ARTICLE: Crux of Afghan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror, By ERIC SCHMITT and SCOTT SHANE, New York Times, September 7, 2009

The return of the Powell Doctrine of limited regret and limited effort. As Bruce Hoffman notes, it is entirely seductive. But as I will point out, and have for years, it's on the wrong side of history.

Globalization will not go into stasis on our command. It will continue to expand into frontier areas, making every perceived off-grid location part of our networked world.

What is sadly missing in this debate is the burden sharing--beyond NATO. We conduct this entire discussion in American-centric terms: What does it take to prevent an attack on our soil? How many American troops? How much can America afford? We understand NATO to be a severely declining asset--in demographic terms.

And yet, we cannot imagine danger that is not solely directed at the West, when a destabilizing hit on China would be just as bad as anything that could happen on our shore, if it caused Beijing to move down certain paths.

Bottom line: we grown past the self-delusions of the Powell Doctrine, despite it many temptations.

But we do not see the world in all its complexity. Only the West is ever "in danger," and so only the West must muster the effort--meaning primarily the U.S.

The learning curve continues, even as most people populating this debate have seen their world visions overtaken by events.