Tough to take the CIA seriously when you read stuff like this:

It came to us, George [Tenet, the former head of the CIA] had a raised eyebrow, and basically we passed it on ... into the organization. You know, it was: "Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go away" ... As I remember it -- and, again, it's still vague, so I'll be very straight with you on this -- is it wasn't that important. It was: "This is unbelievable. This is just like all the other garbage we get about ... I mean Mohammad Atta and links to al Qaeda. "Rob," you know, "do something with this." I think it was more like that than: "Get this done."

So basically...

"yeah we forged it, but it wasn't that big of a deal. They didn't hand it to me all formal and say, 'This is a very serious matter.' George was practically laughing the whole time about how crazy these guys were! See, it's all hilarious how we got into a war! So don't investigate or calling wrong-doing, it's just a big joke!"

I'd have to agree 100% with the assessments of the above-referenced interview. And I'd also agree this article from Der Spiegel is not very well-informed.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians maintained and encouraged unrest in these little ethnic pockets which the Caucasus region has an abundance of. It allowed them little levers which they could use to maintain a degree of control over former Soviet Republics, and prevent them from opening themselves to Western (i.e. US) interests. The Georgians were just unlucky in having two of them (Ossetia and Abkhazia), and also being sharing a border so close to Moscow. The Georgians were also foolish in being so Pro-Western and flouting the Kremlin so defiantly by hosting US troops on several occasions.

Sakaashvili really made a terrible misjudgment here, regardless of who fired first. To think the Russians would allow a country directly on their border (and very remote from the North Atlantic) to gain membership in NATO defies reason.

It might have been a reasonable gamble in the 1990's, when Yeltsin was still around (and even then they couldn't pull it off). But with a strongman like Putin in charge, and a Russian Army clearly spoiling for a fight... it was just plain dumb.

All the commentators who were proclaiming in 1990 that Russia would become some sort of happy democracy land, were clearly ignorant of Russian history. The softening of relations was not because of any new understanding or ideological connection with the West, but because the Russian military had collapsed and was unable to defend the country's peripheral interests as aggressively as it had.

This conflict will be seen as Russia's Coming Out Party. Theeeeeey're Back. Look for Europe to start re-arming too, in response.

And to answer this question:

This east vs. west crap was over in Rocky IV. Why are we bringing it back?

Easy. It's absolutely dynamite for defense appropriations!

As expected, he urges us to take more action (though he doesn't exactly spell it out).

Smart. Our military is over-extended, yet we should send troops into a mountainous region, practically surrounded by the enemy, right on their doorstep no less.

I'll enlist as soon as you do, Bill...

When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis.

And there you have it... the connection to NAZI GERMANY... and now we have a case for war, gift wrapped courtesy of Bill Kristol.

Never mind that the conflicts in the region stem from ethnic differences going back to the early middle ages, involve a power play by the Russians to keep NATO out of their backyard, and the situation between Georgia and the USSR in 1924 had absolutely no connection to the start of WWII... It's time to Bring It On.

It's tough to take some people seriously when their understanding of foreign policy issues is about as deep and nuanced as the struggle on a GI Joe Cartoon...

In this case, you play with fire you get burned.

You express a willingness to extend NATO membership to a nation on Russia's border... A nation that has had a checkered history maintaining a stable democratic government since it regained its independence in the early 1990s... A nation that has had a nasty relationship with its former sovereign during that perior of time too. You start providing it with military support, and then are shocked, *SHOCKED* when the Russians take a proactive approach to maintaining their borders.

Never mind that your own country has recently unilaterally invaded another nation from bases in neighboring countries (Iraq from Kuwait & Saudi Arabia)...

Pointing this out is not being "Pro-USSR." It's just telling it like it is.

At this juncture, no one really knows who fired first, so it's impossible to lay blame. But certainly Saakashvili's gamble was ill-advised, no matter who started it. It's absolutely unreasonable to think Russia wouldn't react this way. You can't create a crises, or contribute to one, and still retain the moral high ground.