The opportunity of a century lies before you!

Jack Chapple has an interesting take on demographics in the 21st century, arguing that only one country will be able to emerge from a global downturn in population [SPOILER ALERT: If you want to skip over the details behind his predicted winner, it's Egypt].  Here's his argument, before I move on the my own premise which is markedly different.

A lot of what he points out is simply factual.Developed countries have a serious demographic challenge that no one has really every overcome to this point.  Global population is expected to start to decline at some point in this century (or perhaps the next).  As Chapple points out, this creates economic challenges on a global scale.  Not to mention, it may create demographic challenges that are even more catastrophic than economic ones.  

Peter Zeihan sees the same demographic trends, which seems undeniable.  He sees different winners emerging than does Chapple:

Regardless of who might win globally, and I do think that the United States will be fine, there is the opportunity of a century for conservatives in the United States, and really the entirety of Western civilization that may pass us by if we do not seize it right now and begin building ahead for it.

I'm speaking of what I have argued in favor of doing before, what Jeff Deist has also argued before.  De-urbanization. I'll argue for it again now with an additional flavor added because it serves two purposes with one effort. 

Technology has finally enabled de-urbanization.  You do not need to live close to a major city to be able to commute to your job (in large part, manufacturing and some other industries remain aside).  That means you can live in a small town, or some other remote rural location and work from home. This obviates the need for office space, for commuter trains, for massively expanded super highways in urbanized locations, for subways, for as many bank machines, and coffee shops etc.  Most of those things do not go away, they morph and disperse into a more diffused set of locations.   Small towns grow, big megalopolis sized cities shrink.  Why?  Housing costs, crime stats, quality of life differences, among other reasons.

This requires a lot of transition.  Much as the United States and much of the Western world are transitioning production away from China (finally), with the adjunct pains of transition, transition to a more rural or at least less urban nation will be painful in the short term.  New fiber optic cabling spanning tens of thousands of miles must be laid. That's a primary requirement.  But so too will be water, sewage handling, fuel pipelines, medical facilities, police services, and everything necessary to support smaller local communities that are spread further apart.  These things do not happen overnight and they certainly do not happen without a concerted political effort to make the option to de-urbanize possible.  That's what needs to be happening right now.

There are certainly benefits for conservatives if this geographic shift occurs.  Urban centers tend to be far more liberal and rural areas and smaller towns tend to be far more conservative.  This is an environment that offers home field advantage as it were, in terms of political momentum.  Smaller communities tend to be more religious, more friendly, and cleaner.  They also may help level the playing field between mega-corporations and mom and pop shops. It could help regrow the entrepreneurial spirit that made America a great economic power . 

Here's the added benefit that not only benefits conservative demographics, it argues against the inevitability of population decline and global economic stagnation: rural populations have higher birth rates than urban populations.  It's easier to raise children in an environment that is safer, that has more room for them to play, that does not require tens of thousands of extra dollars spent on car payments and mortgages and commutes and enhanced security etc. With less distraction there's more opportunity to procreate. There's more time to spend with family.  That benefits conservatives.  It benefits America, and it benefits America's contribution to global population.  It's a win win win.

Lastly, here's a bonus thought on this; it would be easier to co-opt the environmental movement to get the political effort started because you can argue it will result in a significantly lower carbon footprint without the need for such a massive volume of commuters. As conservatives, we just need to get out in front of this because this opportunity of a century will not remain available forever.  States should probably start this effort on a localized basis.  If you live in Kansas for example, this is something that can be started in a more localized effort, which makes it easier and the chances that you can succeed that much higher.

COVID as opportunity. Pay attention conservatives.

Jeff Deist discusses why COVID is an opportunity for the Right. In my 10th Rule for Patriots (Be Prepared), I mentioned the Democratic mantra 'never let a crisis go to waste'.  COVID is not a crisis, but it is messed up situation.  That's the closest to a crisis it actually gets.  Jeff Deist is right, this is an opportunity, not just a threat. He argues it's an opportunity for new ideas to be presented.  He's right, but I think it's bigger than that.

