How can we begin to take your so-called "War on Terror" seriously when you continue to count those who have died as terrorists of whom the world still needs to be very afraid?

And to the Government of Pakistan; please be very, very careful about how the US military intends to work with their Pakistani counterparts.

Please be very specific as to precisely what the US military can, and cannot do in your country.

The US is hoping to continue to exert a very strong influence on Pakistan's political and military influence with this program. - M. R.

It was, of course, the absolute opposite of what the US administration wanted to happen. - M. R.

I think my head just spun around backward on that one. And a small note to policy makers regarding the newly elected Parliament in Pakistan: tread very, very lightly here.

Looking at the legacy of misery and devastation the US has created in Afghanistan and Iraq, (and the propping up of Musharraf in their own country) the Pakistanis are not very happy at this point with any great degree of US "involvement" in their political and military life - M. R.

This agreement was absolutely logical, and critical, for peace to come to Pakistan.

This, of course is why the Bush administration fought it tooth and nail.

It appears that Pakistan will be making its own way in domestic and foreign policy these days, and the US administration had better sit up, take notice, and behave much more tactfully to the newly elected Pakistani Parliament. - M. R.

.

US Military officials talking like this openly about attacking in Pakistan, while the new government is attempting to negotiate with militants, is exacerbating the situation, and not helping to soothe it at all.

But then, possibly, more destabilization is the intent. - M. R.

That they couldn't, ultimately, see this coming, telegraphed in red graffiti, particularly after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last year, is a testament to a collective geopolitical myopia with which these policy-makers appear to be afflicted. - M. R.

It appears that that Mr. Boucher and Mr. Negroponte are hell-bent on infuriating the new Pakistani parliament leaders any way they possibly can. - M. R.

We could possibly have ticked them off more intensely, at the beginning of the new Parliamentary session, but it's hard to imagine how. - M. R.

This perhaps puts Bush's recemt remarks about the next possible terror attack on the US coming from Pakistan in a much clearer perspective. - M. R.

Is this guy on the sauce again?

Or is he just miffed that the Pakistani people have had well enough of the US puppet Musharraf, and because the new Pakistani government doesn't want the US military doing ops inside its borders, thus opening another front for a potential strike on Iran? - M. R.

This is why the US is completely opposed to such a move. - M. R.

In fact, the Pakistani government may well tell us to "get the heck out of Dodge". - M. R.

Members of the US state department must be banging their collective heads against the wall, because violence in Pakistan gave the US the excuse to send even more "advisors", and open up another potential front for a military confrontation with Iran. - M. R.

The more these incidents occur, with increased killing of civilians, the more radicalized and pro-Taliban these folks are going to become. - M. R.

Unfortunately, any enhanced US presence is very much apt to ratchet the violence up, rather than prevent it. - M. R.

And I also think that this deployment will happen as soon as humanly possible, perhaps even sooner than the June date mentioned in this article. - M. R.

Was it a "My way..or the highway" kind of approach?

Was there any listening going on about disenfranchisement,marginalization, and corruption in the Pakistani government? - M. R.

Way to go, Bush Administration! - M. R.

Of course, because this is logical, it will be ignored completely.

NATO is refusing to send more troops into the very dangerous regions of South Afghanistan, Pakistani troops are barely holding their own against the Taliban in their western region, and the US is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq..

If the Taliban are successful, you could see a complete rout of the respective governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan

Ans, as we are all aware: Pakistan has nukes.

Oh, and just a thought: no power on earth can possibly win a land war with an air campaign.

You would think that the military strategists in both the US and NATO just might have taken a clue from the Vietnam War.

Apparently, the chapter on that spectacular failure, and why it happened, was not in their military history books. - M. R.

Without the power that goes with the presidency, this man is fast on his way to complete oblivion and/or prison for what he has done to the Pakistani people. - M. R.

It was just a matter of time before the US went in, with - or without - the approval of the Pakistani government.

One has to wonder; where else is this country bombing where the country they're bombing doesn't get some kind of advance notice (other than Afghanistan and Iraq)? - M. R.

Of course, there are elements within the US government who love the thought of further chaos here, and are salivating for a reason to go into Pakistan. The alleged "good reason" would be to secure its nukes.

The "real reason", however, to any thinking person who can look at a map, is the possibility of opening up another front for a potential military attack against Iran. - M. R.

And who benefits? - M. R.

This accusation may be infinitely more for American domestic consumption (as if we have not been fed enough lies already) to prepare them for some kind of a military attack inside Pakistan, whether the Pakistani government wants it or not.

Right now, the question appears to be more "when" than "if" such a attack will take place. - M. R.

