Funny, I just read an article about this after doing a google search and was, too, trying to figure out why this wasn't broadcast on any media outlet. I guess jerking off to Saddam's capture tired them all out.

As good as it is that Saddam is now in custody, his actual capture is nothing more than a symbol for the US to wave at the rest of the world. The threat of terror has not decreased and there is still a lot of work to be done. But again, thanks to the corporate media for telling us what we want to think!

There was a smidge of this on my local news broadcast--during their hilariously named "World in a Minute" segment. No one is mentioning indeed that we must have President Musharaff alive and in office in Pakistan; he's our only friend in our "fight" against Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Oh well. As we say, Osama been Forgotten. But looky! We got Saddam!

this is a little off topic but... there is a common thread in the politics of Iraq, Pakistan, and the US: the Army as representative of the 'nation' or forsworn to uphold the national ideals as versus the interests competing internal factions.

In both the US and Iraq, the head-of-state had/has an uneasy relationship with the military. In Pakistan the head of state exists (i.e. is still alive) on the backing of the military. As part of the US role in the Russian conflict in Afghanistan, we build up the ISI (similar w.r.t. our efforts to build up national armies in central america) so that it now competes with the Army in Pakistan for internal political influence.

Right now in Iraq, we are trying to rebuild the Mukhbarat (sic?) as a counterweight to the remnants of the old Iraqi Army. This is the real story to follow, now the keystone cops or the 'New Iraqi Army (tm)'. I think the capture of Saddam based up 'actionable' intelligence given by his own family may indicate the elements of the old regime may think they no longer need Saddam to maintain some level of influence. He was a liability if they wanted to get into the new internal security apparatus.

I don't think it will be long before the US military takes on a more direct role as 'impartial' representative of the nation if and when social groups in the US become more politically polarized...

But getting back to Musharraf, our ties to Pakistan have historically run through the ISI, so the US may not see him as much of an asset.

NPR mentioned this off-handedly during their "In Other News" briefs yesterday. I was appalled - this is far more important, in the big picture, than getting our hands on Saddam. I brought it up to some friends later that evening - Musharraf Who? being the uniform response. *sigh*

You know, he's that guy, you know, the one standing between Al Quaeda and The Bomb - you know, real Weapons of Mass Destruction? argh!

Taliban am gone away! Iraq am central front in terror war! Me am Superman! Legitimate criticisms of war am gone away with capture!

Isn't there anything we can say to Muslims, or do for them, that will reduce their fear of and hatred of the West?

Come on Churches and Synagogues! What the hell are you doing and saying? Anything?

If you're saying something, SAY IT LOUDER!

If America thinks it has current problems in Iraq, imagine trying to subdue a nation of 150 million people, armed with medium-range nuclear missiles

Indeed.
It is a matter of time before this happens though, if you'd ask me. I had similar feelings when the Soviet empire collapsed into lots of segments, some of them having huge stockpiles of real world, soviet engineered, operational weapons. Didn't happen, but Pakistan is a different ballgame though. But hey, the media are playing by the script, and Saddam is a hot topic these days, while most people can't figure who Musharraf is, and that Pakistan has real world nukes. So the media hands out what will sell best. The Kim Jong Ils and Musharrafs and Karimovs and Abashidzes of the world will count when the threat will be hammered thru the thick skull of the audience, and there's nothing to do about this situation.

My $0.02 projections. Musharraf is toast, dead man walking, only a matter of tiime. I do'n't see the other Generals letting the jihadists get their way though... Too much entrenched interests and corruption in Pakistan... I could see a limited nuclear exchange with India though.

Musharraf is barely controlling his generals now and he and Vajpaye are trying hard to negotiate a detente, even though there is a flareup in Kashmir again.

There really is no such thing as a "limited nuclear exchange" and such an escalation would result in heightened tensions all over the world.

I think the media safely filed this under "Wake me when they finally get him."

It is, after all, just a matter of time. Musharraf's own security services are riddled with Islamic radicals, and the piece in this morning's Times mentioned how Rawalpindi, the scene of the attempt, was considered one of the most secure sites in Pakistan. You get the feeling that when the end comes, Musharraf's last words will be the Urdu version of "Et tu, Brute." And that, ladies and germs, is when the real fun begins.

On the other hand, blowing up the bridge half an hour after the motorcade passed is like shooting into Dealey Plaza when Kennedy was touring the Dallas Trade Mart. This might have been as much a message as a miss. We'll have to see if Pakistan becomes decidely less pliant in the next few months.

