Moses Returns: Boucher Delivers The Commandments To Musharraf Personally

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher didn't waste any time getting himself to Pakistan.

His routine emergency visit was announced last week, shortly after Condoleeza Rice's routine 2AM phone call to Pakistan's President, General Pervez Musharraf.

As regular readers of this page may remember, last week around this time, Musharraf had been floating a trial balloon called "state of emergency". He had also decided at the last minute not to attend the peace jirga in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was scheduled to meet Hamid Karzai and make nicey-nice for photo-ops with the local tribal elders, as we are told by the western press, and most likely a motley assortment of puppets and warlords, as experience would lead us to believe.

Boucher's itinerary was not available last week, because, as the State Department explained it, the details had not been finalized, even though the trip had been arranged long beforehand. And the State Department has thus far been unwilling to reveal anything of the nature of the 2AM phone call, other than that Secretary Rice had felt "it was an opportune moment to talk about a couple of things" with President Musharraf.

But it doesn't take much reading between the lines to figure out what those things must have been. The state of emergency was never declared, and instead the story was floated that everyone except the President General had wanted him to go that route, but he demurred.

Then Musharraf announced that he would be at the jirga before it ended, and sure enough, he was there for the closing formalities on Sunday. Standing up with Hamid Karzai and Afghanistan against terrorism, America's number one ally, President General Pervez Musharraf. Hooray!

And Musharraf even made a rare admission when he said

that support for militants emanating from Pakistan has caused problems for Afghanistan, and that his country should work to secure peace on its side of their mutual border.

“I realize this problem goes deeper, there is support from these areas,” General Musharraf told hundreds of Pakistani and Afghan delegates at a grand tribal assembly here. “There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil. The problem that you have in your region is because support is provided from our side.”

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan nodded in agreement.

General Musharraf’s words, and his appearance at the final ceremony of the four-day meeting in Kabul, were a sharp reversal for him.

In the past, he has argued that the insurgency in Afghanistan is a homegrown problem and stems from dissatisfaction with the Afghan government. By contrast, Mr. Karzai has often asserted that the source of the Taliban insurgency lies in training camps and madrasas in Pakistan and that the insurgents take sanctuary there. Relations between the countries have deteriorated over the past two years as their presidents have repeated their conflicting accusations over and over.

As recently as Thursday, General Musharraf abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance at the opening ceremony of the jirga. At first the cancellation appeared to be a slight to Mr. Karzai, but it later emerged that domestic political problems kept him at home in Islamabad, where he met with aides to consider imposing emergency rule in the period leading up to elections. Enormous diplomatic and political pressure was brought to bear on the president over the issue, including a phone conversation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about 2 a.m. Thursday that seemed to help persuade him that an emergency-rule decree was not necessary.

Could it have been that Secretary Rice's 2AM message consisted of three parts?

[1] Thou shalt not declare an emergency,
[2] Thou shalt get thyself to Afghanistan for the jirga and take some responsibility, and
[3] Richard Boucher shall deliver the rest of the commandments in person ASAP.

If my conjecture is correct, we now know the remainder of the commandments.

Musharraf to abide by commitments on election, uniform; Boucher

ISLAMABAD, Aug 16 (APP): The United States Thursday said it was confident that President Pervez Musharraf will abide by the commitments made about holding of free and fair election and doffing his uniform.

“Yes there is a definite commitment ... for making a stable transition from the military rule to a duly elected government,” US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told reporters at a press briefing at the end of his two-day visit.

This slightly contradicts the statements made earlier by Boucher's boss, John Negroponte, who said he thought Musharraf should decide on his own whether to run for re-election as General (in violation of the Pakistani constitution) or not (thus giving up the added stature that commanding the Army brings). As the Washington Post reported,

"I think that is something General Musharraf himself will want to decide," Mr. Negroponte said, conspicuously placing the general above Pakistan's constitution.

But given the visibility of the journey and the statement, I believe we can take Boucher's Commandments as being the official operative line, until of course they are seen to have been countermanded.

He said the United States was very supportive and shared the goals of the government of Pakistan of opening up of media, civil society, creation of economic opportunities, better health and education for the people of Pakistan.

