I missed out on some otherwise excellent conversation about the Georgia-Russia conflict because I was in the middle of settling down in my new home, but I wanted to take a few minutes to weigh in on some issues related to American foreign policy, perceptions of Russia and perceived Russian imperialism, and the impact on the current presidential race. I couldn't agree more with John's diary on the matter, but I wanted to flesh out some of the political issues that are currently important to the region, as well as discuss some historical parallels that may be uncomfortable to revisit, but are nonetheless instructive.

Part of this is motivated by a roundtable discussion I attended this week on this very issue: the panel included historians, political scientists, and former NATO advisers. The most controversial statement was made by a political scientist who has lived and worked in Georgia, and who has no hesitation in comparing the current situation in Georgia to the Serbian conflict - although I disagree on some of the specifics and implications, which I'll note below.

Looks like Israel is going to take matters into there own hands if something doesn't happen here pretty quick...

Superb commentary at Cato by Patrick Basham on US relations with Russia at this crucial time.

Says Basham:

Washington's desire to lash out economically and diplomatically at Russian misbehaviour in the Caucasus is trumping rational thinking on the future of a vital strategic relationship.

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out

They leave the West behind

And Moscow girls make me sing and shout

That Georgia's always on my mind.

I'm back in the USSR

You don't know how lucky you are boys

Back in the USSR

- John Lennon

and Paul McCartney

I'm not enthused in any way about the fall election and for many, many, many reasons. The ham and jelly vs. peanut butter and cheese sandwich choices (from my POV anyway) when all I want is a damned "ham and cheese sandwich" leave me opting to skip lunch...so to speak. But, I guess all I can do is favor ham or cheese and tolerate the rest.

So, whether you want to label foreign policy "ham" or "cheese" is kind of irrelevant in the analogy but whichever it is is the one that matters more right now.

The war in Georgia escalated dangerously last night after Russian jets reportedly bombed a vital pipeline that supplies oil to the West.

There were two reports released recently, from the Pentagon and from the GAO, and while they differ in tone (naturally the Pentagon assessment is more optimistic) they both make many of the same points about the improvement in the security situation in Iraq and the many obstacles that remain to forming a stable country that can stand on its own and take care of its citizens. It is clearly true that violence has decreased in Iraq, for a number of reasons: the escalation in troop strength, smarter military tactics focused on clear-and-hold rather than quick-strike missions, the turning against AQI by most Sunnis, the uneasy ceasefire with al Sadr's militias, and the undeniable ethnic homogenization of entire areas. It is as clearly true that political progress has lagged expectations and that Iraqi military and police units are still unready to take over most operations. Long term, there has been almost no movement towards hammering out the essential questions that will determine whether Iraq devolves into civil war or emerges as a united and prosperous country: power-sharing arrangements so that the Sunnis don't feel locked out, equitable oil revenue apportionment, a resolution to the internal struggle between Shiite factions, a clarification of how the Kurds fit into the new Iraq.

In one sense those terms can mean the same thing. It's common in water-cooler speak to imagine a scene where our gigantic military is scrutinized, defended and discussed.

Hat Tip to Conor subbing at Megan McArdle

The American Conservative has an article up about partisanship and the difference in how it affects views on ideas when presented with or without partisan "cues", which generally are more likely to trigger a predictable answer.

Hat tip to Publius Endures (PE) for this little expose' of the mind of a Modern Conservative.

The article he links to is from Michelle Malkin and written by "See-Dubya".

Says Mark at PE: (emphasis mine)

Hat tip to my fellow traveler Ka1igu1a at Freedom Democrats for the following video of the breathless and moronic Kevin James, conservative talk show host and devout ditto head.

As I watched and chuckled, I recalled MacBeth for some strange reason:

"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Says Ka1igu1a:

While most people's votes are as good as cast, endorsements still come out in favor of one candidate or the other. Be they prominent figures, other politicians or celebrities...they all like to give their public stamp of approval to a candidate with the thought that some people may be swayed or perhaps because they just like to be heard.

In comparison to Nancy Pelosi and her decision to shut down any voting on the Colombia free trade agreement, the Bill Clinton administration looks positively beneficent, even to a rock-ribbed Republican. No matter what his wife thinks about it, Bill Clinton made the right decision in going against Democrat-friendly labor unions and members of his own party, taking a free trade agreement that George H.W. Bush started, and passing it. NAFTA has proved to be an economic benefit to all three countries.

Back when I was contemplating a Political Science minor, I took a few upper level poly sci courses. Posted below is one of the essays I wrote in PLS 462 -- Comparative Revolutions. It's a long read, but it might interesting to the SC crowd. If anyone is interested, I can email them the full PDF. For copyright purposes, this can be considered public domain.

Bumped by Brendan

I'm not going to watch the China Olympics. I'm boycotting because of Darfur, Tibet and lack of democracy, liberty and human rights in China. And I think only liberal democracies (and I mean "liberal" in a classic sense, meaning human rights and rule of law) should be considered as hosts. No more Olympics like 1936 or 1980. The world should not boost the prestige of dictatorships that oppress their own people and support or practice genocide.

Hat tip to Alex at MR .

He has three great articles in that link from Slate, the NY Times and a wonderful, snarky smack down from Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings. All worth a read....especially the last one. At the end is a link to previous MR post by Alex himself on why he opposed the war. Also linked is Brad DeLong who compares Henley's article with one from Anne Marie Slaughter. No contest.

Hey, why not.

Hat tip to Reason's Friday Political Thread .

Spencer Ackerman's Washington Independent articles takes to two hawk journalists for being "Fast and Loose with the Facts" 5 short years ago. My, has it been that long?

Why snip out quotes? Click on through and read away. Brings back memories and might even jar a few...

That's the title and topic of this month's Cato Unbound .

For those not familiar, see About Cato Unbound . It's basically a lead essay on a provocative topic followed by two reaction essays which is then followed by further discussion.

One of my favorite Congressman (that's a very exclusive club!) Jeff Flake (R-AZ) graces a new 3 minute episode of Reason TV :

Promoted by John

McCain is delusional, Nader is pathetic. Now that this is settled, let's just put a Democrat in the White House.

Seriously, McCain recently criticized (his interpretation of) Obama's proposed Iraq policy , on the basis that if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq.

if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country.