Billmon occasionally writes things which mirror my own thinking so accurately that it's startling.

The only thing I would add to all of this is that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is reportedly under only human and legal control, not any form of technological control.

American nuclear systems (and their xUSSR counterparts) have a fairly elaborate cryptographic lockout on the arming system, which is by design very difficult to bypass without rendering the unit inoperable -- the chemical explosives might light off, but the nuclear yield would be trifling. The American military calls it PAL, Permissive Action Link; I have no idea what the Soviets called theirs, but the concept is similar.

The only thing preventing a Pakistani colonel from loading up one of their fission bombs on an F-16 and going at an Indian target is the chain of command. And that's never looked so tenuous as now.

You may at your liberty subsitute "steal the weapon and smuggle it into a Western city" instead of delivering to an Indian target. Which, given the extent of Islamic fervor inside of the Paki military, would be unsurprising to have happen.

The oversight of Pakistan is one of the most criminally negligent things this Administration had done. I despise Bush, but if he had launched lightning raids to capture and sequester the Pakistani nukes, I would have considered it a remarkably sensible step, and would be voting for the man next year. He hasn't, and I won't.

Even beyond Musharraf there was great article in Newsweek 2 or 3 weeks ago about the legions of kids in religious schools in Pakistan that will result in more future recruits.

There is also the end of the Multifibre Agreement that will allow China to swamp Western markets with appparel exports that will drown out the economic livelihood of millions of Muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia and bangladesh.

This is the part of the story that is being ignored because of the excessive focus on military means of elimianting terrorism.

Lerxst
Economist for Dean

"Isn't there anything we can say to Muslims, or do for them, that will reduce their fear of and hatred of the West?

Come on Churches and Synagogues! What the hell are you doing and saying? Anything?

If you're saying something, SAY IT LOUDER!"

I think mostly these people are listening to Bush and what the US military is doing.

Conrack, some do, but they get drowned out (over many years now) by the Right wing in their own congregations, or by other Rightist congregations (in my own area of SW Ohio, Islamics, peaceniks and some Christians sponsored a talk by Iraqi women. But little publicized by mainstream churches/temples.) This is a sort of mirror or microcosm of how the Right has a louder media - the National Council of Churches and a lot of other official religious groups (Conf. of Catholic Bishops, etc.) preach one thing, usually more liberal, and the congregants stick their fingers in their ears or accuse them of being a fifth column. as a nonreligious person from a semireligious family, I have watched with dismay the Rightification of mainstream churches/
synagogues, esp. since 9/11. I remember as a child a fight in a church over whether to have a US flag in the sanctuary. Now there'd only be a fight if you tried to take it out.

I despise Bush, but if he had launched lightning raids to capture and sequester the Pakistani nukes

I don't think India is safe with nuclear weapons either. They have their batch of fanatics too in the military and on the streets.

Nasser performed with finesse the same juggling act that Musharaaf is performing today. He came up through the military and took over in a coup, running King Farouk out of Egypt and forming an Arab socialist state. There were numerous assassination attempts on his life during the fifteen plus years he was president. He had to control the military, and at the same time control the more rabid Islamists who wanted an Islamic state. He tossed most of the worst into prisons and kept them there while monitoring with a powerful secret police the emissions from the ones still on the street. He was loved by the people, both inside and outside of Eqypt. Nasser managed to die a natural death and Sadat took over. In a generous move, he opened the prison doors and let the real nutballs out -- and they assassinated him. An excellent lesson, learned the hard way.

I remember as a child a fight in a church over whether to have a US flag in the sanctuary. Now there'd only be a fight if you tried to take it out.

Are you kidding Francoise ? Flags in a church ?

Gee, I'm certainly not a believer, but his sounds very very odd to the poor yurpean I am. Triple single malt for me barkeep, please.

It was 30 seconds, not 30 minutes.

Am I the only one here to like CJW's posts ? Billmon, if you ever need a guest writer for this blog when you need a rest, I'd vore for CJW.

cause osama is coming to town.
yu better be good, and shop shop shop
cause osama is coming to town.
he checkin his list of dirty bombs, and razor
knives.
i kinda like ferlinghetti better.
but w got his bounce in the pols.
somehow i think musharif wears too much mouse in his
do. hair-do.
just what is going on over there. under control, i think w and barney, and this brit poodle, and his ausie wombat are sitting on a something that is gonna go boom boom. oh welll jingle jingle

(+*"çç*& !

