Dahayun:

I was looking forward to your comments (especially about the Phillipines).

Try to unscramble the muddle between Karzai and what increasingly is viewed by him as a block (Holbrooke/Galbraith/ISI/Taliban- ex Baradar), and it lloks like we could not be any more "in your face" to him than we are.

Iran sure looks like a close-by refuge in case things turn the way of Kyrgystan. Better off there than hanging around off a lamppost.

My guess is that the whole thing, like Iraq's election negotiations, is a game in progress, with no certain or predicatable outcomes.

On the other hand, pressing against Karzai may initially trigger his worries, but, on the other hand, trigger the worries of those who rely on, or would like to get, US and International assistance. The point of many of his powerful supporters, and opponents alike, was to get access to the trough we keep filling. If the US had the moxy to credibly threaten that trough, internal politics would have to come into play like never before.

How does anyone react if it were a credible potential that Karzai was no longer a path to the trough, and directly threatens future access for those not yet feeding?

BBC News goes everywhere, and the events in Kyrgystan, are all in the same neighborhood/sphere. All manner of things can occur when pressure builds.

The question is: If we stand like patsies while being openly dissed by him, there is no reason for anybody to do anything different. Status Quo is not a viable solution for us either.

In my mind, Galbraith and Holbrooke are abundantly signaling that a window is closing, and he isn't at it. To me. West's article was a "put" in the military game, as well as a further play to mobilize political support for US efforts.

If all that doesn't trigger a response, then another hand will be dealt. I doubt that any hand would ever include full-US withdrawal, but if Holbrooke and ISI are together and can limit/control the Taliban to meet minimum US objectives, it would not be the first time that we have substantially turned on our heel.

I just wonder whether all these folks are bluff (our side included), and the game will go on unchanged for a very long time. Something about having balls, or cutting the Gordian Knot that requires at least one party to actually do something significantly different. Haven't seen that yet.

On the other hand, if you start seeing serious experts like Dr. Cordesman come back from the current grand tour with serious change recommendations, US domestic politics could rapidly shift one way or another.

My three cents.