And a chicken in every pot, and liberty equality fraternity for all, and an apple pie on every windowsill... Oh yeah. Translation: even though we act like big jerks, Americans are good people and no matter how much this is hurts, it's all for your own good... Oh yeah.

Asked whether any assurances were made about the issue of uniform, Boucher said the President has made public commitments that he will deal with the issue in accordance with the law and the constitution.

What does this mean exactly? Does it mean we expect him to honor those commitments? Does it mean we have told him we'll respect him in the morning even if he fails to honor them? It's difficult to read between the lines on this because we know the Americans especially Bush are saying they believe Pakistan will have a free and fair election, and those of us who follow elections in the USA must all be wondering what Bush's name is doing in the same sentence as "free and fair election". Is Pervez going to get a "free and fair election" just like Georgie got? Wise money would never bet against such a thing.

Referring to his meetings with the representatives of several political parties Boucher said the US does not favour any particular political party, and the only objective was to encourage and strengthen democracy in Pakistan.

And apple pie in every pot, and a chicken on every windowsill. Who could argue with any of this?

Responding to a question about the telephone call made by Secretary Condoleeza Rice to President Musharraf when rumours were rife of emergency rule, he said: “we have a relationship where our leaders talk frequently. When something is going on, they pick up the phone, call each other, interact, talk to those directly involved in decision making.”

Sure, they do. And it doesn't even matter what time it is or anything. When you step out of line you get a phone call. What's the mystery?

Asked about statements by US officials of an action in Pakistan's tribal areas if there was “actionable intelligence”, he said: “We are partners with Pakistan in the war against terrorism. We act together...we work together.” The two countries will cooperate if there was actionable intelligence, he added.

Earth to Obama: Are you listening? “We are partners with Pakistan in the war against terrorism. We act together...we work together.”

Boucher defended the recent Pakistan-specific US legislation, saying it will help the administration convince the Congress about Pakistan's role in countering terrorism.

This is a very nifty bit of spin. The "Pakistan-specific US legislation" makes US aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistani efforts to fight Islamic extremists. US military aid to Pakistan runs about $100 million per month; and the Pakistani military didn't seem to be doing much. The threat of losing that "income stream" is very powerful, and the Pakistanis were none too impressed. Describing such a threat as something that "will help the administration convince the Congress about Pakistan's role" is diplomacy-speak for "there had better be some concrete evidence of Pakistan's role to report". But in a nice way.

He said there was not enough appreciation in the United States for all the efforts Pakistan was making in the war against global terrorism.

On this point I agree with Richard Boucher entirely, and then some.

“We are going to have no problems in putting together a good report for our Congress on what Pakistan is doing to fight terrorism ... will point out the steps taken, the sacrifices made,” Boucher said.

He's quite right about this, too. Skirmishes between Pakistani military and militant extremists are happening every day now, sometimes several clashes per day. Sometimes patrols or convoys get ambushed, sometimes the army seems to have the initiative. It's too soon, too far away, and too low-intensity for me to give you any idea who is winning -- so far. But the level of conflict is indeed up significantly in the last month or two, certainly compared to its level over the winter.

Even excluding the losses suffered by the Pakistani military in the "lawless" mountainous regions near the Afghan border, Pakistan has indeed suffered greatly in the Terror War. Last year (2006) more than 650 terrorist attacks killed more than 900 people. This year the toll will almost certainly be higher. The sacrifices have indeed been enormous.

But the commandments are clear. Onward, Pakistani soldiers!!

Pakistani Opposition Leader: Make Peace With The Militants Or Face The Americans

Americans may have been somewhat puzzled by last week's statements from Richard Boucher regarding the "necessity" of military action in Pakistan, since we've been told for the past six years that Pakistan is our number one Asian ally in the Global War On Terror. More likely they haven't heard anything at all about the most recent State Department-sanctioned saber-rattling.

So many of them may have been confused by the op/ed piece in Tuesday's New York Times by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon who say this is a war the Pentagon can't win, and that therefore the CIA should be given the job.

But you can bet people haven't missed the implications in Pakistan, where opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman, speaking at a press conference in Quetta on Wednesday, called for a reinstatement of the peace deal in Northern Waziristan -- which militants declared 'ended' after the Pakistani military stormed the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) complex.

