Captain's Quarters -

Let's see, invade Pakistan from the north, and how exactly are we to supply such an invading force when our supply line is through Pakistan?

we almost conducted raids into Pakistan winter time last year, we called it off at the last moment; Pakistan is a sovereign nation, if we had Mush's backing I would be all for it as long as it was coordinated or we had the location of zawahiri or bin laden (if he is still alive)

As John Derbyshire points out, we're not going to do this because nobody wants a bigger war than the one we've got now. (Even Lee Hamilton doesn't, but he's got to get his face on CNN somehow, so he pretends that invading Pakistan would be easy.)

That's the same reason we're not going to respond to Iran's and Syria's acts of war by making war against them.

"We don't have a choice"? Of course we have a choice. And we've made it. Deep down, we all feel that it's just not worth it in the way that fighting Germany and Japan was worth it.

Hamilton belongs to the unfortunately large group of airheads to which an abstract use of military force will solve problems, but a real-world use of force is to be avoided. It must be nice to live in the world of paperback novels.

Hamilton just needs to be patient. Our eventual withdrawal from Iraq will supply us with plenty of opportunities to attack the safe haven in that country, too.

There are a couple of other options:

(1) Joint operations with the Pakistani military in Waziristan; Paks on the ground, with some US Special Forces, and the US in the air. Then we're allies, not invaders.

(2) 'Covert' US operations by Special Forces, with a wink and a nod from Musharraf.

Of course, if OBL is in Iran (as I suspect), then we're going to come up empty. But it would still be worthwhile to knock AQ and the Taliban back on their heels.

/Mr Lynn

Bush has been pushing Pakistan for the last 5 years? That is news to me. Lee Hamilton is not necessarily suggesting we invade Pakistan. He is reflecting the opinion of the vast majority of the American people who will ask the same question should Al Qaeda execute another attack here well after we knew where they were planning it from.

Pakistan's stability is important. So is the need to prevent a mass casualty attack here.

It looks more and more like bone-bending stupidity has been and is a prerequisite for election to either branch of Congress. Where do these fools come from? How do they get elected? Or in Hamilton's case, appointed? And why must we suffer them?

Hamilton belongs to the unfortunately large group of airheads to which an abstract use of military force will solve problems,

Wait, wait, wait... Trying to attack AQ's leadership (the people who planned 9/11) and training grounds (which is exporting cells to the west) is an "abstract" use of military force?

While invading a country that never attacked us, never threatened us (and ended up not even having the ability to pull off the former) without a plan for the post-invasion period is "real world" military action?

Again, to quote Ian Hunter, I think I liked it better when the world was round.

Invading allies shouldn't be a problem here. It's such a good idea, we can probably do several at once.

We can invade Mexico; that should put an end to illegal immigration.

We can invade China, and shut down all those factories that are producing dangerous food and cheap products.

We can invade Saudi Arabia, and cut off their funding for radical Islam at its source.

Hey, we can invade Canada, too, so we can annex it into the US. They're practically Americans anyway, and since we import oil from them, it will help our energy independence. And they'll never see it coming.

Let's face it: the reason we're not in Waziristan right now is simple: the American people don't have the stomach for more war.

And while we're puttering around looking for Ed's opening for a "decapitating strike", AQ is looking for the exact same opportunity to do to us.

Which do you suppose is stronger, our will to attack AQ in Pakistan or AQ's will to attack civilians on US soil?

And sadly, the answer to that question will almost certainly determine which happens first.

And to Mr. Lynn's point, I don't think people are suggesting we "invade" Pakistan. But with all of Bush's talk about dead or alive, OBL will be brought to justice, we will hunt down terrorists where ever they are... one would think he would be able to work with one of our stronger allies to attack those who attacked us on Sept. 11. It's been five years now.

And don't think that invading Iraq hasn't hurt our ability to do this. If there fear that Musharef would anger his population by allowing such an operation in Pakistan, then don't you think that the negative will that the Iraq invasion generated in that area of the world has a lot to do with it?

The bottom line is that Bush has failed to bring those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks to any sort of justice and as watched as they've regroup and rebuilt training facilities.

Maybe Hamilton should have been put to bed and tucked in tightly during Harry Reid's sleepover. (Was there something bad in that pizza?)

the American people don't have the stomach for more war.

I honestly believe that if Bush went on the air right now and told the American people US forces were going into Pakistan with the blessing of Musharef to go after OBL (dead or alive) and other al qaeda leadership and destroy their training camps, they'd be all for it.

