alright, mike mullen said of the group the us holds responsible for the attack our embassy in kabul last week “The Haqqani network ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.” now how can you think that and also continue to work with pakastani security at all? many of the recent observations about us/pakistan relations say that we're stuck with each other. really? stuck? when their intelligence services are lobbing rocket-propelled grenades into our embassy? we're stuck without each other, i'd say, tied together in a knife fight.
now i suppose the theory has always been that the power structure in pakistan is divided (at any rate, it seems incomprehensible). but more likely it's a matter of plausible deniability by the political figures. one reason to say this is that power in a state tends to centralize; you're unlikely to have a real serious contest for power between the executive and the intelligence services or the executive or the intelligence services and the military that isn't resolved somehow: by a civil war, coup, buyoff, etc. no doubt there are competing centers of power, but rival groups conducting entirely different foreign policies or who are at war with completely different people? it's not sustainable. if i was in the cia or something trying to figure out what's going on, i'd try to trace the money of the political figures: where it's going (offshore is a good bet), but where it's coming from. that might give you a better idea of the actual flow of authority.
