4 ms·

I used to live over there, I know much more than most Americans that there have been drone strikes inside Pakistan for years. And U.S. missile strikes on non-m

I used to live over there, I know much more than most Americans that there have been drone strikes inside Pakistan for years. And U.S. missile strikes on non-military targets have to end, agreed. But if the news is true that the U.S. has known about this compound, that it was housing a major terrorist figure, and that the Pakistani Army (not ISI or rather, not just ISI) knew about it, then that's a major game-changer in U.S.-Pakistani governmental relations. Your average American and your average Pakistani don't know anything about each other. (for very general values of anything, clearly.)

marshray 15y ago
It's only a game-changer if one of the governments recently learned something new about the other. This idea that some in Pakistan's services support OBL and are not so helpful to the US isn't exactly news. The official US statement went something like "we got a tip back in August". Which means the important question is how long did each government know OBL was in there? Was Pakistan holding him for the right moment? At what level did they know they were holding him? When did the US learn about it with any confidence? My guess is that the US wouldn't be willing to wait on the info indefinitely given the risk that OBL would give them the slip again.
- russnewcomer 15y ago
  The idea that ISI doesn't like the U.S. is nothing new, it's true. But the idea that the Pakistani military sheltered him (which is an easy conclusion if he was that close to the military academy) and that the U.S. then went in, made the kill, and then told Pakistan, that could be a major game changer in relations at the official level. So you are correct, as the details come out, it could turn out to be just country level business. But if it's more like what I described, I think it's a bigger deal for U.S.-Pakistan relations than when Bush forced Musharraf into letting the U.S. hit Afghanistan after 9/11.

marshray 15y ago

It's only a game-changer if one of the governments recently learned something new about the other. This idea that some in Pakistan's services support OBL and are not so helpful to the US isn't exactly news. The official US statement went something like "we got a tip back in August". Which means the important question is how long did each government know OBL was in there? Was Pakistan holding him for the right moment? At what level did they know they were holding him? When did the US learn about it with any confidence? My guess is that the US wouldn't be willing to wait on the info indefinitely given the risk that OBL would give them the slip again.

russnewcomer 15y ago
The idea that ISI doesn't like the U.S. is nothing new, it's true. But the idea that the Pakistani military sheltered him (which is an easy conclusion if he was that close to the military academy) and that the U.S. then went in, made the kill, and then told Pakistan, that could be a major game changer in relations at the official level. So you are correct, as the details come out, it could turn out to be just country level business. But if it's more like what I described, I think it's a bigger deal for U.S.-Pakistan relations than when Bush forced Musharraf into letting the U.S. hit Afghanistan after 9/11.