KAZBEK BASAYEV/AFP/Getty Images

The Georgian Times is running a piece today on the history of the Roki Tunnel, which runs beneath the Caucasus mountains connecting South Ossetia and Russia. As one of the only routes connecting North and South Ossetia, the tunnel was critical in Russia's ability to launch its counterattack into Georgia on Aug. 8.

Georgians long resisted the construction of the tunnel during the Soviet period, fearful of an influx of North Ossetians into Georgia, but the project was finally greenlit in the early 1990s by Georgia's first communist party secretary and later president Eduard Shevardnadze. The Georgian Times notes:

Shevardnadze perhaps did not imagine, when signing off the Roki project, what a fatal role this tunnel would play in the history of Georgia."

It's still unclear to me why the Georgian military was unable to block the tunnel during their initial incursion into South Ossetia. President Saakashvili claims that this was part of the plan and troops simply did not reach the tunnel in time. But the Georgian air force has fighter jets and helicopters and it seems possible that they could have attacked the tunnel from the air at the same time, or even before the ground assault on Tskhinvali, perhaps delaying the Russian counterattack long enough to better establish their position. Georgia tried (unsuccessfully) to blow up the tunnel during the civil war in 1991 so it's not like this is a new idea.

Any readers with a military background care to weigh in?

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Responding to unsolicited French advice about his treatment of Catholics, Josef Stalin once infamously remarked, "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

The same question could be asked of Condoleezza Rice, who today demanded "the immediate and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces and the return of those forces to Russia." Appearing with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi, the U.S. Secretary of State said firmly: "This must take place and take place now."

We'll see how Russia responds, since frankly the United States has no ability to force the issue. Nor does Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin want to be seen as taking orders from America. The punishments being muttered about in Washington right now -- kicking Russia out of the G-8, deep-sixing its WTO bid, boycotting or trying to kill the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, canceling bilateral meetings -- are pretty underwhelming, I'd imagine, from Russia's point of view.

Still, the Russians ought to be very careful here. If the overarching goal is to intimidate former Soviet satellites from seeking closer ties with the West, they risk doing the opposite: sending such states running pell-mell into America's arms (see: Poland). By overplaying his hand, Putin could turn a victory in Georgia into a major strategic defeat. He ought to find a face-saving way to take Rice's advice.

Whoops:

President Bush Wednesday promised that U.S. naval forces would deliver humanitarian aid to war-torn Georgia before his administration had received approval from Turkey, which controls naval access to the Black Sea, or the Pentagon had planned a seaborne operation, U.S. officials said Thursday.

"The president was writing checks to the Georgians without knowing what he had in the bank," a senior administration official told McClatchy's Jonathan Landay. That would seem to be the larger theme here.

ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/AFP/Getty Images

Negotiators have finally hammered out a deal to base U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland. After a deal was reached to base a radar system in the Czech Republic in July, the Poles were the final holdout for America's controversial missile shield, but the agreement was delayed by the Polish demands for Patriot missiles. According to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, that demand has been met.

This has been in the works for nearly 18 months and was sure to be resolved eventually, but the timing of this announcement makes it hard not to wonder if events in the Caucasus didn't help to move things along. Poland, having seen what can happen to other wayward countries on Russia's periphery, is sure to welcome an American troop presence while the United States, which hasn't done much to help its ally Georgia, gets to demonstrate that it still has friends in the former Eastern bloc.

Russia would appear to have few options for punishing Poland, a member of both the EU and NATO with a far larger military and economy than Georgia, but after last week it would be foolish to underestimate what Vladimir Putin can accomplish with limited military and political resources.

UPDATE: Killer quote from Tusk:

Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later - it is no good when assistance comes to dead people. Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of - knock on wood - any possible conflict."

Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

President George W. Bush has announced that the U.S. military will be delivering humanitarian aid to Georgia, a move that his Georgian counterpart Mikheil Saakashvili has described as a "turning point."

The announcement, along with the withdrawal plan that Dmitry Medvedev signed on to this morning, seems like a sign that the war is winding down into the clean-up and recovery phase. Russia's foreign ministry is not thrilled about U.S military involvement but says they're open to "consultations" about how best to deliver aid. (Corrected. See comments.)

The only problem is, Russian troops don't seem in any hurry to leave Georgia. Russian tanks, along with "irregular" volunteers from the North Caucasus, contine to occupy the city of Gori. According to the Russians' laughable explanation, they're sticking around to protect the local population from irregulars, who are stealing cars. This menacing quote from a Russian tank commander doesn't make it sound like he's getting ready to pack up:

It all depends on what Saakashvili is going to say. If he doesn't understand the situation, we'll have to go further. It's only 60 kilometers to Tbilisi."

