Pakistan’s Terror Treachery on Trial


Pages: 1 2

What “misperceptions” could there be? An arm of the Pakistani government is colluding with terrorists to kill Americans. To most, that would seem a straightforward problem with which our government should be dealing. David Goldman (aka “Spengler”), writing on his blog at PJ Media, quotes another unnamed diplomat saying, “The administration has long sought to pressure Pakistan, but to do so in a nuanced way that does not sever the U.S. relationship with a country that American officials see as crucial to winning the war in Afghanistan and maintaining long-term stability in the region.”

Goldman adds:

The Pakistanis, in short, continue to murder Americans with impunity by threatening us with their own failure. It’s the geopolitical equivalent of the scene in Blazing Saddles in which the black sheriff intimidates a lynch mob by holding a gun to his own head and threatening to shoot himself.

The Pakistani military’s response to Mullen’s comments and the support he received from the Congress and notable pundits for his accusations has been sharp and without precedent. Not only has the Pakistani military angrily dismissed the charges made by Mullen, the it has flatly refused an American request to go after the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, while cozying up to China at the same time.

The civilian government, racked by corruption and seemingly powerless to control the military, was less direct in its criticism. It is trying to turn the issue into a question of nationalism and sovereignty, appealing to the people’s anti-Americanism and patriotism. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said at the UN that “Pakistan’s dignity must not be compromised.” And thousands of protesters poured into the streets across the country on Tuesday chanting anti-American slogans and burning American flags. A speaker at one of the protests said, “We warn US not to indulge in any misadventure with us, or the whole nation will stand united to defend our country.”

To tap into this sentiment and build support, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani will chair an all-party conference on Thursday to come up with a position on fighting terror and the course of future relations with the US. This will give an opportunity for the politicians to posture against America while fanning the flames of patriotism and nationalism. How that will quiet the situation remains to be seen.

Some analysts believe the rupture in relations will last for years, that the inability of the Pakistani government to control the military in the foreseeable future means that no matter what the administration of President Zardari says about combating Haqqani, al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban, the military and ISI will continue to use terrorists to further their goals.

Others believe that the relationship was flawed to start with and that a final break is inevitable. Writing in Foreign Policy, Dan Twining sums up one possible future of US-Pakistan relations where the two countries are no longer allies:

Such an approach would require the United States not to leave Afghanistan to Pakistan’s designs but to keep a significant deployment of U.S. troops in place to deter and defeat Islamabad’s efforts to renew the sphere of influence it enjoyed there when its Taliban allies were in power. (Naturally, this would be harder to do if Pakistan refused us access to its territory to resupply our forces in Afghanistan). It would call for the CIA to cease cooperating with ISI, which it continues to rely on for access to the region, on the grounds that our fundamental goals are incompatible. It would suggest doubling down on our relationship with India, including supporting a greater Indian strategic, political, and economic presence in Afghanistan (which would be welcomed by most Afghans) as a stabilizing force in a troubled country. It would require us to convince Beijing not to fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of American patronage towards Pakistan; China would need to pursue approaches that complement ours rather than continuing to provide unqualified support to its revisionist, increasingly radicalized ally.

It seems clear that relations between America and Pakistan have entered a new phase. Whether it will lead to an eventual break as Mr. Twining envisions remains to be seen. But it appears that the US will no longer tolerate a supposed ally colluding in the killing of its soldiers and citizens. There will be consequences going forward for Pakistan and it is time they were told that in no uncertain terms.

If this comes to pass, we’ll have Admiral Mullen to thank for it.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_mac

    Heard the latest? Pakistan just released Obama's body guard from prison.

    It would be emotionally satisfying to tell the Pakistanis to go to hell, but a more prudent and responsible approach would be to tone down the rhetoric at the same time that we cut our aid to Pakistan from $6 billion annually to 3. If they don't see the light and modify their behavior, within a year, cut it to down to 1.5. Meanwhile, openly upgrading our relations with India would be another inducer (although this should be done regardless; India and America are natural allies with a confluence of interests). This means military sales of top-of-the-line jet fighters, tanks, warships, etc.

    All emotion aside, Pakistan is a failed state, with a tiny Westernized elite trying to govern a mass of angry, ignorant, hyper-fundamentalists. And they sit with an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

    God help India. God help us all.