The mosque has been restored and reopened [photo below], and Maulana Fazlur Rehman says the peace agreement should be restored as well, since it's a "hurdle in the way of American conspiracies", and if it breaks down, "America and other enemies would get a chance to intervene" in Pakistan.

"American conspiracies"! Can you imagine??

Americans Call For Military Action As Suicide Bombers Strike Again In Pakistan

Suicide bombers struck twice in Pakistan on Tuesday, dealing two frightening blows to those hoping to re-establish peace between President General Pervez Musharraf's embattled government and the religious extremists who support the Taliban, and making Musharraf's balancing act even more precarious than it already was.

A ten-month truce was shattered last week after Pakistani special forces attacked the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) complex, an armed and dangerous enclave deep in the heart of Islamabad, the national capital. Government troops gained control of the mosque only after a two-day battle in which at least a hundred people were killed.

After the raid, a Taliban spokesman announced that the truce was finished, and over the weekend, a series of suicide bombings which appeared to be acts of reprisal took more than 60 lives.

The government expressed a desire to reinstate the truce if possible, but the sudden series of vicious attacks left no doubt that the militants in the mountains of Waziristan had seen enough, and by Sunday, people were evacuating the area by the thousands.

And then, a day of calm. Seriously. The good news of the day on Monday in Pakistan was "no suicide bombers"!

But the calm before the storm, if that's what it was, was shattered early Tuesday.

Suicide bomber kills four in N. Waziristan

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan, July 17 (AFP) - A suicide bomber Tuesday attacked and killed four people at a joint army and paramilitary checkpost near Mir Ali, one of the biggest towns in North Waziristan, security officials said.

"A man got down from the vehicle, walked up to the post and blew himself up,” chief military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad told AFP.

Three soldiers and a civilian were killed, while two others were injured, Arshad said.

Suspected militants also blew up two security checkpoints in Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, but caused no casualties, security officials said.

Meanwhile, attackers slit the throat of an Afghan national and dumped his body near the main town in Bajaur, another tribal district, along with a note accusing him of spying for US-led forces in Afghanistan.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for any of the attacks.

But militants handed out pamphlets from a car overnight in North Waziristan warning security forces and tribal elders of violence after the collapse on Sunday of a 10-month-old peace accord with the government.

“We agreed on the peace deal with the government for the protection of the people. Now we are breaking the peace agreement again in favour of the people,” said the leaflet, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.

The statement, signed by the Taliban Shura (council), warned tribal paramilitary forces and traders supplying the army not to cooperate with government forces or “otherwise they are also our targets.”

It also asked tribal elders and others “not to have jirgas (meetings) with the government; if not, then they will be held responsible.”

Pakistani authorities have made intense efforts to shore up the peace accord.

“We are hopeful the peace deal will stay intact and efforts are under way,” said a senior official at the FATA secretariat.

The government will have trouble negotiating at all if tribal elders are afraid to meet with them.

And even if they're willing to meet, the "peace accord" will be mighty difficult to "shore up", if it can be shored up at all.

Tuesday evening, hopes for "peace" seemed even more distant, after another suicide bombing -- this one in Islamabad. Salman Masood described it this way in the New York Times:

Suicide Bomber Kills 14 at Rally

A suicide bomber detonated a powerful bomb near an outdoor stage where the country’s suspended chief justice was to address members of Pakistan’s opposition parties on Tuesday evening, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 40, according to the police.

The attack occurred around 8:30 p.m. 100 yards from where the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was to speak to a crowd about half an hour later. Mr. Chaudhry’s convoy was several miles away when the bomber struck.

Most of the dead and wounded belonged to the Pakistan Peoples Party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Ten were in critical condition, according to hospital sources. Four policemen were among those wounded. The blast thrust the capital into a new round of disorder less than a week after a violent siege at a hard-line mosque and seminary that has enraged radical Islamists.

There was no claim of responsibility, though speculation was rampant. It was possible that the bombing was part of the backlash from the siege, aimed this time at Ms. Bhutto’s supporters because she had endorsed it.

