The only difference between the two positions I can tell, is that Gates says he would tell Musharraf before they unilaterally attacked, and Obama might or might not. Big difference.

We gave a "courtesy call" to Pakistan when we sent cruise missiles over Pakistan on the way to Afghanistan (which may not be all that bad an idea, seeing as both Pakistan and India have nukes, and a strange missile flying over one might set off events that spiral out of control ... beside it's being common courtesy).

But the flip side is that it's possible that word of the missiles coming was passed to bin Laden. Some in Pakistan are not entirely unfriendly to bin Laden, including in the military, the intelligence community, and the government.....

On a slightly different subject, even if Musharraf is told in advance, we might not want to "officially tell him", just to save him some trouble (if that is what we want to do, that is).

Cheers,

You gave me an idea. How about a cake bake community service as in lie of jail-service?

You mind if I have my mentor P & P and Judge Mrs Ambrose contact you?

I refer Judge Ambrose to The Chocolate Cake Bake Shop web-site for baking skills and proper punctuation know-how?

I need to be in court @ 8:30 sharp.

I need to cut z's with a knife via a moist chocolate cake in my wild dreams?

Thanks.

I do love German chocolate sour-kraut cake.

I may ask ya' to bake a cake with a saw in it?

Jail may not be the worst place for you. Some poets have done their best work in jail.

@ Simplicissimus

But Daniel Pipes is a scholar, and an important one. The fact that he sees the world in a different way than you do does not make him less of a scholar.

[my emphasis]

It's really not that hard to understand.

--Anonymous

Gosh, you're kind of taken with that word, 'scholar' eh, Anon? Makes you feel all flushed, does it?

If Anyone Really Cared About Deep And Serious Ideas In This Realm...

none of this would be happening at all.

I agree with you, Paul.

Even so, I keep asking myself a few simple questions.

1. If the elites presently in power had been running the show during the Cuban Missile Crisis would they have gotten us all killed?

2. If the elites presently in power had been running the show during and instead of Regan would Russia have taken us with them when they broke into pieces?

3. If the elites presently in power (or people like them) are in power around, say, 2050, are they going to engage in a nuclear war with China (assuming China dumps the dollar, solves its energy crisis, no longer depends on exports to the US and ends up taking over as the dominant economic power in the world)?

4. Given the complexity of the world and the high stakes involved, should there not be intelligent, empirically rational and emotionally mature people in charge? Why aren't those types of people in charge?

5. Is there a societal process at play here? In other words, does empire have a life cycle process and are we in mid-process? Are the majority of the elites (regardless of what comes out of their mouths in public) essentially in agreement regarding the things that our nation is doing both domestically and in the world? Is that why all these anti-democratic laws get passed? Is that why our civil rights are being stripped from us? Is that why we have become wholly aggressive in our dealings with other countries?

In other words, is there a possibility that there is a larger historical process in play that has nothing to do with individual actors, political parties or even generational regimes? Could it be that that process is so very complex in all of its institutional and sociological and psychological aspects that it is, in a sense, running on automatic pilot? Could it be that, at this point, the US is ineluctably following the path of empire as it proceeds from republic through an expansion to empire until it finally collapses at the end of its life-cycle once again into a nation-state?

Finally, could it be that all of our ways of thinking about government, society and social equilibrium need to be expanded to include all governments, societies and global institutions? Could it be that we are not being holistic enough and that is why we seem to be unable to prevent ourselves from breaking everything in sight?

I have a good reason for asking. I am absolutely convinced that we are at (not near, but at) an inflection point with regard to the global balance of human technology and human morality. If we do not find a better way of dealing with our societal problems, our technology will soon be so advanced that the destruction of the species will be all but impossible to prevent.

There are no emphatic bandwagoning alliances in his insights. Barack's opposition to the invasion of Iraq is pertinent in understanding his positions, especially given American hegemony and the dispute of fundamental differences.

In a way, he seems pragmatic, presenting an analytic framework. I don't see it as hegemonic or imperialistic.

When the subject is scholars, it's not surprising to use the word "scholar" twice in three sentences.

I am in thrall to your acumen.

Well, Kitt

When the subject is scholars, it's not surprising to use the word "scholar" twice in three sentences.

I am in thrall to your acumen.

--Anonymous

I see. You're keeping a running tab of these types of circumstances when the subject of "scholars" comes up?

Oh, and don't be remiss. It's "Important scholar!" Not just any ol' run-of-the-mill scholar.

But that's really it isn't? This is all about thresholds and gatekeeping. About who gets to decide what constitutes "legitimate" discourse in various foreign policy arenas, and who is cast into the outer dark of un-seriousness.

I think language should be a prerequisite at least to get a set at the table. That's just me (and by the way, it rules me out for any chance to sit at that particular table with authority).

But I'd gladly welcome Pipes to a table of good faith scholars of the Near East (however much a loon I think he is) if it meant the end of the wholly unwarranted monopoly now held by the mandarins of the current foreign policy community.

I guess I just think that if we had a more open give and take of ideas - a less monopolized community of foreign policy expertise - the odious ideas of "scholars" like Pipes would all the more readily be recognized as such.

In the end however, I think its not too unreasonable to have high expectations of our scholarly experts, and yet also grant that not all scholars should be given equal weight in our or their own peer communities. That would be silly. Next thing you know we'd have the Kagan family - supported by their vast military historical scholarship - running our military strategy. Now that that would be insane....