Check with Juan Cole for a little help.

Since we're totally clueless, the only wise course is to bring the troops home and keep them home until we figure out how to reestablish meaningful alliances because this going it alone business is a great big flop. $12B a month now for just Afghanistan and Iraq and for nothing that is doing the American people a bit of good.

yes I don't like smoking but I'm not joking. Pakistan is perhaps breaking into civil war and has nuclear weapons. Do you think that is nothing of concern to us? don't respond by blaming someone; just note what options if any you think the next President may have.

Here's the bottom line: the opposite of the current Administration is not necessarily indifference to foreign calamities, disengagement, America First, and complete disregard of consequences.

"Under these circumstances, the United States needs to be prepared for a variety of unpredictable developments."

So we need to prepare for the unpredictable. Hmmm. This is veering dangerously close to Rumsfeld's "known knowns" and "known unknowns".

The list of spots growing ever hotter now includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza. Egypt is perhaps close to a place on this bad list.

Before I ran across Seth Gittell, Reed here used to be one of my favourite posters. I could always count on Reed for a combination of unctious sincerity, cluelessness and a talent for presenting the obvious and making it muddled.

Reed is shocked that the list of countries and regions that he identifies seems to be 'hot spots growing hotter'.

As if its completely eluded him that each of these countries and regions has been a prime target for US meddling and intervention in a ham-handed and abusive way.

He really has no idea that there's a connection. It's like watching a man in a burning building peer at the flames in puzzlement, without ever realizing that they obnoxious boy running around with the gasoline can might be related. Even if the idea does occur on some amorphous level, it doesn't affect his steely resolve that 'something' must be done.

Reed's thinking goes along the lines of:

prepare for the unpredictable...

Hmmm... okay.

And how does one prepare for the unpredictable?

it's perfectly possible, even if hugely unfortunate and risky as well, that the United States will have to increase its military engagement somewhere for some short time.

Reed and what army?

So, the apparent solution is to do what's been causing the problems, but only more of it?

Not that Reed is completely unbalanced. Here's his balance:

I do not mean to convey that the current strategy should continue

Well thank god for that! Considering that it's failing disastrously and all. And considering that it's responsible for the current rapidly burning fires.

but rather that a range of options will have to be considered by the next President and that we cannot know now what will be the wisest course.

Reed grows philosophical. What can we truly know? Is there such a thing as truth? How can we ever truly know what the future will hold? Reed dismisses such liberal parlour tricks as cause and effect and logic. Instead, he gives himself over to the imponderable sees of mysticism.

Who can ever truly know the truth of truth? Reed asks. How can we ever be sure what the wisest course is? Reed asks. We better be ready to bomb all those sand n*gg*rs just in case though, Reed sagely concludes. After all, that's

valuable real estate

There are no wise men/women around these days, save in the vast invisible reaches of Blogland.

Oooohh!!!! Is wittow Weed a wittow bit snippy? Yes he is, yes he is. Who's a cute wittow pundit, Weed is, yes he is.

Make it clear that conquest of Israel is off limits, then get out of the region and stay out and let those who live there sort it out. Presenting a target and spurring on resentment through neo-colonial adventures does no one any good.

Either that or start taking the United Nations seriously again. Otherwise it is not America's problem and it is not Britain's problem. Whoever takes over can't eat the oil.

global citizen

Let's assume we live in a neighborhood of people not just like we are. They sometimes have problems and sometimes yell a lot. What to do???

How about we just try to be good neighbors to all of them, help them when asked, offer help if not asked, respect them at all times, and mind our own business most of the time?

This works for me. And, it used to be the norm in the neighborhood that was the world. I see no reason why we cannot be on friendly terms with governments of all kinds anywhere on earth. If a government we are friends with gets replaced by some means, we just make friends with the new government. Am I naive? Nope, just realistic.

Hoppy in Sacramento

You know, I've got the solution.  Just as Tony Blair has a new job in fixing the Middle East where the former broker, the U.S., is clueless, I suggest something like that for Bush's next job.  When I'm elected president, I shall send Bush immediately to whatever nation is collapsing, even if that proves to be Texas.  Of course, the Power Rangers will be there, too. Thanks for reminding me.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Does Reed even read the comments? His last post was a self-admittedly self serving post that favorered his latest commercial venture.

