Today in the Northwest Frontier Province

Oh. When I saw the headline I thought you meant Alaska.
I'm not sure we've completely subdued the enemy there, either.

I thought your headline was an oblique reference to Alaska. Silly me.
.
I really struggle with a U.S. role in the region. Every government seems to be politically unstable for one reason or another; it feels like running in quicksand.
.
What can an Obama admin do differently? Who are the new experts in the Middle East? Or are we faced with retreads from the Clinton admin.?

Joe B. Great minds think alike, lol

Seriously, though, Joe -- what could the U.S. do to help prop up Zardari without looking like (or being) Western imperialists?
Are there any moderate clerics to be wooed?

Andy, I am honored.

When I saw the headline, my first thought was that Palin and the AIP had finally seized power.

Seriously, it's fine to propose sending Bill off to sort out these issues, but 1) He has no power to make anyone do anything 2) India and Pakistan have been bitterly hostile to each other over the issue for a long time 3) Why not try and resolve Israel and the Palestinians first (which is probably more realistic!). After all, the governments of India and Pakistan are both relatively weak, and it's far from certain that either could survive being denounced as betraying the country if they make a deal based on partition, which is the likeliest outcome. 4) You might be overestimating Bill's charm - remember South Carolina?

Interesting thoughts, Joe; While it's very unlikely that any of your suggestions would work, they're certainly worth trying. Especially making Mr. Clinton a special envoy to try to cut some sort of deal. If we're lucky, both the Indian and Pakistani envoys will be women and a negotiated deal will become possible.

I guess, I don't see much new thinking on this subject. What political capital does Bill Clinton have in this region? With all due respect to Mr. Clinton, we can only have one President at a time. Quite honestly, I can see Clinton trying to upstage Obama, not for any machiavellian reason, it's just Clinton being Clinton.

Joe -
Some may take offense to your implication that "madrassas" are anti-Western, anti-American, schools. Madrasah is simply the Arabic word for school. It has no additional denotations of secular nature or religious affiliation or political ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasah#Misuse_of_the_Word
Also, it's that Pakistan is unable to build secular schools without American assistance. The schools are not the origins of radical ideologies; they merely enable passage from generation to generation. Offering an alternative school still does not make ideological families want to send their kids to a school that they would undoubtedly see as spreading anti-Islamic propaganda.
I doubt locals would respond well to a blatant American attempt to co-opt the local Pakistani schools.

The topic of your post IS the central front on the war on terror.

While I share most Americans ignorance of the details of what has been happening in Pakistan, I recognize that pretending it's not an issue and calling people who insist that it is 'naive' would have been a recipe for disaster. Thank God that John McCain isn't heading to the White House and Randy Scheunemann has absolutely no role in setting policy. If that had happened what we'd be facing now would be significantly worse than "more of the same failed policies"

That should have read:

Also, it's not that Pakistan is unable to build secular schools without American assistance. The schools are not the origins of radical ideologies; they merely enable convenient passage from generation to generation. Offering an alternative school still does not make ideological families want to send their kids to a school that they would undoubtedly see as spreading anti-Islamic propaganda.
I doubt locals would respond well to a blatant American attempt to co-opt the local Pakistani schools.

Paul Dirks, you're right about this. My discomfort is there hasn't been anyone out there with an alternative. It is likely my ignorance on the subject, but one might think there would have been some OP-ED page fodder.
.
Joe I know it's against your journalism religion to interact, but if you could post some links, it would be appreciated.

"...military aid that can only be used to fight the Taliban (counterinsurgency training and equipment like up-armored humvees etc.) as opposed to untargeted military aid ..."

I'm not sure this is really possible. You can give them equipment or weapons or whatever and tell them only to use it against the Taliban, but there's just no way to ensure that the Pakistanis keep their word. Considering how opaque the operations of the army are, you basically either give the military aid unconditionally, or you don't give it.

India has to cede the Kashmir Valley part of its side of Kashmir. That's really the only way to deal with the situation. Pakistan's side of the Line of Control is entirely Muslim, so giving it to India won't work, and Punjab and Ladakh on India's side of the LoC are minority Muslim, so they can't be realistically ceded to Pakistan either. If India didn't have to deal with the 4 million restive Muslims that make up 95% of the Kashmir Valley they wouldn't need 700,000 troops there, and Pakistan could redeploy as well.

