Mr Arkins asks: "How is it that the government of nuclear-armed, military-ruled, non-democratic Pakistan has acquired a bipartisan troupe of Washington apologists?"
I see no apologists for Musharraf from either party. If anything the debate is whether we should attack Pakistan the old fashioned way or just Nuke that part of the world. It is just a bunch of brown people who will die anyway and they have no way to retaliate. More than the candidates themselves, it is the news media pundits from CNN, NY Times, and Washington Post who bring up this war scenario again and again. The purpose appears to be to facilitate the fear-mongers and war-mongers of this great nation of ours. And to help those who want to keep us in a perpetual war.

Mr Arkins talks about his conversations with a colleague 'whom he trusts'. Is this enough of a qualification? Is this the kind of intelligence we will rely upon from now on. An unnamed (probably self made) expert on national security? He has two such sources -- that should put us at ease. Musharraf using nuclear deterrent? What a joke of experts do you have? Then you qualify it with the statement 'it doesn't have to be mentioned per se' So your experts are saying that Musharraf is threatening nuclear catastrophe without even mentioning it. Perhaps, he whispered it into the ears of your so-called experts. No! he just gestured it with his eyes. Perhaps, they just read his brain waves.

Your experts do not even know how many Pakistani soldiers have died in the tribal area months before Obama made those statements and you say 'go, go, go: We're waiting.' Will you be happy if the Pakistani army kills every man, woman and child in that area? They are those lowly brown people anyway. Some of them may look white but as Rudyard Kipling finally realized they are not really white.

In the last paragraph you say "Then he spun an interesting scenario..." How much more spinning you want to do to convince the American people to get into yet another war.

Clearly some blog writers have overlooked or completely underestimated the future possibility of a strategic military alliance of the world's 2 largest democracies, set against Pakistan.

It is not implausible, and I still say that Mr. Musharraf is in an untenable and unenviable loosing position!

While the US military doesn't have sufficient forces to raid, let alone occupy, the tribal territories, India does. The US has been encouraging Israel to provide India with advanced military technology that the US can't be seen to be providing. E.g., there have been talks about Israel providing India with the Arrow II missile defense system which can intercept the Pakistani missiles. India traditionally also has had access to Russian military hardware, although Russian hardware is of sometimes questionable value. A more technologically advanced Indian military might well be a problem for the Pakistani army, no matter how courageous and disciplined.

My,My,My.... aren't all the raj's and sonnys ( stupid indians, stupid nicknames, parents give then names and the shorten them so there white masters don't make fun of them, idiots ) afraid that pakistan as the nuclear bombs to wipe out there ancestors offsprings, bribe him, bribe them blah,blah,blah.... PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!!! you sikhs are slaves to ur hindu masters, who in turn are cowards as history teaches us, gets u sikhs to go to front line and get killed ( idiots ). P.s remember sikhs...... WE HAVE OUR OWN COUNTRY!! wot do u have????

Please remember Pakistan was instrumental in helping the Afghan people to liberate their land from a ruthless Soviet occupation. It was Pakistan that housed and clothed millions of Afghan refugees over the last few decades. Pakistan is strategically placed between China, India and the Middle East and is and will continue to be a major player in South Asian affairs. The US Admininstration I am certain will not wish to launch strikes within the territory of Pakistan, otherwise they know this will be extremely counterproductive and will only alienate the vast majority of the liberal pakistani people. As for the nuke issue, Pakistan has a very strong military and they will never allow extremists to detabilise or endanger the country. Long live the Pakistan-US relationship.

americans can not even control iraq and afghania less equiped than pakistan how the could invade pakistan ,pakistan has now 2nd strike capability and cruise missiles and some report say that pakistan also posses intercontinental ballastic missile and you think mushraf is doing american job? if you are thinking in this manner you are mistaken the whole south of afghanistan is controled by taliban ,how it is possible against pakistan's will ,in simple words americans do not have the ability to launch such opreation or opreation of any sort with out pakistan consent ,and this american war of terror which killed million innocent people will over soon and every rise has a decline cry oil oil oil

Musharraf came to power, stays in power, and will remain in power as long as the Pakistani military so desires, until he is assassinated or until he decides to leave, regardless of the wishes or wants of the US.