[2023 UPDATE:  The above video was removed, here's a related video instead]

What I see as the real opportunity is to further push things like working from home. That facilitates decentralization. Decentralization of any kind, including work environments, enables decentralization of living locations which in turn enables a more rural populace, which is conducive to common sense, and conservatism. To me that's the real opportunity. The other Democratic mantra, demographics is destiny is not wrong, but they have overplayed the racial aspect of that. There are so many attributes that are part of demographics and you can overwhelm the 'systemic racism' messaging with demographics. Rural vs. urban is a lever that serves conservatism. Let people flee California. Encourage work from home, encourage the opportunity for small town values to flourish.

How to Red Pill someone; a step by step guide

The one thing even leftists tend to support is democracy.  Of course their twisted definition of democracy equates to mob rule.  I don't know if they still teach that the Constitution was established in the way that it was to prevent majority tyranny.  The separation of powers between Executive, Legislative and Judicial was designed to prevent a concentration of power. The extremely high hurdle required to create Constitutional amendments was designed to prevent mob rule.  The structure of the Congress and Senate was designed to slow legislation.  The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was designed to limit government power.  All of these things were designed to ensure liberty and individual freedom.

But freedom is not what leftists want.  They want a democracy, and specifically a democracy in which everyone thinks the same way they do - no diversity of thought allowed. So freedom is actually anathema to their twisted version of democracy.

Set aside their twisted perceptions.  Set aside to that the United States is technically a representative republic and no a democracy per se, in fact no country is truly a pure democracy. If you even disregard those things, there are some undeniable deductive reasoning results that may be able to persuade leftists to reconsider their positions.

Here's an approach to having a red pill conversation with a progressive socialist.  It begins with a series of questions and answers.  These are designed to draw out the thought processes of a person from within, rather than lecturing to them.  Self-realized thoughts are going to resonate far better than a lecture.

1.  Do you think freedom is important? The typical answer to this is yes, or yes - within reason.  Those are acceptable answers.  If someone says no to this, that's a different, and probably impossible conversation.  Nevertheless, it is still important to ask why because perhaps that view can still be altered.  That's a conversation for another time, for now let's assume they agree that at least some level of freedom is important.

2.  How is freedom achieved? Typically democracy is part of the answer because it means you get to have a say in how society works. Some might reply with answers like revolution but then you must probe further and ask how it is maintained. This makes the conversation easier to steer towards democracy. No one would reasonably argue that dictatorships or monarchies or similarly structured governments can provide freedom because they are structured to centralize power.  If you do that you strip away individual choice. Removal of choice is removal of freedom.

3. If they do mention democracy, then ask if democracy is granted by government or by corporations, as if they were monarchs, or whether governments are only put in place (via democracy) to establish and maintain a societal structure that protects freedom. If they argue that governments grant democracy, ask (i) why governments and not corporations and  (ii) if they are granting it to you is it not a privilege rather than a right? (iii) if it is granted cannot it not also be taken away (iv) if it can be taken away, are you truly free?

4. If you have gotten this far you have effectively established that the person you are talking with values freedom, which requires some level of democracy, and that democracy is not granted by a government.  Next comes the red pill portion. Ask this: If a government creates a law that restricts your rights, does that reduce your freedom?  This is a tough one, because some laws make sense - do not murder, do not steal for example.  If they answer yes, move on, but if they hesitate or hedge, grant that laws such as those that disallow murder or theft are necessary. You do not want to delve to far into a side conversation about reasonable restrictions, or 'your rights end where mine begin'.  That is tangential. Instead provide an example; if the government or corporation restricts your ability to state your opinion openly, have they reduced your rights and therefore freedom?  There is no way to argue out of that. Ultimately most reasonable people will agree.  And remember, many people who support socialists and big government are reasonable people, they are simply misinformed.  These people are the low hanging fruit of red pilling. These are the people who are less difficult to red pill, and when you need numbers desperately, that's who you need to go after.