JK--
.
I don't mean to cavil, and I'm glad to see prominent airing of the role the US,the Saudis and ISI have played in creating the Taliban as a force in the region. Steve Coll in Ghost Wars and Robert Baer in a book I'm forgetting the name have documented this.
.
But the question this inadvertent blowback (on the US's part. The Saudis may be fine with the creation of a Sunni islamist force) raises is whether these is such a thing as targeted military aid. I mean, the Stingers were meant for Soviet helicopters, but they turned into financial aid, as did many of the AK47s.

I think some of us here are being terribly short-sighted and are harboring so much resentment for Bill Clinton's role in the campaign, that we are forgetting what an effective president he was on the world stage. Clinton's greatest admirers continue to be abroad and his credit (deservedly or not) for the economic prosperity of the nineties and his current global initiative puts him in good standing to talk to a countries like India who is dependent on U.S. companies to continue their economic growth and Pakistan.

@Dee: I'm with you on giving Bill a role in the Obama Administration, although I would think that he'd be a better pick to have another go at getting the ball across the goal line in Jerusalem. Who would be a capable Special Envoy for Northwest Frontier Province (NFP)? Clark? Holbrook? Kerry?

Wow. Joe Klein made it through a few paragraphs without asserting (falsely, of course) that the "United States military" has "endorsed, wholeheartedly" the thoroughly unqualified, community organizer's "brilliant", alleged, so-called "plan".

Dee perhaps you are saying I suffer from myopia. I do and I have the eyeglasses to prove it. My comments about Clinton had nothing to do with the campaign. I never got hung up on it, and I have no resentment about it. He and Hillary did a really good job in the final weeks of the campaign when and where it was needed.
.
I was looking for data that supports that Clinton is a good fit for this. I haven't seen any so far, but I'm open to learning more about it.
.
I feel Musharraf and Pakistan have gotten a free ride since 9/11. I don't see any evidence that during the Clinton admin., there was much leverage Clinton or his diplomats had with Musharraf or with India. I realize that he was a successful president (before Monica).
.
I just want to see new and pragmatic thinking before we kick over yet another hornet's nest in a region of the world where Americans are not held in the hghest regard.

Dee perhaps you are saying I suffer from myopia. I do and I have the eyeglasses to prove it. My comments about Clinton had nothing to do with the campaign. I never got hung up on it, and I have no resentment about it. He and Hillary did a really good job in the final weeks of the campaign when and where it was needed.
.
I was looking for data that supports that Clinton is a good fit for this. I haven't seen any so far, but I'm open to learning more about it.
.
I feel Musharraf and Pakistan have gotten a free ride since 9/11. I don't see any evidence that during the Clinton admin., there was much leverage Clinton or his diplomats had with Musharraf or with India. I realize that he was a successful president (before Monica).
.
I just want to see new and pragmatic thinking before we kick over yet another hornet's nest in a region of the world where Americans are not held in the hghest regard.

But would either country really trust or want to work with Bill Clinton? India saw him as continuing the US' historic tilt toward Pakistan, and following their nuke tests he put sanctions on both countries. Maybe since it was both he'd be seen as a neutral arbiter, but it's still not the best foundation for a good relationship or wielding any influence.

Dee perhaps you are saying I suffer from myopia. I do and I have the eyegl@sses to prove it. My comments about Clinton had nothing to do with the campaign. I never got hung up on it, and I have no resentment about it. He and Hillary did a really good job in the final weeks of the campaign when and where it was needed.
.
I was looking for data that supports that Clinton is a good fit for this. I haven't seen any so far, but I'm open to learning more about it.
.
I feel Musharraf and Pakistan have gotten a free ride since 9/11. I don't see any evidence that during the Clinton admin., there was much leverage Clinton or his diplomats had with Musharraf or with India. I realize that he was a successful president (before Monica).
.
I just want to see new and pragmatic thinking before we kick over yet another hornet's nest in a region of the world where Americans are not held in the highest regard

@kbanginmotown: Don't you think that with Clinton's work in his global initiative he would be seen as a more honest broker of credible messenger to offer aid to build schools and provide health care to the Pakistani's giving him a more natural entree to this region. I'm thinking that despite his near miss in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict this region would be better off with a brand new team put together by a brand new president who is seen from the outset as an honest broker rather than trying to resurrect a dialogue dragging behind it old baggage especially on the Palestinian side prone to question U.S. motives purely out of habit.

Thank you so much for responding to commentary, Joe Klein.

'Course, uparmored vehicles are probably better than pallets of Ben Franklins in this regard.