But we do know that alliances, secret and open, led to our world wars. Why kill 18 million people over the assassination of some costumed gasbag in an insignificant country? Because there were all of those “stabilizing” treaties and alliances around to suck the whole world in.

Weston, since you find yourself stuck between “don’t know if stirring up Russia is stabilizing” and “don’t know if not stirring up Russia is stabilizing,” why not try peace and neutrality? Sort of a Pascal’s wager on peace, wot?

I don’t believe I ever claimed that riling up Russia would stabilize anything, although I also don’t think that backing down necessarily stabilizes anything either. The Russia/Georgia/NATO/South Ossetia conflict is complex, and I haven’t tried to say anything about it in this thread because most of the commentators here tend to oversimplify it. My immediate point was a general one about the importance of maintaining alliances in the modern world. Perhaps–as a possible concession to your point–that scenario will change someday, but it isn’t now, and it won’t be tomorrow.

When you find yourself making huge mistakes, you don’t perpetuate them. You withdraw–slowly perhaps, as a possible concession to your point–but withdraw nonetheless. Do you see any sign at all that either Democrats or Republicans have the slightest disagreement with the morass we’re in now?