I asked him, in the comments, why the FCC didn't step in to invalidate cell phone contracts, which are forced on consumers. He didn't answer.

So, how about now? Reed? Are you there?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I know I was off topic but Reed is in the US telecom industry now and he was the chair of the FCC... he never seems to reply to topics that address the US telecom industry, which is what he once had influence over and now participates in. Always kind of bugs me to see him ignore telecom issues like cell phone contracts when he's posting here, but to see him post about stuff like the NBA draft or wider political matters. What is he doing here?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

J. McCutchen

It's easy to be against the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History. It is quite another matter to know what to do about it.

Oh, the high romance of an uncertain future! Can you descry the tenebrous, twilight cloud of Easterly foreboding? ... the indistinct oriental shadows falling across our gay summer? Behold:

The list of spots growing ever hotter now includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza. Egypt is perhaps close to a place on this bad list.

Under these circumstances, the United States needs to be prepared for a variety of unpredictable developments.

...it's perfectly possible, even if hugely unfortunate and risky as well, that the United States will have to increase its military engagement somewhere for some short time.

Oh Reed, Reed! Oh, it's a crazy world Reed... anything can happen! Was that a suicide bomb, or is it my heart pounding?

But we'll always have Baghdad. We didn't have - we'd - we'd lost it until you came to TPM Cafe.

I've got a job to do now. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do ... (um, occupy Asia I think) ... you can't be any part of. I'm no good at being noble, Reed, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of a few little bloggers don't amount to a side order of falafel in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that.

Reed, this could be the beginning of a beautiful quagmire.

If somebody wants to project force into Pakistan, let it be her neighbors. We must stop trying to fight everyone else's battles - we aren't good at it. Our hearts are not in it. Thank God.

And Reed, check out the Vikings, Packers or Bears in the Middle West. Chill out, well a little hot today to chill, but for a good rest, head north, visit our neighbors across the border, do some fishing, and consider that if God chose to put the good old USA in North America, we should rejoice in thanksgiving and leave Asia to the Asians. There are enough of them to handle their own affairs and way too many of them for us to fight.

One priceless moment in my life came from being in the Cheering Crowd on the White House lawn when Nixon's personal designs for the White House police uniforms made their one and only experience. Perhaps they could be recycled for this Guard.

I worked in a nearby Federal building, and tickets were readily available. That windy day was a priceless moment in other ways, when the breeze blew a color guardsman's cap off. Nixon, passing in review, obviously was trying to be courteous in replacing it on the poor man, staying at rigid attention.

Nixon's first attempt tilted the cap too far forward, ramming it into the bridge of the soldier's nose. Next, he tried to the side, hooking it over one ear, and threatening to pull the ear off.

The trooper managed to stay at rigid attention, surely wondering about the integrity of his head. Eventually, the state visitor, Harold Macmillan, touched Nixon on the sleeve and urged him on, presumably to the great relief of the 3rd Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard).

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

And how and in what way could the United States project force into Pakistan successfully?

This is the key consideration to my mind. Some people still don't get it. They think the failure in Iraq is some anomalous result of bad planning and execution, and don't understand what Iraq and other recent adventures signify about the limits of military power as traditionally understood. Iraq went sour, they admit, but they expect we'll get the next Asian adventure right.

Once upon a time, perhaps, the world was divided into relatively powerless rabbles, wielding at best spears, stones, knives and brickbats, and potent, organized and technologically superior force wielded by governments. Accustomed to ultimate powerlessness and the futility of resistance, and also seeing little difference among the various successions of rulers, the offered submission and obedience to their established leaders first, and in the end to whichever army prevailed on the field of war.

Societies were also ruled by powerful governing classes bound by various class and family ties to the governing classes in other societies, and whose own self-interest sometimes argued in favor of surrender, rather than a fight to the death, once easy victory was out of the question. These vanquished rulers were in turn able to surrender the obedience of their populations to the victors, and the population generally went along. War was a rule-based contest, with rituals of victory and defeat, conquest and surrender, dominance and submission.