    • Chezwick_mac

      I meant Osama's body guard….Freudian slip.

      • Fred Dawes

        obama osama both our foe and both hate the ideals of freedom laws and both want us all dead.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      With all due respect, your recommendations are ludicrous. Pakistan is an Islamic state and as such it is in a permanent state of jihad not only with us but also with all unbelievers in the world. Hence, we should not delude ourselves into believing that an Islamic state like Pakistan can be a loyal friend and ally.

      Thus, what we need to do instead is get the hell out of Afghanistan ASAP, since the mission was never winnable in the first place because it was based on fantasy based assumptions and political correct myths regarding Islam and Muslims. At the same time, we need to also destroy the nuclear weapons arsenal and nuclear weapons program of Pakistan simultaneously. Improving relations with India is academic.

      All emotion aside, Pakistan is a failed state, with a tiny Westernized elite trying to govern a mass of angry, ignorant, hyper-fundamentalists.

      Actually, you are wrong again…that small Westernized elite are in reality stealth and deceptive non-violent jihadists, as all MAINSTREAM OTHODOX MUSLIMS are jihadists.

      And they sit with an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

      And it would be suicidal not to destroy those nuclear weapons.

      • Chezwick_mac

        Once again, seeing the world through your rigid, ideological prism…so much so that today, you're advocating nuclear war.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Not quite, if anyone has a rigid ideological prism go look in the mirror. Ideology has nothing to do with the reality of Islam and it is not my fault that you remain blinded by political correctness. In any event, where did I advocate a nuclear war? What I advocated actually would prevent an inevitable nuclear war, unless you are gullible enough to believe that it is okay for Muslims to own and possess nukes.

          Nevertheless, I correctly anticipated that you would respond with hyperbole by accusing me of advocating a nuclear war. Indeed, it is easy to see that at one time you must have been a delusional leftist, as you still retain a lot of those attributes today that you still can't quite shed.

          • Chezwick_mac

            Friend, when I caught you in your lie about Robert Spencer, that he wrote that we should've helped Saddam Hussein conquer Saudi Arabia, I thought you might have gained some humility and a little wisdom. Apparently not.

            I don't have time to suffer fools. I live in the real world.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Wow…I must have touched a nerve or something. Dude…just because you can't quite get over your remnant leftwing proclivity for emoting rather than rationalizing doesn't mean you must resort to falsely accusing me of lying, especially when it isn't germane to the discussion we were having, which is that you are not only wrong but also as I had correctly anticipated that you would resort to using hyperbole by falsely accusing me of advocating a nuclear war.

            Dude, you need to learn to slow down and to rationalize instead of going off the deep end and emoting all the time as you have been conditioned to do. You'd do much better in these little debates. By the way, I never lied with respect to Roberts Spencer or anyone else for that matter, and if you would stop emoting long enough to rationalize, maybe you would realize that.

            Meanwhile, back to the matter at hand, when and where did I advocate a nuclear war and why should we delude ourselves into believing that the Islamic state of Pakistan is worthy of being our loyal friend and ally?

          • Chezwick_mac

            Fact 1, Yomama postulates America should have helped Saddam Hussein conquer the Arabian peninsula

            Fact 2, I suggest he present his thesis to Robert Spencer

            Fact 3, Yomama writes: "Where do you think I got the idea"

            Fact 4, I ask him to document Robert's advocacy of such a bizarre thesis

            Fact 5, Yomam won't because he can't…which in my book makes him a liar

            As for destroying Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, bombing them means detonating them, which means nuclear explosions and fallout….hence, nuclear war. The only other alternative is a massive invasion force to destroy the Pakistani military, seize the nuclear sights, and carefully remove the material. Perhaps this is what he is advocating…invasion of Pakistan?

            You see friend, you're humiliated every time you try to challenge me. And I reiterate, in the outside chance that you're young, all is forgiven…you'll eventually cull some wisdom from future experience. If you're not young, God help you.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Fact 4, I ask him to document Robert's advocacy of such a bizarre thesis

            You asked for documentation only after you inadvertently loss the debate. At that time I'm sorry but the debate had already ended. Had you not accidentally conceded the debate, I would have been more than happy to comply with your request. Your problem again is you are letting your emotions get the best of you as always. Old habits are hard to break.

