Where IS South Ossetia, And Why Should I Care?

Let's start with the last part first. Because, according to the Boston Globe, McCain, who has met the Republic of Georgia's president and whose chief foreign policy adviser has lobbied for the country, responded to the news Friday with visceral anger, condemning Russian forces' crossing into Georgia and warning of "grave" repercussions in long-term relations between Moscow and Washington.

"Visceral anger" by a Presidential candidate ought to rush us to our history books as well as to our atlas. We'd better be right, or we'll be in a mess that makes Iraq look like spilled milk. Former President Carter negotiates, and so did the President of France. Visceral anger is not a good negotiating tactic because it polarizes and creates distrust. Not a good way to govern a nation among other nations (but we, after eight years of Bush, don't want to acknowledge other nations since you are either with us or against us).

Some history. The former USSR consisted of "republics" and "autonomous republics" (among the many means by which that former entity was governed. Did you know that constituent parts of the former USSR had seats at the United Nations? Byelorussia (now Belarus), and the Ukraine, were among the 54 nations that constituted the UN. Texas couldn't join (their sub-nationalism to the contrary) nor could any of the other autonomous states that make up the "United" States.

One of those "autonomous republics" was South Ossetia. The USSR was administered through ethnically based administrative districts. South Ossetia identified itself with Russia, but was absorbed by Georgia after the breakup of the USSR.

Prior to the 1917 Revolution, the czarist state used the administrative procedures of the Turks to administer its empire. The USSR saw itself as a "union" of "republics."

McCain saw and sees "Russia." Bad. Bad geography; bad geopolitics; worse history.

But - what can you expect of someone who graduated at the bottom of his class?