But many pointed a finger at the Pakistani intelligence agencies. “It was a direct attack on the chief justice by the agencies,” said Munir A. Malik, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association and a member of Mr. Chaudhry’s legal team. “They wanted to get rid of him.”

It's easy to speculate. I could do it all day.

Could the Taliban have been behind this bombing? Sure. But most of their attacks have been against armed government forces in the wildlands; this was against unarmed anti-government demonstrators in the capital city.

It is true that the religious militants have a very different vision of Pakistan's future than the pro-democracy activists who rally in support of Mr. Chaudhry, and it is conceivable that the Taliban would seek to intimidate them.

But you couldn't sell any of this to the people in this photo, "angry workers of the Pakistan People's Party" who were chanting "anti-government slogans" after the attack, according to the caption provided by CTV, whose report (from the AP) was scant on details of the attack except to say that

Three security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said it was a suicide attack and that the head of the attacker had been found.

The death toll from the terrorist attacks in Pakistan over the past two weeks now stands at 137, according to Pakistan's Daily Times. This total includes other terrorist attacks which have gone largely unnoticed in the West:

About 137 people, including personnel of the armed forces and police, have died and 327 have sustained injuries in 21 terrorist attacks across Pakistan since the military operation against Lal Masjid in Islamabad on July 3.

According to data collected by Daily Times the terrorist attacks included suicide bombings, remote controlled and timed [device] explosions and rocket attacks on law enforcement personnel.

Here's the Daily Times list of the most significant terrorist attacks of the past two weeks:

July 3: Unidentified militants explode a remote controlled device in Swat, killing four people and injuring the district police officer.

July 4: A suicide bomber attacks an army convoy in North Waziristan, killing eleven people, including six army personnel.

July 5: Unidentified militants attack a police patrol vehicle in Peshawar, killing four policemen and injuring another four. In another incident, terrorists fired a rocket on an army post in Landi Kotal. Only few hours later that day, a suicide attack in Swat killed four people, including a major and a lieutenant of the Pakistan Army.

July 6: Unidentified militants try to hit President General Pervez Musharraf’s aeroplane when it took off from the Chaklala Airbase in Rawalpindi. No causalities were reported. On the same day, militants kidnap six pro-government tribal elders in North Waziristan and later kill them.

July 8: Unidentified militants attack a police party in Peshawar, killing an assistant sub-inspector and injuring three junior officers.

July 10: Terrorists explode a bomb in Peshawar, killing a deputy superintendent of police and ten others.

July 12: A rocket attack at the Mingora bypass on Kohala Road in the NWFP killed eight people including three policemen. Another rocket attack on a Frontier Constabulary check post in Khar, Bajaur Agency, caused no casualties.

July 13: Terrorists kidnap and later kill three pro-government tribal leaders in North Waziristan.

July 14: A remote controlled explosion at the Bannu Airport near a security check post kills three law enforcement officials. Militants carried out another attack in Malakand Agency, but no one was hurt. A suicide bomber rammed his explosive-laden car in a FC convoy near Miranshah, killing 26 and injuring 29 security officials. In another incident, militants attack army personnel busy in flood-relief operation in Balochistan, killing an army officer.

July 15: A suicide bomber attacks security forces in Swat, killing 19 people and injuring another 26. In another incident the same day, a suicide bomber kills 26 police officials at the Dera Ismail Khan Police Lines.

July 17: A suicide bomber detonates the explosives strapped to his waist near a stage prepared for the address of the chief justice of Pakistan. Fifteen people were reportedly killed in the attack.

Notice that's fifteen dead now from the rally, according to the Daily Times. And their list doesn't include Tuesday morning's attack in North Waziristan, so the total must now be more than 140.

What has triggered all these attacks? Government spokesmen have toed the Orwellian party line:

Information Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani Durrani said the incidents were not in reaction to the Lal Masjid operation.

and

Inter Services Public Relations spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad backed the information minister’s statement ...

but they weren't entirely slavish about it.

Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao said the attacks were ‘backlash’ of the Lal Masjid operation.

And later,

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said there was a "possibility" that the northwest attacks were a response to the Red Mosque raid.