Whether that is feasible right now? Another question. If it's not feasible, why that not yet another question.

Sorry, that last line should read "why not is yet another question."

MrLynn is getting to the point nicely.

The range of options, both military and otherwise, are broad and various almost to the point of making the term "invasion" worthless for any meaningfully descriptive purpose. We can co-operate with the current government of Pakistan in any number of ways with various combinations of forces and methods, to degrade whatever terrorist organizations there are in Waziristan. We have a bag of tools available to us that doesn't require the kind of heavy-handed 1944 style "invasion and occupation" operation that the left is so paranoid about. And it may even result in a stronger and more stable Pakistan without the present strength of the terrorist groups and their radical enablers.

We have a range of choices and combinations of choices, at our disposal; not just "Yes!" or "No!"

And as far as the President's talk of getting OBL and all the rest of it is concerned, one of the great mistakes of this war has been the administrations failure to clearly and repeatedly clarify war aims. This is NOT a war to capture OBL or to bring anybody to justice, its a war to defeat and destroy terrorism. Wherever and by whomever it's used! That's why it's going to be THE war of the 21st century and why it's inevitably going to change how the world works.

We don't have to invade Pakistan. What we can do is to tie our generous bribe .. oops aid to specific actions by the Pakistani army. The first $100M gets to you after you clear this zone etc.

Now, if you say that Pakistan is so unstable that even a little bit more pressure can topple Musharraf and hand their nukes to Al Qaeda, then we really should immediately send our snake eaters and take out their nukes.

If we believe that their nukes are safe enough for now, then we should press them more. We cannot have it both ways. Pakistan has not been stable for years, so putting our thumbs up our rear end worrying about "destabilizing" the region is not a credible policy.

Lee Hamilton may be an idiot but the people who run Bush's Pakistan policy could star in the next Dumb and Dumber movie.

its a war to defeat and destroy terrorism. Wherever and by whomever it's used!

OK, let's forget about capturing OBL and senior AQ leadership for now. AQ is operating freely inside of Pakistan right now. In terms of killing bin Laden, you're right, it's unknown if that would have any real impact on damaging AQ as an organization, and it might even help it (kind of an Obi Wan Kenbi thing...).

BUT...

A videotape obtained by ABC News from a Pakistani journalist shows groups of dozens of men al Qaeda says have gone through a terror training camp somewhere in Pakistan.

On the tape, the leader of the British team speaks of the mission in broken English, "Let me say something about why we are going along with my team to tell a suicide attack in Britain."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/car-bomb-found-.html

It's funny, but Bush has used so much tough talk about going after terrorism in regards to Iraq, but those who attacked us on Sept. 11 are operating and plotting freely. WTF?

Shortly after 9/11, our government quietly went to the Pakistanis through back channels and basically gave them the "you're either with us or against us" speech, with the caveat that choosing to be against us would carry deadly consequences for them.

Musharraf very wisely made the choice that he would be with us, and he still is. Keeping Pakistan's military nuclear arsenal out of the hands of Al Qaeda is in all of our best interests.

And now the genius Lee Hamilton wants to turn Musharraf into our enemy and turn was has been one of our better decisions into a big disaster. It's pretty sad to think that this jackass was one of the main writers of the official history of 9/11.

from the following linked article...

"American military forces in Afghanistan are expected to take part in the effort to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda bases in the NWFP. Shahzad says a secret agreement has already been reached to allow American troops to launch ‘hot pursuits’ into Pakistan against Taliban fighters, and American warplanes and intelligence assets will undoubtedly be utilized. NATO intelligence, Shahzad says, has pinpointed four Taliban bases in Waziristan, from which attacks against its troops are organized and launched, that it wants taken out. "

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29151

Yeah, Mike, he's really advocating turning Musharef into our enemy...

"This has to be carefully calibrated, worked out with the Pakistanis, but I am very concerned that you have a safe haven in Pakistan today where they (al Qaeda) can regroup, rethink, and get ready for more attacks," Hamilton said on CNN's "Newsroom" on Wednesday.

Jayzuz...Mush is hanging by a thread and Hamilton suggests something as goofy as this? The Paki-street make the Mullah's, IRGC, al-Qod's - hell, you name them - look like pacifists.

Somebody had better take both Baker and Hamilton aside and find out whose pocket they’re in because they’re doing their best to see this one go up in flames.

Tom, just so you know, people can see your posts.

