.
May 10th, 2011
06:00 PM ET

Should U.S. continue raids to capture or kill terrorists in Pakistan?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

We now know that the United States had contingency plans in place for military action against Pakistani forces if they had tried to stop the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound last week that resulted in his killing.

Just another indication that despite the billions we've given Pakistan over the past decade to help combat terrorism, we didn't fully trust their commitment to finding bin Laden or any other high profile terrorist who might be living and plotting and scheming within their borders.

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan is deeply strained now. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has warned the United States that his country's military will respond to any future U.S. raid.

Gilani said in a speech Monday, "Any attack against Pakistan's strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response."

Fighting words.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is now questioning the U.S.-Pakistani relationship and the amount of aid we send that country, $20 billion over the last eight years. She says that relationship makes "less and less sense."

But two other top leaders from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sens. John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts, and Dick Lugar, Republican from Indiana, are defending U.S. aid to Pakistan.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Trying to figure out what to do about our relationship with them isn't easy.

Here’s my question to you: Should U.S. continue raids to capture or kill terrorists inside Pakistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Pakistan
May 4th, 2011
04:16 PM ET

What should the U.S. do about Pakistan?

ALT TEXT

A Pakistani shepherd walks past the Abbottabad hideout where Osama bin Laden was killed. (PHOTO CREDIT: AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There was a line in the "The Godfather, Part II": "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." When it comes to Pakistan, which are they?

Osama bin Laden was living in a $1 million compound surrounded by 12-to-18-foot high walls topped with razor wire. It was in the middle of a quiet suburban town filled with retired Pakistani military officers. It was just yards away from the Pakistan Military Academy, which is basically that nation's West Point.

The compound was reportedly called Waziristan Mansion, after the tribal mountainous region of Pakistan where bin Laden fled after the September 11 attacks. There was no television and no phone lines. Instead of putting their trash out for collection, the people living with bin Laden burned it.

Come on.

If Pakistani officials didn't know who was living there, the neighbors likely did.

Neighborhood children even suspected something was up. They were not allowed to get a ball if it was accidentally kicked or thrown onto the property. Instead, they were given $2 to $3 to buy a new one. Other kids were invited to play with pet rabbits on the compound but noticed security cameras everywhere.

Ray Charles probably could have figured out who lived there. My guess is the Pakistani government wasn't looking very hard. And it's not because they didn't have the means to do so. The United States has given about $20 billion dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan over the past eight years - money meant to help combat terrorism. And as long as bin Laden remained at large, it was pretty easy to make the argument for that money.

Here’s my question to you: What should the U.S. do about Pakistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Al Qaeda • Osama bin Laden • Pakistan