But increasingly, the world is very full of guns - and bullets, and explosives, and grenade launchers - distributed widely and chaotically. The capacity of a foreign power to establish control over another population by an exercise of military power is limited. People can resist effectively indefinitely, and will often do so. They can win simply by outlasting the army of their attackers, and exacting persisting, draining costs on that army, without achieving conventional battlefield victories. And they generally want to win, because they see themselves as defending their own communities rather than the governing prerogatives of their ruling class.

Having seen the results of the US invasion of Iraq, what reason at all is there to think that the US could have any beneficial effect on Pakistan as a result of "power projection" in a military form?

Despite the lame attempt at blogosphere flattery in his closing sentence, I think Reed's implied message here is that we pig-headed and obstreperous blog denizens and net-rooters should stop making trouble for Democratic candidates by pushing them into taking positions that are incompatible with maximal freedom of action in the field of foreign and military policy. We should give them more space to react to unpredictable contingencies. For who knows what future Iraq's will be necessary?

It had to be obvious to anyone who did any thinking that the Middle East, as well as some other areas of the world, were going to become "hot spots" as the local people became fed up with the Western backed governments they had. And, it was even more obvious to anyone knowing anything about Islam that a country with almost 100% Islamic population would seek an Islamic government. Islam just doesn't recognize government as being separate from religion.

So, the rise of Islamic governments couldn't have been a surprise. And, given that our country has been exceedingly ham fisted in our dealings with those areas of the world, it couldn't have been a surprise when those Islamic governments were not friendly to our country. We are reaping what we sowed.

As far as what we do now is concerned: First of all, we need to begin dealing with the existing governments of all countries, treating them with respect, not trying to steal their raw materials, and above all else, not threatening them with "regime changes" or calling them "evil". Once we make those very major changes we can see what effect that has and decide on what to do next.

Let's perhaps call this a "good neighbor policy".

Hoppy in Sacramento

Turmoil across Asia? 

...it's possible, even if hugely unfortunate and risky as well, that the United States will have to increase its military engagement somewhere for some short time

I look at the list of countries and I think...this isn't really Asia which is foremost on Mr. Hundt's mind.  If it was, we'd perhaps include places like Sri Lanka or Myanmar, wouldn't we?  And we'd exclude Egypt, which, last time I checked, was in Africa. 

Why not say countries in which a significant portion of the Islamic population has been radicalized?  If we're going to have another argument for containment or whatever, wouldn't it be more direct, if not more honest, to frame the argument that way? 

I look at this list a second time, and a new theory pops into my head.  Why isn't Syria "perhaps close to a place on this bad list?" 

Perhaps the reason is that this is indeed a "bad list".  Not a list of bad places, but a list which is bad, period.  Why is it bad, and why is the rest of the post overly vague where it isn't overly general?  I propose this as one possible answer....this is the kind of "knock off" assignment one gets from students who have been too busy doing who knows what and, faced with a deadline, would rather turn in something regardless how careless that something is, than face a scolding for turning in nothing at all.  Sadly for them, they get the scolding anyway, but at least they can blame the professor for being a scold.

There are some writers here who regularly post insightful, convincing, and passionate essays.  The care they take shows in the essays themselves, whether or not one agrees with what they say.  We pretty much know who they are.  I hesitate to list them lest I commit an error of omission, but most persons would include Nathan Newman, Maggie Mahar, Jared Bernstein and M. J. Rosenberg on that list.  They generate controversy.  In the case of some, they generate piles of personal invective.  But they seldom, if ever, get accused of laziness or going through the motions.  These are the "wise men/women around these days, , , , in the vast invisible reaches of Blogland".  And I also count among those wise men/women the responders who often take more care in their responses than the original poster may have taken in his post. 

One could do worse than look to their writings as an example.

aMike

When it comes to defendin' America, Ellen, how would you feel about rounding up every Sunni male in Iraq between the ages of 12 and 60 and having them executed in concentration camps.

And if we're still having problems, do the same thing to the women, and then work our way through the Shiites?

Is it "my country right or wrong all the way down to the bottom"?

And if so, where do you draw the line?