It's easy to take shots at Hamilton, but six years after 9/11 to talk about a strong and dangerous AQ organization, a regrouped one in Pakistan, particularly in light of the NIE release, really makes the WH and the Iraq war look very bad.

Evidently you didn't listen to the audio on the video.

He said at the first of the statement that any action inside Pakistan "has to be carefully orcestrated with the Pakistanis."

This statement nullifies your whole post.

He is not so stupid and ill informed to not know how the cards are stacked in Pakistan.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Yes, and my point is that the Bush administration has tried to get that coordination for five years -- and Musharraf isn't going to agree to it. Hamilton is essentially saying nothing at all, because he's arguing for a course that the present administration would take up in a heartbeat. Hamilton and CNN present it as if it's something new.

My post is meant to show how ridiculous this supposed wisdom is.

Well just remember Okonkolo, it wasn't the Bush White House or the Iraq war that decided to provide a safe haven for AQ to regroup in, it was Musharraf. And he was responding to his own domestic situation in a vain effort to accommodate the tribes of his own Wazirian provinces, in response to a widely perceived American wavering.

After all, if you were in Musharraf's shoes you'd be just as obsessed as he is by the daily choice of allies in this war. He is riding a tiger and trying desperately every day to stay on top and not inside. Pakistan is barely holding itself together in spite of tremendous internal tensions. If America quits, and Pakistan falls into the hands of an Iranian-style Mullahocracy with a nuclear arsenal, then the world gets much less stable and he dies. And very badly, indeed!

Even evil geniuses like Bush and Cheney can't control everything.

...a war to defeat and destroy terrorism. Wherever and by whomever it's used!

Except...it isn't.

In retrospect, it was foolish to succumb to that sort of rhetoric in the first place (and I'm as guilty as anyone of doing so). The idea that this is some sort of struggle for the fate of the world is ludicrous.

(Not to mention that you can neither defeat nor destroy a tactic.)

And if I'm wrong, then please tell me why we're acting as if I'm right? If this really is "going to be THE war of the 21st century," then why have we not massively increased the defense budget, brought back conscription, and geared up for total war as we did after Pearl Harbor? Why have we not barred the entry of Muslims into our country and carpet-bombed or nuked our enemies into submission? Why have we not at least stopped treating our enemies (Saudi Arabia, for example) as allies? Why is no one (including me, I hasten to add) even advocating that we do these things?

It's because no one really believes that the war you're talking about is worth fighting. Terrorism is just not that big a deal.

" Terrorism is just not that big a deal"

Tell that to the people who worked in the World trade Center, the Pentagon or in Madrid, London, Bali, etc... you fucking asshole.

" Terrorism is just not that big a deal"

Tell that to the people who worked in the World trade Center, the Pentagon or in Madrid, London, Bali, etc... you idiot.

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, terrorism is a big deal and will be a huge deal if they manage to sneak a nuclear weapon into the country and sucessfully detonate it. Then we will nuke them into submission and go into total war mode.

Temper, temper, Tim.

Everything's a big deal to those whom it affects directly, but that isn't how grownups determine what a nation's foreign policy should be. And that's what we're supposed to be talking about.

So tell me, if you think that we are engaged in a World-Historical Struggle Against the Forces of Evil, would you advocate the steps I outlined in the post which provoked your childish outburst? And if not, then what is the point of throwing a tantrum over something which you clearly agree with?

And if I'm wrong, then please tell me why we're acting as if I'm right? If this really is "going to be THE war of the 21st century," then why have we not massively increased the defense budget, brought back conscription, and geared up for total war as we did after Pearl Harbor?

What you neglect to mention in your post is that the entire situation is extremely complicated, in large part due to the fact that the region of the world where the terrorism emanates from also happens to be the largest oil producing region of the world as well.

As satisfying as it might be for many of us to see a modern day Hap Arnold lead the firebombing of Mecca and Medina, the resulting $150 a barrel for oil that would result would have such an impact on the world economy that it simply isn't worth it at this point in time. In the future maybe, but not now.

If as some of the geniuses here suggest, Musharraf is hanging on by a thread, then the FIRST priority in the War on Terror and the overall US national security interest would be to take over Pakistan's nukes. Anything else would be irresponsible.

The fact is that Musharraf has been as comfortable in 2001 as he is today. No dictator who is "hanging on by a thread" can last six plus years of consolidating power.

