You make some good points here, but I'm also confused.  First you say that Pakistan is at best an unstable country, then you say that "the time is not right for instability".  If the present political structure has failed, how can Musharraf fight terrorists? 

It sounds to me like you are saying that the nation has splintered and it's up to the ethnic factions to decide what to do now. 

First you say that Pakistan is at best an unstable country, then you say that "the time is not right for instability".

The most destabaling factor today is the kind of mob democracy that will prevail under the leadership of Ms Bhutto or Nawab Sherif. The war on terror does not brook any distraction and in this unstable Pakistan Musharraf in uniform or out of it is the best bet. A failed state will only help al Qaeda and that is exactly what Ms Bhotto and the other corrupt politicians want.

I am sometimes amazed at the cold blooded hypocricy of the Bush-Cheeeny administration. On the one hand they are figfhting a self declared war on terroism using all the weapons that amodern state can provide, and they are trying to chain the most valuable asset in this war, President Pervez Musharraf with the heavy chains of human rights and democracy of the US variety.

That is not hypocrisy.  It is America though.  You may look at it as some sort of cosmic joke, but what are they to do?  Situations often call for a compromise on core beliefs (and one of the reasons that true good men will never be politicians - at least effective ones), but you still cannot throw all of your convictions out for expediency.

Pakistan is a vital player in the war on terror.  And it is far from a model of democracy.  Bush has several choices, one being the Shah Treatment, to the other end being the FDR blinders.  Bush is trying to walk a middle road. Support Musharraf, while at the same time nudging him to more democratic reforms.  In the middle of what amounts to a guerrilla campaign in his country.

I for one am glad for several things.  One is that I do not have to make the decisions that Bush is faced with, and another is that he is not Jimmy Carter.

It is easy to play armchair quarterback when your decisions have no weight, and do not involve the sacrifice of lives.

Bush has several choices, one being the Shah Treatment, to the other end being the FDR blinders. Bush is trying to walk a middle road.

Cause, you know, things worked out great when the CIA replaced the popularly elected Mossadegh with the Shah

Cause, you know, things worked out great when the CIA replaced the popularly elected Mossadegh with the Shah

Wrong Shah treatment.  Guess I should have specified. ONe thing Bush should not do is chuck Musharraff under the bus.  He may not be Mother Theresa, but as we have seen, the alternative can be a lot worse.

It is America though. You may look at it as some sort of cosmic joke, but what are they to do? Situations often call for a compromise on core beliefs (and one of the reasons that true good men will never be politicians - at least effective ones), but you still cannot throw all of your convictions out for expediency

I do not believe in ideal diven politics, but surely putting pressure on Mush at this stage is going to be costly for the US.

but surely putting pressure on Mush at this stage is going to be costly for the US.

Agreed.  But even Politicians must listen, on occassion, to their constituency.  Bush is in a lose-lose situation with Musharraf.  If he supports him in order to stabalize Pakistan, he will (and is) being reviled as just propping up another tin plated dictator because the dictator is not left.  If he throws him under the bus (ala the Shah and Iran), we get another Khomeni (sp) and another 50-100 million people living with severed limbs and heads.

In this case, Bush is not following ideal driven politics, but the expedient course.  And he is going to catch it no matter what he does.  From your side for lack of support, and from the other side for not being stricter with him (remember Obama and his invasion plan?).

Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Sec of State, has threatened to "Hammer" Musharraf. This kind of language is most offensive and it undermines US objectives in the region, as US needsd Pakistan more than Pakistan needs USA. Further, Pervez Musharraf must not be driven to make a private deal with the Taliban. Since my piece was posted grom reminders of Taliban presence in Swat Region is pouring in.

Wiat a minute, isn't Pakistan the ones who won't let our troops go persue terrorists shooting at our troops from their side of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border? Isn't Pakistan the country that won't let our troops in, even though the evidence shows Bin Laden is there?

I know Pakistan is doing a lot in other parts in the war against Islamist Extremist terrorism, but giving quarter to Bin Laden doesn't sound like the act of an ally to me.

The Pakistan Army has virtually lost control over large swathes of territory in the North West region: The soldiers sent to fight are refusing to fight and there is every danger of a nuclear armed Pakistasn imploding from within under the twin pressure of Islamic Insurgency and anti Musharraf agitation. USA must not do anything that will upset the delicate balnce that exists. In anyevent there is every likelihood of the regime of Parvez Musharraf collapsing within a month and this developmemt will have an adverse consequence on thwe war in Afghanistan.