5. Therefore if a government is too empowered to do whatever it wants on a whim, are your freedoms at greater risk? Put another way, if government, even in a democracy can reduce your freedom, and corporations can do so too, how do you ensure that a democracy does not, over time, decay into a totalitarian dictatorship?   Is it reasonable to put restrictions on government the way we do on business?  This may devolve into a side conversation. You may need to point out that government can be corrupted just like businesses can be, because ultimately they consist of people, and people can become greedy for money or power. That is not to say most will, but it is possible.  They only way to ensure it does not happen is to put in safeguards to protect us from government, so that government will continue to protect us from rule breakers fairly and impartially.

6. If you want to put limits on how the government can limit you then you need to demand adherence to the original intent of the Constitution, which was designed to put limits on government power and to enable and empower individuals.  It was not meant to empower groups, just individuals.  Why? Because groups are just another way that individual liberty can be reduced. That's not to say groups are bad, just as corporations or governments are not inherently bad, as long as they do not have too much power.

That's it, if someone comes away from a conversation agreeing with the above points, you have red-pilled them. But that is the fundamental minimum threshold for a red pill awakening. It's just the beginning.  But you want to go further though, don't you?  If so, try this as an add-on to the conversation:

7. What does freedom give us? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means something.  What?  It means you can pursue your own goals.  It means you have opportunities open to you.  The key word is opportunities.  Freedom means opportunities. Without freedom, opportunity cannot exist.

8.  Opportunity unleashes creativity that can lead to invention and innovation.  Invention and innovation benefit all of society because invention is driven by societal needs. But this can only happen if there is incentive to do so. That incentive can be personal fulfilment or it can be economic in nature (personal wealth).  Wealth is a primary incentive for a large portion of the population, therefore to maximize wealth, shouldn't we make it possible for people to benefit from their invention and innovation?  The only route to doing so is capitalism. But fair capitalism, not one where the most powerful (big business and government) manipulate the rules so that only they can benefit and prevent others from having the same opportunity.

Try it on someone you know who you think you might be able to awaken.  Let me know in the comments if you have any success.

COVID-19 and school choice

Every crisis is an opportunity. Democrats manage their crises that way. Conservatives and Republicans do not.  We have not taken advantage of COVID the way Democrats would have done were we enduring a Hillary Clinton administration.

Conservatives believe in border security and school choice. Conservatives have seen first hand the dangers of a tech monopolies. COVID was an opportunity to move the ball, in a massive way forward towards these  conservative principles and probably others too.

We didn't do it.  We never do and that's why we are always playing defense against a progressive onslaught.

For example the lockdowns and later teachers not wanting to be back in school was VERY FERTILE ground to move towards alternative education options and ultimately the viability of school choice as an option. It could have been part of any of the runs at a stimulus this year.

Conservatism is often equal to trying to keep America great by stopping change.  But liberty and other conservative principles were meant to be spread, not just protected and slowly eroded. 

President Trump's first State of the Union

Tonight president Trump will deliver his first State of the Union to Congress.  He's got a lot of accomplishments to talk about and many Democrats will of course, skip the whole thing but it won't stop them from talking about it as if it were the worst thing ever.  Nevertheless, my prediction is that the speech will be polished and he will be at his most presidential he has been in his presidency.

He will stray off script, he'll use the word beautiful a little too often.  But he will be more polished than ever.  The State of the Union is a tremendous opportunity to lay out not only his accomplishment but his vision for the coming year or years.  Given that there are midterm elections this year, he has to come across as the right man for the job if he wants more Republicans in the senate for his second term. Consequently he will be substantive, mostly on script and will deliver it with a more presidential demeanor.  But he is still Donald Trump, and in his calculus, there has to be the notion that he has to be himself to connect with voters because that is what got him elected.  So I expect a bit of improvisation and some Trumpisms sprinkled in there. 