Almost every renowned Pakistan expert says that Musharraf likes to portray a picture of weakness just to get us off his back. A weak leader cannot produce an "Al Qaeda #3" to coincide with visits of Dick Cheney or Condi Rice.

As satisfying as it might be for many of us to see a modern day Hap Arnold lead the firebombing of Mecca and Medina...

This strikes me as similar to advocating mass random arrests in inner-city Detroit to deal with high crime rates among American blacks. It wouldn't help anything, but it would certainly satisfy some people. David Duke, for example.

There would be many more sensible targets for destruction if we were really fighting World War IV, which we're not.

I should probably state again that I do not advocate total war. Nor would I find random slaughters of Muslim populations, or intentional destruction of sacred sites for no military purpose, satisfying in any way even if I did.

...it simply isn't worth it....

Precisely my point. It isn't worth it, and no one really thinks it is (though I wouldn't limit the "it" to the disruption of oil supplies. There are all sorts of "its" that it isn't worth.)

Well ScottM, I guess that's where we part company because it IS the battle for the fate of earth. And insofar as you and those who hold your view have the power to carry it into affect, the earth and everything all of us ever dreamed of becoming, is most certainly lost.

I will concede you the point that terrorism is a tactic, or as its often otherwise labeled, a weapons system. And it is the weapon system of choice of Radical Fundamentalist Islam, whose aim is to return the world to a 7th century hell of tribal society that is so catastrophically barbaric that it pushes some of us into disbelief and denial. But it most certainly can be defeated if those nations that enable and support it, are forced to change their policies in that regard, and if simultaneously measures are developed to defend against it. Can you imagine what Hamas and Fatah and AQ and all the rest would do if Iran and Saudi Arabia and the EU would stop funding them? Can you imagine what would happen to them if they couldn't move about or communicate securely with each other or transfer funds anywhere in the world? Can you imagine what they would do if there were no place they could rest and plan and train and recruit with safety and comfort?

Terrorist organizations and their sponsors and enablers, need the infrastructure of modernity to function and act in pursuit of their aims. They need state sponsors and large amounts of money. They don't exist nor can they function in a vacuum.

And finally, when someone says that "Terrorism is just not that big a deal" I wonder if what you really mean to say is that freedom and Western values and the sanctity of individuals is "just not that big a deal". What I hear is that terrorism and its Radical Muslim purveyors don't seem to threaten anything you put very much value on.

Well, very well! If you don't value those things enough to see the threat and fight for them, then excuse us and stand aside because we do and we aren't going quietly! Some day if you change your mind and want to bear a hand, let us know. We'll save a spot for you.

What I hear is that terrorism and its Radical Muslim purveyors don't seem to threaten anything you put very much value on.

Well, yes. I don't respect these pissant barbarians enough to be afraid that they can destroy anything I truly value (except, just possibly, for the individual lives of people I care about, but any thug with a .38 Special or drunkard with a '75 Pacer is much more likely to do that).

Terrorism is a nuisance, and we should certainly kill terrorists and smash their sponsors when possible, but this is simply not a struggle for the future of Our Way of Life. These illiterate cousin-marrying goatherders just aren't that significant.

I keep bringing up John Derbyshire, but that's because he sees clearly: "This is not a war, and by calling it one, we flatter the jihadists far beyond their deserts. No jihadist nation — let alone any jihadist group — can field an army against us. We are frightening ourselves with bogeymen."

So yes, that is in fact where we part company.

It's too bad we never had a chance to get at al Quaeda when they weren't under the protection of the tribes in Pakistan. Oh wait, we did - we even had Bin Laden cornered and holed up - but we had to pull out forces to go to Iraq.

I'm glad that al Quaeda just melted away and has no interest in attacking us again. I have to assume that is what the idiots who allowed the Afghanistan operation to be so half-assed so we could focus on Iraq were thinking because if they thought this would happen and did it anyways they deserve to be shot.

Geekmouth

I worry about these things for my Grandchildren and their Grandchildren.

1. The loss of the "American way of life", I know what that means to me, but doubt I could describe it for anyone else.

2. The loss of America's history. The American Education System is just not teaching it anymore to our young children, and most times is teaching that America is responsible for the world's problems. Which is true in some instances, but that is not the way it is being taught.

3. The slow but steady eroding of our rights and of the fast but steady gains that liberal socialist political viewpoints are taking over our lives and of the laws of our states and even our federal government.