As for your question as to why Reed provoked my mockery... Well, the condescending snark of his final line probably didn't help his case. Beyond that, his lack of depth, his reliance upon cliche, his advocacy of old worn out solutions as the first line of attack. In the end, to quote the Bard "it's nothing but sound and fury, a tale told by an idiot." MacBeth I think.

aMike asks: "I look at this list a second time, and a new theory pops into my head. Why isn't Syria "perhaps close to a place on this bad list?"

Perhaps Syria is supposed to be on the "mission accomplished" list by then.....

"The U.S. refusal to promote a peace agreement between Israel and Syria, in the name of democratization - which in light of its successes in Iraq one might assume had disappeared altogether - is viewed by Israeli diplomats as a relatively small problem. The big problem is George W. Bush's obsession with bringing down the regime in Damascus. In talks with senior U.S. officials it became clear that they haven't the vaguest idea of what would take its place. Israeli warnings of the danger that Islamic extremists would do to Syria what they are now doing to Iraq makes no impression on the president.

To Bush, death provides the only release from the axis of evil."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/878890.html

What do you suppose is the at the root of all this unrest. Do you think Pakistanis, Iraqis et al just got up one bright morning and decided to hate Americans? The first rule of dealing with dangerous animals or humans is to respect their territory.

Some would say it is succeeding. Or at least one deep-end neocon version of the PNAC project is succeeding: the project of precipitating a destabilizing chain reaction and global civilizational conflict centered in some of the most strategically vital places in the world, so that Americans are no longer left with any choice but to fight with everything they've got. The chain of incipient chaos Reed is describing in the "arc of instability" is a neocon dream come true. They're close to getting their Big War.

I guess I'll wrap up with an observations.

It is simply that Reed is seriously mistaken about the whole notion of the military option. The truth is that all too often, the military option is unpredictable. You never really know how it's going to turn out.

This is what guys like Reed don't understand. They think its like the rest of things in their life, they equate it with the 'uncertainty' of capitalism at their personal level... which in real terms, has no uncertainty at all, because its an entire interconnected edifice built on risk management and risk elimination. Everyone hedging their bets with mutual funds and diversified portfolio of investments, having a piece of everything, a committment to nothing, and always, always believing in that sure thing. Having the resources to put into that rising star that's going to rise and rise and if that doesn't work, there's the next rising star that will rise and rise.

People like Reed are unchallenged. They don't really understand risk or uncertainty because in a real way, it simply isn't a part of their lives. Their whole life, their whole class has been about removing that chaotic uncertainty from their lives.

But that's not war. That's not military action. That's not theatres of blood and bombs and pain. The truth is that at the local and atomic level, the level of individual people like you and me and Mohammed Ali Abbas, war is a horrible and uncertain business. It might turn out, it might not, you might live, you might die, you might become a ten year old boy with no arms and burns over 30% of your body and a dead family blown to bits. War might be the end of your job or your neighborhood, it can mean a hundred different kinds of misery. We don't know. We can't know. We just hang on and do our best.

That's a world that the Reed Hundt's of the world simply don't know, don't understand, can't relate to and aren't interested in.

And that's just the atomic level. On greater levels, war is equally uncertain. In the fate of nations and peoples, you can never ever truly tell. Oh there's general proposition, bigger is better, more guns wins, technocratic infrastructure minimizes that risk. But it never stops being uncertain.

Two thousand years ago the Romans, victorius and undefeated throughout the world, marched an army into the German forest... and it vanished... and Rome's expansion stopped. Two hundred years ago Napolean captured Moscow, and then lost his army, retreating undefeated. Twenty years ago the the USSR was defeated by ignorant tribesmen in Afghanistan and their empire unravelled as they watched.

Uncertainty.

The truth is that war, every war, is uncertain. You never know that you'll be the winner in the end, not quite for sure. Vietnam and Korea should have taught that lesson, if not, Lebanon and Somalia.

Win or lose, you never can be quite sure how long its going to go on, or what it will cost you.

There's an imprecision there that the Reed Hundt's just can't grasp. After all, when Reed buys a half million shares of Iphone and sets up a corporation to limit his liabiity, and then makes a handful of deals over lunches to line up the right contracts, hires the proper bright young things to do the work... well, that's it, isn't it? What's this nonsense about not knowing if it'll win or lose, or not knowing how long it'll go on, or how much it will cost. That's not the way business works. That's not the way Reed's life works.

