It's been replaced by a general agreement that she's smart, effective, tireless, dutiful—basically a good Secretary of State. That's partly because of an old tradition of politics stopping at the water's edge, at least in some cases, when it comes to foreign policy; partly because of Obama and Pelosi becoming objects of scorn on the Right; partly because she's doing a good job.

What's interesting, among many other interesting things about this president, is that he actually lets people argue it out sometimes in public. Clinton and Bob Gates, for instance, had a very different view of what to do in Afghanistan and it was known publicly. Leon Panetta, CIA Director, wanted photos released of bin Laden; he was overruled, but able to express opinion—and not just behind closed doors, but on TV.

There's a subtlety to these relationships that have all had their ups and downs, but they all basically work as a team. I think there's less dissension in this administration than in any since probably George H.W. Bush's in the early 1990s.

Voices from Washington were quite convinced that if only we get to bin Laden, if only we get rid of his senior lieutenants, there will be less reason to stay in Afghanistan and the only reason we're still there is because of him. Presumably he's been killed and now those voices need to come to terms with their own argument.

The new pretext for U.S. national security in Afghanistan and Pakistan is that the Taliban and, more precisely, their relationship with certain elements of Pakistani secret service, and hence I'm afraid we might be up for another battle over the hearts and minds of Americans: whether the U.S. should remain engaged because there's much more to be done in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I would refer to it as a mistaken strategy that treats Pakistan as if it were in the periphery of Afghanistan, rather than the opposite. It doesn't truly take Pakistan's complexity and national security interests into calculation while formulating policy toward that part of the world. Pakistan has historically had a national security interest in Afghanistan, and of course there's historic disagreement or more with India over Kashmir and other big strategic questions.

The fact that none of that is taken into consideration and Pakistan, a nuclear power with over 160 million people, is treated as such will end up making out of Pakistan a far more dangerous country and situation than we've ever seen in Afghanistan.

In this instance, the use, misuse and overuse of power has been done by the U.S. and Pakistan. I have no respect and no love for the Pakistani military establishment; I have no love lost for American mistakes in the greater Middle East that lead to the death of thousands upon thousands of people. From this very comfortable position of not having to take a stand, it's very important for the American people to understand that neither they nor I need to choose between bin laden and Bush, between Obama and Pakistan leadership, between Mubarak and Netanyahu...All of these are false choices.