Having admitted this tiny slice of obvious reality, the Interior Ministry spokesman got back to the song he was meant to be singing:

"We would like to reiterate once again our unwavering resolve to eliminate the evils of terrorism and extremism in the supreme national interest," he told reporters.

Ah, yes. The supreme national interest!

At the moment it would seem that the supreme national interest aligns quite well with taking instructions from the Americans.

President Bush has backed President General Musharraf publicly, especially when Musharraf made the decision to attack the mosque.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has publicly suggested that Musharraf should resolve "on his own" the legal obstacles that stand in the way of his plans for getting himself re-elected.

And Richard Boucher, also of the State Department, has said

the storming of the mosque "shows that the government of Pakistan is prepared to move, to act, against a dangerous militancy that has come to infect various areas and parts of Pakistani society."

It's all part of a (publicly) unspoken quid pro quo in which all the support comes with various hints and suggestions that the President-General will certainly take very seriously. Thus

President Bush's homeland security advisor, Fran Townsend, said Musharraf's agreement with tribal leaders had been a failure.

His strategy "hasn't worked for Pakistan. It hasn't worked for the United States," she said, stressing, though, that the administration continues to back Musharraf.

Subtle, aren't they? That's why they call it diplomacy!

Diplomacy remains the order of the day, apparently. And once again Richard Boucher is in the middle of it. According to a report from Agence France Presse via Raw Story:

US asks Pakistan to launch military offensive against extremists

The United States on Tuesday prodded Pakistan to launch a military offensive against fighters hiding in tribal areas after Washington hinted at a lack of commitment from its ally to hunt down violent extremists.

US officials said Pakistan military ruler Pervez Musharraf should send his troops into the tribal border region with Afghanistan to flush out Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants, following the collapse of a 10-month peace accord between Islamabad and tribal elders.

"I think first and foremost we have to remember that some military action is necessary, and will probably have to be taken," Assistant Secretary of State for South and central Asian affairs Richard Boucher said.

It is extremely useful to have this comment on the record, of course, just in case the President who also happens to be a General was wondering whether further military action might be necessary.

Pakistani authorities have made intense efforts to shore up the peace accord since the Taliban pulled out on Saturday, knowing that without it, they risk fresh violence in a region thought to contain many militants.

Boucher said Washington was less concerned about whether the agreement worked or not, pointing out that "it's the facts of what happens."

"There are elements in these areas that are extremely violent and are out to kill government people, out to kill government leaders, and will not settle for a peaceful way forward," he said.

"Whether it is through an agreement or through the imposition of government will or whatever, they remain the key: no Talibanization, no cross-border activity, no Al-Qaeda plotting and planning from the tribal areas," he said.

"And we're going to help the government of Pakistan achieve that through whatever -- all these different means that might be necessary," he said citing joint US-Pakistan plans to develop the isolated areas in tandem with possible military action.

Did that sound like a carte blanche to you? It sure sounded like one to me: what else could Richard Boucher mean when he says "all these different means that might be necessary"?

And that's in public. What must Musharraf be hearing in private?

"We think the time is now," one official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"We think with the movement on the Red Mosque, Musharraf feels a sense of momentum and he's got the tools in place -- [...] he's got the military starting to creep forward into forward positions," the official said.

"Whether the peace deal is on or off, it doesn't matter."

With all this loose talk floating around, I wouldn't exactly be amazed if the suicide bomber who struck the rally in Islamabad was connected somehow to one of Mr. Boucher's associates. But then speculation is easy.

Pervez Musharraf has been walking a very shaky tightrope ever since September 11, 2001, when he became America's #1 ally in the Global War On Terror. Ever since, he's been taking cautious little steps, trying to establish a balance between the pro-democracy forces who want to see an end to his military dictatorship and the religious fundamentalists who want something else entirely.

And he's taken these little steps and inched his way along and after all these years he looks around and sees himself over the middle of the canyon, with no easy way forward or back, and now here come the Americans, pushing him from behind. "Let's get a move on, Pervez, y'heah?"

