on bombing Pakistan: what does secular, democratic government have to gain from "War on Terror"?

[yurbud]

The "War on Terror" seemed to benefit Gen. Musharraf who was a patron of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in his own country, all of whose ties to Pakistani intelligence the Bush administration studiously ignored.

Now that Musharraf is out and an elected civilian government is in, it's hard to see an upside to letting Musharraf's Frankenstein's run wild, particularly when they do things like the Mumbai attack that makes the new government look like they can't keep their own house in order (at best). And what are the chances that those attackers didn't get the go ahead from their ISI handlers to make the civilians look bad?

Therefore, it's hard to see why they wouldn't quietly cooperate with Obama as far as bombing their Afghan border for any al Qaeda hideouts that may actually exist. Further, you would think they would want to give us the coordinates of some generals and ISI officials to accidentally target as well.

But there must be some pieces I'm missing. Obviously it chafes the average Pakistanis nationalism that any nation is bombing them at will, but I wonder what those in the government get out of not shutting down Musharraf's mad men.

[lonestarnot]

1. I'm seeing green lights coming from somewhere over there.

[TayTay]

2. Ah, it's not that simple

And you do know that Americans have been shot at by our alleged allies in Pakistan.

Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?scp=3&sq=Filkins%20Pakistan&st=cse">story from the NYTimes. It details some of the complications we face:

Right at the Edge

By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: September 5, 2008

"I: The Border Incident

Late in the afternoon of June 10, during a firefight with Taliban militants along the Afghan-Pakistani border, American soldiers called in airstrikes to beat back the attack. The firefight was taking place right on the border itself, known in military jargon as the “zero line.” Afghanistan was on one side, and the remote Pakistani region known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, was on the other. The stretch of border was guarded by three Pakistani military posts.

The American bombers did the job, and then some. By the time the fighting ended, the Taliban militants had slipped away, the American unit was safe and 11 Pakistani border guards lay dead. The airstrikes on the Pakistani positions sparked a diplomatic row between the two allies: Pakistan called the incident “unprovoked and cowardly”; American officials regretted what they called a tragic mistake. But even after a joint inquiry by the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it remained unclear why American soldiers had reached the point of calling in airstrikes on soldiers from Pakistan, a critical ally in the war in Afghanistan and the campaign against terrorism.

The mystery, at least part of it, was solved in July by four residents of Suran Dara, a Pakistani village a few hundred yards from the site of the fight. According to two of these villagers, whom I interviewed together with a local reporter, the Americans started calling in airstrikes on the Pakistanis after the latter started shooting at the Americans.

“When the Americans started bombing the Taliban, the Frontier Corps started shooting at the Americans,” we were told by one of Suran Dara’s villagers, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being persecuted or killed by the Pakistani government or the Taliban. “They were trying to help the Taliban. And then the American planes bombed the Pakistani post.”

[yurbud]

3. that actually fits what I laid out--the military supports taliban and like many third world, fascist

countries, and like Bush tried but hopefully failed to do here, the military is a political force with an agenda of its own that it may pursue independent of a civilian government, or they may act out in a way to undermine, destabilize, or overthrow the civilian government.