The New Republic has a good article about the South Ossetian conflict from a Georgia supporter. It is a pretty honest assessment, unlike much of what we have seen from others arguing for Georgia. Ronald Asmus writes:

I know that this is a war that the Georgian government never wanted. To be sure, the Georgian government and President Saakashvili himself is responsible for launching its military move on August 7--albeit in response to provocations and heavy shelling by South Ossetian separatists. That move gave Moscow the pretext to invade. Today, Western observers understandably ask why Tbilisi allowed itself to be goaded into what was clearly a Russian trap. President Saakashvili will have to answer that question himself. But I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what he will say.

More...

Russia signed the cease fire agreement, but basically said it was staying in its current position, stating "withdrawal would depend on the introduction of what he called additional security measures, without explaining what those were."

I think what Russia means is that Georgia has to give up its claims to South Ossetia and Abkhazia before they will withdraw. George Bush says:

The United States, though, has emphasized that Georgia’s territorial integrity must be preserved. Mr. Bush said Saturday, “There’s no room for debate on this matter.”

(Emphasis supplied.) I agree with Bush. There is no room for debate on this matter. Georgia blew it. It has to give up its claims to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A face saver is needed. Something like a UN-monitored referendum in these two provinces. But make no mistake, Bush and the US are blustering now.

Speaking for me only

During the Cold War, I was a Cold Warrior. I believed that the Soviet Union was an "Evil Empire." In that era, NATO's mission as a defense alliance against Soviet aggression in Europe was clear and correct. But what about today? You see, I believe, like Ronald Reagan did, that a real change occurred in the era of Gorbachev and since then. Today, the Washington Post editorial board predictably attacks Russia's actions in South Ossetia while pretending Georgia is a good actor in this situation. Michael Dobbs, ironically writing for WaPo's Outlook section on Sunday, debunks WaPo's mythmaking:

I was there in [South Ossetia in] March 1991, shortly after the city was occupied by Georgian militia units loyal to Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first freely elected leader of Georgia in seven decades. One of Gamsakhurdia's first acts as Georgian president was to cancel the political autonomy that the Stalinist constitution had granted the republic's 90,000-strong Ossetian minority. After negotiating safe passage with Soviet interior ministry troops who had stationed themselves between the Georgians and the Ossetians, I discovered that the town had been ransacked by Gamsakhurdia's militia. The Georgians had trashed the Ossetian national theater, decapitated the statue of an Ossetian poet and pulled down monuments to Ossetians who had fought with Soviet troops in World War II. The Ossetians were responding in kind, firing on Georgian villages and forcing Georgian residents of Tskhinvali to flee their homes.

More...

I was waiting to hear from the smartest guy in the room on this and here it is :

With 5 months to go in the term of the worst President in the history of the Nation, a question must be asked - has the Bush Administration ceded control of U.S. foreign policy to John McCain? Which leads to the next question, is it really possible that John McCain could be a worse President than George W. Bush? The answer seems to be yes and yes imo. Condoleeza Rice, acting on behalf of the interim McCain Administration, talks tough to Russia in Georgia:

With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice standing by, the Georgian president signed a cease-fire agreement with Russia on Friday. Ms. Rice then declared that all Russian troops must leave Georgian territory immediately. Ms. Rice, who was in Tbilisi to show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili, said that “with this signature” there had to be “the immediate and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces and the return of those forces to Russia.”

More....

You think this is a provocation?

Poland and the United States struck a deal Thursday that will strengthen military ties and put an American missile interceptor base in Poland, a plan that has infuriated Moscow and sparked fears in Europe of a new arms race. "We have crossed the Rubicon," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said, referring to U.S. consent to Poland's demands after more than 18 months of negotiations.

U.S. officials also said the timing of the deal was not meant to antagonize Russian leaders at a time when relations already are strained over the recent fighting between Russia and Georgia over the South Ossetia region.

(Emphasis supplied.) We are ruled by lunatics. I can think of no good reason for the United States to have a missile defense system in Poland, EXCEPT to provoke Russia. To ANNOUNCE such a deal NOW, given the situation in the Caucasus, is simply madness.