            By the way, I never said at Robert's advocacy, you are putting words in my mouth again, but it was nonetheless on his website.

            As for destroying Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, bombing them means detonating them, which means nuclear explosions and fallout….hence, nuclear war.

            Okay…where or when did I advocate bombing them? You are emoting again. See?

            You see friend, you're humiliated every time you try to challenge me.

            Who me…nah. Humiliating you is easy as stealing candy from a baby because you always resort to emoting and with hyperbole. Indeed, how do I figure you used to be a leftist? It's because you always inevitably like clockwork over react and debate exactly like a leftist does. Hence, any rational life long conservative like me can easily get under your skin, and if I can get under your skin, then you won't have a chance. I really shouldn't give away my secrets.

          • Chezwick_mac

            Here is a real man takes responsibility for his mistakes…

            "I was mistaken. I apologize."

            There….end of story….no harm.

            Now, here is how a petulant adolescent avoids taking responsibility for his own words…

            YOMAMA: "You asked for documentation only after you inadvertently loss the debate. At that time I'm sorry but the debate had already ended. Had you not accidentally conceded the debate, I would have been more than happy to comply with your request."

            You had no intention of complying with my request because you knew you couldn't….so here is yet another lie. You have no shame.

          • Chezwick_mac

            Please document where I "accidentally conceded the debate?

            Another lie.

            Me thinks you're pathological in that regard.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You document it. Hell, I don't remember what thread it was in., and I'm not about to waste my time trying to find it again.

          • Chezwick_mac

            Told you….Caught in another lie.

            He's pathological folks.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Dude…you are delusional, not that it is unusual for someone like you who obviously spent the greater portion of his life as a delusional leftist, but nonetheless let me refresh your memory for you. You at first argued that Saddam with his 1950s era military and cannon fodder conscript army that hated Saddam more than Saddam's enemies would somehow represent a far greater existential threat to the world than the global jihad, which is the the product of the House of Saud and the Gulf State Emirs, had Saddam been allowed to invade Saudi Arabia. To make a long story short, I argued rightfully to the contrary that in no way would Saddam, who was secular, by the way, would ever come to represent a greater threat than the global jihad, and that's the way the first debate ended.

            Then I don't know a couple of weeks go by and I respond to yet another one of your asinine post that was ludicrous. You as always not having a decent defense for your absurd position and reacting emotively once again like a delusional leftist thus alluded back to the previous Saddam debate once again and just like you are doing also once again today as well.

            Hence, in response I goaded you since your previous ludicrous position had been that Saddam would be a far greater existential threat to world security than the global jihad is today. Then, apparently forgetting what your own previous position had been, you responded by claiming that Saddam would become a regional threat, but that he would not be a greater existential threat than the global jihad, thereby conceding at the same time the debate by agreeing with my original contention. Of course, you didn't concede the debate purposefully, but you nonetheless still did concede it in any event since you agreed, although inadvertently, with my original contention all along. Indeed, it's not my fault that you didn't remember what your previous position had been.

            Now you are feigning that you don't remember conceding the debate while calling me a liar at the same time, and that is so leftist and emotive that it isn't even funny. Okay, if that is the case then do you want to take back your last position, that Saddam would become a regional threat only but not be as big a threat as the global jihad, and go back to your original position that Saddam with his 1950s era military and cannon fodder conscript army that hated Saddam more than Saddam's enemies would somehow represent a far greater existential threat to the world than the global jihad does today? Indeed, make up your damn mind, which is it?

            In addition, please explain again how am I lying. Is it my fault that you repeatedly can't remember your own positions and thus like an emotive leftist resort to falsely accusing me of lying?

          • Chezwick_mac

            That long screed….you're must be really sweating.

            You lied dude. I specifically asked you to share your thesis about Saddam with ROBERT SPENCER.

            LIE #1: "Where do you think I got the idea"

            I then asked you to document where Spencer ever wrote that we should help Saddam invade Saudi Arabia.

            You couldn't because it was a lie.

            Now…….

            YOMAMA LIE #2: "By the way, I never said at Robert's advocacy. You are putting words in my mouth"

          • ObamaYoMoma

            That long screed….you're must be really sweating.