Dave,

They said the same thing about Saddam, until, well you recall: The Mother of All Wars!

To think that the US government (and the current government in particular) is controlling the fate of Pakistan is complete and utter nonsense.

dave,

I can see that you don't know much about Pakistan, for the U.S. is doing far more than simply keeping Musharraf in power. You should talk to the Pakistani people as I have done.

You will find out firsthand that the U.S. government is doing far more than propping up Mr. Musharaff. And it is the current United States government that Pakistanis fear, more than any group inside or outside of Pakistan. And, why do you suppose that India has not wiped Pakistani off of the face of the earth?

One good example of U.S. efforts to help force its will upon the Pakistani people through Musharaff, is the government's recently approved military aid package to Mushareff (not really Pakistan).

Musharaff has far more to worry about from the U.S.A. than any faction within the Middle-east, and so do the Pakistani people.

Your usual cogent analysis, I must say is flawed this time; and therefore your conclusion is flawed in my opinion.

Hello Brothers,
Are we still want more wars, more destruction, more lives wasted, more money wasted which can help poor people in africa.
Why don't we use our war money to kill hunger, Why don't we use our money to give shelters rather than wasting money to remove the roofs.
Why are we so savage.
Why we call ourselves a educated and well behaved society if we don't care about our neighbouring countries or our neighbours.
Why don't want to see LOVE and PEACE in this beautiful gifted world.
We still have time to think about it.
"Say NO to War"

The Rev,
"The fact that President and General Purvis Musharraf has been permitted to stay in power by America (not the Pakistani people) as long as he has, is a result of his willigness to be an American crony and obey orders from the United states."

Musharraf came to power, stays in power, and will remain in power as long as the Pakistani military so desires, until he is assassinated or until he decides to leave, regardless of the wishes or wants of the US. To think that the US government (and the current government inparticular) is controlling the fate of Pakistan is complete and utter nonsense. The Pakistani military will do what they think is in their best interest.

Musharraf is between the proverbial rock and hard place. If he pushes too hard in going after terrorists, the Islamic radicals remove him from power. If he does not push hard enough, he is labeled as a poor friend. He has perhaps the most difficult job in the world. So the question is what is worth more - getting OBL and delivering Pakistan and its nukes to radical Islamics or passing on OBL and keeping Pakistan off the axis of evil list, maintaining nuclear security in the area and keeping a (mediocre) ally? I'm not sure i have an answer - my heart says get OBL at all costs, my head says the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the 6th most populous country in the world and the 2nd most populous country with a Muslim majority - and that makes it imperative that they maintain their secularish path that Musharraf has taken them down.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the epicenters for global jihad, and were instrumental for 9-11. Talibanized Afghanistan was a Pakistani extension, aided and abetted by Pakistan's army and its infamous ISI. Unfortunately, the neocons used the attack on the US to try to solve Israel's problem with the then military-dominant Iraq, instead of dealing with the people who financed and trained the 9-11 hijackers. Pakistan's so-called "internal affairs" happens to result in murder and mayhem all over the world. If it doesn't revert to civilized behavior, it should be taken down to spare the rest of the world.

But enough about Pakistan, how about "Why Are The U.S. Government & The Pentagon Protecting A Bosnian Air Carrier Owned By Victor Bout, Fugitive Russian Gun-runner, Which Is Responsible For The Disappearance Of 200,000 AK-47s?"

This, from Juan Cole's Informed Comment & major media sources:

"The Bush administration cannot account for 190,000 AK 47 machine guns and pistols it gave Iraqi security forces in 04 and 05. Actually, I think it is pretty obvious where some of them went."

We may not know for certain where all those AKs went, but I CAN show you where they USED TO GO... and how they got there...

Here is one of the questions I posed in a earlier blog posting on the topic:

"Could these folks have been involved with running Osama bin-Laden's KLA buddies around Central Asia at the CIA's behest just a decade or so ago?"

I found this Wikipedia entry to be quite informative, and brings me MUCH CLOSER to "Yes":

In Full: http://leighm.net/wp/2007/08/09/bozniaks_47s_upd1/

Does anyone see the similarities between
Musharraf and the Shah of Iran?

Kal
I see the similarities between Musharraf, Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, Papa Doc, Aristide and several other tragic figures of the 20th and 21st century. These folks made the mistake of getting in bed with the U.S.A.. The script that we are witnessing now, where Musharraf is the center of attention, was written before and has been used over and over in several sequels.

