Hes just saying what we want to hear and duping Bush into a false friendship

Do the actions match the words? The Pakistani leadership could be really on the fundamentalist's side and fooling the USA. Or they could be on the USA side (at least for now) and fooling the fundamentalists. Or in between. These fundamentalists are after all a threat to the power of the Pakistani leadership so the leadership may not be too crazy about them. Problem for the USA is that given enough time almost any dictatorship will end up as an enemy of democratic nations. So it is more an allieance of convience instead of a friendship.

Ok. If the inner circle of the US GOvernment really believed in the Clash of Civilizations theory (and I for one think its valid, even if not all the reasons are valid) then, wouldn't it be a really, really stupid thing to come out and say it? Divide and Conquer? Thus far we've attacked two Muslim states, and despite all the noise and barking, only a relative handful of Nutters have come to their aid. (Direct aid, at least!) Give the team some credit. That's 2 Hostile Regimes down, 0 mass uprisings of the "Arab Street".

you also forget what musharraf said the other week- if it is possible for the palestinians and the israelis to sit down and talk, why can the Pakistanis have relations with israel as well (if its good enough for the palis). We pakistanis have NO security concerns with the Jewish state, so I would put the commencement of relations with the Jewish state on the table with the pakistani people. Now that MAY be good PR on Musharrafs part vis a vis the US, BUT he talks an enormous risk of being overthrown in his own country, and infuriating all the fundamentalist Muslim idiots (in contrast to all of the other religious fundamentalist idiots committings acts of terror in the world [im an equal opportunity basher here of fundamentalists] in his own country. swhitebull - if this has any meaning, great, if not, writers like Safire, Freidman, and others vision of a clash of civilizations just MIGHT come to fruition, and we know who just might cease to exist as a people , since the United States tends to wage total war when we get pissed. And for those that dont know it, the japanese deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were paltry compared to those caused by the firebombing of EVERY single Japanese major city. Mecca better watch out.

>"America is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world and is conspiring against Muslim nations all over the world."< Freakin' awesome! USA! USA! I feel like we just took the gold in the Dar al-Harb Olympics.

If I understand, you're suggesting if the US Gov't believed in this theory, they would not say so publicly? The only part of that statement I hesitate to agree with is the singular use of the word "circle". Different factions within different departments disagree. I.E. "Hawks & Doves" in both State and The Pentagon. I fear that stating such a conflict exists would create such a malestrom in our Gov't, that it would effect efficency. I prefer your version. "Direct aid" is another questionI have. It seems to me that every Arab Islamic State has aided and abetted terrorism on one way or another, albeit furtively. Does it matter if it's financial aid, military training, or offering a secure clandestine refuge while denying any knowledge of aid? I give our team lots of credit, believing that for at least a short time we have the bad guys off balance. I just wonder...instead of two countries...why it couldn't have been four countries. I know, I know...resorces...timing..etc, but it's nice to anticipate...or am I dreaming? Maybe I'm just angry that this rhetoric never gets reported by main stream media.

I think it may be PR, but Musharraf takes little risk if SOP by Islamic Government officials is what I describe as the "Janus" technique. One face for the West, another for the Islamic Clerics. As long as the clerics know in advance what will be said, and why, then there is little risk of the Clerics unleasing the dogs of Islam. Perhaps an isolated out of control zealot is a real risk. Should the clerics decide that Musharrif is sincere about peace with Israel or serious cooperation with the West against terrorism, he would disappear in a airplane accident or a car wreck. If his desire for peace with Israel was real, or his cooperation with the West was definantly public, he would be assasinated at a Noontime public event. I often think that the reason the US public is poorly informed is that both the media and the Government agree with your last paragraph.

Okay, maybe to understand the Pakistani position then it is necessary to think from the Pakistani point of view. Pakistan is learning what the US has known since 1945. That is - A government can SAY what it pretty much wants when it possesses atomic/nuclear weapons. Note that SAYING is vastly different from DOING what it wants. Also Musharref and Government realize that the US needs a stable and (outwardly) friendly nation bordering Aghanistan and Iran. And the Pakistanis realize that they are deeply hated by OBL, al-Qaeda and all homicidal, Islamic terrorist everywhere for cooperating with the US. This means that the US will NEVER invade Pakistan because of nuclear weapons. And it means that the US will NEVER allow Pakistan to fall to Islamic fundamentalists and control those nuclear weapons. So its a Mexican standoff in a BIG WAY. The Pakistanis might as well push the envelope and see what they can say and get away with.