There's an essential uncertainty in war, in military operations, that Reed simply isn't equipped to grasp.

Instead, he sees it as a business deal. Something like a hostile takeover. It's an operation, a problem of abstractions. Move X amount of resources here and here, deal with problem Y, solution acheived proceed to Z and so forth.

For Reed, its just a solution to a problem.

A definitive solution. A solution with finality.

As George W. Bush says "a little violence clarifies things."

I'm sure Reed's not a warmonger. In his own eyes, he's a rationalist. He sees government as a chinese menu. Violence is just one of the options on the menu, perhaps not the first choice, but not inherently unreasonable, and to be employed as circumstances warrant.

Reed isn't actually advocating a military intervention in Afghanistan. He just wants that option on the table, he wants it to be treated the same as every other option, from nuking Karachi to signing a free trade agreement. Freedom of action. Wiser heads, masters of the universe like himself, people from his cocktail party circuit will do the right thing at the right time. We mustn't tie their hands.

Of course, the truth is, as all too many soldiers know, and as all too many people know, is that violence is uncertain.

In the real world, a world divorced from Reed's rarified social class, violence carries with it an abyss of unpredictability. A waste of limited resources. A crap shoot with the fates.
A risk of disaster. Every time, the risk is disaster.

In the real world, this is why it should never be on the table. In the real world, this is why war is not a continuation of politics, but represents the abyssmal failure of politics, it represents or should represent the failure of every reasonable effort. In the real world, war is not an option from column A, it is not a particular path to choose. In the real world, it's not a route to travel it's the crash.

Reed and his peers just don't get it.

Which is why we're in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why the sabers are rattling in Iran, and why Israel seems intent on bombing its neighbors into loving it.

Reed, in a confused befuddled way, acknowledges that the current military options have not been working out well. He can't understand why. Weren't resources X placed in Y? So why no Z? There must have been a flaw in the execution of the business plan. The plan itself was sound.

This is why Reed favours making sure the military option remains on the table. It's important to preserve options. Particularly since its valuable real estate and the natives are all getting increasingly uppity for some reason or other.

Does Reed connect the current problems with the past policies? I think he acknowledges some embarrassing relationships, but you know, these people are his class, his social circle, its awkward to bring it up. Best to just ignore it as a bad investment, these things happen, and move forward.

A guy like me can talk till I'm blue in the face about the lack of military options in Pakistan, about the foolishness and foolhardiness of such an intervention. It doesn't make an impression on a guy like Reed. It's just irrelevant chatter of the little people, what cocktail party have I been too lately, am I in Reed's social class? Don't think so, too bad, so sad, not relevant.

Best to keep that military option on the table with Pakistan. It is after all the final solution, the ultimate solution, the solution that cuts the Gordian knot. Why throw that away?

In due course, people in Reed's social class, perhaps including generals, perhaps not, will make the wise and proper decision, based on their shared view of the world, and people will die or not die. They might listen to the technicians, the analysts the experts not in their social class, because after all, when you're planning on building a deck you hire a plumber and when you're starting a corporation you hire a lawyer.

But the job of these people is to carry out the orders of their betters, and not raise irritating concerns. Sometimes they're listened too. Sometimes, as in the case of Iraq, they weren't listened too. But it's rude of me to bring Iraq up, like farting loudly at a cocktail party.

And so we all talk but nobody listens. Reed holds forth with his pearls of imbecilic wisdom, secure in the knowledge and illusions of his class, quick to assure us that despite an awkward or not to be mentioned bump or two in the road, that the right people are doing the right things, and that in the hands of the masters of the universe all will be well... for them at least. And, perhaps, he ever so dimly wonders why we don't fall at his feet and hail his soothing brilliance.

And me? I talk, but it's merely the chattering of a gnat. Nothing that Reed need listen to, and certainly nothing worth considering. So I just relax and amuse myself with lighthearted mockery. I haven't been to Harvard. But what the hell, a cat can look at a king, a small child has been known to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and Shakespeare's fools were notorious for making their betters the butt of their jokes... and being right.