Already the news carries stories of Wednesday's (first?) deadly attack:

Dozen killed in northwest Pakistan ambush

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan, July 18 (AFP) Militants ambushed a Pakistani military convoy in the Lwara Mundi area of the North Waziristan tribal area Wednesday, sparking a gunbattle that left at least a dozen people dead, security officials said.

“Initial reports say that the fighting was heavy and at least 12 people were killed,” a senior security official told AFP requesting anonymity. The military confirmed “several” deaths.

It won't get any easier.

US Support For Democracy In Pakistan? You Must Be Joking!

As regular readers of this page may remember, Pakistan has seen increasing civil unrest during the past three months, since General-turned-President Pervez Musharraf dismissed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

Why would he do that? The General-President must call an election before the end of the year, and the Chief Justice was prepared to enforce the law that requires Musharraf to resign his commission if he wishes to stand for re-election.

As we have mentioned here several times in the last three months, Musharraf's transparent attempt to subvert the law has not gone unnoticed by the people of Pakistan, who have taken to the streets -- in demonstrations led by lawyers!

The demonstrations have been remarkably peaceful, with one notable exception in which Pakistani police were apparently ordered to shoot the protesters.

Otherwise, the demonstrators have obviously been content to march and chant; they have repeatedly urged the General-President to resign by chanting "Go, Musharraf, Go!"

So it would seem reasonable to describe the demonstrators as supporters of the Chief Justice and opponents of the General-President -- except if you write for the New York Times, in which case you might prefer to describe them as "pro-Western moderates".

No, I am not kidding!

According to David Rhode, whose reporting has been mentioned in favorable terms not long ago, on this very page,

TENS of thousands of pro-Western moderates took to the streets of Pakistan recently and demanded an end to military rule.

It's a remarkable inversion of reality, of the type we have seen over and over, from the so-called "liberal media" as well as from the overtly pro-fascist liars who constitute the "mainstream media" in post-democratic America.

In the rest of the article, which ran yesterday, Rhode spins everything that isn't nailed down. It's enough to make me dizzy -- almost enough to make me vomit.

From the title of the piece, "Can Pakistan Mix Well With Democracy?", down to the very last paragraph, Rhode can be seen spinning, outright lying, and condescending -- in equal measure. For instance, he somehow managed to write:

Before the Iraq war, the United States might have welcomed such a vigorous call for democracy.

... despite the fact -- obvious everywhere else in the world -- that the United States has never welcomed vigorous calls for democracy anywhere -- even (especially!) in the United States. But the NYT can hardly admit that, can they?

Instead, Rhode continues:

But with the war faltering, Bush administration officials, and some Democratic presidential candidates as well, are reacting with caution, fearing that democracy could be a recipe for instability.

The war in Iraq is "faltering"? There's a good one! But whether it's "faltering" or not, the war in Iraq has very little to do with the situation in Pakistan. So why is Rhode linking the two stories like this? Because his sources are doing it?

George Perkovich, a senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the state of debate in Washington this way: “People on the right and the left will say: ‘You’re just going to repeat the same mistake as Iraq. Don’t you understand that these places can’t change and that you’re much better off having someone with a heavy hand, who can have some kind of order versus disorder?’”

If this is the state of debate in Washington -- "the same mistake as Iraq"! "these places can't change"! -- then there's nothing left to do but to shut down Washington and send all the so-called experts home.

If Rhode is to be believed, Pakistanis don't understand the USA any better than Americans understand Pakistan:

Pakistani moderates find the American attitude bewildering and dangerous. Just as they are beginning to believe democracy might return, they complain, the United States is abandoning them.

“This is a movement of the enlightened, urban upper middle class,” said Rasul Baksh Rais, a Pakistani political analyst, in a telephone interview from Islamabad. “Where in the Muslim world have you seen a movement going on for three months and not a single shot fired by the protesters? It is unique in many respects.”

It is unique, and it's certainly dangerous. But it's hardly bewildering.

It's a very sad story but it's a familiar one, and for good reason: it's been repeated over and over. And the consequences have always been horrific.

In the past few days, three high-ranking American officials -- Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, his assistant Richard Boucher, and chief of the US Central Command William Fallon -- have made visits to Pakistan, in an attempt to shore up the faltering regime of the military dictator.

Here we go again.