As for the content, there will be plenty of places that will speculate about it so even though I have my thoughts I won't bother to detail them except to say one thing. I don't expect a mention of the memo about the FBI and DOJ, or if there is a mention it will be brief. The mention of that will draw jeers from Democrats but far more importantly it will detract from the golden opportunity to look presidential and that should be the main goal tonight.  The only way mentioning the memo, or collusion or the congressional investigation would merit inclusion in that context is either (1) it helps speed the Mueller investigation into non-existence or (2) it advances the effort, very visibly, to the goal of draining the swamp.  I don't believe the memo, while likely to be very useful and telling, will be strong enough to accomplish either of those goals.  I could be wrong, we'll see.

Establishment Republicans missing no-lose opportunity

With Democrats threatening to shut down the government over funding for a border wall with Mexico, many establishment Republicans have also pushed back against the idea of a border wall.  There's a pretty big political miscalculation they have made in not leveraging Democrats.

Every time in the past that Republicans shut down government, it has been a political albatross for them, even when they were right in doing so.  While the media may not paint the Democrats' government shutdown the same way they would when the GOP did it (i.e. negatively), there is a fundamental difference.  Democrat supporters love government, big government, and they don't want it shut down, ever.  Democratic actions to force a shutdown is political hemlock for themselves.

Establishment GOP congressmen and senators don't seem to realize that.  Enabling Democrats to have a shutdown means they don't have to get their own hands dirty in the border wall fight (or mere disagreement with the president).  They look neither duplicitous, soft on illegal immigration nor actively insubordinate to their Commander in Chief.  Neither do they appear complicit to their globalist supporters in having a wall built, should the sentiment turn on Democrats and president Trump succeed in passing a budget with a wall component included.

The GOP cannot be blamed for a shutdown even if CNN calls it a showdown with "neither side budging".  Sure the media can try to paint it any other way, but Democrat supporters who love government will know the truth.  If your welfare check becomes late/delayed and the penalty for getting it to come is to let Trump have his wall, guess what you'll be thinking.

Establishment Republicans, typically a do nothing lot, are missing an opportunity to do nothing and allowing Democrats to take the blame for the situation.  But then, no one has ever accused Republican establishment leadership of tactical brilliance.

Whither goest #NeverTrump?

The clear distinction between diehard progressive liberals and #NeverTrump that is visible to date is that the latter have accepted a Trump presidency and in many cases are actually hopeful (though unconvinced) that some good will come out of the 2016 election.  The former group are out in the streets creating havoc, or at a minimum sporting Not My President placards.

There's another important distinction. While the Democrat party are never going to work with president-elect Trump (though many say they will), team #NeverTrump now realize that this was not just a Trump win.  They see that Republicans still control the senate, congress, the presidency, the supreme court and a stunning number of state legislatures and governorships, with the wind at the back of the Republicans in the senate for 2018.

Every challenge is also an opportunity and those on the conservative and Republican side have largely realized this.  Today Paul Ryan even said big things are coming.  That's a profound revelation.  It's not about revelling in the glow of the win, it's about the GOP having more power than they have in nearly 100 years. The opportunity does not present itself often obviously. The window, despite the very real prospect of further gains in 2018, is inevitably going to be short.  Furthermore, under Obama the aggressiveness in the shift left for the country was astounding.  Their actions not only justify a strong reaction, but also provide some limited cover for that reaction.  Obama also spelled out for conservatives exactly what "the fierce urgency of now" means.

#NeverTrump is more likely to be heard and influential from inside the tent than outside the tent.   Trump and his supporters meanwhile have won and allies in politics are hard to find.  There's little harm in working together and developing some synergy with those who were #NeverTrump in order to have that notion dissolve away and get things done rather than alienate them in some sort of vendetta.  No one wants Trump have to get his allegiances from the Sanders crowd because that will not only enshrine that #NeverTrump was right but possibly destroy what's left of the republic in the process. I don't think anyone expects that at this point, but why leave it to chance.