It's still early to speculate, but it's possible that Russia, in fact, has no intention of leaving Georgia. The longer Ossetian and Abkhazian forces stay within the country proper, the more likely it is that Georgia will be provoked into firing back, giving the Russians a pretext for further military action. So, despite this morning's hopeful signs, Georgia is far from out of the woods yet.

One final observation: If the worst-case scenario does come true, serious questions will be raised over whether any statement by Dmitry Medvedev has any basis in the reality of Russian policy.

Writing in the feverish runup to the Iraq war, the National Review's Jonah Goldberg endorsed the following foreign-policy doctrine, which he attributed to his colleague Michael Ledeen:

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

This was never a wise prescription for U.S. policy, but it is a remarkably apt description of what Russia just did to Georgia.

Could Russia have responded to Georgia's assault on South Ossetia in a more measured way? Sure. But from Vladimir Putin's perspective, this was a great opportunity to teach Georgia a lesson and encourager les autres along its periphery. And by shutting the operation day just a few days in, Russia has probably avoided a coherent, punitive Western response.

Over the long term, certainly, Europe and the United States will eye Russia with much greater suspicion. And this war is certainly going to strengthen the Russia hawks, who see their views vindicated.

Inside Russia, it is a victory for the cold warriors and a huge embarrassment for Dmitry Medvedev, who was finally exposed this weekend as a Potemkin president when Putin visibly took charge of the situation. That could doom Medvedev's efforts to crack down on corruption and promote the rule of law -- vital reforms that would ultimately do more good for Russia than any amount of mucking around in the former Soviet Union.

The question now is: Will Russia overreach? Fresh off their blitzkrieg victory in Georgia, will Putin & co. try to stir up fresh troubles in the Crimea? What kind of punishment will they try and mete out to Poland and the Baltic states for supporting Georgia? To the Czech Republic? We can only wait and see.

Photo of a bombed structure in Gori, Georgia, by DIMITAR DILKOFF/AFP/Getty Images

Here's the latest on this fast-moving conflict:

• A reported 1,500 civilians have been killed in the fighting, and Russian tanks continue to flow into South Ossetia. The Russians say they have taken Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, though Georgia claims its forces withdrew of their own accord
• Russian planes have bombed Gori, a Georgian city due south of Tskhinvali where eyewitnesses describe "scenes of panic"
• Georgia is calling for a ceasefire but also recalling all 2,000 of its troops from Iraq, with U.S. logistical help [UPDATE: Russia rejects a ceasefire]
• U.S. President George W. Bush said that Russia's attacks on South Ossetia were a "dangerous escalation" of the conflict
• Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Bush in a phone conversation that Russia's aim was "forcing Georgia to accept peace"
• Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has left Beijing and is reportedly visiting North Ossetia
• Politico's Ben Smith wonders if this is a "3 a.m. moment" for the U.S. presidential candidates

UPDATE: The New York Times reports that the situation is "nearing all-out war," with Russia landing troops on Georgia's Black Sea coast.

... John McCreary comments: "Saakashvili gambled and lost. After Russia finishes crippling Georgian military capabilities, negotiations should begin."

University of Texas

The situation in Georgia is evolving rapidly. Here are some of the latest developments:

• Local authorities are claiming that nearly 1,000 civilians were killed in this morning's military assault. A spokesman for Russia's peacekeeping force in the region says that 10 Russian soldiers have been killed and thirty wounded.
• Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili says that 30 Georgians have been killed by Russian bombing. He also claims that Georgian troops have taken control of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital. According to news agencies, fighting between Georgian and Russian forces is ongoing.
• "War has started," says Vladimir Putin. Georgia agrees.
• Georgia will be withdrawing 1,000 troops from Iraq to participate in the fighting.
• Envoys from the EU, United States, and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have been dispatched to negotiate a truce.
• Volunteer fighters from North Ossetia -- officially part of Russia -- are pouring in to help the rebels.
• The Red Cross has called for the opening of a "humanitarian corridor" to allow civilians to evacuate.

Around the blogosphere, Daniel Nexon, Robert Farley, Doug Merril, James Joyner, and Nathan Hodge have all been following this closely.

Watch this space for more.

Defying warnings from Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, around 1,000 volunteers from Abkhazia, Georgia's other breakaway province are headed to South Ossetia to aid seperatists there against the Georgian military. Abkhazia's foreign minister told Der Spiegel:

We understand very well that we Abkhazians are next in line after South Ossetia. If the situation doesn't stabilize again, then we will have to open a second front.

Abkhazia's tensions with Tblisi have been getting far more media attention than South Ossetia's over the past few months. The status of both territories have been a matter of dispute since the end of bloody civil wars in the early 1990s and both are backed by Russia in their bids for independence.

