Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[Fuchs]

But let's consider this scenario in creating security obligations of a 2nd country: the US enters a bilateral agreement with Georgia to provide for its defense. Knowing this, and motivated by whatever imperial intent, Russia strikes Georgia and preemptively strikes US assets in the region to cripple an American response. Since the NATO agreement requires members to come to the aid of any other member under external attack in the greater European region, all NATO members are now indirectly obligated to respond to Russia's assault on Georgia via America. So -- yes -- one country can create obligations for another country through political maneuvering.

I disagree completely.

1st
There are marginal "U.S. assets" in the region.
2nd
There's no need for Russia to do anything pre-emptively in this scenario.
3rd
There's no significant U.S. involvement possible without permission by Turkey (a NATO ally) anyway.
4th
I don't think that forward-deployed U.S. military forces like warships or USAF personnel in Turkey would be covered by the NATO treaty. Those troops would not be the USA itself.
5th
Russia could simply wait with its military actions against U.S. forces till the first U.S. trops shot back based on the bilateral treaty. Any Russian strikes afterwards could be considered as part of an ongoing war, insted of as an aggression. That might actually alredy work by waiting till one minute after a declaration of war on Georgia.

What you described was the potential for unintented alliance consequences. But you didn't describe how the USA could add obligations to countries like Germany, but instead you described a foolish Russian aggression that might activate the old, existing obligations.
Try to design a scenario that would oblige Germany to help Georgia because of US' political acts without any Russian aggression to targets outside of Georgia to prove your point.