            Yeah right, I'm sweating all right! How do you figure I'm sweating because I won the debate? Indeed, what is their to sweat about? Of course, you won't respond because you lost the debate and like a leftist you are a sore loser. Smart people never pick a fight they can't win.

            Once a leftist always a leftist. Dude…you are emoting and putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, while also creatively editing my posts to claim I lied. That's a straw man argument and also the purview of leftists.

            Hey, if you can't get over the fact that you lost another debate, that is your problem, and the last thing I will ever do is appease a leftwing loser like you. Hence, you can goad me and try to claim that I lied all you want to cover up the fact that you lost another debate, but I will never ever appease you because it is more fun and satisfying to leave you frustrated and pissed off.

          • Chezwick_mac

            PS – I pointed out to you over and over that if Saddam controlled all the oil wealth of Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE ans Saudi Arabia, his ECONOMIC power would have GLOBAL reach (the Saudis have us by the balls now, how much mire would he). But because of your limited comprehension, you kept going back to his military. I NEVER said he would threaten the USA "MILITARILY". But you can't except that because you're too childish to admit you've lost an argument.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            PS – I pointed out to you over and over that if Saddam controlled all the oil wealth of Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE ans Saudi Arabia, his ECONOMIC power would have GLOBAL reach (the Saudis have us by the balls now, how much mire would he). But because of your limited comprehension, you kept going back to his military. I NEVER said he would threaten the USA "MILITARILY". But you can't except that because you're too childish to admit you've lost an argument.

            Not quite your original position was to inflate Saddam's military threat because you swallowed lock, stock, and barrel US propaganda like a loon. My position, on the other hand, was to scoff at the idea that Saddam with his 1950s era Soviet military and untrained cannon fodder Shiite army that hated Saddam's guts more than they hated Saddam's enemies could rise to the level where he would represent an existential threat to world security on a par with the existential threat that the global jihad today represents.

            I also pointed out in that debate that Saddam was secular. Hence, if the GHWB administration at the time hadn't been dominated by Islamopanderers as his son's latter administration was indeed too, they might have correctly recognized the strategic situation and green lighted Saddam's invasion of Saudi Arabia instead of us ousting him from Kuwait, and if they had recognized the strategic situation correctly, they could have used Saddam as an unwitting proxy to severely cripple the global jihad.

            Then subsequently if Saddam later morphed into a threat to the oil supply, which was highly unlikely because he was secular, desperate for oil revenues, and would also have owed us allegiance and desperately needed Western allies, we nevertheless could have easily ousted him at any time in that event, something which Saddam would have also been very aware of as well.

            In addition, his occupation of the land of the two holy cities would have also represented the reestablishment of the Dar al Harb on what had been heretofore since the time of Muhammad the Dar al Islam, which would have created a Fardh Ayn, as opposed to a Fardh Kifaya, as in the jihad being waged perpetually against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel, which would have been incumbent upon all Muslims in the world. Meaning that Saddam would have been forced to sell as much oil as possible to generate as much revenues as possible and also would have been forced to make grand bargains with the USA and the West in order to attempt to fend off the permanent jihad that would have inevitably been waged against him relentlessly, and which would have further diminished the global jihad since it would have been refocused on ousting Saddam for its own survival

            The idea that Saddam would have converted to Islam after we green lighted him and he owed us allegiance, and that even if he had it would have been accepted by the Islamic world is ludicrous and and a testament to your gross ignorance of Islam.

            In any event, in the second debate in which you re-initiated after getting your butt kicked in yet another debate against me as always, I goaded you regarding your previous ridiculous and absurd positions on over inflating Saddam's threat, and at that time you responded although inadvertently that Saddam would not represent as great a threat as the global jihad thereby agreeing with my position albeit unintentionally, and at that point it was game, set, and match. You had lost the debate again!

            Now you are embarrassed and waffling all over the place again from your original positions while like a delusional leftist emoting by trying to goad me by falsely claiming that I'm a liar, and I love it!

          • ObamaYoMoma

            What do you mean I couldn't? I would have been more than happy to comply in the very next response had you not accidentally conceded the debate, which, by the way, was also caused by your bad habit of emoting. You just can't help it. Subsequently, there was no way I was going to comply. I would much rather leave you frustrated and pissed off. It's more fun that way.

