This whole view of what the US's policy should be in regards to the Middle East and the rest of the world is so backwards that none of it makes sense. They want Bush to fight al-Qaeda, but be more diplomatic in the world and stop meddling in the affairs of others. But it's ironic when Bush takes a diplomatic approach he gets bashed when it doesn't work which is double ironic because he gets bashed for not using diplomacy when he predicts diplomacy would've failed anyway. He can't do anything right in the eyes of the left. He could take their advice and apply it but still get bashed as we saw with the 9/11 recommendations.

Pick something - starting with which battles to fight. Al-Qaeda attacked us, and Bush gave Pakistan an option: help us against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan or we'll forcefully come in your country and do it for you. Diplomacy sometimes has to take the form of ultimatums.

What were the alternatives? Kaplan wanted us to fund democratic movements in Pakistan which while sounds great but that's assuming it would've worked and Musharaf wouldn't have then chose to stop pursuing al-Qaeda when that's our stated goal there. So then we'd be left in the exact situation we're in now no matter what only this way Musharaff at least sort of still pursues al-Qaeda because either way he would've imposed martial law. And then comes the only other option, MILITARILY FORCE HIM to me democratic. I'm sure Fred would've loved that considering how well that's going in Iraq right now.

The middle east is a fucked up place. It isn't the reality of America. And Fred Kaplan declaring what's going on in Pakistan right now as Bush's fault is absolutely absurd. It's a catch 22 over there - whether Musharaf helps Bush pursue al-Qaeda or we go in their and do it ourselves, no matter what there will be chaos in Pakistan cause that's the reality on the ground their.

The hardest thing to change in the world is the mindset of societies and when those societies are the problem it's complexities are almost unfixable - certainly in the sense that it's not an overnight fix.

I hope Pakistan goes democratic (as Bush has told Musharaf to do), but the goal is to find Bin Laden, not lose whatever edge we have pursuing that goal.

To Adamsonofjohn

You can fight al Quaeda from home. You don't need to go to Pakistan.

If you had not gone into Iraq, we would have done better.

Finally, al Quaeda is not a military problem. Furthermore, you should fight terrorism SECRETLY!!!

It is Bush who has made it into a political problem for political purposes.

Look at India, UK, Germany, and Spain and see how they are fighting terrorism with success.

We can't fight al-Qaeda from home. I think the idea is to not have to fight it at home. Tell me exactly how and how successful India, UK, Germany and Spain are fighting Islamic terrorism.

Two things to think about before you reply:

1. None of those countries have been hit nearly as hard as the US by a single terrorism attack.

2. They happen to fight terrorism from home because the terrorists either were born in their countries or have moved there.

3. None of those countries have dealt blows to terrorist groups like we have.

And how the fuck is al-Qaeda not a military problem? Should we just press charges?

I'm not really arguing one way or the other here, but I just wanted to point out the following.

India has been fighting Islamic terrorists for over 50 years now. The casualities that they have suffered over that time period have been far greater than what the U.S. has suffered since 9/11. While India hasn't had a skycraper blow up and kill thousands at once, they have had a long and drawn out fight with terrorists that has involved the blowing up of hundreds of buildings, houses, schools, etc. and the deaths of thousands of people

The Indian Army has been destroying terrorist bases (belonging to Al Qaeda linked groups) for years now (even before Al Qaeda became a formally incorporated group). I think its safe to say that they have contributed just as much as the U.S. (if not more) to the war on terrorism.

Some kind of augmented relationship with Pakistan was absolutely required, and leaning on them at times to achieve our goals was also required. But getting 100% into bed with a military leader, on the verge of becoming a dictator, in a region that we say we are trying to help be free, hurts our goals. Bush was short term in his thinking regarding Musharraf, and it could bite us in the ass.

But I really don't understand what we would've had him do otherwise than that which he's doing. He's pressing him now. Though I'm criticial of Fred's article, I still think it's smart despite me disagreeing with the conclusions.

Bush is pressing him now. But honestly, it wouldn't have mattered either way.

Adam, the problem now is Bush,if his policy had been even close to realistic we would have bin Laden by now.You advocate an almost isolationist approach but you still want us to conduct our military ops.That really is nonsense, if we have troops on the ground we need to either have the complete support of the native government or you need to be at war with it.

You seem to be right on the page with neocon logic, it isn't realistic and it has been a disaster.

I agree that Kaplan utterly fails to support his title: "How Bush and Rice made a mess of Pakistan". He implies that 1) Rice shouldn't have persuaded Bhutto to return for a power sharing agreement and 2) Bush's inaction 6 months ago somehow caused the current military-rule crisis. What exactly was the alternative -- not have Bhutto try to restore democracy? Musharraf has been a dictator from the start; if anyone had any doubts about that, they were fooling themselves. Rice had to try something, and getting Bhutto to return was a good place to start. As far as Musharaff's suspension of the Courts 6 months ago: all I've heard from the White House since then is strong condemnation. Publicly, Bush has been urging Musharraf to back off all along. Seems to me like he's tried. Kaplan ignores the fact that Pakistan is a sovereign nation with a dictator who will hold onto power at all costs. Maybe the US should have withheld the billions in aid, but would that really have prevented the constitutional crisis? I doubt it. There's plenty to blame Bush for without blaming him for this as well.