key script on this issue, which is that holding highly unpopular (Republican) views on abortion isn’t a political problem; it’s only holding the majority (Democratic) position that should be a political liability. Blustain seems to think that holding unpopular positions is a political problem, giving McCain and his acolytes every incentive to obfuscate their categorical opposition to abortion rights. What a strange view of politics!

And while I’ve said this before, it’s also worth addressing this particular attempt to portray McCain as a moderate that Blustain cites:

He also told reporters that if his then-15-year-old daughter got pregnant, they would make “a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else”–a response that to some ears sounded a lot like code for the right to privacy and abortion.

Of course, having no objection to your daughter getting a safe abortion in that context doesn’t make you a pro-choicer; it makes you a Republican. John McCain’s daughter will be able to obtain a safe abortion under any legal regime, including if Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow and her home state banned abortion. It’s not women with the connections to obtain gray market abortions or the resources to travel who are affected by abortion bans, and the fact that McCain would exempt his daughter from rules he would apply to poor women in Mississippi makes his support for criminalizing aboriton even worse.

The Cat That Won’t Cop Out

[ 2 ] August 11, 2008 |


Day 3 Evening Update

[ 0 ] August 11, 2008 |

A brief round-up; I’ll have more tomorrow on Russia-NATO and Russia-US relations specifically. At this point the situation in Georgia doesn’t seem to have changed radically from what it was this afternoon.

Galrahn has an update on the situation in the Black Sea.

Charli Carpenter talks about the casualty count.

Charlie Whitaker makes an extremely important point regarding Russian military and economic power:

For example, shells fired from a Leopard 2 will likely pass clean through the hull of a T-80, but not vice versa. (Korolev’s rocket designs were good, admittedly.) It’s only because military investment was such a high priority in the USSR that we see today’s Russia in possession of a variety of functional materiel.

Now that we can measure it,* we find that Russia’s GDP is approximately equal to that of Portugal (which is not to knock Portugal). Much of Russia’s wealth comes from resource extraction: in other words, Russia is not making stuff. Is it thinking stuff instead? Well, is there a nascent biotech or semiconductor industry in Russia today? (Or is there maybe some other, more esoteric kind of activity that hasn’t yet permeated popular consciousness?) How are Russian universities doing?

Russia is fairly populous, although no one would call it densely populated. However, its population is shrinking; in part, because it is not a healthy country.

So we’re left with territory – Russia borders a lot of places – and with its military, which still has some potency. Put those two together, and maybe it’s not surprising that some Russian tanks will pop across the border from time to time. Or at least, they’ll want to.

Right. Russia has taken advantage of the extraordinary price of oil to somewhat revitalize its military establishment, but the equipment it’s using in front line units is still a generation behind Western (to say nothing of American) capabilities. And the Russian economic and social situations remain, fundamentally, a mess. I think that the Russian economy has a sounder foundation now than in the 1990s, and I think that Russia will be able to enjoy high energy prices for the foreseeable future, but it’s simply not the case that the Soviet Empire has rebuilt itself while we weren’t paying attention. This is a point that we risk losing in the next few days as the McCain campaign continues to structure itself around calling for the return of the Cold war.

I just recorded a Bloggingheads on Russia-Georgia with Jacob Heilbrunn; I’ll link as soon as it goes up.


[ 0 ] August 10, 2008 |

McCain supporters are obviously going to try and run a good distance with the argument that he was somehow “prescient” on the question of Russian power. I’m not quite sure how to put this, but McCain’s apparent inability to view Russian foreign policy as anything other than retooled Soviet ambition strikes me as unhelpfully alarmist. Let’s recall that if things had gone as McCain preferred, the United States would have somehow expelled the Russians from the G-8, forced NATO to rapidly absorb Georgia and the Ukraine, unleashed the fookin’ fury on Iran, and pursued any any number of other needlessly provocative (and delusional) goals. (On the other hand, things certainly did go McCain’s way in the run-up to the Iraq War, which was in itself has been an absolute crackerjack for US-Russian relations. In the very least, the Russians seem to have developed an appreciation for the virtues of regime change; to their modest credit, they seem to have outperformed the Bush administration in so far as creating a pretext for that sort of work.)

I suspect things will get even more pointlessly silly in the coming weeks. McCain is already arguing that the pussification of NATO green-lighted Russian aggression, while his blogospheric taint-moisteners are in full St. Vitus’ dance, comparing the conflict in South Ossetia to the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan, warning once more that Barack Obama is a minstrelized Jimmy Carter, and calling for the US to . . . I dunno, go kill a few Muslims somewhere to show the Russians we mean business. I predict that with a few days, “National Greatness Conservatives” will begin calling out the pantywaists in the State department for “losing South Ossetia”; insisting that all of this traces back to our Failure of Will in Iraq; reviving Bush’s assertion that global tyranny is still FDR’s fault; and reminding the world that the Russia is once more trying to execute the dying wishes of Peter the Great.

