|
It's been reported that a "high-placed US official"--which I take to mean State Dept.--said there was no Russian buildup. No rationale given.
I've also seen it said that the military didn't know if there was a build-up on not: They're focused on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and a couple of other areas. It's not just what the satellites *can* see, it's the areas they're told to image and what images people look at and analyze.
It's the same with having (a hypothetical) 14000 video cameras all over a town: You're not going to pay 50k people to make sure every video camera is watched non-stop 24/7. You're not going to have a dedicated staff making sure everything's caught on tape for all 14000 video cameras. The cameras may "see" everything, right down to the blackheads on the teenagers' noses, but that doesn't mean everything's going to be seen.
Complicating it is that there *was* a buildup of troops on both sides of the border last month, known, acknowledged, and expected. The US troops were in Georgia as part of a joint exercise with Georgia. They mostly left in the last few weeks, down to not much more than a hundred by 7 AUG. "Accidentally", the Russians had troop exercises over the mountains on the other side of the border at the same time. Did they all leave as quickly as the US troops did? Would leaving equipment and/or troops for a couple of weeks there be all that suspicious, enough to attract an analyst's attention, even were he to look?
People have to assume that we were suspicious, had satellites capturing images from N. Ossetia, and had analysts there to examine the images. *And* that they'd properly interpret having Russian troops still present in an area two weeks after military exercises.
I'm a firm believer in human non-omniscience.
|