[mburbank]

My main problem with your argument Preech, is that you see this 'paradigm shift' as something coherent, a shift. I would call this more of a paradigm lurch, or maybe a paradigm spasm or even a paradigm siezure.

I would say that since the end of the cold war we have been paradigm confused. We fuck around with all sorts of paradigms, most of which are variations on the cold war paradig of which are like the cold war paradigm, some of which are 'clash of civilzation' type paradigms and some of which are bizarro free market as physics and or religion paradigms. We currently almost as many paradigms as there are opinion and policy makers. I don't think this is odd or even unwarranted. But I think you are engaged in magical thinking to believe we truly have a coherent foreign policy that qualifies as a paradigm. It's a hopeful view, and I applaud that, but in some ways it reminds me of tin foil hat conspiracies, in that it assumes a degree of competence I just don't see.

For instance; If it's all going down acording to plan, what do you make of this national Intelligence estimate that says the war in Iran has increased the the power and threat of terrorism?