"vote"

I agree that Pakistan is the real story that's being ignored. But what should we be doing about it?

Musharaff isn't stupid & he's survived dozens of assassination attempts. It'll be interesting to watch his next moves. If he discovers that Pakistan's Islamic fundamentalists were behind this attack, he'll probably (secretly) ask for assurances from India before pulling his troops from that border, then put a smackdown on the fundamentalist groups. He and they have an uneasy co-existence, but this can't be allowed to pass unanswered. If he finds out it was an inside job, he'll turn to his sources in those same fundamentalist groups and make some concessions to them in exchange for them agreeing to rub out the traitor in his (Musharaff's) inner circle.

In my family we look at what the misdirection du jour is distracting from. Trouble happens, of course, when there are multiple issues we are persuaded to look away from ... dang prepositions! So we have Halliburton, James Baker, the slime, Medicare, unemployment et al. Does one tyrant photo and sound byte opportunity mitigate ALL of the issues we are being directed to ignore? And how much Remy does one need in order to remain properly anesthetized?

Go for the tea, Donna. You'd have to drink a case of Remy.

Before 9-11, the Pakistan-India border was considered the number one global hotspot, the most dangerous looming conflict on earth. Maybe it still is, even considering everything else.

The Nation printed a couple of great articles about the Hindu-Muslim violence in India and Bangladesh. (Bangladesh being much like Pakistan in madrassahs per capita, but different in having a few more Hindus and a lot less money.) That whole region is a powder keg.

"I don't think India is safe with nuclear weapons either. They have their batch of fanatics too in the military and on the streets."

I don't think that the rest of the world feels very safe about the USA's nukes, they've got previous form of using them as well!

Where does the idea that "some" countries are ok to have nukes and others not come from - I presume there's a democratic vote on it somewhere and it's not just modern day bigotry/rascism?

I agree, xxx. I have always been a proponent of global nuclear disarmament. To me it always looked like a catastrophic accident waiting to happen. But no one willingly gives up power until they are dragged screaming and kicking to it. And Bush has gone ahead and restarted many of our nuke research programs which were put to bed years ago. The ever onward drive for more and more power and control...

Musharraf getting killed would be the worst thing possible right now - does anyone honestly think that the ISI or the powers-that-be would let another pro-U.S. leader lead the way?

Slightly OT: Hasn't Karzai also had attempts on his life? My feeling is if the American forces weren't there, Karzai would have been worm food by now.

As always, Billmon, your posts are eloquent and excellent.

Business Week had an article recently that stated some 200,000 Indians will be entering the workforce in India in the near future. The Indian economy is NOT going to generate anywhere near that number of jobs, so, what to do with all those unemployed young people? Pakistan wouldn't be nearly so scary if it didn't have reason to be scared. And if your choice was invading Pakistan or invading China, which would YOU be most likely to pick?

Musharraf getting killed would be the worst thing possible right now - does anyone honestly think that the ISI or the powers-that-be would let another pro-U.S. leader lead the way?

I'm not sure.

The real question is how many US nuclear-armed subs are within missile range of Pakistan, and how well known is that information to the various factions in Pakistan (including Musharaff).

Consider that scenario to be the same thing as the long-held rumor that after Setember 11, the Bushies let it be quietly known to various governments in the Middle East that, should any similar event happen again in the US, the cities of Mecca, Medina, Ridyah, Tehran, Demascus, Tripoli, etc. would be "cleansed from the Earth with nuclear fire"...

Rushbuster, why would we interfere in Pakistan? They have never shown themselves to be a threat to the United States. Maybe I've missed it; when did Pakistan attack us last? Was it on 9/11? What about India; what if its prime minister was assassinated? Would we start a nuclear attack against them too? Why not? The only country which has ever used nukes is the United States. Personally, I worry about Sharon and his illegal nukes. If anyone qualifies as a belligerent and violent nutball, he is the main one; out bombing other countries (aside from the US and Britain.) Of course, he is not Muslim and therefore apparently doesn't fit the stereotype of a terrorist to most people.

Why do you find Pakistan a big threat to America, and India not a threat? I understand Bush's perverted view of the Muslim world, being that he is under direct instruction from God, but am not sure I understand your view. You sound almost gleeful that millions of innocent Muslims would be "cleansed from the earth with nuclear fire."

