[brraverishhh]

Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and increase support for the militants. “I’m not arguing that you leave Al Qaeda and the Taliban unmolested, but I’d be very, very cautious about approaches that could play into hands of enemies and be counterproductive,� said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. Some American diplomats and military officials have also issued strong warnings against expanded direct American action, officials said.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a leading Pakistani military and political analyst, said raids by American troops would prompt a powerful popular backlash against Mr. Musharraf and the United States.

First off, Mr. Rizvi isn't a credible analyst. He is a Pakistani analyst, and therefore is highly biased.

Bruce Hoffman is a good guy, but he is just plain wrong. Being overly cautious and not taking any risks, is the reason we are in the mess we are currently in.

The "surge" in Iraq was a major risk...but it's working.
A similar surge or at least a surge in tactics and agression is just what is needed to break the back of Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What if the US is attacked again, and it turns out that the staging was done in the areas on the border where we are not currently authorized to operate in...what would Hoffman and these pencil pushing "diplomonkeys", say then. "Oops, guess we should have gone after them in those areas".

That ain't good enough people. US Spec Ops and CIA SAD people, are the best in the world. These units are trained to take these kinds of risks. The problem is that they are never allowed to, because the people running the show are so busy peeing themselves every two minutes. We need to let loose our professionals on Al Qaida, and show them what "terror", really is.