4. The eroding of our CIA, FBI and other agencys within our federal government by these viewpoints will not assist us in maintaining the rule of law nor the defeat of our enemies.

5. The growing political pressure to have our Congress "run the war". The war can be directed by our President, but should be run by the Military.

6. The Pentagon is and has been for years the single biggest flaw in our Military. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt and fast.

7. The Military industrial complex has too many strings on our Federal representives and our Military, these need to be cut.

8. The fact that our kids don't play outside much anymore, but would rather get fat playing video games or watching some kind of entertainment rather than "getting in the game".

I have more, but I have to go pick up my GrandDaughter and take her to swim class and to gymnastics afterward.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

8. The fact that our kids don't play outside much anymore, but would rather get fat playing video games or watching some kind of entertainment rather than "getting in the game".

I agree whole-heartedly on this one...

Don't get me wrong. I not only worry about our future, I think we're very probably doomed. Very probably doomed, I tells ya!

(And yes, that link is Derbyshire again.)

But not because the jihadists pose any serious threat.

stop all the blather. the capt has it right. hamilton and company show what complete egocentric idiots they are, and have been, by merely making a suggestion about the obvious.

in fact it is not a stretch to think that in fact he/they may be doing it to undermine any ongoing clandestine activity in the area by drawing attention. one of the staples of the dems these last several years is they want a fight anywhere but where the fight is currently taking place--first afghanistan then iraq. to a person, except for lieberman, they see this war on terror as a self induced short term karmic retribution or at worst a criminal affair. as such any political power that can be gained by undermining the fighting, by whatever means, is well worth it.

situational ethics rules the day.

I keep bringing up John Derbyshire, but that's because he sees clearly: "This is not a war, and by calling it one, we flatter the jihadists far beyond their deserts. No jihadist nation — let alone any jihadist group — can field an army against us. We are frightening ourselves with bogeymen."

1. I'm not frightened, I'm concerned. This is a difference.
2. Not all bogeymen are imaginary.

Lew, when you say this:
"it wasn't the Bush White House or the Iraq war that decided to provide a safe haven for AQ to regroup in, it was Musharraf." I disagree in part. By taking our focus off of AQ's regional center and putting it on Iraq, the USA contributed tremendously to this problem.

As for this part of your post:
"if you were in Musharraf's shoes you'd be just as obsessed as he is by the daily choice of allies in this war. He is riding a tiger and trying desperately every day to stay on top and not inside. Pakistan is barely holding itself together in spite of tremendous internal tensions. If America quits, and Pakistan falls into the hands of an Iranian-style Mullahocracy with a nuclear arsenal, then the world gets much less stable and he dies." I think you are right on the money. Riding a tiger is a great metaphor for it.

"No jihadist nation -- let alone any jihadist group -- can field an army against us."

No they can't but why would they? They already have a demonstrated capacity to bomb New York and Washington without an Army or a Navy or an Air Force, why would they spend the money they don't have to acquire a capability they already possess. And they already have the capability to drastically affect our political decision-making process by simply inflicting casualties.

Think about it; the only adversary we've ever had who could kill people in Lower Manhattan have been the British before 1783, the Soviets between 1950 and 1990, and Radical Islamic terrorists right now. The Germans didn't and the Japanese didn't and certainly not the South during the Civil War. But terrorists do!

And war isn't about just armies any more, either. Its about a much wider range of options and methods that didn't even exist 50 years ago when war was about production and manpower. Now its about information and propaganda and whether or not we can be rationalized and cajoled into surrender without a real fight. We won't know we've lost until the Shari'a Police start beating our wives with whips for appearing in public without being covered head to foot.

And what do you suppose is going to happen when the methods of terrorism are validated on a world-wide stage by our precipitous flight from Iraq, and the Islamo-terrorists of the Middle East join with the Narco terrorists of South America for the final assault on an isolated and demoralized America? What then?

But its no big deal. Just a boogie man. Don't you worry your pretty little head about anything!