It's a silly old world, ennit?

But I think it's better when blowing up people is that unacceptable thing that happens when everything else has gone to shit, rather than being one of the items on the menu.

I guess I'm just a silly fella meself. Maybe if I went to Harvard I'd know better and be smart like that George W. Bush fella.

Valdron,

excellent post, but like Keith Olbermann's commentaries, just a tad too long :-)

I have read - and RE-read - Reed Hundt's posting six times before writing this. I have also read his responses to those who are attacking it.

I am still looking for the "Military option first" message in the original posting or his follow-ups. I am also looking for the "Confront China" message and "Invade Pakistan" message. Finally, I am also looking for the "We are not responsible for any of this mess" message.

However, I DID find some clue of Reed Hundt's actual meaning on one of his Blog postings in 2006 (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28883). I think those who have attacked this posting completely fail to understand his intent.

Instead, they have attacked it - and Reed Hundt himself - with a level of distortion and vitriol worthy of Ann Coulter or Fox News. They might want to respond less to what they are reading in to this posting, and more to what it actually says.

I hadn't heard of the euphemism "project force" before. It's ingenious. Just try to pin down a meaning. Even better than "preemptive action."

Being fond myself of the "moral certainty" that tough guys like Reed seem to advocate, I suggest we go back to the pre-Bush vocabular, back when it was called "invasion" or even "unprovoked invasion."  It was what the evil guys did, like what my parents would no doubt call the Japs at Pearl Harbor or the Huns in Poland and France. Of course, those empires then died within a few years, at a great cost, just as invasion has cost us so dearly already. But practical matters aside, it's just plain wrong. 

Interesting to read today about Bush and Cheney having decided not to pursue bin Laden because it might have taken enough troops to seem awfully nasty to Pakhistan if they just happened to march in.  That suggests we've had a problem managing our relationship with one or more Asian nations for some time, that it's worth addressing, and that it probably won't be addressed by just happening to march in or threatening to do so.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

On July 7, 2007 - 10:10pm Ellen said:

It would be interesting to know what it was about Reed's post which caused many (all?) of us to respond so negatively.

For me it was how readily it seemed to him to use our military. He made a reference to "a range of options" but didn't mention any except the military option. He also brings Great Britain into it.

We have to get away from this goddamned Pavlovian reaction to world affairs by constantly reaching for our military.

It's all Blowback. Read Chalmers Johnson's book of the same name.

Tom

They might want to respond less to what they are reading in to this posting, and more to what it actually says.

This is a posting that you yourself had to read six times and then cross reference against Reed's earlier posts going back a full year to find some clue of Reed Hundt's actual meaning?

Somehow that doesn't motivate me to accept your approbation.

But hey, since you've got a clue as to what Reed is actually saying, enlighten us.

I've been having fun cutting him to ribbons, but if I've been wrong, well, I can certainly stand to be corrected.

Ball's in your court.

Personally, I don't ever refer to an 'Confront China' message, although I do note that certain foreign policy blunders or ill thought out military adventures will inevitably bring a confrontation with China.

I am still looking for the "Military option first" message in the original posting or his follow-ups.

My objection to Reed is not that he said 'military option first' but that he advocates military force as an acceptable option. Indeed, its the only option he identifies.

Reed writes:

The list of spots growing ever hotter now includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza... it's perfectly possible, even if hugely unfortunate and risky as well, that the United States will have to increase its military engagement somewhere for some short time... the situation across a broad stretch of important real estate seems to me to be growing a great deal worse, and not necessarily to admit of the most desired outcome of immediate and total withdrawal. I do not mean to convey that the current strategy should continue, but rather that a range of options will have to be considered

What are we to make of this. Increasing military committments, the situation growing worse, withdrawal not feasible, a range of options... the only one mentioned being force? Have I gotten these words wrong? Is there a secondary meaning that I fail to grasp? A deeper truth.

Enlighten us.

I think I've made my views sufficiently clear as to why this is ill advised in both the micro level of actual interventions, and the macro level of Reed's overall philosophical approach. I note that Reed seeks to speak in such vague generalities that his philosophical approach becomes an issue.