Maybe I have misinterpreted what you wrote in your post, and I apologize if that is the case. Please correct me.

Hello CJW,

I am not Rushbuster, but it seems to me that the answer to your question is a no brainer.

In Pakistan, you have a highly unstable government, a military heavily infiltrated by muslim extremists, the home base of the Taliban and real live nuclear weapons.

Another factor enters into the equation as well. I know of several Pakistanis living in the US who possess a fatalism about their country that is breath-taking. I think that a good paraphrase of our conversations would boil down to "Let India nuke the place. It would be an improvement". This comment was made in deadly seriousness. I have also heard similar sentiments reported from a Pakistani government minister of all people. This is not a scientific survey or anything, but I have never heard any of the dozens of Chinese or Indian or any other foriegn nationals that I have known over the years say anything even remotely similar about their own countries.

Evidently Pakistan really sucks.

Imagine if Pakistan were to fall into the hands of the religeous fanatics with Bin Laden in effective control. He probably lives there you know. Those nukes would be his, and you can be sure that he wouldn't really care if we took out Karachi in retaliation for a nuclear strike against America if it came to that.

India's nukes would simply never be directed at the US. Can you think of a plausible scenario where they would? Pakistan's on the other hand. It is a first rate opportunity for Muslim-extremist nuclear blackmail against the entire Western world.

That doesn't scare you?

That doesn't scare you?

Not nearly as much as a bunch of extremist Christians whom God speaks directly to urging them onward to Armageddon, who are already threatening to nuke the entire Muslim world, guilty or innocent, IN MY NAME. That doesn't frighten you? Are you saying this following comment is benign and that innocent countries who have not done anything to us can be nuked just for being Muslim?: ...after September 11, the Bushies let it be quietly known to various governments in the Middle East that, should any similar event happen again in the US, the cities of Mecca, Medina, Ridyah, Tehran, Demascus, Tripoli, etc. would be "cleansed from the Earth with nuclear fire...

Note the "etc" at the end of the list of cities which probably makes it a good deal longer. That doesn't frighten you? That a bunch of lunatics are in control of our nukes?

CJW, I would say we have to worry about both us and Pakistan, because, yes, Pakistan did attack us:

Director General of Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced .... Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen Mahmud's instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta, one of the lead terrorists in strikes at the World Trade Centre on Sept 11, it adds.

Billmon, Musharraf is an "indispensable man because he wants it that way:

Musharraf's critics say that he bears much of the responsibility for the religious parties' strong showing. Over mild protests from Washington, Musharraf moved vigorously over the summer to neutralize his secular political opposition, instituting new electoral rules calculated to rule out challenges by [the moderates]. He also required that candidates for the national assembly hold four-year college degrees, eliminating about 40 percent of potential contenders.

But Musharraf made an exception for candidates from religious parties, whose madrassa certificates were deemed adequate proof of literacy and learning. Many of them rushed in to fill the void left by disqualified rivals.

Musharraf is playing footsie with these guys, in much the same way that Putin is helping the national socialists. God help us.

last post was me -- sorry

Rushbuster, why would we interfere in Pakistan? They have never shown themselves to be a threat to the United States.

Let me rephrase it: Do you really think the Bushies aren't above using nuclear blackmail to achieve their ends? Especially against what they perceive to be "the heathens"?

Hello CJW,

Yes, certainly, nuclear weapons in the hands of religious extremists of any stripe scare the hell out of me. However, the specific question posed in your post was the one that I tried to answer.

Who's weapons are a bigger threat to the US, India's or Pakistan's? There is no question that Pakistan's are. India's Hindu extremists should make Pakistan very nervous, but as far as I have ever heard, these people have no beef of any sort with the US.

There is a very real posibility that Pakistan, on the other hand, could fall into the hands of our biggest adversary, Ossama Bin Laden. Obviously a bigger threat.

The nightmare scenario that you report, the nuking of every muslim capitol, is one of the scariest things I have heard in a long time. Especially since it sounds like Bush would order such an attack in response to a non-nuclear attack. Although it is just a rumor, it certainly sounds in character for this administration. One can imagine Bush pumping his fist in the air and exclaiming "Let's Roll!!" right before pushing the button. And just think, the Muslims wouldn't be able to nuke us back. It's perfect!