Speaking for me only

The NYTimes Editorial Board appears to be living is some fantasy world about American power over Russia in the Caucasus. Today they write:

Europe and the United States must make clear to Mr. Medvedev — and the real power player, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin — that more aggression and lies will not be tolerated. They must make clear that Russia will pay a price, in diplomatic standing and economic relations, if it does not immediately withdraw its troops, agree to international mediation and permit the deployment of truly neutral international peacekeepers to Georgia’s breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

What price is the NYTimes proposing be paid exactly by Russia in terms of "standing?" Every day that Russia is seen as "defying" the Bush Administration is a day Russia's "standing" rises. That explains why today's New York Times front page reports:

Russia says it has punished Georgia enough:

President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia agreed on Tuesday to the terms of a cease-fire that could end the clashes in Georgia, saying Russia had “punished” Georgia enough for its aggression against the separatist enclave of South Ossetia.

Get the message?

Declaring in no uncertain terms that it was calling it own tune - that it was providing the world with its Tom Friedman "suck on this" moment, Russia today announced a halt to military operations in its conflict with Georgia:

President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia announced Tuesday that he had ordered a halt to his country’s military operation in Georgia, although he did not say that troops were pulling out and he insisted that Russian forces were still authorized to fire on enemies in South Ossetia. The president said Russia had achieved its military goals during five days of intense fighting . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Achieved its goals indeed. Russia rendered a lesson to the world this week. It will play by its rules, not anyone else's. And in a sign of the inability of the American Media to grasp what is obvious, a NYTimes editorial states:

The United States and its European allies must tell Mr. Putin in the clearest possible terms that such aggression will not be tolerated.

Oh really? And how do you propose to do that NYTimes? They talk of this:

GG: One of the things that's a little difficult to understand is this idea that Georgia miscalculated what would be Russia's response. . . . It is really a surprise that Russia reacted the way that it did?

CK: Well, it's not a terrible surprise, but I think you also have to look at things from the Georgian perspective. Over the last several years, Georgia has become increasingly convinced that it's a real partner of the United States, that the US would defend Georgia - practically regardless of what Georgia did - that Georgia was simply reasserting control over bits of territory that are still internationally recognized as Georgia's own. And so I think the Georgians' political elite, particularly the president and the people very close to him, probably convinced themselves of two things. One, that they could do this quickly and successfully, that is, re-take South Ossetia, and secondly, that if there were a Russian response . . . that the United States would somehow step in to defend them, and in fact both of those calculations have turned out to be wrong.

(Emphasis supplied.) Read the whole thing.

The conflict in South Ossetia between Russia and the Georgian Republic continues to blaze and spread:

Georgian and Russian troops fought fierce battles overnight. . . [I]n a sign that fighting could escalate on a second front in the west of Georgia, Russia issued an ultimatum to Georgian forces to surrender in and around the western pro-Russian separatist enclave of Abkhazia.

How does this relate to Iraq? Let's ask Bill Kristol:

Today, the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of the world — to say nothing of their junior counterparts in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea — are no more likely than were Soviet leaders in 1924 to be swayed by “moral influence.” . . . [I]n one respect, an auspicious year for freedom and democracy. In Iraq, we and our Iraqi allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists in what they have called the central front of their struggle. This joint victory has the potential to weaken the jihadist impulse throughout the Middle East. On the other hand, the ability of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to get away with murder (literally), and above all the ability of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions effectively unchecked, are setbacks for hopes of peace and progress.

Bill Kristol sees a connection between Iraq and Georgia. But not the right one. Our invasion of Iraq has utterly destroyed the United States' moral and REAL influence in the world. Who will listen to us? Who would be insane enough to listen to the Bush Administration on "morality" or anything else for that matter? The Georgian President did and look what is happening to him. More. . . .

The New York Times Magazine has an 7 page article on Afghanistan and the opium crop, with a headline asking if the country is a "narco state."

The author's suggestions for fixing the problem include these steps:

1. Inform President Karzai that he must stop protecting drug lords and narco-farmers or he will lose U.S. support. Karzai should issue a new decree of zero tolerance for poppy cultivation during the coming growing season. He should order farmers to plant wheat, and guarantee today’s high wheat prices. Karzai must simultaneously authorize aggressive force-protected manual and aerial eradication of poppies in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces for those farmers who do not plant legal crops.

2. Order the Pentagon to support this strategy. Position allied and Afghan troops in places that create security pockets so that Afghan counternarcotics police can arrest powerful drug lords. Enable force-protected eradication with the Afghan-set goal of eradicating 50,000 hectares as the benchmark.

More...