          • Chezwick_mac

            You've got me all wrong friend. I'm looooving this. Everyone reading this exchange can tell who is being straight and who is the liar.

            I caught you in a bold-faced lie, am now calling you a liar for all to see…and you still can't refute it because it's absolutely true.

            Very satisfactory outcome.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You're trying to goad me, like I previously goaded you, but unlike it worked for me, it won't work for you. I wonder why? Like I said, I'd much rather leave you frustrated and pissed off. Nice try though.

          • Chezwick_mac

            You're a bold-faced liar….and you resort to your kid stuff because you can't talk your way out of it.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            Break it up, ladies.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You're a bold-faced liar….and you resort to your kid stuff because you can't talk your way out of it.

            Hilarious! The more you goad me and call me a liar the more I enjoy your frustration.

          • Chezwick_mac

            You know friend, as we've already been through in the tutorial I gave you before, not only are your political views simplistic and sophomoric, your methods of disputation are decidedly adolescent. This applies to your pathological need to get the last word in, as if doing so somehow validates your specious arguments.

            One of us has to be an adult here. I'll take the high road…be my guest.

          • Chezwick_mac

            PS – Try not to lie. It always comes back to bite you.

  • Alvaro

    Pakistan has never been your allies. They agreed to cooperate after 9/11 literally by gunpoint. They never wanted NATO to be successful in Afghanistan. They have supported the Taliban all the time. The Pakistanis have been funding ISI training camps, where jihadists were trained and equipped to fight and kill NATO troops in Afghanistan.

    Who needs enemies when you have allies like Pakistan?

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Bravo my man!

  • UCSPanther

    Pakistan was, at best, an unreliable ally.

    It's government history has a pretty lousy track record, and the country more or less is a place where the inmates run the asylum.

  • Fred Dawes

    Stop and think we are at war with who? "its the muslims", if you don't get that you must be a fool, or part of the fifth column and many are just that fifth column nuts.

  • Gamaliel

    Of course the U.S. will tolerate Pakistani terrorism against the U.S., just because Admiral Mullen said something true doesn't mean that the U.S. will change it's fawning policy of appeasement. This article contradicts itself by stating that the State Department is distancing itself from Admiral Mullen's remarks and that Obama refuses to endorse them and then states that appears that the US will no longer tolerate a supposed ally colluding in the killing of its soldiers and citizens. American Foreign policy is a craven disaster it is based on buying off Muslim countries with weapons and foreign aid and has the inevitable result that those countries as they gain strength turn against us. It is much easier for them to do so as China becomes more powerful. An alliance between Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China is forming that we are no match for and that partly is because we armed Pakistan and Turkey.

    • StephenD

      Gamaliel, I think you are right. Maybe getting tighter with India would go a long way to balancing things again. The U.S., Israel, India (we do have common enemies in Islamic run states), and any other country that is not Islamic and wishes to be allied with us. The biggest obstacle is cleaning our own house first. I hope we can hold out until 2012!

  • Larry

    The ISI has been a leading trainer, supplier, funder, facilitator, and operator of muslim terrorists for close on 40 years, since the last time Pakistan got crunched in a war with India. In that time the USA and other western countries have continued to pour in funds to a wahhabist muslim state whilst treating democratic India with contempt.
    The leading islamic sect in Pakistan is the deobandi sect, and it is the sub-continental branch of wahhabism, and it is the deobandis who formulated the methodologies of the current muslim terrorist organisations in the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny.

  • Dispozadaburka

    Obama has set in motion the "change" towards making the US an Islamic country.
    Tipping point of the war was 9/9/09.
    The "MUSLIM DAY OF PRAYER," held on the DC mall in late September 2009,
    where muslim men prayed all day for "The Soul of America." determines the
    "Future Destiny" of the US.
    First step, Obamacare. Dhimmi tax.
    Pakistan received 6 billion with no strings attached,
    The new "change" in US policy?
    If you can't beat em, join em.

  • RobGinChicago

    The Pakistani military has also been linked to an attack on U.S. and Afghan military and government officials at a meeting on the border in 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/world/asia/paki
    With "friends" like these…

  • mrbean

    Taliban raid on a Pakistani airbase that destroyed some of the country’s newest surveillance planes has heightened concern that the military is unable to guard its own assets, including nuclear weapons. The attack May 23 on the navy base in Karachi, the country’s biggest city, marked the deepest strike into an armed forces facility since militants stormed a building in the army’s general headquarters in Rawalpindi in 2009. The military, which oversees security for the nation’s estimated 70 to 120 nuclear warheads, has since 2008 sought to counter International Atomic Energy Agency fears about the safety of the stockpile.

