Another lose/lose/lose for America

Main problem facing America is that the Bush presidency -- and arguably American administrations in general -- is ideologically driven. Not that this necessarily puts US foreign policy at a disadvantage. Ideology certainly motivates: people will die for it.

Disadvantage, however, is that it narrows perspective. The neocons who put together the Project for a New American Century are go-getters but they do not see nuance.

Where brawns is all that is needed to settle a question, the neocons will send in the guns.

Putin, on the other hand, is Russia's equivalent to a latter-day Bismarck. He sees nuance. He's no doubt read -- and understands -- The Prince by Machiavelli. He straddles the world stage like a chess board.

Where both brains & brawns is needed -- in other words, strategy & diplomacy -- Putin will play the game for all it is worth.

IMO, the long term prospects for America don't look too promising: appears that neither McCain nor Obama have the caginess of Putin. Hopefully, whoever wins the White House may have enough sense to surround himself with advisers of a similar ilk.

The above observation may be correct and appears to be calmly composed. I really appreciate that.

Still, I have to ask the rhetorical question in relation to the whole discussion at hand:

Who gives a flying hoot about what America wins or loses in Georgia?

It's not their business to be there to begin with - advancing their own selfish interests.

The same goes for Russia as well, of course.

The real question is: What about the people of Georgia?

They are being played like the proverbial pawn in this grand chessboard game of geopolitical strategy. Russians and Americans couldn't care less as of what happens to them. They will be sacrificed the second it makes any strategic sense.

I find it really sad that more and more of us westerners on are succumbing to the old way of cold war style thinking of "us against them". Next thing we know, we'll be building walls in some of these places with armed guards and all (sorry, scratch that... already doing that).

Is this what people really want? More war, more confrontation, more friction in international affairs?

I tend to think that we ought to consider the real living people in the middle of this - and not just perverse geopolitical games that supposedly grown up children in the military and central governments play to amuse themselves, stroke their inflated egos - in order to try and reaffirm their distorted world view.

I really don't understand the current nostalgia for cold war, but if this is indeed the way it is going to be, then roll on Iran, roll on Syria, roll on Libya, roll on Sudan, roll on the rest of the Middle East repartitioning.

Because that is exactly what we are going to get, if we continue on this "us against them" type of simplistic game theoretical zero-sum thinking: US vs. Russia, US vs China, etc.

Do people really want war this much?

Or is this all already about the 'unavoidable' resource wars for oil, access to pipelines and geo-strategic locations for bases (read: oil production/pipeline protection forces) ?

If so, then the game for peak oil is already lost. Like James Schlesinger (ex-CIA, ex-DoE) said:

"Oil flow cannot be increased by fighting wars." [paraphrased]

I sincerely hope I'm reading the signals wrong here and all this is just standard political posturing and that it'll all blow over soon with hopefully not a single more civilian casualty added to the body count.