. . . Well, I’ll admit I hadn’t thought of this one: Someday, apparently, “8/8″ will be remembered as this generation’s “9/11,” or something. Does this mean we can still keep playing that shitty Lee Greenwood song during the 7th inning stretch?

Georgia Cries Uncle?

[ 50 ] August 10, 2008 |

This looks like a surrender to me:

Georgia’s Foreign Ministry said its soldiers were observing a cease-fire on orders of the president and declared the move in a note handed over to Russia’s envoy to Tbilisi.

A spokesman for the Russian Embassy confirmed the Georgian note was received; the Russian Foreign Ministry had no immediate response.

“Georgia expresses its readiness to immediately start negotiations with the Russian Federation on cease-fire and termination of hostilities,” the ministry said in a statement.

Things appear to have quieted in South Ossetia; unclear if fighting in Abkhazia is continuing. Russian air attacks, as far as I know, are ongoing.

…Russia isn’t finished:

Russian tanks and troops moved through the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and advanced on the city of Gori in central Georgia on Sunday night, for the first time directly assaulting a Georgian city with ground forces after three days of heavy fighting, Georgian officials said.

Georgian tanks were dug into positions outside Gori and planning to defend the city, said Shota Utiashvili, an official in Georgia’s interior ministry. He said the city of Gori was coming under artillery and tank fire. There was no immediate comment from Russia.

The Russians have overwhelming firepower on their side, while the Georgians are dug in, defending their home territory. Putin is risking a lot by escalating this.

…Fire up your Google Earth and take a look at the situation. Gori is about 17 miles from Tskhinvali, about 1000′ downhill over what looks to me like a fairly even slope. Tblisi is about 50 miles by road to the east, over much more difficult terrain.

…Matt Weiner notes that this was included in an earlier version of the NYT article cite above:

Exhausted Georgian troops, their faces covered with stubble, said they were angry at the United States and EU for not coming to Georgia’s aid. A Georgian major who was driving an armored truck out of South Ossetia and who gave his name as Georgy, said, ‘Over the past few years I lived in a democratic country, and I was happy. Now America and the European Union spit on us.’

If either the Georgian military or political class believed that the US and the EU would provide material assistance, then this was a larger miscalculation than I had previously believed.

An American in Russian Custody?

[ 14 ] August 10, 2008 |

I am told by a source that Izvestiya is claiming that an American working with Georgian forces has been captured by the Russians. Here’s the link; as I don’t read Russian, I can’t confirm anything.

Hat tip to CT.

…here’s the translation:

A group of Georgian explosives experts were captured in South Ossetia, among them is an American citizen, an African-American. This is reported by “Radio Ossetia”.

The group was detained in the area around the village of Zar, which is located on the “road of life” – the Zarskaya road.

It is assumed that the American citizen is one of the NATO instructors. At the moment, he was transferred to Vladikavkaz to resolve the circumstances around his presence on the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia.

As mentioned by Rosbalt news service (, the Plenipotentiary Representitive to the Russian Federation Dmitriy Medoyev already reported that several dark-skinned bodies were found among the corpses in Tskhinvali, having fought on the side of Georgia.

A fascinating set of claims. That’s all I have to say.

Hopefully Never To Speak of This Again

[ 1 ] August 10, 2008 |

With Rob doing yeoman work covering the real news, I was planning on not commenting, but seeing that MoDo has decided to combine inevitable attacks on the “Breck Girl” with mockery of Rielle Hunter (apparently once relevant novelist Jay McInerney was appalled!), I’m compelled to say something. So let me start with the obligatory concession that whatever one wishes the rules were, a candidate has to largely work within the established rules, and it was therefore grossly irresponsible of Edwards to run for president under these circumstances. I don’t feel the same bitterness that Paul must, because I was never an Edwards supporter in this cycle, largely because his campaigned seemed amateurish compared to his two largely ideologically similar opponents. I suppose this could be seen as further evidence of this.

Still, especially since it’s not just right-wingers who have used this opportunity to engage in easy moralism and to construct tortured rationalizations of why this really matters, let me be clear: the idea that this kind of thing could be seen a decisive factor in determining who should become president is, as Mizner says, “a national sickness.” This is politics-as-selling-jeans, and any difference between this and “OMG a woman adviser is telling Al Gore to wear earth tones!!!!!!” trivia is one of degree, not kind.

