Well, as a major-party nominee for President, he has the right to express himself on important issues. Although his proposed response to the Georgian crisis seems pretty head-in-the-clouds. (An international peacekeeping force. Yeah, right. We couldn’t even keep a coalition together against a defeated Iraq, but other nations are going to jump into the fray against Russia. Sure, John.)

What we need is someone like Harry Truman, who kept his head and didn’t try to pound his way into West Berlin when the Russians tried to strangle it into submission.

See, I’m against using words to describe things myself. Mostly I just go “ahghlaghlaghla” a lot. You know, when discussing Republicans.

“We are all Georgians” Really? For one thing, I wouldn’t use a ceasefire as a ruse in preparation for a full-scale invasion, but then I’m not an authoritarian nationalist thug or one of his supporters (which, given the style of Moscow’s ruling clique, also precludes me from agreeing that “We are all Russians”).

After reading this piece of disingenuous (“don’t mention the pipeline!”) and reality-ignoring jingo-flavoured hogwash, I don’t see how any intellectually honest person who knows the recent history of the region can seriously claim McCain is more credible on foreign policy than Obama.

Of course, intellectual honesty and knowledge about international affairs aren’t exactly characteristics of Republican voters, so McCain’s not going to lose any votes except from a tiny subset of independent “eggheads” he couldn’t care less about anyway.

But remember Gracchus, that everyone knows that demonstrating a knowledge of foreign affairs makes you a fag.

make-believe: you’re doing it wrong.

Well, as a major-party nominee for President, he has the right to express himself on important issues.

True, but the Wall Street Journal isn’t obliged to publish reality-challenged garbage like this.

Oh, wait, it’s the WSJ op-ed section: its sole reason for existence, even pre-Murdoch, has been to publish neoCon fantasies. My mistake.

Leave it to a conservative to distill an incredibly complex geopolitical situation, one with a historical background measured in decades if not centuries, into a simple-minded op-ed. As an immigrant from the former USSR, I don’t have any excess love for Russia, but to paint this as a one-sided story of Russian aggression (which, of course, is a component in this mess) is to miss the picture entirely. Glenn Greenwald, by the way, has a pretty good interview with an American expert on that region posted on his blog; I recommend it for some context into what’s been going on there recently.

Every John makes stupid statements on foreign policy. This week British Minister for Europe, John Murphy called for a pan-European response to the Russian aggression in Georgia. Georgia is part of the Caucasian region, a snakepit of tribalism and sectarianism since ancient times but Mr. Murphy was blissfully unaware of that when he called it a small and beautiful democracy.

Could be he was confusing the embryonic nation with the only Georgian born person he has ever heard of, singer Katie Melua.

Now she is small and beautiful.

One might almost call it…presumptuous.

Oh, hell—let’s go all the way and call it “uppity.”

What is the proper response to that situation for the US?

Jeeziz it doesn’t look like he’s cribbed from the Wikipedia for this one and yet… and yet..
from his own lips he’s uneducated on foreign policy.
Some questions everyone should be asking- assuming they had the facts (which means that they aren’t watching the “news’ in America) WHY was Condi there in July? Why did we have Marines training the Georgian army? Why the hell are we messing with Russia when the US military is completely destroyed by Iraq/Afghanistan?
Why was Bush sitting on his ass in freaking CHINA (playing grab ass with the volleyball team) instead of dealing with this when it began?

Ugh. What a douche McSame is.

What is the proper response to that situation for the US?

Let’s use diplomacy to foster peace between these two countries which obviously have animosities deeper than “Yay America!  Have Some Oil!” vs “Boo America!  No Oil For You!”

The answer is pretty easy, IMO.  It’s only when you get into WWI-era thinking that it gets all complicated.

What is the proper response to that situation for the US?

Make the bland diplomatic expressions of regret that we usually reserve for conflicts between tyrants in tribal backwaters we don’t really care about. And then leave them to slug it out—unfortunately, in some cases the bad guy wins either way.

Russia has taken the opportunity of Georgia’s stupid little gamble to send a message to the world and the U.S.: we’re ba-ack! They’ve been waiting for this chance to demonstrate their new-and-improved military since Kosovo became independent and since all their old Warsaw Pact buddies started joining NATO.

And given that the U.S. has bogged itself down elsewhere and can do little more in this situation than provide airborne troop transport and airborne humanitarian aid (i.e. airborne casus belli bait for a war it couldn’t fight if it wanted to), a competent prospective President might try to differentiate himself from the current idiot by actually bloody thinking before he spouts this kind of nonsense.

Why is ‘staying out of it’ never considered as a serious option?  I appreciate there are occasions when military intervention is a necessary evil, but in a conflict where there’s been agression and atrocities committed by both sides, and with tensions that go back centuries, why do we think we can fix things? 

To clarify, ‘staying out of it’ only refers to the military aspects and political grandstanding.  I would be in favour of economic sanctions against both sides until they come to a peace settlement (otherwise you’re providing indirect support) and providing humanitarian and diplomatic assistance whenever asked.  So not doing nothing exactly, but respecting both countries enough to help them sort out an agreement without taking sides.

I’m sure it’s been mentioned elsewhere on the site but, even putting aside the campaign stuff, doesn’t McCain’s foreign policy advise have links to the Georgian goverment? As in being paid by them for lobbying for a signifcant amount of time. Still, nice to know he’s going against republican tradition by staying on the same side. Usually, they end up invading those countries later on.

Another oft-mentioned point, Georgia is hardly one of the world’s bastions of freedom, and their sldiers are hardly behaving in an especially heroic manner towards the civillian population of South Ossetia.