Each time, central casting, simply casts a a new star, this time it happens to be Musharref. The theme and the plot, however, remain the same.

Musharaff's days are numbered - however, somewhat like the Shah's family-members, he might become an exile to the U.S.A. someday!

To those who allege Pakistan has a well functioning military I ask:

* Why was the Pakistani military ineffective in their efforts to dislodge anti-government rebels in Waziristan or Baluchistan?

* Why did it take the Pakistani Military so long to properly respond to the victims of the last earthquake?

A government's claim of sovereignty over territory they are incapable of exercising control over is tenuous, at best.

To Mr. Arkin's query about how Pakistan "has acquired a bipartisan troupe of Washington apologists", I muse: maybe it's the past ties that bind.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-02-27-us-pakistan_x.htm

Pakistan's nukes need a solution.

America and India should bribe the whole command chain from top to down, and steal Pak's weapons. An American Visa and a stipend for the son, is heaven sent for a Paki. They would not hesitate to take up on the offer. About the stipend, I am not quite so certain, if Pakistanis want to study though.

Buy up all the nuclear scientists. India could do that in a few years.

Bribe the Taliban to go and rape the wives and daughters of all those military jingos in Pakistan, and if they are too 'modest' to do that, they could just kidnap them. That would put some sense of moderation into those army morons.

Mr. Arkin,

You wrote "Pakistani nuclear specialists are known to have made contact with al Qaeda in the past, and current scientists are under suspicion." in the blog posted on 8AUG07.

The charge frequently appears on the internet, but the most mainstream report on this subject appeared in Time magazine in 2003.

Time reports that nuclear profilator and thief A.Q. Kahn made contact with a safe house operator that was also had reported ties to former al-Qaeda member Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM). Prisoner Mohammed has since turned - and is revealing al-Qaeda sensitive information.

Can you elaborate on this story? Who met who, and what materials were exchanged, if any?

Pakistan must, for sure think what he gained while the past 57 years of America Friendship. If America is talking of attacking Pakistan, Is he our Friend ? We cared the American interests in area and now America is thinking to detsroy us. America is NOT OUR FRIEND. If Uncle thought to attach any part of Pakistan, it shall be his greatest mistake.... Time shall Prove it ......

The facility of citizens to ask pointed questions of political aspirants is a distinct improvement over earlier days of grandstanding with vague statements, followed by acting with abandon after being elected to office. Obama's specific response is not important, because he can develop his wits with practice. The truth of Iraq after Vietnam proves that the US is still to learn about how to deal with threats from beyond its borders, but Pyongyang is comforting evidence that you are getting there.

when us attacks pakistan nukes pakistan will properbly destroy its nukes on israel how stupid of a mistake pakistan has 150 atomic warheads capably of destroying israel 100 times over think before we commit suicide long live israel

Do we need to have another country invaded. Do we need to have more people without insurance in US/. Do we need to have Medicare go bankrupt. How much money are we going to spend on wars ?. We are lready spending 2 billion dollars a week in Iraq. Can we affod to spend another 2 billion a week by attacking another country. Being a Macho and not to use your brian is nothing but stupid. We can not afford to turn another 180 miilion people against us.

1. Name the countries which have supported terrorists aka freedom fighters in more nations than Al Qaeda has
2. Name the countries with very large nuclear arsenal
3. Name the country which has actually used nukes (note the plural) that indiscriminately killed civilians
4. Did we ever find WMD in Iraq?
5. Name the countries still using landmines
6. Name the countries with chemical weapons
7. Name the countries that sell weapons to the likes of Qaddafi

All I am saying is those who live in glasshouses should not throw rocks at others.

I agree with Shyam, the current US policy on pakistan is one of fear, wait and watch.
My hunch says US will end up dealing with a bigger problem in future. By then GOD knows where the PAKISTAN nuclear technology has proliferated . If one day a Nuclear attack happens on a US city , this can be traced back to Pakistan . How foolish we can be to allow this to happen

China has supplied pakistan with Nukes and Missiles . There is enough evidence. Pakistan has proliferated this around the GlOBE through its Rouge Scientists. Pakistan civil society has deep sympathy for terrorists. Many in paksitan establishment has great relationship with terror masters .Afterall they are the people who trained them for more than 15 years in '80 and '90's . US is scared to talk about these in public. Super power afraid of terror nation with Nukes. Shame Shame .

