Beware Beltway pundits, especially when it comes to speculation about military affairs. For every sensible analysis, there is an ill-considered piece like the recent article in the New York Times by Robert Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon calling for "feasible military options" to deal with the possibility of "nuclear-armed Pakistan" falling into the "abyss." The two options suggested are sending in U.S. Special Forces to help Pakistani security forces protect that country's bombs or sending in a more substantial force to help secure Pakistan's "core" before offering help in "retaking" regions controlled by Islamic fundamentalists and "reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons."

Haven't we already tried the approach of putting U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war in a Muslim country? Should we expect a better outcome when nuclear weapons are involved?

Read more »