And, when you come down to cases, I don’t think anyone really could dispute this. This is particularly evident when you consider all of the McCain supporters now claiming that this should have been a major story in the (at least nominally) serious political press. Do they really believe this? Well:

Recall: John McCain returned to the United States from Vietnam in March 1973. His wife, Carol, had been in a near-fatal car accident while he was gone. She was overweight, on crutches, and 4 inches shorter than when McCain had left. McCain ended up divorcing Carol for Cindy Hensley, his current wife. Carol has remained mostly silent on her marriage to John, except for one notable comment to a McCain biographer: “John was turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again.”

There were legal complications, too. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that McCain obtained a marriage license while still legally married to his first wife. McCain suggested in his autobiography that he divorced Carol months before marrying Cindy. In fact, that period was about five weeks. He also said that for the first nine months of his relationship with Cindy, he still “cohabited” with Carol. Social conservatives were never McCain’s base, but yes, it could get worse.

So these people will support Obama, because a candidate’s commitment to marriage is Really Important, right? Of course not — and it would be incredibly foolish for them to do so. As Digby says, “[i]t’s not a useful proxy for public behavior, never has been.” And, fundamentally, I don’t think anyone really disagrees. They just pretend to in order to justify treating interesting gossip as if it was serious news.

As a punchline, Kenny has a good roundup of Instahackery on the subject. In addition to everything else (yes, newspapers that routinely put Judith Miller on the front page in the runup sure were committed to stopping the war), what kills me is that Reynolds thinks that by not reporting on this before the MSM was helping…the Democrats. Yeah, that sure would have been great for the Dems if this had come out now if Edwards was the candidate! But, of course, I’m forgetting the rules: Edwards’s adultery is bad news for Barack Obama, Bill Clinton’s adultery is bad news for Hillary Clinton, but John McCain’s adultery isn’t an issue for John McCain.

Morning War Update

[ 13 ] August 10, 2008 |

The plot to distract the world from the glory of the 2008 Olympic Games continues to unfold:

  • Russia has not accepted Georgia’s cease fire offer.
  • Georgia claims to have fully withdrawn from South Ossetia. It’s unclear whether the Georgians mean the part of South Ossetia that was controlled by Russia/South Ossetian separatists prior to the war, or all of South Ossetia, but I’m betting the former, and I expect the Russians will be driving for the latter.
  • Russia has landed troops in the Abkhaz city of Ochamchire, to which it recently built a railroad; this could provide a good jumping off point for threats against the Georgian oil exporting city of Poti. Ukraine is threatening to bar the Russian Fleet from returning to Sevastopol.
  • Russia continues to bomb a number of Georgian military and strategic targets.
  • Russia (or motivated Russians) have launched cyber-attacks against Georgian government internet infrastructure. The attacks don’t appear to have been overwhelming thus far.
  • If the war continues, it would appear to be on at least two fronts, with substantial Russia troop buildups in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Sunday Book Review: The Bottom Billion

[ 0 ] August 10, 2008 |

This is the fifth in a seven part series on the Patterson School Summer Reading List.

  1. In Spite of the Gods, Edward Luce
  2. The Utility of Force, Rupert Smith
  3. Negotiating Change, Jeremy Jones
  4. Enemies of Intelligence, Richard Betts
  5. The Bottom Billion, Paul Collier

Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion is about the developing countries that have failed to develop. Over the past twenty-five years, the greater portion of the “developed world” has developed; incredible growth rates in China, Southeast Asia, and South Asia have dramatically lowered the percentage of the world’s population that is in extreme poverty. This development has opened a new gap between developing and not-developing countries, the latter mostly in Africa. Collier wonders why these states haven’t developed, and tries to produce solutions for the most serious problems. His main culprits are a series of “traps” that prevent economic growth: The conflict trap (war and its aftermath), the resource trap (also known as the resource curse, the landlocked with bad neighbors trap, and the bad governance trap (the latter two are self-explanatory). Within this context he discusses the limits of developmental aid and of the ways in which developed countries can assist (or fail to assist) the not-developing world. Collier has engaged in substantial quantitative research, attempting to determine the links between several variables and a lack of economic growth.

