(Hi, blog. Have you missed me? Can you forgive me for cheating on you? We have something special here and I don’t want to let you go. But I’ve got to focus on my other commitments at the moment, so I’m going to probably Susie Madrak you for a bit. Is it narcissistic to say I feel guilty?)

Man, how I wish I checked out this New York counterterrorism forum that my old colleague Daphne Eviatar writes up, because Juan Zarate made some excellent points. “We have to have a sense of resilience. Every attack can’t create a maximal response, because it feeds the enemy,” said Zarate, and don’t hold his service in the second-term Bush White House against him. Looking at the proliferation of drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, Zarate noted that al-Qaeda is “baiting the U.S. into a regional quagmire,” which is in the current discourse is practically heretical; undoubtedly true; but (in fairness) still leaves you without a framework for a response that addresses the threat proportionately. Still, it’s refreshing to see someone with as much high-level policy-making experience as Zarate contend that al-Qaeda wins by waving the red cape at the American bull until he slams into the brick wall. For more on this, see Adam Serwer, who’s on fire lately.

Daphne wants to contrast Zarate with Lindsey Graham. I checked out Graham’s AEI speech on Monday — or half-checked it out; I was busy with Danger Room stuff but kept the webcast open as I worked; didn’t seem fair to post about it at the time — and I want to focus on other aspects of Graham’s speech than the ones Daphne ably addresses.

Graham can drive me nuts sometimes. The gap between his obvious intelligence and the timidity or cynicism of his proposals is so glaring. Like here he is talking about Afghanistan. He’s on the verge of making a valuable point to an audience that needs to consider it. “To my hawkish brothers and sisters, what is our plan B?  Plan B for the left and the libertarian movement is to leave.  Plan B for the right, is see plan A.”

And then… nothing. Senator, you’ll be doing the country a great service if you spell out a Plan B.

In fact, you yourself need to think it through, because on your own terms, we’re about to need it. “And what is losing?” Graham asks. “I think losing would be allowing the Taliban to come back in power in portions or all of the country.  I’ve got one simple thought – the Taliban running anything is not a good idea, particularly if you happen to be a young woman who believes in religious freedom and tolerance.”

Senator, meet Hamid Karzai, who’s trying to start peace negotiations with the Taliban. To borrow a trope of yours from AEI, raise your hand if you think Karzai will ultimately have to talk about power-sharing with the Taliban if those negotiations have a prayer of success. I can tell you it’s what people expect in Afghanistan. So: you’ve got the president of the country seeking a situation rather close (to be generous) to your “Failure” scenario. Shouldn’t you find a Plan B?

Right, this post was supposed to be about Zarate and counterterrorism vigilance. But I suffer from mission creep and lack the will to find and implement a mitigation strategy. So I withdraw now, without having achieved my maximal goals for this post but also without having it collapse entirely around me. Accordingly, I must embrace a post-post confusion and resign myself to wonder forevermore if starting to write this was worth it in the first place.