The irony in the case of Pakistan
 

Here's what we know:

1. The USA has given Pakistan $10 billion since 2001.

2. Musharraf has grudgingly moved towards elections, and suffered a number of domestic political setbacks, including Bhutto returning.

3. Musharraf finally decides his grip on power is slipping away, so declares marshal law.

4. All the while OBL has sanctuary in tribal Pakistan.

5. Musharraf says going after OBL in Pakistan would "destablize" the region.

6. Barrack Obama says he would pursue OBL into Pakistan, when presented with a hypoethetical. All of the major candidates, GOP and dem, call Obama idiotic and naive.

7. Britain threatens to withhold 0.5 billion in aid.

8. USA (Condie and Bush) weakly suggest that Musharraf should do as he promised and hold elections.

It's almost as if keeping Musharraf in power is more key to our security than capturing OBL. That is my conclusion.

If a keeping a dictator in power, in a country that provides sanctuary for OBL is the best we can do, God help us, we are #*(#$#ed.

Yep, sometimes we just have to accept what is, is. Kinda like the Mtn is the best BYU can get.

Question: isn't this what the peaceniks wish we would've done in Iraq?

Perhaps, minus the $10 billion in aid.

You also have to consider the consequences of how relations with India improve/worsen in relation to all of this.

If we put the screws on M. I am guessing that would make India happy.

I think it's ironic that we ended up on the side of a totalitarian regime in an Islamic country, rather than the side of a democratic state that is primarily non-Muslim with close economic ties and a lot more people.

It would be nice if one day we could be honest and really admit that Pakistan as presently constituted is not on our side. But instead we pretend that they are and give them billions.

Our "friends with Pakistan/not so much friends with India" policy was very much an outgrowth of the Cold War. Yes, it was very ironic, but practicality won the day. Things have changed significantly since the fall of the SU.

Not an expert on Pakistan, although I've been there once (a real testimony to the survivability of the human race in the face of filth; we can be a pretty hardy bunch). I suspect most Pakistanis are on our side, if that means preventing the expansion of OSB/Taliban influence in South Asia. It appears that M has very limited ability to influence activities in the region where OBL is hiding. Efforts to do so have been met with stiff resistance. What would you have him do?

It's sad that it's not a neat little package out there (Pak is our ally, Pak controls own territory, Pak walks up and arrests OBL), so we have to play the hand that was dealt us. In the absence of very many better options, standing behind M, who has actually done a lot within his power to support our CT efforts, may be the best option at this point.

Because the US isn't naive enough to think that the choice is that black and white. Foreign policy DEMANDS that you have to make deals with the devil. You have to choose as best you can the lesser of many evils. Because you have to perform risk analyses and decide as best you can the "what ifs" of many different possible choices and come to terms with how you fight against the worst of the "what ifs".

It's obviously easy for you since you live in a vacuum.

if we stand behind M, we lose all on the street who may support or thought of supporting us.

Or maybe we are afraid of Bhutto. Afraid of a woman.

Like Margaret Thatcher? Bhutto's government was thoroughly corrupt and anti-democratic in many ways. She's the shining star to deliver Pakistan from their despotic woes?