Growth Factor

In addition the Hindu extremists (the VHP, RSS, and the BJP nationalist government) see a resonance with the Bush administration and Israel in their fight against radical Islam and want to cultivate stronger US-Israel- India ties. So the probability of India deploying nukes against the US is very remote. Plus, the nuke deployment in India is under civilian command and control and not the military as is the case in Pakistan.

Musharraf is reaping what he sowed. Many ISI agents clandestinely trained Pakistani jehadists to fight the Russians/ Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Indian occupation in Kashmir. Musharraf as the COAS was directly responsible for this policy. Thousands of Pakistani jehadists with the blessings of the ISI streamed into Afghanistan to fight the US before and during the war.

In fact, one of the conditions that the US had to meet in obtaining Musharraf's compliance in the war against terrorism was to allow allow thousands of ISI and Pakistani jehadists to be given safe passage back to Pakistan. There is evidence that Pakistani Air Force planes airlifted these men for 3-4 consecutive days immediately following the war in Afghanistan. There is speculation that many Al Qaeda and Talibanis were allowed to escape in this airlift at the behest of the ISI and melt into Pakistan. The diffusion of Al Qaeda in the interior of Pakistan makes their presence all the more dangerous for Musharraf and US interests in that region as they are no longer hemmed in at the Afghanistan- Pakistan border. Most of the arrests of Al Qaeda leaders (Khalid Sheikh, Al Zubeydah, Ramzi Bin Shibh etc) have taken place in interior cities of Pakistan (Karachi, Faisalbad, Lahore). Musharraf's pre-requisite for joining the war on terrorism has come back to bite him. If he is assassinated he will join a long list of leaders in the Indian subcontinent that have been died that way or have been executed- MK Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Bhutto, Zia Ul Haq, etc.

Excellent post and insight, Billmon. This was an event that went below the radar here. Trust the Bush administration with its heavy handed foreign (read military)policy to miss these nuances.

SR

Why is Islam hostile to the US? Why do they call us infidels...easy answer...due to a strong inferiority complex...can you name any great Muslim writers, artists, scientists...anything? Unfortunatly NOT! Why????
Every Muslim must look in the mirror and come to terms with their worldview...to call someone an infidel refers to you being right and them wrong.
Muslims are as arrogant as born again christians...to think that 99 virgins await a sucide bomber says something about the people. Stop using religious text as tiolet paper!

In response to Hakin Now's comment:

Islam is NOT monolithic, anymore than Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. Just as all Christians are not Jerry Falwell, and all Jews are not Ariel Sharon, all Muslims are NOT Osama Bin Laden. In addition to the divisions between Sunni and Shia, there are a multitude of regional and political differences among Muslims--several sects and persuasions exist that are not represented within the regretably narrow perception of the US media and the Amerian public. There are even openly Gay and Lesbian Muslims, and Progressive American Muslims--if you can imagine that (and I imagine most can't).

There is no ONE version of Islam, nor is there a uniform and universally accepted model for how a Muslim ought to act, think, worship etcetera. What concerned Americans ought to be doing is backing progressive Muslim forces and helping them to STOMP the fundos--not essentializing all Muslims under the rubric of a single enemy. (And we wonder "Why they hate us"--it's a two-way street.) Or, go a step forward--recognize that to every action, there is a reaction, and with that in mind, press for changes in our foreign policy that will quell suffering and rage all over the Muslim world, rather than incite it.

Hello Hakin Now,

The fact that you are unaware of the giants of Muslim culture does not mean that these giants don't exist. Next time you sign a check, thank the Muslim world for giving you the numbers to write with. Muslim architecture and other decorative arts are absolutely stunning. As for literature, we here in the US tend to be ignorant of great writers of other languages. Can you name any great writers of the Spanish language?

To educate Hakim Now- brilliant Muslim writers and poets like Omar Khayyam, Jalalludin Rumi, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Mir, Ghalib, Adonis amongst many others. Muslim painters gave us the exquisite art of miniatures. Muslim mathematicians and scientists the decimal system and the precursor to modern day medicine. Kemal Ataturk, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Mohammad Ali Jinnah were giants of the 20th century and founded modern day Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan respectively.

Its strange that you call yourself Hakim- in Arabic it means "the wise man", "judicious." The choice of words in your post belies the meaning.

SR

Wow people wonder why Muslims hate the west, how many Muslims were killed in Iraq 5 or 10 or 20 thousands? think about that before you wonder. Stop the wholesale killing of Muslims, give them a chance to find who you really are.. or may you'd rather just pull the trigger?

