Pakistan is, and always has been, stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place – it’s a nation trapped by a longtime enemy (India), an unstable regime (Iran), an unhinged region of ethnic and religious warfare (Afghanistan), and a disputed borderland (Kashmir). For two decades, Pakistan’s leaders, who are typically just public puppets of their own military, have attempted to perform a difficult balancing act that neither enraged nor pacified any of the powers involved, both directly or indirectly. This behavior led to their financing of the Afghanistan Taliban, possibly Al Qaeda as well, while pretending to give their full support to US-led interests. It hasn’t fooled anyone paying close attention, and they’ve just made a possibly fatal mistake.

As the situation in Afghanistan devolved and expanded to include insurgents and wanted persons fleeing freely into Pakistan, it became openly clear that Pakistan was not truly interested aiding the United States – all it cared about was its sovereignty and continued so-called safety. NATO and US troops, however, took it upon themselves to act where Pakistan refused, and actually carry out some semblance of border security, in terms of those fleeing Afghanistan. This, while allowed without challenge by the Pakistani government, didn’t sit well with the Pakistani populace, and this discord has actually escalated as attacks, by both drones and helicopters, have increased in recent weeks.

Twenty years of a balancing act that took into account the interests of the Pakistani government, the Pakistani military (who are often at odds with the interests of their own government), the Pakistani people, and foreign entities like the United States did not prepare them properly for the recent event that may very well mark their downfall: a NATO-led airstrike inside Pakistan airspace that was followed by the closing of the Pakistani border, which still continues. This crass and unintelligent move by Pakistan has resulted in the halting of supply lines for forces inside Afghanistan.

Is this the sort of behavior of a nation with vested interests in playing both sides of a dangerous game? No, this is Pakistan, for once, publicly showing the true hand it’s playing: it is in the best interest of Pakistan for Afghanistan to remain as it has for most of modern history, so they do their best to support the continued quagmire. In truth, the closing of Pakistan’s borders means nothing, as it would take very little effort for coalition forces to disregard the sovereignty of the nation and proceed however they wished – the fact that this hasn’t yet happened indicates an attempt by these foreign forces to cooperate to the best of their ability. However, Pakistan’s military will be entirely unable to counter any offensive made against them by these forces, a military highly dependent on American aid, leaving the closing of the border all the more ludicrous.

NATO supply lines have been attacked within Pakistan, away from this border crossing, by forces believed to be based within Pakistan itself. If there ever were an indication that Pakistan is not to be trusted, and that its government truly has no control over the country, this is the moment. There is no rational reason to continue to play political games with a foreign country that’s proven, time and again, to not only be untrustworthy, but outright liars – whether this cooperation comes in the form of aid, military support, or political maneuvering, it should be stopped immediately. Since Pakistan’s very existence is owed to the backing of the United States, courtesy of the always-present Indian threat, the withdrawal of such support would have devastating consequences for the nation that fears such a situation. It would, however, further destabilize the region, and could only truly be used as a threat, and not as an actual course of action.

It seems highly improbable that the sudden aggression by Pakistan against coalition forces, largely perceived to be American, would coincide so perfectly with warnings of impending domestic attacks within America and Europe. If Pakistan supports the Taliban, who in turn supports Al Qaeda, there exists a direct connection between these actors, even if Pakistan’s ISI were not so deeply opposed to the prevailing of coalition forces within Afghanistan. Following this same line of logic, it’s not too great of a stretch to assume that the border closing would be timed to distract Western attention while attacks within their own countries are prepared to be carried out. Such is the twist of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s shenanigans, for lack of a better word, must no longer be tolerated – the border should be forced open by whatever means necessary, and the regimes, political and military, within the nation should be made to understand that their two-sided game will no longer be allowed. In the modern world of warfare against non-state actors, it’s difficult to have the clear-cut demarcations of loyalty seen in previous eras, but Pakistan should be forced to comprehend a single, definitive point: if they choose to support the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or hinder, in any way, the progress of what’s already begun inside Afghanistan, they will be treated as aggressors. For in this situation, there can be no middleground, no area of gray.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Sarah Palin may be an unemployed, Facebook abusing, gaffe-prone idiot, but it seems as if she has, by accident and without knowing, stumbled across something she has a valid position on: the mosque proposal in New York City, close to Ground Zero .

