More concerning AfPak

Is it possible to have an opinion different to The US Department of Defense on AfPak? I don't know, but I realized that the mere presense of Western troops on the premises of AfPak might be creating more trouble than it solves.

The question therefore arises whether it is within our reach to affect the situation in for example Pakistan. Jackson Diehl writes an article called: A Crisis Out of Reach?. For the reason I gave above?

The possible exception is Iraq where 40% liked the invasion of 2003. Life under Saddam Hussein must have been really terrible. The editorial of The New York Times today reminds us that it is important not to forget Iraq. The article is called: Still Unfinished Business.

According to Charlemagne, who listened to Obamas speech in Prague, Europeans are not afraid of terrorism. I myself must represent an exception. Because, I fear a suitcase nuclear bomb placed somewhere where it hurts in the West. I believe there are people that would do such a thing if they could.

What I don't quite understand is why it would be effective to prevent this from happening with the ongoing AfPak mission? The 9/11 catastrophy, as Obama himself pointed out, was planned partly in Hamburg. My question is therefore, aren't we increasing the risk of triggering a suitcase bomb by trespasssing on Muslim territory? It really irritates these people.

Pakistan generals are apparently more afraid of India than of internal Talibans according to an article in The Economist called: A Real Offensive, Or A Phoney War?. The article asks the question if Zardari is not pocketing donor funds for greasing his corruption wheels and if the army in Pakistan is not faking their efforts. They have a problem, because civilians are killed more by the army than by the Taliban. Would outside military efforts change this equation?