I'm skeptical that Pakistan would do much if the U.S. decided it needed to do regular cross-border raids. If nothing else, Wikileaks revealed the duplicity of governments like Pakistan blustering against U.S. misbehavior for public consumption, then quietly aiding and abetting Uncle Sam to keep his generous aid flowing into their bank accounts. At some point, a few of Pakistan's unpopular politicians may be dumped (or assassinated) due to man-in-the-street disgust with their corruption, but who's there to pick up the pieces?-- the generals, who are very good at playing both ends against the middle. More of the same old, same old.

I wish I shared Tom's optimism. I think the far likelier scenario is one where crass demagogues ignite more wars to distract the people from their troubles at home. Modern history is littered with such crimes. And the American people will once again be whipped into a blood-frenzy. Here in Arizona, watching the frightened white middle-class blame poor, benighted Mexicans for all their problems is just a foretaste of the scapegoating to come on an international scale.

It's no mystery why we are so comfortable with our role of masters of the world, or why we should see those who object to that role as "childish" or "sensitive." Post-WWII, we've maintained massive military occupations of dozens of countries-- Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. -- with nary a peep from their governments and only sporadic, ineffectual protests from the people. If we'd tried to withdraw our forces, those governments would have protested vehemently (having become addicted to the regular flow of "stimulus" funds from the U.S. military).

In our leaders' limited, unimaginative view, why should the peoples of central Asia be any different? Ok, there was that Vietnam fiasco, but we've solved that with embedded, not independent, media, and a new norm where the generals and admirals run the show and the civilian leadership attends to domestic concerns like health care. And, Ok, there are grumblings from the new Japanese government about throwing out some of our occupation forces there, but that government won't last long-- we can see to that.

Yep, the arrogance and racism inherent in our surprise at native people's "sensitivity" over our bombing them and running their countries is as old as humanity itself. No "turning the tables" story, no matter how cogent, will cause so much as a flicker of reflection in our leaders' reptilian brains.

"But since there is no evidence to support this belief (just as there was no evidence to support the belief that the Bush administration could create democracy on the Tigris and Euphrates), it is simply hope against experience."

I guess that's what "audacity of hope" means (with the emphasis on audacity).

My jaw dropped when I read this quote from the Guardian's coverage of the New Economic School speech: "In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over..."

I used to laugh at Bush when he would traipse around the world and say things like this. Now the same monumentally absurd, arrogant stuff comes out of Obama's mouth, and people take it seriously (or at least the U.S. media wants us to think they do).

I got some more chuckles from a follow-up AP propaganda piece ("Obama Appeals to Russians") covering reactions to the speech. This one was a real howler:

"When the president warned that 'a great power does not show strength by demonizing and dominating other countries,' the students instantly recognized the reference to Russia's war last year with neighboring Georgia. 'I think we have to be more friendly and respectful toward our nearest neighbors,' said graduate Diana Lachinova."

Self insight in nations as well as individuals is so valuable, and yet so rare.