Solution to the problem :
1) US should take swift action to destroy pakistan's Nukes and destroy permanently with help from musharaf.
2)Ask musharaf to clean up pakistan tribal areas of terrorists
3) If he doesnot act, the US should ACT anyway, even if it means NUCLEAR attack

Solution to the problem :
1) US should take swift action to destroy pakistan's Nukes and destroy permanently with help from musharaf.
2)Ask musharaf to clean up pakistan tribal areas of terrorists
3) If he doesnot act, the US should ACT anyway, even if it means NUCLEAR attack

Wake-up.
Pakistan posses nuclear arms and know how to use them in their defend. American could not do in Iran, North Korea and in Iran, how can they face a nuclear arm country that has vary good experience of war.
America can defeat Pakistan on computer war game, they need to learn reality.

It's time to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age... now that's a great start!!!

It's time to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age... now that's a great start!!!

[]Frankly, if Pakistan refused to act.
Frankly, if Pakistan wouldn't give up the terrorists, or agree to help us, then they are NOT our allies.[]

It's like saying if the mexicans dont stop illegal labourers hiding and crossing at the border than the US will take its own action by invading Mexican territory.

US must stay out of Pakistan's sovereign territory PERIOD.

Last week Hillary AGREED with obama.

She twists everything around to suit her political machine.

BTW, Obama DID NOT SAY HE WOULD ATTACK PAKISTAN.

He said he would strike at TERRORISTS hiding in the caves there,
if Pakistan refused to act. Frankly, if Pakistan wouldn't
give up the terrorists, or agree to help us,
then they are NOT our allies.

Please remember Pakistan was instrumental in helping the Afghan people to liberate their land from a ruthless Soviet occupation. It was Pakistan that housed and clothed millions of Afghan refugees over the last few decades. Pakistan is strategically placed between China, India and the Middle East and is and will continue to be a major player in South Asian affairs. The US Admininstration I am certain will not wish to launch strikes within the territory of Pakistan, otherwise they know this will be extremely counterproductive and will only alienate the vast majority of the liberal pakistani people. As for the nuke issue, Pakistan has a very strong military and they will never allow extremists to detabilise or endanger the country. Long live the Pakistan-US relationship.

As a Pakistani, I could not better express than charlie has on this forum:
"They [Pakistanis] need better laws, not neccesarily more democracy"

America better stay away from Pakistan. They have done more than any other country, and attack on Pakistan would be end of the world. As soon as US attacks Pakistan, they will attack india with nukes.

Does anyone see the similarities between
Musharraf and the Shah of Iran? I know I certainly do. You would think that we learn from history but apparently, our leaders are too dumb or just down-right apathetic to do so. Of course, we all know what happened to the Shah and chances are Musharraf is facing the same fate. If we're really lucky, one day Iran and Pakistan (both nuclear powers in the forseable future) will become the new 'axis of evil'. Would'nt that be fun? I love chaos, don't you?

so US attacked on Afghanistan....A worry or an excuse for them?

Rumsfeld helped Al Qaeda establish a stronghold in Northwestern Pakistan

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2257.shtml

What Obama said, I think in principle is not immoral but politically it does not make sense. Specially at a time when the gulf between Pakistan army and Taliban was increasing to the widest point in the history and the public opinion was also going against Taliban after their curren suecide attacks. But Obama's irresponsible statements have done a huge dammage in Pakistan and allowed the Taliban sympathizers to turn around the public opinion.

Well, hold your horses. Let Pakis run their country and engage them to improve world we have after 9/11 or Iraq/Afghanistan. US need to stop supplying India with WMD material in order to calm down nuke factories in that part of the world. Offcourse US fuel for Indian nukes will only mean 24x7 functioning of China/Pak and Iran (or may be Russia) nuke production units.

Let us talk with sanity the world is not all about "Osama bin Laden" who decides whcih nations go to war and when.

Yes a lot of fixing is needed, but the good start will be from Saudi Kings investing havily in telling poorer muslims countries for wahabism/terrorism.