Why is Islam hostile to the US? Why do they call us infidels...easy answer...due to a strong inferiority complex...can you name any great Muslim writers, artists, scientists...anything? Unfortunatly NOT!

I thought about deleting Hakim Now's post, but his/her brand of pig ignorance is a useful demonstration of the incredibly deep ignorance of so many Americans (Of course, I don't know for a fact that Hakim is American, but I'd be willing to bet money he/she is.)

Here's a suggestion, Hakim: Go pick up a dictionary and look up the root origin of the word algebra. It ain't pig Latin. Then think about why the digits we all use in daily life are called Arabic numerals. It's because they were invented by the Islamic scholars of Baghdad over a 1,000 years ago, at a time when Europe was still wrestling with numbers like MLXXVIII.

Then check the history section of your local library for any books you can find about Muslim Spain or the Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates, all three of which were international centers of learning and culture when Paris and London were not much more than glorified manure yards.

Then go visit Cordoba or Cairo and walk the halls of the Alahambra Palace, or admire the soaring lines of the Sultan Hassan Mosque, and understand that the medieval Arabs were using architectual techniques that wouldn't be mastered by Europe's builders until the 19th century.

Then think about the modern technical achievements required for an impoverished Third World country like Pakistan to develop both atomic bombs and intermediate range ballistic missiles.

Then read any of the novels of Egypt's Nobel Prize winning author, Naguib Mahfoud (don't worry; most of them have been translated into English) or watch a Sufi dance, or contemplate the abstract artistic decorations on a 14th century Koran, or read an interview with the great humanitarian Aga Khan or .... well, maybe you get the point.

If anybody should have an inferiority complex, it's you, Hakim Now -- and me, for being a citizen of a country filled with numbskulls such as you.

P.S. If you think "99 virgins awaiting a suicide bomber" sounds absurd, read the Book of Revelations or the Gospel of John -- or any of the "Left Behind" books, for that matter. Then let's talk about whose religious beliefs are the most ridiculous.

And just to complete the thought, I wonder how many great American cultural contributions Hakim and those who posit this silliness as constructive social critique can really name?

Top 5 American authors?

Top 5 achivevments in medicine?

Top 5 in science?

Top 5 visual artists?

Top 5 achievements in astronomy?

Top 5 poets?

It's not to say that it can't be done, but this person's post betrays a poverty of mind that pains one to contemplate.

While not in any way endorsing Hakim's post, with a one word or another added twice his line
Muslims are as arrogant as born again christians
can become
Radical (or Fanatical) Muslims are as arrogant as Radical (or Fanatical) born again christians.

Let's not forget that almost all the classic works of Islam come out of the tolerant and learned tradition of the first 700 years of Islam. Let's not kid ourselves that radical Islam just like radical fundamentalist Christianity produces in its adherents a mind-set that everything "other" is against you and therefore "bad".

Think about this: if John Ashcroft was born in Afghanistan do you have any doubt that he would not have become a leading Taliban-ite?

While the corporate media were busy wetting themselves over Saddam's capture yesterday, they virtually ignored this story:
Some people watch the BALL DE JOUR
Some watch the whole game
Saddam is the ball de jour
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is a part of the bigger game
Does anyone remember the time Mubarrak from Egypt had a heat stroke, and we worried for an hour ???

Please don't kid yourself that joint religious party leaderes of Pakistan (MMA) are of same league as Osama or Mullah Omar. Although they are quite religious, yet during the recent open media exposure they recieved (thanks to free media policies of Musharaf), they have projected an image of moderation and high statesmanship style. In any case, Osama or Mullah Omar is just a symbol for these leaders to use in their favor as they know how to "play" the sentiments of ordinary Pak/Afghan border people. Don't forget that these religious leaders ARE pakistani and they would not do anything stupid to loose the power that they have finally acquired. Having stable and secure Pakistan is as much a priority for these people as Musharaf.

Here is a thought, why not allow them to have power in Pakistan. When you make a thief responsible for the safe, he would not try to break or steal it. As for religious extremism, trust me these are everywhere in the world and Pakistan has its share too but not to the extent as it is projected. Musharaf has to "play" the extremist card almost everyday to boost and to ensure constant US support. The nation of Pakistan will never except the Taliban style regime anyway. The Mullah's of Pakistan know it damn well.