So unless your name is Glenn Beck, you're probably safe to come back into the tent.  Many are doing so openly, some more reluctantly, and some not at all. It's up to Trump and his team to move people from (pardon the phraseology) from the bucket of resolute, to the bucket of hesitant to the bucket of surprised and now on board. It's also up to the #NeverTrump crowd to make up their minds so they don't end up (again, pardon the wording), at the back of the bus, because some other people are now getting ahead of them in the lineup.

The opportunity of change

This election has the potential to be a change election. The #NeverTrump crowd, the Weekly Standard, George Will, John Kasich, the Bush family, and the like have really missed the boat.  Clearly they're more concerned about the status quo than the country.  And by the status quo, I specifically mean their status quo.  They don't want outsiders getting inside the walls - not just Trump but also the electorate.  What they are missing is the opportunity that the change represents.

If the polls are correct, Trump could be on his way to a victory - a possibly huge victory.

By avoiding the opportunity they've guaranteed themselves, should Trump win, a seat on the outside.  The tactics made sense if Hillary remained ahead, even though the strategy was very flawed.  But the tactics are falling apart too - denouncing Trump in the face of a potential Trump landslide. 

Not only do they lose their seats of power on the inside, they're losing their base of followers, readers and supporters.  They've trapped themselves in an ever-shrinking echo chamber.

Meanwhile, America may be on the brink of pulling itself away from the brink of irreversible decay.  The Supreme Court, the military, the economy, and the removal of crony capitalism, bureaucracy, laws that encourage offshoring of jobs and Obamacare are all possible under a Trump presidency.  They might not all be achieved in four years, but they become possible, and theoretically achievable in eight years.  That's the real opportunity of the change.  How anyone who calls themselves a conservative would not be onboard with that is unfathomable.

Trump will not solve everything.  But even achieving a few of these things would be a massive success that could be built upon by future generations.

In addition, populism is not a dirty word.  It's a different way of achieving the Reagan Big Tent approach to conservatism.  If African Americans and legal Hispanics see significant gains under Trumpism, the potential for an electoral paradigm shift is also, huge.

Standing on the outside looking in is going to suck for those currently on the inside of the Republican hierarchy.  Trust the rest of us - we know.

Opportunity is Knocking and Timing is Everything

One of the things I like to do is connect the dots.  Not in some sort of crazy consiracy theorist sort of way, but rather linking together events or ideas in the spirit of James Burke.  Mr. Burke was able to connect seemingly unrelated pieces of history together to find a common thread of social and technical progress that, when put together make a lot of sense and indeed seem to have followed a logical path.

The real excitement though is finding events that link together when not all of those events have yet occured.  That's what I mean by timing is everything.

Over at Hillbuzz, a group of disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters have just recently become so disillusioned with the Obama left, they have decided to switch to Independent and possibly even vote for a Republican candidate if they aren't what they term a "religious zealot".

That is an OPPORTUNITY awaiting action.

Cue Sarah Palin's book release and next weeks visit to the Oprah Winfrey show. She has an historic opportunity to re-brand herself to a large swath of the American public.  A positive appearance, with insightful, intelligent and measured communication, an endearing approach would do wonders.  That Hillary supporters have just become 'officially' disenfranchised with Obama, and Oprah viewere may in fact constitute a large portion of the Hillbuzz crowd, means that the timing is not just an opportunity but a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin to make some serious inroads into her negative image scores in a short period of time.

Conservatism will outlive the Fairness Doctrine

Take heart conservatives, as unfair as the impending draconian imposition of the Fairness Doctrine may be, it won't last. Not as long as conservatism will last. The ideology is out of the bag, it cannot be stifled forever. Unfortunately the same could be said for Marxism. Someday it will rear it's ugly head in a big way again. Maybe in 100 years or 1000. But despite it's stupendously dismal failure in the Soviet Union, Marxism is unfortunately, not dead. And American conservatism is far, far from dead. Despite being knocked on it's heels by a Democrat 1-2 punch in 2006 and 2008, conservatism is vibrant and will be ready in 2010 to take back some ground from the liberals. The new Chi-coms (no, not Chinese communists, the Chicago communists).