Essentially, there’s been a proposal for the equivalent of a Muslim activity center – a mosque with restaurant, entertainment facilities, and more – to be built mere blocks from the site of the World Trade Center destruction, which has, as could be expected, received immediate, kneejerk reactions from both sides of the argument. Those of a conservative, oft-racist, persuasion have jumped on the fact that this is a Muslim center and not one of their own Christian brand, as if simply being of the Islamic faith was an affront to Americanism and disrespecting the lives of the dead from 9/11. Similarly, those of the liberal, oft-too-open, political flavor have done quite the opposite and used the proposal as a weapon of peaceful propaganda, claiming that it would cater to moderate Muslims, despite a valid argument that there is no such middleground option in Islam, and it would show that America holds nothing against those that did not declare war upon the nation.

The problem is that neither side is correct – both have legitimate and defensible positions, which is especially odd in the modern polar political climate.

In terms of arguing against the mosque’s existence so close to Ground Zero, there are mountains of evidence that Islamic centers of prayer, and those that run them, played large roles in the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 and continue to do so, even within America’s borders. The 9/11 hijackers sought solace, solidarity, and support in various mosques, on both coasts, and the more recent terrorist attempts, such as the failed Times Square Bomber, have had similar aid – a careful reading of Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars”, James Bamford’s “The Shadow Factory”, and a number of other investigative journalism efforts on the topic make this quite clear. Even now, a decade later, those that support the subjugation, injury, or death of non-Muslims, due to either American citizenship or Jewish heritage/faith, can find sympathetic persons for their cause across the country. Since the Islamic faith, if interpreted in a semi-strict fashion, allows for no religion other than its own and calls for the death of all Jews, this is a serious issue, especially as fundamentalism sweeps the ranks of Muslims worldwide.

That being said, not all Muslims are terrorists or wish harm upon the Western World – this is a fact that should be inherently understood by rational individuals worldwide. The terrorist attacks of September 11^th were carried out by fundamentalist Muslims with disgruntled attitudes and a brainwashed perspective, and did not, nor do they currently, represent the opinions of all Muslims, just as the Catholic Pope does not speak for all Catholics. In a fit of panic, there were some unintelligent, embarrassingly stereotyping decisions made in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it can be argued that America has, on the whole, returned to its more rational state. Mosques are not the places of evil and fundamentalism that they are so often made out to be, most especially within the borders of the United States – they should not be pigeonholed as centers of evil to be banned, harassed, or discriminated against.

Thus arrives the crux of the problem: both sides of this argument have a point. A mosque so close to the ashes of the World Trade Center would undoubtedly send a message of tolerance and forgiveness to Muslims, but it could just as easily serve as an inspiration-by-proximity center fostering anti-American sentiment, so there is no easy answer to this permit request. None of this, however, was intended by the loudmouth embarrassment that is Sarah Palin – her words were simply meant in the racist, derogatory, and unacceptably judgmental manner in which she presented them. That she touched upon so salient a point by accident is a fantastic coincidence, but it does nothing to make the issue any less politically or socially relevant.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

A YouTube comedy classic here, as random Americans on the street are stopped by a fake news reporter who is in fact part of an Australian TV program geared towards making fun of the United States. Yes, these morons  may have been cherry-picked and anyone who gave an intelligent answer to the questions asked were probably  left on the cutting room floor – but its still both funny and revealing to watch such epic levels of ignorance.  As a side note, it also shows how a guy like George W was re-elected for a second term as well as the future base for Tea Baggers.