I am still looking for the ... "Invade Pakistan" message.

Oh that's easy. Look here:

The list of spots growing ever hotter now includes Pakistan, ...it's perfectly possible, even if hugely unfortunate and risky as well, that the United States will have to increase its military engagement somewhere for some short time

Oh, and look here:

Pakistan is perhaps breaking into civil war and has nuclear weapons. Do you think that is nothing of concern to us?

and look here:

Would Democrats be prepared to project force into Pakistan? ... it's going to be, I predict, a critical question.

Hmmm. Pakistan does seem to be Reed's geopolitical obsession, and he certainly doeso seem to be advocating the view that it may be necessary, critical if you will, to project force into Pakistan.

Do you have a different interpretation of these words?

Finally, I am also looking for the "We are not responsible for any of this mess" message.

Well, he never actually admits we are responsible for any of this mess. Consider again his opening passage:

...increasing turmoil across Asia. The list of spots growing ever hotter now includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza. Egypt is perhaps close to a place on this bad list...Under these circumstances, the United States needs to be prepared

Note the utterly passive voice. These turmoil is increasing. These places are getting hotter. Why? I dunno. Sunspots? Tummy aches? Reed avoids the issue entirely.

My criticism of Reed on this point is that he seems unwilling to discuss or criticize the policy decisions and strategies that created the problem. Instead, at least in part, his solution includes as an option military force, which arguably is the option that got us into this mess in the first place. Indeed, it's the only option he identifies, as we've noted above.

He seems remarkably unwilling to criticize or even discuss the policy mistakes, particularly the use of the military option. How about this:

I do not mean to convey that the current strategy should continue, but rather that a range of options will have to be considered by the next President and that we cannot know now what will be the wisest course.

Then there's:

don't respond by blaming someone; just note what options if any you think the next President may have.

and how about this:

I don't think Democrats are going to get all the way to November 08 by focussing exclusively on how wrong-headed American actions in the Middle East have been in the past, given what the present will then look like.

I read them together and separately as saying 'Let's not discuss mistakes already made, let's not discuss who invaded whom and on what pretenses, let's just admit we were both wrong and forget about it. It's just not important, we have to decide what to do with the future.'

Given the disastrous outcomes and results of current policies, I'm not quite prepared to ignore past and current policies, particularly when these policies create most of the problems that we face and constrain our future options.

As I've said, enlighten us.

Unfortunately the problem is not people hating America and Americans. They may or may not but America can defend themselves. However the chaos that seems to be growing from Pakistan to Gaza as people slaughter their fellow citizens is a problem. It is a problem not just for Israel but for India and Turkey. There is likely to be enormous refugee pressures on countries not directly involved in the killing.

The reduction of oil from the region would seriously affect Japan and Europe, the U.S. gets more of its oil from Canada, and thus the global economy. Lastly, for over 30 years American presidents have been conned by Pakistani leaders mainly because the U.S. priority has been the nuclear weapons Pakistan possesses. The sanguine nature of many of the posts, the fun in attacking Reed, misses the possibility of a regime very hostile to India, another nuclear power and to China, having nuclear weapons is a very dangerous possibility.

Bush should have used 9/11 to bring the world of order to gether against the forces of chaos. Instead he stuck in finger in the eye of virtually the entire world. It does not make him responsible for the mess the mainly Muslims nations of West Asia are making for themselves.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

How bout this, Reed: You start with

turmoil across Asia.

Then we see you really don't mean that, you mean the same parts of Asia (and with your addition of Egypt you spill over into Africa)

The list of spots growing ever hotter now includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza. Egypt is perhaps close to a place on this bad list.

In other words, the same old PNAC neocon hit-list, which for some reason, you insist on trying to reinject back into the Democratic party which has for the most part managed to move away from that fever. But, sensitive to atmosperics, you name this part of the world "Asia" as opposed to "the Islamic world" so as not to sound too neo.

Then it turns out, the only place you really have a bee in your bonnet about is Pakistan, so why all the other fru-fru?

Why would we all get so ticked off about that? Gee, I don't know. It's just a list of countries. I can't imagine anybody ever using one Islamic country to whip up a furor about others? That couldn't ever happen, could it?