Interesting

After I seethed at the President's pathetic dodge to Charles Gibson about the Pakistan-Taliban peace treaty, a few fellow bloggers sent me over to this very interesting article from india-defence.com. I can't speak to their validity because I don't know who they are. And this is most definitely not being reported in the American press. But check it out, for what it's worth:

With the recent Pakistan-Taliban ceasefire along the Afghan border, General Abizaid (US Central Command) seems to have gotten what he wanted from Musharraf - Pakistani withdrawal opening up the restive tribal regions to American forces.

Sources in Rawalpindi - the Headquarters of the Pakistani Army - indicate that the plan was directly dictated by Abizaid during his recent visit to Pakistan, and is said to put both the Musharraf Regime and War Against Terror in more secure positions.

At face value, the Musharraf regime gains as the ceasefire between Taliban and Pakistan Army will ensure that Pakistan Army will not be internally seen responsible for 'Muslims killing Muslims'.

It will also absolve Musharraf if and when U.S. forces, which have been granted "hot pursuit" rights, eventually capture Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar along the same border.

The Asia Times has a similar story.

If this is true, it's a victory for the United States. But it doesn't come without a cost. I suspect the extremist forces fighting the brittle Musharraf regime in Pakistan would be most unhappy to hear that the "infidels" were given entry, and it may be enough to whip up support to overthrow the government. A Wahhabist Pakistan would be the most dangerous nation-state ever encountered in this "War on Terror," worse than Afghanistan, far worse than Iraq, because they already have the bomb.

It's a tricky question, but the way it's set up, it's worth the risk if it leads to the capture of bin Laden or Mullah Omar. And I'm glad the Administration is taking the Democrats' advice and seeking to find the man responsible for 9-11. But I don't understand why it had to take four years to do so. Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora, and we outsourced the job of getting him to warlords. We're four years from that moment, and certainly there are contingencies in place now to prevent the same cornering from happening.

Clearly the timing of this cannot be underestimated. If this is true (and honestly, I'm not 100% in either direction), then there is a significant push being made to capture bin Laden before the midterm elections. Meanwhile he's been out there since 2001.

Look, whatever the pretense, whatever the timing, if you can get Osama, get him. But you'll have to answer for this delay, which I feel has made the possibility for success more remote.