tell me again how Pakistan is our good friend and ally against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and terrorism?

I think I've said it before: Musharraf knows which side of the bread the butter's on....he's playing the US to get money and equipment, while actually not doing anything concrete against the AQ forces in the tribal lands.

Add to the mix the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI), and their long history of feeding the terrorists and fighers in Jammu&Kashmir, and you have a situation where we're giving bullets to people who are shooting them back at us.

I *really* want to say 'not my administration, not my problem'....but I'm not as irreponsible as those morons. Now, if only could get my senators to grow a little spine, to stand up to Bush/Cheney, and demand more accountability....

-5.75,-4.05 "I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard."
William Lloyd Garrison
US abolitionist & editor (1805 - 1879)

Are they a legitimate independent news source or are they a propaganda arm of a totalitarian communist government? I don't know the answer to these questions. I never bought the "one country two systems" argument. I think it is a safe assumption that there is no free press in China. On the other hand, Asia Times has published articles critical of the Chinese government on the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Maybe that was an anomoly where they were given a pass by the government to bolster their bona fides.

The second Asia Times article, about Pakistan and the Taliban, doesn't quite add up for me.

It seems to have a lot of big logical leaps in it and ascribes some odd motives to the actors it's discussing.

My quick rundown of the claims made in the article, with some comments:

The Taliban want to capture Kabul.
[Of course they do, but are they really mobilising for a serious all-out attack on the capital this year? That doesn't make military sense to this armchair general]

Pakistan wants to assist the Taliban to achieve 'total victory' in Afghanistan.
[This somewhat surprising assertion is qualified later in the article]

Support from Pakistan - specifically sensors that can turn SAM-7s into anti-aircraft missiles effective against US fighters - will enable the Taliban to overcome US airpower in an assault on Kabul.
[Again, does this make any military sense? Can somebody with knowledge comment? As a rank amateur I'd imagine that this capability, if it indeed exists, would be better used tactically by small groups taking out US planes in skirmish situations - far less exposure]

Pakistan has been coerced by the US into not supporting the Taliban - so this is why it is taking this opportunity to support the Taliban.
[This part of the argument made no sense to me at all - particularly, why now? Is Pakistan gambling that Afghanistan has really been militarily forgotten? and that the consequences for their relationship with the US are suddenly less important? Why?]

Pakistan's immediate aim is in fact not 'total victory', but the possibility of becoming a powerful broker between the Taliban and NATO.
[But they could assume this role without explicitly jeopardising their relationship with the US. If they back the Taliban in an outright assault on Kabul, even covertly - and it can't be that covert if the Asia Times knows about it - then in current US thinking they won't be a broker for anything - they'll be yet another enemy power]

Pakistan's ultimate aim is to install a pro-Islamabad government in Kabul.
[Understandable in a way, but Afghanistan is set to be a weak state for the forseeable future whether or not Pakistan supports the Taliban or future governments are friendly to Islamabad. So I'm not sure what Pakistan really stands to gain here. is there something more at stake that I'm missing?]

In this, Pakistan is relying on playing different Taliban factions off against one another - specifically, Dudallah against Mullah Omar.
[this sounds like another gamble in a chain of questionable assumptions, all of which would have to work out for this supposed Pakistani strategy to come good. Would a state in the precarious situation of Pakistan stake so much on such a chain of uncertainties?]

This
Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia have a detente. Saudi Arabia leaves Al-Qaeda alone and lets them train in SA and travel through there (though the high level ones probably shouldn't chance it) and al-Qaeda does no attacks. Don't know if this is true, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

doesn't sound quite right to me from what I've read. See for example, this recent news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/world/middleeast/28saudi.html

Teenager Dies, Raising Toll to 4 in Attack at Saudi Site
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
Published: February 28, 2007

...The Saudi daily Al Watan, quoting a witness, said three gunmen with covered faces separated the men from the women and children, then fired on the men. Still, the authorities would not call the attack terrorism, pending further investigation. A security official, however, said the list of likely suspects was being narrowed.

“If it is Al Qaeda, then we know who they are,” he said.

The attack was a stark reminder of the risks many Westerners living in Saudi Arabia still face though many had grown confident that terrorism was under control and that life was returning to normal.

Saudi security officials have continued to arrest suspects, raid militant hide-outs and strengthen defenses. That has turned some parts of Saudi Arabia’s cities into virtual fortresses surrounded by concrete blast walls and barriers. Late last year, militants led a failed attack on the Abqaiq oil processing plant in the oil-rich eastern part of the country, but were thwarted when guards opened fire on them as they approached the perimeter fence...