For some background on the buildup to the conflict, click here, here, here, or here.

STRINGER/AFP/Getty Images

Officers in Mauritania's military have overthrown the government of President Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdallahi and established a ruling military junta led by the former chief guard to the president. Abdallahi had been the first democratically elected leader in 20 years, but has come under fire recently for catering to hard-line Islamists. The coup comes after two weeks of political turmoil, which included a vote of no-confidence in the cabinet, a walk-out by 48 members of parliament and the dismissal of several top military officials. The president's daughter called it "a textbook coup d'etat."

Mauritania is an oil-rich country, one that scientists in 2006 predicted could churn out 300,000 barrels of oil a day. While this is just a drop in the barrel relative to the global oil market (Saudi Arabia alone provides over 10 million barrels a day), the volatile mixture of oil and political instability is never good for a country or for a region, as the Nigerian example clearly shows. It is also noteworthy that Mauritania is an Islamic republic that recognizes Israel, and that it has its own terrorism problem, with four French tourists murdered last December by al Qaeda affiliates.

Although these factors might make you think that Mauritania is a nation of strategic interest for the U.S., it shouldn't exactly shock you that this isn't making headline news in American newspapers. You almost need a shovel to find it on the websites of The New York Times or The Washington Post. A state department spokesman condemned the illegal seizure of power, but that's likely to be the extent of it.

With Darfur still the atrocity du jour, it may be hard for many Westerners to pay attention to more than one crisis in Africa.

Some straight talk from Moammar el-Qaddafi:

What Iran is doing stems simply from arrogance," Gaddafi said during a visit to Tunisia after Tehran ignored another western deadline to accept an incentives package in exchange for full transparency on its nuclear drive. [...]

"In the event of a decision against Iran, this country will suffer the same outcome as Iraq... Iran is not any stronger than Iraq and won't have the means to resist (a military attack) on its own... The challenges are greater and exceed Iran's ability to reply."

JOHN THYS/AFP/Getty Images

During the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many social scientists have decried the U.S. Defense Department's lack of cultural sensitivity. Now, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a former president of Texas A&M University, is doing something about it. He has announced Project Minerva, which will fund research by social scientists on topics such as the influence of religion and economics on terrorism.

Rather than welcoming Project Minerva, however, many academics, particularly anthropologists, oppose it. In the recent FP Web exclusive "When Professors Go to War," anthropologist Hugh Gusterson wrote that many anthropologists -- who are in a largely left-leaning discipline -- simply won't stomach being funded by the Pentagon. Thus, those social scientists who do apply for funding will be a thin slice who have no qualms about accepting the Defense Department's money. This will lead to "selection bias," in which only a narrow range of perspectives end up being funded.

In response, Duke University professor Peter Feaver argues this week in "Pentagon Funding? Bring It On." that the challenge of selection bias can be overcome and that Gates is committed to openness and academic freedom. Proposals will be selected on the importance of the topic being investigated and the quality of the methodology -- and not on whether the results will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for the military.

What do you all think? Should social scientists be funded by the Defense Department in an effort to bring more cultural sensitivity to the military's methods? Who's right? Gusterson or Feaver?

Wow: Arabic-speaking soldiers could start raking in $150,000 bonuses.

iStockphoto.com

With all the recent talk of withdrawal and the surge, it's easy to forget that the U.S. military remains stretched dangerously thin. The latest evidence? Unqualified soldiers are being promoted to sergeant, Salon reports. Given that noncommissioned officers are at the core of combat ops and training, this could be a big problem.

Called "paper boarding," the expedited promotions process can have some pretty nasty results. Officers lacking proper training and experience are often ill-equipped to deal with the realities of battle leadership. One of Salon's military sources recounted some paper-boarded officers who "freaked out" in battle, resulting in an incident that left their platoons badly shaken. Plus, guys who get an unfair job boost aren't likely to make friends with the older recruits who had to earn their stripes. If there is anything crucial in combat, it's keeping up morale -- and looking out for the guy next to you.

Along with paper-boarding, the military has used some other questionable tactics in the past few years to deal with its retainment and recruitment woes. In 2005, stop-loss policies (compulsory retirement postponments), along with lower standards for criminal background checks and officer competency, became common practice. Some longtime sergeants have noted serious declines in standards as a result, like the promotion of soldiers considered "trainable" rather than ready to lead. The huge reduction in the number of occupational specialty shortages (such as for artillery expertise) also draws attention to the military's hiring and promotion frenzy. Since 2005, 74 percent of those vacancies have been filled. This might be good in theory, but it calls vetting practices into serious question.

With plans to add 65,000 soldiers to its ranks by 2010, the Army is going to be on the lookout for more sergeants and junior officers (particularly if Afghanistan gets more U.S. troops). Lets hope the promotion process gets a bit more stringent in the meantime.

