Because I tend to do too much, I am almost perpetually 15 minutes late. Since I have a particularly punctual boyfriend, I frequently hear about the need to build "buffers" into my day--extra time before and after planned appointments that would allow for the dozens of small events that inevitably arise and add an extra five minutes to an already packed schedule, but if planned for by alloting some extra room into said schedule, would allow me to breeze through life far more put-together, relaxed, and on-time.

One of the big, rarely mentioned problems with this Administration's foreign policy agenda is the failure to build such buffers politically, militarily, and diplomatically, to allow it to respond to unforseen circumstances.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush entered office hoping to focus on domestic issues--and getting pulled into foreign policy. Foreign policy is like that--the world has a tendency towards entropy, unrest, and problems that must be addressed. If nothing else, any Administration can be sure that unforseen needs will arise that require military response and diplomatic political capital that can be cashed as necessary. A war in the Middle East. A tsnuami in Indonesia. An earthquake in Pakistan or Iran. The need to respond to nuclear proliferation in Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan. And so on, and so forth.

We can criticize how administrations respond to these individual events--and we certainly do. But one of the significant problems with our current position of overstretch is that, like a Twister player splayed out all over the board, it is hard to make ANY next move without falling flat on your face.

Our military readiness is so low that, should we need to face down North Korea, respond in Lebanon, or address a homeland security threat here, we would be hard pressed to do so well.

Our diplomatic forces, having used up all our political capital in the Iraq War showdown, now have little left for the huge problems of Iranian and North Korean proliferation--and Pakistani nuclear resurgence.

Members of the military (as opposed to their civilian leaders, such as Sec. Rumsfeld) are often the most reluctant to use military force--a point that Colin Powell has made repeatedly, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. One reason is that they understand that one of the most potent weapons in our arsenal is the ability to speak softly and carry a big stick. As that stick gets worn down, it is less of a deterrent to enemies--and less available for sudden missions that might be required.

America is splayed all over the Twister board just now--and like twister, we have gotten into this position not as a result of strategy, but as a result of chance and chosen spins of the dial. Our next moves are limited, and the failure to plan for these exigencies which are unknown, but can be expected, is a significant failure, indeed.