Unfortunately, Collier can rarely go a page without launching a broadside salvo against “leftists” and “Marxists” who, through good intention or ill, manage to foul up every effort to provide genuine assistance to the bottom billion. That there are people on the left who have idiotic ideas about development isn’t surprising; there are people of every political stripe who have idiotic ideas on trade and development, and who once held to ideas that have since become idiotic. I find it hard to believe, however, that these “western Marxists” have had the impact on policy that Collier would impute to them. I mean, we all remember Howard Zinn’s disastrous turn as Secretary of the Treasury, and we’d all like to forget Noam Chomsky’s six years as Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, but beyond that I’m hard pressed to conceive of precisely how raving leftists have dictated US and European development policy.

A related problem is that Collier attempts to dismiss genuine policy differences with anti-leftist screeds. For example, Collier doesn’t have much patience for development efforts focusing on health and education. He’s aimed clearly at growth, but he fails to acknowledge that folks arguing for health and educational development are also pro-growth; they just think that health and education are better ways to spend money than infrastructure. This is a debate that can go back and forth, and there’s evidence on both sides (indeed, Collier scores an own goal on infrastructure projects when he mentions the corruption endemic to the construction industry), but it’s hardly the case that health and education advocates are starry eyed idealist rock star celebrity Marxists, and it ill serves Collier’s argument to treat them as such.

Advocates for health and education aid, however, get off easy compared to environmentalists. It’s fair to say that Collier sees no value whatsoever in any project, developed or developing world, which is designed to limit environmental damage. Advocates of such projects get trashed as Marxists and as indifferent to the suffering of the poor. This is, of course, a gigantic blind spot; environmental projects can indeed have negative effects on growth, especially in the short term, but they can have quite beneficial effects on long term prospects for development. They can also have a positive impact on infrastructure and health, both of which are key to development. Collier’s dismissal of such projects (and of environmental concerns more generally) is beyond silly; it’s derelict.

I do think that Collier’s approach is basically correct; the answer to extreme poverty in Africa and elsewhere lies in more, not less, contact with international markets. Such contact may have numerous negative effects, but it is remarkably difficult to produce economic growth in isolation from them, and without growth there are severe limits to what can be accomplished in terms of human development. I also think that his concept of producing international charters for resource development and post-conflict management make a lot of sense. We know from John Meyer et al that governments new to the international system most often try to duplicate the institutions they see in other states, even if those institutions don’t make sense (this is why landlocked countries have navies). The charter concept takes this a step further, suggesting the creation in the international sphere of a set of templates for how developing countries can deal with certain problems. Often, developing states simply lack the technical expertise for dealing with a sudden resource boom such as the discovery of oil; a charter would lay out a path for how the government could pursue policies that minimize risk and maximize reward. The post-conflict charter would develop guidelines for how international society would deal with states coming out of civil wars, coups, and other conflict situations. The idea is to turn the passive process of socialization into an active one, and lay out appropriate paths for governments in uncertain situations to follow. It’s fair to acknowledge that such charters have a quasi-imperialistic character to them, but such an acknowledgement doesn’t mean that they’re a bad idea.

Perhaps the most worrisome part of the book is Collier’s suggestion that the window for development may have closed. Although he doesn’t fully work it out, he suggests that East and South Asian development was capable of taking advantage of opportunities provided by the international market in the 1980s and 1990s, but that many of the opportunities are no longer available. This means that the not-developing world will have trouble following the same path as not just the developed, but the recently developing world. That a new path remains uncharted is worrisome for hopes of growth in Africa, and in other areas of extreme destitution.

Another Lurch Toward Fascism

[ 15 ] August 9, 2008 |

First they came for the beer pong players:

Under newly proposed regulations, Florida students — on or off the campus — would be prohibited from “excessive rapid consumption” of alcohol. The policy specifically bars “drinking games,” as well as “alcohol luges,” which are carved ice blocks that serve as frozen pathways for liquor shots.

Patricia Telles-Irvin, Florida’s vice president for student affairs, said the university’s existing regulations were already designed to curb binge drinking. The proposed changes, however, are meant to target specific high-risk drinking activities, she said.

The regulations also forbid keg standing, an acrobatic drinking feat where students are inverted over a keg, with legs held aloft, as they guzzle straight from a tap.

I’m tempted to say, “Wow, that really brings back some memories.” But no. No, it really doesn’t. I do recall, though, some friends in college who developed a two-funneled beer bong with valves; these were the same folks who, at the end of each fall semester, hosted a tribute party to Bob Seger. Known as “Seger Day,” the event’s gimmick simply involved getting loaded and listening to Bob Seger records. For some reason, this bacchanal drew hundreds of people each year. The highlight of Seger Day was an event known as “The Distance,” a game that consisted of drinking beer drizzled from a keg that was dangled from a third-story window. It was a goddamned stupid game. Dumber yet was the fact that Seger Day was intended to be a serious tribute to its namesake; for three years, I thought it was one of the greatest jokes I’d ever heard.