Let's look at the Fairness Doctrine with a little bit of level-headedness. Something it's authors would never do. The idea that a specific medium like talk radio, dominated by conservatives, would be required under the threat of fines, to provide equal time to liberals is in itself unfair. Why? It only applies to the media that the Democrats don't totally own. Specifically talk radio and potentially the Internet. It's the liberal version of Nazi book burnings, and I bet they won't even bat an eye at that, since they believe they are doing humanity's work (I'd say God's work but, well, you know.)

But here's the thing even if they manage to railroad this absurd legislative idea through the House, the Senate and across Obama's desk with a Republican filibuster either non-existent or a mere speed bump along the way, IT WON'T STOP CONSERVATIVES. Why not? Because we're mean, angry SOBs who are zombies of the destruction of freedom. Not really, but it sounds scary.

Seriously though, conservatives should hearken back to our own principles and remember one thing. The Free Market. More specifically, borrowing from the economic treatises of Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations), The Invisible Hand (of zombie death). Boy, I hope some liberals somewhere are reading this and taking the zombie thing seriously.

This is how I see this playing out;

1) The Fairness Doctrine gets passed, in all it's rancid glory.

2) Radio stations, knowing that Air America was a failure (possibly set up to do so, in order to encourage this exact action down the road), decide rather than adding liberals to radio, it's cheaper to throw the conservative shows off the air.

3) The opportunity to take over the Internet media dies at the same time, since it's been included in the legislation as along with some obscure pork barrel project for Hawaii involving a T-shirt factory, gummy bears and $27 Billion in bailout TARP money.

4) The liberals throw a party, snort coke and cheat on their spouses, then lie about it.

5) This is where it gets interesting. The Invisible Hand takes over. People like Rush Limbaugh see that their capacity to educate, entertain, and generate income have been entirely smote by the legislation. They try to find another way to maintain their audience and continue to be heard.

6) The only place they can go is either (a) some medium that has not been invented yet - not possible, or (b) the Mainstream Media because it is not covered in the legislation. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events?

7) Conservatives manage to find their way onto television and into print, providing actual competition to liberal domination of the MSM, and bringing an unwanted sense of accuracy to those who'd rather just be pushing their own warped, liberal agenda. And the reason this will happen is because the Invisible Hand yet again - the numbers will bear out the profit-rationale of letting conservatives have an outlet for our ideas. And it doesn't matter if the head of broadcasting for CBS doesn't want conservative views to get air time, Westinghouse can see the dollar signs. Rush has 20 million listeners? Sign him up, he can do even better on TV (with the right production resources behind him every step of the way). Ann Coulter controversial? Great! Michelle Malkin shut out of Twitter now? Get her a prime time show! If the business case makes sense, the ideology floats away.

8) It almost makes sense for conservatives that the travesty of the Fairness Doctrine should happen during the recession. The dollar signs will be all that more appealing to bottom-line-conscious executives.

9) Then the living dead will turn up and try to eat the brains of liberals, only to die of starvation.

Remember, every threat is an opportunity in disguise. Or, a zombie.

Golden opportunity for GOP.

This is such an untapped opportunity. Get an RNC chair fast, get moving on moving the discourse fast!!!

From Rasmussen:

In the first week of December, just 22% of Democrats now say the nation is
heading in the right direction, down from an average of 27% for the full month
of November.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 15% of Republicans and 13% of unaffiliated voters say the nation is heading in the right direction. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans, 69% of Democrats and 80% of unaffiliated voters now say America is heading down the wrong track.

Overall, 17% of voters nationwide now say that the U.S. is heading in the right direction while 75% say we have gotten off on the wrong track. Confidence among Democrats jumped immediately after the Election, when 29% said the nation was heading in the right direction, compared to just 5% before Election Day.

