Anyway, on the situation in Georgia, the reason McCain is on dangerous ground here is that Saakashvili is not exactly a model democratic player. He's in the right about stopping Putin. But he's in the wrong re: taking Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

All of this begs the big question: what do we do when one of our democratically elected allies does something stupid? The answer: prevent our democratically elected ally from doing something stupid in the first place. So, why did Saak think he could go ahead and retake Tschingvari without consequence? Did he really think the West believed South Ossetia is forever Georgian?

Usually you shouldn't miss the forest (Russia-US relations) for the trees (South Ossetia/Abkhazia). But in this instance, you can't ignore the trees either.

There are no good guys here. Trying to make it such, as McCain-Schuenemann is doing, sounds dangerously close to Iraq circa 2003.

daveinboca – Which country in NATO do you honestly think would send troops to Georgia to fight the Russians? Do you think McCain is crazy enough to fight the Russians all by ourselves? We can barely handle the Iraqis and Afgans, how do you think our overstretched military would handle the Russians on their territory. Yes our Air Force could wreck havoc but without boots on the ground, Georgia would be lost. Get Real.

ABSOLUTELY.

Meanwhile, why doesn't Obama have words for Russia similar to those for Sudan, at least?

In this case, it means 10-20 years if not longer. That's the real world.

Changing to this is not the sole logical, or even a logical, conclusion from Bruno's current mischief.

All but the truly-fringe “Carter and Clinton, imperialist warmongers” Left were not merely silent about Clinton's bailing out Europe in the Bosnian situation, which were less in our interests than other conflicts; they were ecstatic about the misuse of our military to support the restoration to power of Marxist-style president Aristide in Haiti, something that was not in US interests at all. Count on them to be against our standing up to Bruno, given his Soviet legacy that still leaves many of them wistful. (”The wrong side lost the Cold War!”)

At least for Obama and the Dems' sake, this is happening now rather than in the last week before the November elections. While the public is burned out on Iraq and “Dems are soft on terrorism as they are on crime” failed to deliver for the GOP in 2006 as it did in 2002 and 2004, a separate event (as would be the case with Iranian naval mischief in the Persian Gulf or in Lebanon, more open and greater mischief than is the case today) might bring back this problem for the Dems, as would any idiotic hints at a return to the failed 1960s-era Democratic agenda of the Left. (Deservedly so, of course.)

Thank God you came along. For the last week or more, with all of the posts on energy policy and education, I had been called “in the tank for McCain” so often I was beginning to believe it myself. Now that I'm in the tank for Obama, things look so much brighter and unicorny! (Unless you meant Joe Gandelman, in terms of the “proprietor” in which case you just don't have any command of the English Language.)

How the phrase “devoid of teeth and specificity” regarding Obama could be taken as “in the tank” for him is a mystery, unless of course, one were a blind partisan hack, but that's… oh, wait… never mind.

Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding?

Let's see. John McCain is chided for calling for the UNSC to meet? Because Russia will veto the outcome? That is called diplomacy, and Obama's feckless hapless 3AM punt demonstrates that he is Carter Redux, just as McCain is making the best of a bad situation.

Russia should be forced to justify its invasion in the UNSC. McCain is correct. If the proprietor of this blog were not so in-the-tank for Obama, he would agree that that is the only real first step. Second step is to show that NATO still exists and that Bush's prattle about Democracy is not just the empty exhalations that most of his pronouncements have been concerning the USSR-reborn that Putin is fashioning.

This is an opportunity for McCain to demonstrate why he is the candidate that will at least assert American interests in a region where we have already many energy & “democracy” interests, including the nascent democracy in Georgia, which Russian tyranny dearly wants to crush.

Bush is hiding in his bolt-hole, enjoying his old stomping grounds in Beijing [where my FSO buddies told me he used to party-hearty while his poppy was Ambassador in the seventies.] It'll be hard for this fellow to do anything but look in the other direction. Maybe Condi can grow a set & make GWB look like the frat-boy he appears to be.

I think those Russians are being cheeky and putting one right back in our face citing a need “to protect our territory from being overtaken”. If you think about it, logically, they know why the US is in Iraq. Everyone but US citizens seem to know that. And their thought is probably if they don't secure their former State of Georgia, the US will march right in and take that too. In fact, when Iran threatened to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz, the Russians took notice. But remember, BigOil got the ball rolling on all of this. The lies to Congress, invading a SOVEREIGN nation, killing its citizens, all in the name of oil.

How can we condemn the Russians without looking bad ourselves?

And as to who this invasion favors politically in our presidential race? Well, let's just say it puts the short pants right back on Obama, and sticks a lollipop in his hand for good measure..

The democrats better nominate a stronger candidate or we are finished. Actually, the world could use the proven diplomacy and international respect of one of our former presidents….oh, nevermind….

Many months ago, before he got caught up in his “drill here, drill now, pay less” crusade, made essentially the same point as Friedman. In his case he noted that one of the big reasons we maintain such a large military force is to protect our energy interests around the world. There are other considerations to be sure, but If we didn't have to do that we could cut back.

We in the US are not the only ones that can benefit from better energy security, either. However, we more than any other nation possess the expertise and infrastructure to develop the necessary technologies to make it happen. I am thoroughly convinced that smart investment in new energy and energy efficiency technologies, although it may be more expensive in the short term, can pay off immensely in the long term — both economically and politically, tactically and strategically.