Well, Bob, I'm not in the habit of praising George Bush, but I'll agree with you that his decision not to get U.S. soldiers tied up in Macedonia worked out well, given the demands placed on our military since Sept. 11. However, to call Bush "clairvoyant" seems a bit on the generous side. In fact, I won't even give him "prescient." Do you really think he expected anything like what happened on Sept. 11? This is a man whose administration has been focused on things like building a missile-defense system and staving off the looming North Korean threat. And I don't agree with you that Bush deserves special praise for predicting that the "Indian subcontinent" could become a trouble spot. Since 1998, when India and Pakistan had their nuclear-test duel, that particular insight has spread well beyond the Nostradamuses of the world.

I could go on, but I'd rather not get bogged down in an appraisal of Bush. He brings out the worst in me. Instead, I have a question for you: What is Bush's—or your—long-term plan? Halfway through your post you ask, "What Next?" And then you go on to talk exclusively about Afghanistan. The things you say are valuable, and I'm glad you think Bush should get at least somewhat into the nation-building business that he once disdained. But I personally think the long-term problem goes well beyond Afghanistan. I think it goes beyond al-Qaida, too. And I don't see much evidence that the Bush administration grasps the magnitude of the problem, much less has a long-term solution. Maybe you can change my mind—or at least convince me that you have a long-term solution.

Here's the problem, as I see it.

1) Increasingly, small groups of people have the capacity to wield massively lethal force. Sept. 11 was just the tip of the iceberg. As you know, terrorists have been working for years to get their hands on nuclear and biological weapons. And anthrax is far from the worst-case bioweapons scenario. For starters, it's not contagious.

2) Advancing information technology helps empower these small, destructive groups of people. It does so a) by promulgating knowledge of how to make the aforementioned weapons; b) by allowing these groups to orchestrate their plots without any physical, readily bombable headquarters; c) by helping terrorists mobilize a base of popular support, in which they can find sustenance and from which more terrorists can be recruited.

3) All this is happening in a period of great technological and social flux. You know: information age, globalization, breakneck modernization in some parts of the world, and so on. Such periods tend to bring stress and to create extremely alienated people and groups.

In sum: Today it's al-Qaida, but tomorrow it could be some other group—some other group of radical Muslims or some wholly different type of group: radical environmentalists, German and/or American neo-Nazis, etc. I take very seriously the possibility that in five or 10 or 20 years, a handful of terrorists could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Having read your stuff, I know that you aren't generally dismissive of grim scenarios. And, having discussed these things with you in the past, I'm pretty sure that you accept the specific premises I've laid out. But if you do reject my grim scenario, let me know what's wrong with it. And if you don't reject it, then I have two questions:

1) Have you seen any evidence that Bush has a plan that's up to the challenge? 2) Do you have such a plan? I do (kind of). I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.