Republicans lost confidence after the Election. During November, just 14% said the nation was heading in the right direction. Optimism among black voters is also down from November highs. The first numbers in December show 31% of blacks think the nation is heading in the right direction. That’s down from 38% in the month of November. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of blacks say the nation is heading down the wrong track.

Wrong track. That's pre-Blagojevich scandal. The numbers are not drastic, but they represent a clear change since November 4th, and against the Democrats. That tailwind is coming to a halt. Opportunity knocks RNC, are you ready for it?

Mumbai Terror - Threat and Opportunity

Yet another terrorist attack, yet again not on US soil, and yet again evidence that vigilance is imperative. What will the Bush and/or Obama Administrations do as a result? So far President Bush has offered condolences, and may be, at least publicly reticent to do more, given the dwindling time in office and the self-righteous Obama "Office of the President Elect" being the real power center since the election. Obama has similarly condemned the attacks and indicated it would not destroy Indian democracy. But far more needs to be done. The horrible attacks represent both a threat and opportunity to the War on Terror.

The Bush Administration's approach to Afghanistan has been to work with Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. While this may have spawned early success, it has clearly gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. With the increased level of unmanned aerial attacks, it's clear that the CIA, at least, has realized the limits of this approach and is exploring new ways of dealing with the problem of radical Muslim terrorism in the region.



With the terrible terrorist attacks on Mumbai, a new variable has been thrown into the equation. Some in India are angrily calling for war with Pakistan. Such a war would undoubtedly escalate into something larger, including the disputed Kashmir and Northern Areas.

This may be where the opportunity lies for the U.S. Of course no one outside the intelligence community is privy to the level of co-operation between the U.S. and India, but given that the focus has been a tactical alliance with Pakistan, my guess is that the connection with India has at a minimum been weakened. There are a myriad of opportunities available for the U.S. They could act as a peace broker between the two nations, fostering some goodwill in the process. They could take the opportunity to greatly strengthen ties with India. That would serve not only as a potential base of operations if Pakistan falters in it's support, but also, strengthened ties and a strengthened India (with respect to intelligence, trade, security, military and economically) would provide a regional counterbalance to the threat of an aggressive China. In the event of a war in the Kashmir and Northern Areas, supporting India might provide further opportunity to ferret out Bin Laden, in another area he could be in hiding.

Of course there a number of threats in these scenarios as well - a regional conflict may drag the Chinese into the Kashmir territory dispute. Another war front is simply unaffordable, especially during a recession. America may be forced to stand on the sidelines and the outcome would probably not be to their liking. Not gaining Indian support and losing support in Pakistan would severely impede operations in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is 1 1/2 times the size of Iraq, with 116% of Iraq's population, much less hospital terrain and about 20% of the amount of paved roads. Creating a stable Afghanistan has massive logistical problems as it is, losing a base of operations like Pakistan would pose incredible challenges. Even if India were to offer an opportunity along those lines, it would be exponentially more difficult logistically, given the distance between the base of operations and the area of operations. The remaining scenario is ramping up in Afghanistan to levels greater than in Iraq if the job is to get done properly. Given the geographic obstacles, the dangers to U.S. troops would be quite great.

If a regional conflict were to occur, Russian action might also be a possibility. It's a situation that could very quickly spiral out of control, and one where the U.S. is not in the best position to achieve it's regional objectives.

The United States is currently holding a weak hand at the table in many respects. It cannot finance further activity, it cannot rely on continued support from Pakistan in light of the Mumbai attacks, and recent comments from Pakistani military officials. Really negotiation and peace brokering are it's only options at this point, which are also weakened because the others at the table will know that the American 'big stick' isn't in play. The terror attacks in Mumbai are tragic, but they also represent a minefield that needs to be negotiated very skillfully if the United States wants to accomplish anything positive, or even avoid a possible flash point of a new threat to regional stability.