"Russia: Putin Considers Sending Troops to Iraq," www.stratfor.com, 16 July.

Many said I was nuts when I proposed in the Washington Post Outlook section in April that the U.S. should seek peacekeeping troops from Russia, India (whom they asked previously) and China. When I was on NPR last month, the Atlantic Monthly's Jack Beatty described that notion as "politically impossible."

I got this reference from Capt. Ryan Boyle (a regular weblog reader) at USMC headquarters in Washington, so my thanks to him.

The gist of the article is that Moscow is seriously considering a request by the Bush Administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan (can you believe it?) this fall, just before the election.

Yes, much will depend on Putin's calculations of Bush's likelihood of victory, but the real point here is that it is: 1) not inconceivable that Russia would say yes and 2) the Bush Administration buys into the logic that New Core powers need to be represented in this Global War on Terrorism.

How many are we talking about? Maybe 40,000. What would that do to the Islamic notion of a "clash of civilizations" with the West? It would blow that myth out of the water. Risky for Putin? You bet, but so is sitting on the sidelines.

For me personally? This article is yet another example of why I have a very thick skin about people telling meóthroughout my careeróthat my strategic forecasting was pie-in-the-sky nonsense. The reason why so many experts and journalists see PNM as a guide book to this administration is not because I have inside dope, it's because I've simply cracked the strategic code under which this administrationóand all that follow for decadesówill invariably find themselves dealing with, day-in and day-out.

Here's hoping this thing actually pans out, but either way, the logic of cooperation now seems a whole lot more plausible, despite the constant whining of nay-sayers like Beatty.