Memo to neocons: How about that "Maoist Threat"

I've been reading a lot of stuff recently about a Maoist-led guerrilla campaigns in India and Nepal. The Financial Times had a long and intresting analysis today about the Insurgency in India - how the Maoist threat reaches beyond Nepal. It notes that:

Aspectre is haunting South Asia - the spectre of Maoism.
An ideology ofpeasant-led revolution that swept the villages of rural China in the 1920s has made an unexpected reappearance on the Indian subcontinent. At just the moment that India is emerging as an economic powerhouse on the world stage, landless revolutionaries committed to the class struggle and the destruction of the state are gaining control of vast swathes of territory at home.
Prompted by the political crisis in Nepal, where the world's only Hindu king is battling to save his throne from a Maoist-led campaign, India is belatedly waking up to the gravity of the threat from leftwing extremists.
Motivated by resentment at generations of social injustice made all the more intolerable by the inequitable distribution of the country's new wealth, the Maoists are identified by Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, as the single greatest threat to Indian national security.
"We need to give the problem a very high priority," Mr Singh told chief ministers of India's states at a meeting to discuss the Maoist crisis in New Delhi. The movement may have lost much of its intellectual attraction, Mr Singh conceded, but it was gaining in strength as deprived and alienated sections of the population found a sense of empowerment in taking up arms. "The phenomenon is directly related to underdevelopment," he said.
Beijing, too, is concerned that Maoist peasant-led revolution should not be re-imported through China's vulnerable Tibetan underbelly. The government had seen Nepal's King Gyanendra as a valuable bulwark against "instability".

I don't know about you but I smell a new "threat" here to international peace, the spreading of democracy, globalization. India is our new ally which is supposed to contain that other "threat," China. And we all know that notwithstanding their denials, the Chinese are probably behind this Moaist insurgency and I have a feeling that there are probably some "links" between these guys and Osama bin Ladin and probably also Iran and maybe Chavez and his crew in Latin America. Were these Maoists involved in 9/11? And why not? So what are we waiting for? Where is the neocons when we really need them? I'm waiting for one of those long commentaries by the Bill Kristol/Robert Kagan duo in the Weekly Standard on the Maoist Threat and about how the American people should rise up to the new challenge, and not try to "appease" the Maoists, and that before it would be too late, we need to send U.S. troops to South Asia and form a military alliance with the Indians and how about a "regime change" in Nepal and spreading "Freedom" in the Greater South Asia.

Now... you probably think that this sounds crazy. Well, that was the kind of reaction I had to deal with in April 1991 when I published the The "Neocons": From the Cold War to the "Global Intifada". I repeat -- 1991!. Let's not underestimate them once again.