  • BS77

    Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Gaza, Algeria…..what's the difference?

    • maturin20

      Thousands of miles and millions of people.

  • steven l

    When is the US and the West going to be honest and admit that Islam since its inception is at war with the rest of the world?
    B. Lewis said it all long ago! A clash of civilization appears inevitable.

    • maturin20

      Bernard Lewis didn't say that.

      • StephenD

        Doesn't matter who said it if it's true does it?

        • maturin20

          I like to think it matters, at least to the person who's having words put in their pen.

    • tanstaafl

      We have a civilization, Islam is a collection of sociopaths.

      • maturin20

        Even Cat Stevens?

  • Andy

    Simply incredible. A governments involvement in attacking the troops of another country has traditionally been considered an act of war. I think we need to be thinking about disarming the Paki's of their nukes before they find their way into the hands of a nation or terrorist group that will actually use them some where. An EMP attack on the US comes to mind. We should ally ourselves with the Indians and start defanging rouge states like this and then get the hell out. It might be ugly in doing so but not doing so only invites terrible things to occur. At the rate we are going it's only a matter of when, not if.

  • Diann

    Steven – I like to think that somehow we could wake up the West and motivate us all to act now and save us from Islam. Maybe that is being too positive… It may be too much to expect that we in the Americas could learn from observing how Islam is slowly destroying Europe. Does anyone think it's possible to reverse this dreadful slide into the abyss of living full time under Islamic terror?

  • maturin20

    You know what the real story is? Thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets in demonstration against some remarks made by an American admiral. And when deeply anti-American sentiments are expressed by men in equivalent authority in other countries, the American people change the channel. This is why we will not succeed in any efforts at regime change, or in suppressing anti-American militancy. US citizens just don't care very much.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    It's simple really, Pakistan is not our friend or our ally simply because it is an Islamic state and as such it is in a permanent state of jihad (which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against unbelievers to make Islam supreme) against us and all non-Muslim unbelievers in the world. Hence, what the writer erroneously labels as being terrorism, is not really terrorism at all but instead jihad.

    The reality is our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq have always been unwinnable from the very beginning because they are both based on fantasy based assumptions and political correct myths like Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, like we must help the so-called moderates to defeat the extremists, like Muslims can be divided into so-called moderate Muslims and so-called extremist or radical Muslims, all of which are political correct myths and very false dichotomies.

    Nevertheless, the correct dichotomy is and always has been that ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS are jihadists. A few of them are violent jihadists, while the majority of them are non-violent jihadists, and the few that are not jihadists are not Muslim as all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. Now, this is not to say that all blasphemous apostates get executed. The truth is most blasphemous apostates are smart enough to keep their mouths shut, but they are nonetheless cowered into silence and as a result they are inconsequential.

    In any event, what we need to do with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan is simple, get out of Afghanistan ASAP and at the same time destroy the nuclear weapons stockpiles and nuclear weapons program of Pakistan.

  • tanstaafl

    If "moderate" Muslims wanted to end jihad………..they would have to risk their lives. It's easier to just go along with the sociopathic impulses of Islam.

  • myohmy

    I stopped reading this article when it said we're trying not to cause the Pakistani government a problem in their negotiations with the Taliban. That is BS because the Pakistan government is the Taliban. They set up the Taliban and they are the Taliban. When Bush decided we're going into Afghanistan to deal with the Taliban 2 of Pakistan's 4 top generals tried to get Musharif to go to war with us in defense of the Taliban which was nothing more than a pupet government for radicals in the Paki gov. Musharif had both of these generals arrested and decided to play taqqiya with Bush posing as our ally. Of course the Pustuns rescued bin Ladin in Tora Bora and it took us 10 years to finally get him when we could have killed in in Dec. 2001 if not for Pakistan hiding him. Our State Dept. is criminal in giving more American money to Pakistan and doing nothing when they help kill our troops. That's all.

