I don’t know what Gen Petraeus thinks and were I in his shoes, what alternatives would be open to me? The solution to Pakistan it seems, must begin with creating a core constituency whose natural aspiration is something other than the Jihad or mayhem. You have to organize a group whose interests line up with peace, tolerance and prosperity. That will require stabilizing a very fluid situation, building some latticework within the bowl of Jell-O that Pakistani politics has become. This doesn’t guarantee a cure for the patient. But stabilizing the patient is merely the necessary, not the sufficient prerequisite to a solution.

The alternatives are ghastly. If Pakistan falls to pieces and rogue elements get their hands on nukes or attack India unrestrained, we could be looking a regional nuclear war. But on the other hand, protecting the ISI and the Jihadis from the consequences of their actions will encourage them. If India doesn’t hit back hard, the “teen gunmen” will be back. Ultimately fixing Pakistan will require more effort than anyone is willing to invest. Obama’s strategic problem — not Petraeus’ — is that he has worked harder than anyone to discredit a sustained Global War on Terror when a multi-decade effort is the only thing that will work. He came to office promising to work miracles and now he will find that his gestures cannot calm the winds or still the oceans. What this means is that Petraeus won’t get the fuel and infrastructure to fight this over the long haul. Providing the political support for that effort is Obama’s job. And Obama has taken a wrecking ball to the very concept of a long war on terror. David Kilcullen estimated it would take 30 years to fix Pakistan. It’s like a ramshackle building that has to be fixed and shored up one step at a time. There are no magic bullets here. At least there isn’t one labeled “restrain India, get full cooperation from Islamabad”.