Just a thought on the Georgia-Russia conflict

So far all the commentary has either been that Russia is evil and aggressive, or that Georgia doesn't really deserve all the sympathy and support. Benny Austwick came up with this analogy: "Imagine Charlie, a popular but scrawny man was married to Julie. Julie had been having an affair for ages with giant bodybuilder Tyson who had anger issues.
Charlie then attempted to stop Julie's affair with Tyson by beating her up. Tyson then retaliated, beating the hell out of Charlie."
Let's get beyond that. All analysis has been mainly directed towards Russia, its motives, and its newly re-found assertiveness on the international stage. The salient question is this: what did the US know? Lets examine the facts. There are 150 US military advisors in Georgia and more than that performing technical roles (i.e. civil servants, policy advisors etc) in various Government departments. The Georgian military has received US training, and Israeli arms. The CIA have operated in the Panski Gorge (North east of the country) to "combat al qaeda". In other words, they should have a lot of intelligence about what Saakashvilli was planning, is planning, and what he wants for breakfast tomorrow. So we are presented with three options: a, the US didn't know; b, they knew and didn't condone the attack on South Ossetia; or c, they knew and okayed it. Now if the answer is A then that is a far bigger story that this conflict, but I heavily doubt it. If the answer is B then why hasn't Saakashvilli been hung out to dry? Why have Gates, Rice, Cheney, Bush, McCain, and Obama all rushed to his defence if he essentially stiffed the US. So I find C the most plausible.
So why would the US want to antagonise Russia in this way. Once more I think we have three options: a, to make the world sympathetic to Georgia, forcing Germany to accept Georgia (shorn of South Ossetia and Abkazia or with heavy autonomy entrenched) into NATO, thereby accomplishing a US foreign policy goal previously scuppered by other NATO nations; b, they thought that Russia wouldn't react thereby establishing effective client realtionship with Georgia (NATO is unimportant because the US can claim that its role as ally to Georgia prevented Russia advance); or c, they knew Russia would retaliate, scaring the shit out of Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic States and forcing them to either hug the US closer or re-enter the Russian orbit.
All three of these could be the case. Georgia in NATO is a goal and this makes that more likely. This speeds up the missile defence shield agreement in Poland. This sets the dividing lines; what has left the Russian orbit has truly left the Russian orbit. The sacrifice is the "territorial integrity" of Georgia. And frankly, the US couldn't give a stuff.
Does this make sense? Should we be playing closer attention to US success in this conflict not Russian? Its countered pretty effectively Russia's policy of splitting Europe by making everyone scared of the "Bear". Everyone is scared of resurgent Russia. Was this the US intention?
What do you think?