NATO Commanders Say Pakistan Aiding Taliban

It doesn't come clearer than this:

Commanders from five Nato countries whose troops have just fought the bloodiest battle with the Taliban in five years, are demanding their governments get tough with Pakistan over the support and sanctuary its security services provide to the Taliban.

Nato's report on Operation Medusa, an intense battle that lasted from September 4-17 in the Panjwai district, demonstrates the extent of the Taliban's military capability and states clearly that Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence (ISI) is involved in supplying it.

Commanders from Britain, the US, Denmark, Canada and Holland are frustrated that even after Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf met George W Bush and Tony Blair last week, Western leaders are declining to call Mr Musharraf's bluff.

"It is time for an 'either you are with us or against us' delivered bluntly to Musharraf at the highest political level," said one Nato commander.

The ISI are running training camps and logistics for the Taliban, making it easy for them to stockpile huge amounts of ammunition just across the border in Pakistan, as well as providing a safe-haven for their leadership.

Yet other than a couple of rightwing defense-wonk bloggers, this story is falling on deaf ears all across the media and political spectrum here in the U.S. That follows a longterm pattern of looking the other way and willingly being duped.

For at least six years policymakers from both camps have touted Pakistan as an ally in the 'war on terror'. Hundreds of statements have been made to that effect and have been backed by votes and decisions giving Pakistan billions in taxpayer's funds as well as some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet. To do an about-face now and admit that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism - a rogue state which has duped those policymakers into thinking it was an ally with some token assistance on basing, some captures of lesser terror figures who are instantly replaceable and clever rhetoric concealing active backing of terror groups - would be a political "loss-of-confidence" disaster of monumental proportions for both parties, both domestically and in the international arena. That's why they continue to be duped - they just don't want to face the fallout of any such admission.

But if they are serious about combatting Islamist extremist terrorism then policymakers and media alike are going to have to swallow that unpalatable medicine. It is too late for any kind of "for us or against us" demand - that demand was made in a hamfisted way years ago when Pakistan was threatened with utter destruction if it didn't help the West in the war against the Taliban and wider Islamist extremism. This is the result.

Pakistan's actions speak louder than its words. The debate about whether Pakistan is an ally or not is over - it isn't - the debate now has to be what should be done about that fact.