Dima Korotayev/Epsilon/Getty Images

According to the Christian Science Monitor's Fred Weir, Dmitry Medvedev has a plan to avert a new cold war. Last month in Berlin, Medvedev proposed the formation of a new European defense pact which would include not only Europe but the countries of the former Soviet Union as well. Dubbed, the "European Atlantic Treaty Organization" or "EATO" by analysts, the organization would take the place of the dreaded NATO which has been creeping its way ever closer to Russia's borders in the last two decades and represent "big Europe without dividing lines."

The alternative, as Moscow has hinted over the last few weeks, is increasingly militarized tension over the issues of NATO expansion and missile defense. The most extreme hint was the dubious but seemingly intentional leak of a proposal to base Russian bombers in Cuba.

Weir believes that the proposal will be a central theme of Medvedev's foreign policy. Unfortunately, the idea has same problem that afflicts Russia's diplomatic efforts more generally: Medvedev hasn't made it clear why this would be a good idea for anyone except Russia and hasn't offered any inducements to get on board besides vague threats.

Until the members of NATO and the countries desperately trying to join it get an explanation why they would be better off in an organization with Russia as a founding member, ideas like EATO are only going to deepen the fault lines.

Pakistan and India traded shots across the so-called Line of Control in Kashmir for at least 12 hours last night. "This is the biggest violation of the cease-fire in the last five years," an Indian army spokesman said. Via e-mail, retired Pentagon analyst John McCreary hints that some elements of the Pakistani security apparatus are up to no good:

Seven incidents in less than two weeks is the highest total for any comparable period in the last five years since the ceasefire began. They indicate a pattern of provocation to increase tension with India and evidently to embarrass Pakistan's parliamentary government, which must contend with violence on both borders. Mortar fire, machinegun bursts and artillery exchanges are the next escalation steps. If those occur, India's patience will be exhausted quickly, unless honest brokers intervene to keep the peace.

DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. Army soldiers carry shotguns as they walk along a corridor separating what they deem to be the most extreme and dangerous detainees held inside the Camp Bucca detention center located near the Kuwait-Iraq border on May 19, 2008.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

I thought yesterday's big bombshell from an anonymous Russian defense source about plans to base Russian bombers in Cuba was totally absurd. I still don't believe this is much more than one overzealous bureaucrat mouthing off to a reporter. But some people are clearly taking the prospect of 1962 redux a bit more seriously.

General Norton Schwartz, the current nominee for Air Force Chief of Staff, was asked how he would respond to such a scenario at his Senate confirmation hearing yesterday. He didn't seem to laugh it off:

I certainly would offer best military advice that we should engage the Russians not to pursue that approach. [...] And if they did, I think we should stand strong and indicate that that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America."

Meanwhile in Moscow, the story has ignited something of a media scandal. The Defense Ministry has denied the plans and accused Izvestia, the newspaper that originally reported the story, of fabricating the crucial quote and running the story under a false byline. Izvestia's editor is standing behind the piece, saying that the reporter's byline was changed because of the sensitive nature of the scoop. Considering Russia's media climate, that is somewhat plausible.

But what do the Cubans think about all this? The Miami Herald's Cuban Colada blog links to this article (Word document) by University of Miami Cuba expert Jaime Suchlicki, who says that while it's unlikely Raul Castro would ever go for such a risky scheme given the instability of his own regime, Russia's new best friend Hugo Chávez might be up for it.

We'll be keeping an eye out for more reactions.

Nazi Germany's bombing raids on London and other English cities in late 1940 and early 1941 destroyed millions of homes and left thousands of civilians dead. However, an estimated 1 in 10 bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe during the Blitz failed to detonate, and have remained hidden in gardens, fields and building sites.

Using Royal Air Force photographs from the time of the Blitz, as well as maps produced by insurance companies after the war, the Landmark Information Group has developed charts that label the most likely places where unexploded bombs may still be located.

Landmark Information Group

Some 21,000 sites have been labeled as likely to contain unexploded bombs. The makers of this map hope to help builders, contractors and private citizens become more aware of their surroundings. Discoveries of these bombs are fairly common. Just last month, construction on an Olympic site outside of London had to be halted after a 2000-pound bomb was unearthed.

Getty Images

It was a little strange when Russia's foreign ministry vaguely threatened the Czech Republic with military action last week. But now there's even better evidence that Russia's defense establishment is hopelessly stuck in the '60s. An unnamed defense ministry spokesman told the Russian newspaper Izvestia that Russia may be planning a re-enactment of the Cuban missile crisis in retaliation for the U.S.'s planned missile defense shield. Here's the Washington Post's translation:

"While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba."

Ah, nostalgia.