Or so one must conclude after hearing Secretary of State Clinton warn of “serious consequences” if a terror attack on the US could be traced back to Pakistan.
The difficulty with such an obvious bluff is that last weekend’s terror attack was directly traceable to Pakistan, and there’s not much we can do, short of invading the country, to encourage the Pakistanis to defeat the Islamic extremists in their midst.
The Pakistani government’s afraid of a civil war, while the Pakistani military is still playing all sides against the middle in hopes that some advantage can be gained in a post-US Afghanistan.
Instead, we get yet another pointless, inside Washington State v. Defense argument, wherein the Defense Secretary suggests we’re ready to take orders as far as military assistance to Pakistan is concerned.
Will we cut off such assistance if the next Pakistan-based attack is more devastating? Will we declare war on Pakistan?
Of course not, so why engage in this kind of idiotic, defensive rhetoric? Is it to make the Administration sound tougher to voters in November?
The latest terrorist attack should suggest to our leaders and the American people that the Administration’s doing a pretty good job of defending the country against terrorism.
What’s still lacking is an intelligence community that can deliver the goods in terms of identifying, locating, and eliminating terrorist leaders inside Pakistan.
Gorilla asks: “Why not be a bit more offensive and ask Panetta’s boys and girls why they still can’t find their own shadows?”
