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.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/10/srm_pakistan_map_lil.jpg]
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?
Terry in Virginia:
The U.S. government should defend and protect us against terrorism and threats of terrorism throughout the world and if that means more raids in Pakistan, so be it. If Pakistan doesn't like it, then perhaps its leaders should reconsider giving safe harbor to terrorists.
Greg in Ontario:
Pakistan is playing us for fools. The West pays them billions in aid and they hide the number one (and probably the top five) terrorist in the world. That in itself is an act of war. Pakistan should become as isolated as Iran and all economic aid, immigration, etc. should be stopped until they prove themselves worthy of our trust again.
Joe:
Of course. What we should not do is keep a large number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dennis in North Carolina:
We should continue hunt and kill terrorists in any country that harbors them without a second thought.
Jim:
Absolutely. If the Pakistanis aren't going to do their job with the amount of U.S. money they're getting, then we should be allowed to go in and get known terrorist leaders when they're found. We need to concentrate on Ayman al-Zawahiri now that Bin Laden is dead. We need to keep taking out their leaders as they emerge and gather intelligence where we can. But I'm against any further wars and think we need to begin to withdraw troops from Afghanistan ASAP as well.
Tim in New York:
If Pakistan considers an attack on Bin Laden as an "attack against Pakistan's strategic assets", then we've got a real problem. They're a lot better armed than al Qaeda, and that statement also makes it obvious which side they're on. I'm not wise enough to know whether we should or shouldn't continue such operations, but I will tell you this: I wouldn't be foolish enough to continue paying them when they've made their position clear.
Bob in Kansas City, Missouri
You bet, Jack. Terminate with extreme prejudice whenever and wherever found. They deserve the same due process as those who became their victims.