FRONT PAGE: "Obama's Meeting With the Dalai Lama Is Delayed: Move Appears to Be A Nod to Chinese," by John Pomfret, Washington Post, 5 October 2009.

As readers of this blog can well attest, I'm not much for championing the Tibetan cause. There are many good reasons why interior, landlocked countries tend to be conquered by coastal powers.

So no, I have no problem with Obama not elevating the Dalai Lama to the level of a head of state, because the concept of "strategic reassurance" (Obama team phrase) is just fine--if a bit OBE.

Prior to the financial crisis, I think you could have easily characterized most of Bush-Cheney's policies on China as falling into this category, with the rest trending in the direction of containment/hedging.

But once the financial crisis reveals to the rank-and-file citizen--on both sides--the reality of the financial balance of terror (Summers' term), I think we move beyond this requirement. Geithner is operating at a level way beyond strategic reassurance--as he should be. I think Clinton has moved beyond it too.

A truly bold Obama frames his Af-Pak choice as part of this relationship--sort of a strategic responsibility tack with Beijing.

Why? Because if we leave or go light (not that much difference), China will be among those stuck with the strategic responsibility--simply as a matter of geography.

As usual, the term becomes popular just as the dynamic is OBE.