Back when Musharaf made his decision to allow the tribal leaders to control the various regions in Pakistan and keep his soldiers out there was debate at the time. Both the US and Afghanistan expressed reservations about such a course of action, though we went along with it because we didn't want to completely undermine Pakistan. The point that doesn't make sense in either Toms thinking or Lee Hamiltons is that obviously just from that operation alone a lot of backroom wrangling already went throught the whole carefully calibrating and working out with the Pakistanis thing and Musharaf decided to go with his policy and not ours. What then Tom and Lee. Is the assumption that we are not even asking them behind the scenes? I find that hard to believe.
Clearly Hamilton doesn't want to destroy our relations with Pakistan, hence the carefully calibrated negotiations, but that then requires that Pakistan is on board. If not, do we then move forward anyway? Then really why go through the carefully calibrated negotiations if we're just going to invade Pakistan's territory anyway? and if we do go ahead and Pakistan becomes less accomodating in other operations does that help or hurt us.
After the take over of the red mosque I'm thinking Musharaf might be more accomodating to our position anway, and might, through careful calibration and negotiation allow us to either insert forces into the rgion to try to take out Al Qaeda or the tribal leaders or be more wiling to send in its own troops withou our assistance to do the same, and if done, we probably will be the last to hear about it.
But at least Tom, Hamilton is aware that we can't just send in troops into the area without potentially damaging our relations with Pakistan or making the situation worse for other operations or even worse destabliizing a regime that has been very helpful to us in capturing various Al Qaeda leaders.

Terrorist attacks against Americans, 1920-2007

Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, 1993-2007

Annual traffic crash fatalities, 1994-2005

World War II casualties by country

I'm not denying either that terrorism is a very bad thing, nor that we should kill terrorists whenever we get a chance, but look at it in perspective. These people are simply not a threat to our way of life.

I tried to post some links to casualty figures from WWII, traffic accidents, and terrorism in order to bring a little perspective to this discussion, but it got junked (for too many links, I suppose).

Had President Bush used the shock of September 11th to ask for a Declaration of War against the Islamo-fascists and the states that support them, he'd probably have gotten it. And then we could have gone onto a war footing, probably with a military draft, and we'd be occupying not just Iraq, but Syria and Iran as well.

What then? Could we have maintained the momentum, destroyed the Islamists at their roots, and begun the integretation of the Middle East into Western society? Or would the Islamists have been able to drive us out, as they may well do in Iraq, because of our weakened will and the pusillanimous Congress?

We'll never know, because it didn't happen. But arguably, nothing less than a Pax Americana is going to save the world from the inroads that Islamism is starting to make, not just in Europe but in places you don't think about, like Thailand, the Philippines, Central Africa—maybe even Latin America.

Unfortunately, it may well take another September 11th before America awakes from the luxury-induced stupor we have fallen into, aided and abetted by the self-serving Democrats in Congress and their sycophants in the media.

Someone above suggested that we better have a plan to take over Pakistan's atomic bombs if the Islamists (i.e. the ISI) take Musharraf down. If not, we can expect those bombs in our laps, and our children will curse our memories.

/Mr Lynn

Could someone please find me the quote from Sen. Hamilton suggesting we INVADE Pakistan. From the CNN interview all I can find is this quote:( I think we have to find ways and means, perhaps it's use of covert actions, perhaps it's use of special operations, perhaps it's the pursuit of the Taliban when they're in Afghanistan, to let us go after them as they move back into Pakistan.

"Whatever it is, I do not find acceptable a sanctuary for al Qaeda in Pakistan. We have to be able to go after them.") How does conflate with the idea of an invasion?

The border between Afghanistan and India (now Pakistan) was quite arbitrarily drawn by the British many years ago, and it cut across ethnic and religious lines. Musharaf surrendered sovereignty over the NorthWest regions of Pakistan to tribal elements a couple of years ago.

At that time, Afghanistan should have annexed the area, since Pakistan obviously did not want it and the residents were largely Pushtun, the biggest tribe in Afghanistan. Then the Afghanis and their Coalition partners could have made short work of the terrorists, the same people who were driven out of Afgahistan in a few short weeks in 2001.

I suspect there are more US troops than we can say. I've heard Musharraf say that there are "no" US troops in Pakistan, and that is, well, not exactly true.

Plus, remember the earthquake of 2005? A tragedy, for sure. But there were thousands of US troops in Waziristan as a result. Think they are all gone?

A politically unstable, nuclear Pakistan - with strong military and popular ties to the Taliban and other radical Islamists - prevents us from chasing OBL and AQ inside its borders.

This is the important lesson we must accept:

Once these countries go nuclear, your options are severely limited.

It's precisely why toppling Saddam was justified, and it's precisely why we must stop Iran before it's too late.

For the assorted military geniuses compalining that the troops used in invading Iraq could have been better used in Afghanistan, please explain just how we'd have been using heavy armored & mechanized forces in Afghanistan. Because, you know, that worked so well for the Soviets back in the day...