The real problem: Pakistan

Now, if I were to tell you that there was a conservative Islamic country with nuclear weapons who was harboring Osama Bin Laden and who has standing order to shoot at American military aircraft, you would probably think that was a problem, right?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

Why are we in Iraq when we should be killing Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Northern Pakistan? I'm not a hawk, but hell, if we are going to kill people, let's kill the right people.

UPDATE: How funny, Christopher Hitchens is writing about this now, and he stole my headline!

http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/?from=rss

Here's something most liberals don't get: Barack Obama is not a peacenik just because he wants out of Iraq. He wants to go fight a war somewhere else, namely, on the Afghan/Pakistan border, and within Pakistan if he has to. People should really understand this, it is the core difference between McCain and Obama in foreign policy. McCain has no real plan for what to do in Iraq or Afghanistan other than "keep the status quo". Obama wants to divest from Iraq and double down in Afghanistan. Both plans have their risks, obviously.

Another thing people don't get. Unlike in the US, civilian control of the military in Pakistan is not a foregone conclusion. There is no elected commander in chief, even if Pakistan is a "democracy", because the military does not recognize an obligation to defer to civilian leaders. So, you have the odd situation where the civilian leadership might want to allow the US to operate in Waziristan, at the same time that Pakistani army spokesmen are saying they will shoot down US aircraft that try.

My prediction is that if things escalate along the border, a military coup in Pakistan is a matter of when, not if.