I might offer a perspective that I haven't seen as yet.

President Saakashvilli was never what the western media made him out to be, a democrat and liberal. He was primarily a strategic partie prenante or player for U.S. interests in the Cauasus, especially for Caspian Sea Oil in return for "hinted at" or what he thought was promised EU and U.S. protection.

Saakashvilli never viewed his county's entry into NATO as being part of a western alliance, but rather in terms of nationalism.

Had Georgia been part of NATO it certainly would have been able to play hard ball with South Ossetia (does anyone realize there is a North Ossetia?) as well as Abkazia with that power behind him.

Once we know this, we know this mostly fogotten country is of great strategic importance - "oil, more oil, a strategic pipeline, and power politics."

Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way for the United States, since time has passed since the 2003 Rose Revolution, when America was in a much stronger postion to play at brinksmanship with Russia. Also, the economic tide has turned as well in Russia's favor.

A dear friend of mine, who contributes to the Fray, would tell you, one-on-one, President Saakashvilli owes his presidency through the Rose Revolution, in most part to the CIA, as well as guaranteeing us support through his patronage of corruption and strongman tactics.

Things are not always what they seem to be in the American media. As Fred Kaplan points out, the United States is far too dependant on foreign oil, and immature leaders of countries possessing it.

Fortunately, our mistakes happen on other people's soil, something not lost on Europeans.