  • Patrick Martin

    Pakistan is PSEUDO ally, at best. They are Muslim first.

    I say we cut all aid to Pakistan, which was $2.441 Billion in 2010.

    • Bill B.

      Better yet, hand them a bill for services rendered.

  • Bill B.

    Regarding the risk that Pakistan sees "China as an 'all-weather friend' [and] as a reminder to the US that they have a few cards to play in the region as well." If the Paks are indeed threatening to extort U.S. protection for their diminishing pro-West elite by playing the China card, they should be told that it's actually a weak card. China is already building a port in Pakistan ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/27/… ), according to Robert Kaplan. If so, in reality the U.S. may end up playing the chump by providing military security so China can safely build ports and pipelines going into "their" thirsty country!

    But we usually learn fast. We could threaten to pass the security baton to China, so instead of just spending $200 million to build ports and pipelines, they would then need $40 Billion yearly to protect it. With Pakistan an officially declared "failed state," we are already in a no-win endgame. They have 187 million people, a median age of 21, and Islamic radicalization their #1 growth industry.

    According to Kaplan, China "moved closer to Pakistan to take advantage of Islamabad's estrangement from Washington in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden." It's beginning to look like they deserve each other.

    • Bill B.

      Sorry about my duplicated post below. Clicked twice.

  • Bill B.

    Regarding the risk that Pakistan sees "China as an 'all-weather friend' [and] as a reminder to the US that they have a few cards to play in the region as well." If the Paks are indeed threatening to extort U.S. protection for their diminishing pro-West elite by playing the China card, they should be told that it's actually a weak card. China is already building a port in Pakistan ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/27/… ), according to Robert Kaplan. If so, in reality the U.S. may end up playing the chump by providing military security so China can safely build ports and pipelines going into "their" thirsty country! The U.S. "go home" card would trump the Pak-China card.

  • Amused

    What Mullens said was no revelation ,EVERYBODY KNOWS . The only reason Mullens spoke up , is because he's leaving . Where was his voice the past several years ? YES , the TALIBAN are the creation of Pakistan's ISI .
    Get the hell out of Afghanistan ,Get the hell out of Iraq , there is no SANE reason for staying a day longer , nor wasting another dime there . Obama's making the same mistake Bush made .And both were influenced by the CIA . Time to smell the coffee and smarten up .
    Or does anyone think the intelligence assessments were correct ???

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Israel pays tax to the Palestinians, America funds the PLO and Hamas, we pay
    Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq while suffering Iran to exist while it is in
    direct confrontation to our very lives. The people in Washington took to much
    acid in the "60's, this is the only explaination outside of treason against the
    American people I can think of. We do not have money to help our own people
    and a government bent on making everyone a dependent by borrowing money
    which insures the crippling of all aspects of American freedom. We need a
    top to bottom and bottom to the top reorganization of our political landscape.
    If we do not clean up our own act, divest the crazies, hobble our enemies
    and return to and American economy then buy your prayer rug and don't
    forget the chopsticks while begging for food………………………..William

  • Ellman

    Afghanistan will fall to Islamist extremists regardless of our relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan will make sure the Taliban or a comparable group seizes power once the US evacuates. Hence, there is no need to maitain a relationship with Pakistan. There never was. It has never been on our side but only pretended to be to continue receiving our financial aid. There are NO BENEFITS in maintaining a relationship to the US. Do now what we should have done long ago: get out of Afghanistan and let go of Pakistan.

  • alphakilosingh

    Pakistan has been milking USA while keeping the Taliban safe for a decade now. American policy-makers cannot be so dumb as to not being able to know this, but for some reasons, have chosen to keep quiet so far. Had it not been the case, someone should have asked Pakistan about how OBL was living in a garrison town for 5 years. One gets the feeling that even USA knew about it, but was not able to act lest Pakistan should be antagonized. When Pakistan had fully exploited OBL, it decided that OBL was now expendable, and then he gave the green signal to USA to act.
    Earlier, whenever an event pointing at Pakistan's duplicity was noticed, USA reacted with multiplying the grant to Pakistan. Let us hope USA continues with the policy.
    All Mark Steyn's prophesies are coming true. USA has become so weak that countries like Pakistan and Iran have stopped bothering about it.

  • fdgshfdg

    How about when Reagan was funding the Mujahideen?