We didn't shirk from invading Belgium in WWII and there is no compelling reason not to invade Pakistan today. Belgium was an ostensibly friendly ally taken over by fanatics; Pakistan is thoroughly infected by jihad supporters.

Clear them all out and start over; there are plenty of freedom-friendly people in Pakistan but they are stymied by the need to appease the Islamists within their borders. Help ourselves and help them at the same time.

Ummm . . . isn't Pakistan also an ally of Russia & China?

This is such a bad pun I can't resist it, but with the Americans overreached in Iraq, "You and what army?"

No Pakistan isn't a solid ally of China or Russia. Pakistan supported the mujahadeen against Russia during the 1980s (the Russians tend to be more friendly with the Indians) and the Chinese have no special love for them.

We don't need to invade with an Army (sooo 1944), we just need to be able to let our soldiers in Afghanistan cross into Pakistan to root 'em out

The number of drone strikes in just the last few weeks tell me the concern of offending Pakistani officials has become much less of a concern.

Fantastic!

No Pakistan isn't a solid ally of China or Russia. Pakistan supported the mujahadeen against Russia during the 1980s (the Russians tend to be more friendly with the Indians) and the Chinese have no special love for them.

While this is true, alliances are changing rapidly.

One of the lessons Pakistan learned from the 1980's was that it served their interest to keep the conflict alive and well. While Pakistan were supporting the US in destabilizing the Soviets, they were receiving military, financial and political support, which dried up when the Soviets were defeated.

This is why they have been supporting AQ as well as the US, which has paid dividends in the form of 100 million per month from the US.

Russian and Chinese leaders are pragmatists and if it serves their interests, they too will support Pakistan.

They can either support India or Pakistan, and the US can support one or the other too. But whichever one the US supports is the one who will have the most leverage over the other.

That's assuming that the US is the major player in the region and the way the world in headed, that is far from guaranteed. For example, following the Gerorgia chrisis, Ukraine's first reaction was to limit Russia's access to it's ports, but it soon changed it's mind and US support proved of little value.

Belgium? What the hell are you talking about? Belgium was occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. We didn't invade Belgium, or at least not specifically.

No compelling reason not to invade Pakistan? Well, how about the fact that it has nuclear weapons, it's a gigantic, nearly ungovernable country, it has a democratically elected government, it hasn't actually attacked us, and our military is already a bit preoccupied with the last two wars we started and can't quite seem to finish.

I suppose you want to invade Iran and go to war with Russia too? Why not add Uzbekistan to the list? I can't really think of a good reason to invade them, but on the other hand I can't think of a compelling reason not to. If we are going to start WWIII we might as well have fun with it, don't you think?