The home team is weak right as the away game gets huge

■"Bush Troubles at Home May Impair Power Abroad: Hurdles Rise on Trade Pacts, Nuclear Threats, Bringing Shift to Seeking Out Allies," by Gerald F. Seib and Neil King, Jr., Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A1.

■"Many Hindrances Beset Iraq's Road to Recovery: (1) Coalition's Moves to Quell Insurgency Hurt Efforts To Win Hearts and Minds, and (2) U.S. Auditor Says Violence, Incompetence, Corruption Stymie Rebuilding Effort," by (1) Philip Shishkin and (2) Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A14.

■"India on the Frontline," op-ed by Brahma Chellaney, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A17.

■"Bombings in India Could Complicate Pakistan Relations," by Peter Wonacott, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A14.

■"'Wiped Off the Map,'" editorial, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A16.

■"Regime Change: A case for strategic engagement with Iran," op-ed by Abbas Milani, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A16.

The Bushies are finding everyone turning on them in international for a. New Orleans was the start of the Bush post-presidency. Libby's indictment and Miers' withdrawal just formalized it.

Experts like to talk about the famed late Reagan second term reorganization under Howard Baker as the model for getting out of this hole, but the missing link here is Nancy Reagan, Ronnie's key ally in moments where his heart ruled his head on friends in high places. There is little sign to date that Laura has that steely, nasty quality when it's needed most, and that's too bad, because a weak America over the next three years will mean we'll have a lot of compromises forced upon us under duress, instead of with our leadership. In short, the system will run itself under this scenario, and that will get us a lot of temporizing instead of needed action.

Iraq, for example, still burns far too much under the incompetence of our rebuilding effort. There is no Falluja we cannot destroy, but there's also no Falluja that we can rebuild adequately enough to win any hearts and minds by trying to drive out the insurgency. We have the worst of both worlds: the Leviathan works its destruction but the SysAdmin force is missing in action, in large part because its coalition makeup simply doesn't reach the critical mass to convince our enemies that the world wants peace in Iraq instead of the U.S. just wanting enough security to be able to pull out. If I was the insurgency, I'd jack up the pressure right now too. Bush is weak, America has few friends, and insists on rerunning the whole WMD thing with Iran when all that will do is secure the leadership of the hardliners for the long haul.

Things simply won't wait.

India can't wait. India's relationship with Pakistan can't wait.

India can't be aggressive in rooting out terrorism in the region unless it has some larger cover provided by a strong America. Otherwise, Pakistan will freak in the process and the fragile peace in that region can easily be shattered. And when that happens, which way does China go?

We don't need brave talk about wiping Iran's regime off the map right now. The question isn't, can you imagine that regime with nukes? The question is, what kind of Iranian regime would make that quest meaningless? And how do we get there?

We can't muster the votes in the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Council right now. Compare that to 14 resolutions on Iraq and ask yourself, "Expect America to put together any serious coalition on Iran any time soon?" Especially one that we can be certain Brazil, India, China and Russia oppose? Because if you can't imagine that, then regime change is off the table except by co-optation. We'll have to kill the regime with connectivity. Democracy is not an option with Iran, because the mullahs won't allow that any time soon, but connectivity is just what the Expediency Council ordered (the new body created by the mullahs to override any stupidity coming out of the obviously incompetent cabinet put in place by the "wiped off the map" pinhead that is Ahmadinejad. My God! When you key enemy's leadership basically countermands the outcome of an election in which the hardliners win and installs the losing reformist candidate who's spoken openly of dealmaking with America in a new superpowerful body that sits above that hardline government, is that the time to run around like chickens with your heads cut off simply because the president mouths some tough talk?

But where is our foreign policy leadership right now? Rice has basically punted the issue. She says America won't talk to Iran one on one right now, instead leaving it to the Europeans. Such is the status of our global leadership right now.

Here's my dream scenario: Card steps down as chief of staff in the White House, citing exhaustion. Bush says to Condi, "I need you here" and Bob Zoellick takes over at State. Then Rummy steps down and Gordon England, steady hand that he is, moves quietly to continue the Old Man's brilliant reforms of the Pentagon from within. In that much more level bureaucratic playing field, Snow's take on China at Treasury starts to prevail and Zoellick is free to work some serious magic in international fora on our behalf (Zoellick is a trusted agent who could get us plenty where we need it most: help from key New Core pillars like India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa et. al).

A dream, yes, but a good one.