USA does not have right to attack Pakistan. No country should be allowed to attacked another unless there is no choice i.e. in danger of attack. There are proper channels which should be used such as UN.

I am ashamed to be an American as Mr.Obama disgusts me and I can assure you that i would not be voting for him.

eventualy if you use leaders and countries to purely selfish and vested interest history tell us that it will come and bite our ass bite it will to the point of hurting innocent americans and not the stupid shotr sited selfishly arrogant politicians like kissinger,nixon and now these idiots.

Who helped Pakistan acquire Nuclear technology? Which USA administration helped them?

PAKISTAN NEEDS SUPPORT OF THE WEST. IF ATTACKED THINK OF CONSEQUENCES. PAKISTAN IS NOT IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN WHERE AMERICAN FORCES WILL ENTER AND KILL EVERYONE IN SIGHT. PAK HAS FULL FUNCTIONING ARMY AND NOT TO MENTION NUCLEAR WEAPONS. CAN YOU SAY WORLD WAR 3!!!

Bill of course you have noticed over the last couple of months that things have been blowing up in the Tribal areas. This thing with the candidates is just window dressing.

President candidate H.Clinton has to think seriously of freezing the Pakistani nuclear program ihstead of supporting the dictatorship of military set up in Islamabad.There is not any guarantee that these nuclear arsenal will not be transferrred oe sold to other Islamic countries therefore , the White House HAWKS have so far spent more than 15 billion dollers to the blackmakers in Islamabad and got nothing except the cheat and stab on the back, then you can not stop the other parties who are ready to pay more and more to get the nuclear related materials and it is a real fact that the Pakistanis are interested in money more than principles.

charlie: Are you going to to transform Pakistan after you have transformed Iraq and Afghanistan.

the idea that Mush only stays in power because Bush and/or HRC says so is silly. Mush is much more a Chinese client than an American one. Our goal should be to turn Pakistan into a functioning country, instead of what we have now. They need better laws, not neccesarily more democracy.

Our foreign policy must be based on our national interest witch is, in Afghanistan, is to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban. It would also be helpful to help stabilize the region and prevent a nuclear conflict. The concept of "self determination" should be our goal, which means they have to determine their own future. It is not up to us or any other nation to tell them what to do. Democracy, as we practice it, is a bottom up system that demands the support and interest of it's citizens. If they want it, they have to work for it.
Success require that, we consider the real "Facts on the Ground" and work with the people there in order to be successful. In other word, get real and no fancy theories.

As for the friend in intelligence and his assertion. Here's something to chew on. India is a much larger and more complex country than Pakistan. While the majority of Indians are Hindus, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Muslims there also. Why is that India is a prospering democracy on the move and Pakistan is not?

Stop making excuse for a US policy that is not true to its value and in all likelihood will fail miserably in the end.

It was interesting last night when Ms. Clinton emphasized her support for "the Pakistani regime".

Her comment reminded me of the old Jean Kirkpatrick days when her distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes got us into bed with some of the worst.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ms. Clinton begins channeling Margaret Thatcher.

Obama shouldn't back down. It's refreshing to hear a politician speak his mind. While he may or may not be ready right now. In four or eight years he will be a much better prez than any of the current crop of candidates can ever be. The problem with Hilary is that smart and articulate that she is, and she'll make a good president comes 2009, she tries too hard to triangulate, to hedge her bets. Keep that up and she may never be able to make the bold moves this country needs to get out of the mess we currently are in. And it is a big mess, not just abroad but right here at home.

The fact that President and General Purvis Musharraf has been permitted to stay in power by America (not the Pakistani people) as long as he has, is a result of his willigness to be an American crony and obey orders from the United states.

His role in Pakistan, differed very little of that of Panamanian General Manuel Noriega, and look what happened to him, once he got out of lockstep with American interventionism.

Since America didn't want him anymore, he gave his life to Jesus. Hmm!!!

All leaders of nations friendly to the U.S.A., and in defiance of their own people and heritage, should learn a lesson from what happened with Saddam Hussein. I would not want to be in Musharraf's shoes. I give him less than 3 years, particularly, if the Republicans win the election.

yawn. Americans please stay out of Pakistan's internal affairs. You folks only create a bigger mess when you interfere, witness Iraq and Afghanistan today and Iran 50 years ago.