That said, I can’t imagine regulations like these — which even UF administrators seem to think would be unenforceable — will have any practical effect, except to whip frat boys and independent sluggos into an indignant, libertarian froth. Which is usually entertaining for about ten minutes but offers minimal longterm payoff.

Evening Update

[ 45 ] August 9, 2008 |

Bringing you the news the other blogs won’t [okay; some of them will]… Here are some questions, and some attempts at answers.

What are the latest developments?

The fighting continues, including airstrikes near the main Georgian oil pipeline and in the port city of Poti, which is a major oil export terminal. Putin has indicated that both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now off the table, and will not return to Georgian sovereignty under any circumstances. Putin also seems to be managing the situation from a base in southern Russia; sorry about that, Dmitri. US and European envoys are attempting to arrange a cease fire, but unless I’m terribly wrong (and I may be terribly wrong) the situation will, from this point on, be almost entirely dictated by Russian political calculation.

Did the Georgians wander into a Russian trap?

Quite possibly. More than a few people have noted that the Russians seemed extremely well prepared for intervention in South Ossetia. Believe it or not, there is more than one explanation for this, although we could hardly expect that someone like Ralph Peters, who has always lived in the ragged borderlands of sanity, would appreciate that. Russia could have had direct intelligence that the Georgians were preparing an offensive; as Doug Muir notes:

The Russians have put a lot of effort into intelligence in Georgia. Georgia has expelled various Russian citizens for being spies, but the real threat probably isn’t from Russians. Keep in mind that Georgia was part of Russia for almost 200 years, Georgians occupied a lot of high posts in the Soviet system, and a large minority of Georgians look back on the good old days with nostalgia and are not enthusiastic supporters of nationalist confrontation in general or Saakashvili in particular. So, there’s a pretty good chance that Moscow had the Georgian high command wired for sound.

However, Russia could simply be engaged in the entirely sensible and rational policy of keeping its best troops in places where it thought there might be conflict, and of developing contingency plans in case of conflict. It’s pretty obvious that the Georgian offensive wasn’t just an off the cuff response to the skirmishing in South Ossetia, either; it also looks to have been well planned, with the major flaw being the failure to predict a quick Russian response.

Even if the Georgians fell into a Russian trap, they’re hardly blameless; Saakashvili hasn’t been shy about employing the nationalist rhetoric, and I think it’s pretty absurd to claim that he was “forced” into the offensive, rather than seeing it as an opportunity (with the Olympics and the inevitable Rielle Hunter disclosure) to seize South Ossetia without much of a fight.

What’s going on in the Black Sea?

The deployment of the Black Sea Fleet is particularly worrying, because it may indicate that the Russians are planning to escalate again. Russian air attacks have already hammered large parts of Georgia, but an amphibious assault would be something else entirely. Even if they don’t invade, they can certainly blockade; the Georgian Navy is no match for the Black Sea Fleet, which has some exceptionally powerful ships. Most notable are the cruisers Moskva (Slava class) and Kerch (Kara class); Galrahn has a rundown on the capabilities of the former here. The Russians are already reporting that they have sunk a Georgian patrol boat. Galrahn also has a good discussion of what the deployment of the Black Sea Fleet might mean. It pains me to point out that if the Russians had been more careful with Giulio Cesare, the Georgians would really be screwed; if you want to say “I really mean it”, then say it with a 13″ shell…

What’s the US role?

How much did the US know about Georgian plans before the offensive was launched? David Weman highlights this, from Doug Merrill:

A senior State Department figure was here in Tbilisi last week, and I would expect that the Georgian side at least hinted very broadly about what was up. He would have to deny that, of course, in the way of these things. We can assume that the Americans did not warn them off.

I’m really, really skeptical of the notion that the Georgians would have prepared for, then launched, the offensive to retake South Ossetia without providing any clue to the United States. Even if the State Department figure wasn’t notified, American trainers must have noticed the preparations. I would like to say that it’s simply not plausible that US intel failed to detect preparations for the attack, but then… you know. I suppose it’s an intelligence failure either way; either the Americans failed to detect the Georgian offensive, or they failed to note Russia’s capability and willingness to respond. Either way, we got played by somebody. If the administration did know that the Georgians were planning something and didn’t stop it, then it’s just one indictment of the ineptitude of “the grown ups”

… I am also remiss in failing to note the excellent contribution of Daragh McDowell, including this on the potential impact of the war on the Putin-Medvedev. partnership