People don't become radicalized by getting access to a decent education for their kids, running water, healthcare, and a belief, based on what they see happening in their government, that they will have the right to their day in court when they need it.

Martial law, dictatorship, civil corruption, and the absence of those elements mentioned above cause people to become radicalized.

And of course, except for a very select few in Pakistan, life isn't really getting better for its people. - M. R.

There were never, ever enough boots on the ground, between US and NATO forces, and now Canada is about to quit this coalition unless some of the NATO countries commit to sending more troops.

You cannot win what is essentially a ground war from the air.

You can, however, wind up slaughtering civilians, women, children, and the medically infirm.

All this gets you is the condemnation and rage of the populations in these areas you have bombed, and create an even more fertile recruiting ground for the Taliban.

If a political version of the Darwin Award for Unintended Geopolitical Consequences, Bush's White House would win it, hands down. - M. R.

This has been coming for a very long time. - M. R.

One has to wonder just how soon American troops will be "coming to the rescue" of Pakistan (right on cue), and opening another front for an attack against Iran. - M. R.

And of course, true to form, the US has supported Pakistan's tin pot dictator Musharraf, because he's "our thug" in the region.

Policy makers simply do not get it that when you support any dictator, there will be a point past which the people living in that country have to take a stand.

And frequently. people are willing to pay with their lives to get rid of them. - M. R.

And if there are massive, massive uprisings as a response to these actions, will the military continue to support Musharraf?

If the answer, ultimately, is no, all bets are off. - M. R.

And Pakistani Generals' statements to the contrary, if the US really believes that the excrement is about to hit the fan in terms of the Pakistani Military losing control of its nukes, there may well be some kind of US military intervention. - M. R.

I can guess. - M. R.

"According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan's border tribes.

Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources."

Perhaps these statements from Major General Arshad are for domestic Pakistani consumption only. - M. R.

However, Musharraf's refusal to allow the SY team to question those people members of government and intelligence Bhutto had previously accused of plotting to kill her telegraphs to the world that this is just another set of cover-ups and deceptions surrounding Bhutto's death. - M. R.

The only other possibility is that they know that no matter who runs against Musharraf (whenever Pakistan actually holds its next "election"), that the vote will be rigged in such a way that he cannot lose.

What they appear to be forgetting, however, is the old saw that when peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. - M. R.

It is very doubtful, then, that she would have had any stomach for the kind of agreement, as had already brokered in Islamabad and Washington, for the US to provide Special Service forces to fight on the Pakistani side of the Afghani-Pakistani border.

At the moment this agreement was brokered, she became irrelevant to US foreign policy.And note the date of this article: one day before she was assassinated - M. R.

The language of the agreement indicated that there would be a US military presence early next year; right now, I'd be willing to bet real money that this may happen within weeks, not months. - M. R.

The military has always been pivotal in terms of what happens to any governmental leader here. - M. R.

And it is obvious you really don't read the news. If you did, you (or someone on your staff) would have come across a little article stating that US Special Forces are already headed to Pakistan, courtesy of an agreement brokered by Special Operations Command, Admiral Eric T. Olson.

Does the assassination of Bhutto pre-empt this agreement?

I think not.

In fact, it almost insures another military misadventure, this time in Pakistan, to prop up Musharraf (the devil this administration knows) in Bush and Cheney's wars without end for the profit of a precious few.

We cannot, Representative Gillibrand, speak with any degree of authenticity about human rights and democracy, then continue to support despotic thugs because they are "our thugs" in various regions of the world.

Ultimately, people get tired, and rise up against these tyrants.

And consistently, when this happens, policy makers in Washington scratch their heads and wonder why their foreign policy has blown up in their collective faces like a bad trick cigar.

There's an old saying, "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it."

That is particularly true of the policies which have generated America's seemingly endless pre-emptive attacks on other countries around the world. - M. R.

And would some responsible being in this administration please keep Secretary Rice from putting her foot so deeply in her mouth and down her throat that she's tap-dancing on her tonsils in public?

How can this woman say, with a straight face, that the ".....Jan. 8 elections should not be postponed." Memo to Secretary Rice: a major Pakistani political figure has been assassinated!!!

It is as though this reality has absolutely no ramifications for Rice, which is breath-takingly terrifying, for a person in her position. - M. R.

If Musharraf and his cronies are not guilty, they certainly did a good job of acting like it by disposing of the evidence ASAP.

And by the way, did anyone actually talk to the husband to validate that he insisted there be no autopsy?

Didn't think so. - M. R.

Who benefits? - M. R.

(Ahem)

The timing of the announcement of US troops going into Pakistan and the assassination of Bhutto strike me as more than mere coincidence. - M. R.