It seems that President Musharraf of Pakistan seems likely that he will be removed from his office. The four regional assemblies have all voted for his impeachment, and the charges will brought to trial within days. Saudi Arabia is offering him as a haven there if he wants to flee, and he may accept.

It is uncertain who will emerge as a new government. It could be another military leader, or it could become another Islamist government like the Taliban. Pakistan is a nuclear country.

There are many thousands of American troops in Afghanistan fighting there. They are supplied through Pakistan or Russia. Russia is in a war of words over Georgia, and he would have a leverage of our policy if we need to supply through there airspace and our bases. The other places they could come through are Iran or China. Iran is another of our enemies. That means only China as a way of supplying our troops, our even removing them out if Pakistan becomes hostile. I imagine that China would help us. I also think there could be a diplomancy price.

All in all, things could get a sudden crisis if the military in Pakistan can't suppress their populace. What a mess.

Ive been saying for sometime now that Musharraf has been playing at defeating AQ since day one.

Being courted by The White House and in his position a supposedly major player, he seems to enjoy the prestige.

At least if he were to go, we might get a better picture of just how genuine Pakistan is at tackling AQ.

Ive been saying for sometime now that Musharraf has been playing at defeating AQ since day one.

Being courted by The White House and in his position a supposedly major player, he seems to enjoy the prestige.

At least if he were to go, we might get a better picture of just how genuine Pakistan is at tackling AQ.

Which is important the matter about military rule of Pakistan or Al-Qaeda for our World? Hostile of Pakistan makes rabid India, rabid India makes horrible China. Therefore, we must prevent such stream. Of course at early days and self-motivated are better(or best).
Al-Qaeda can't have over a million soldiers, but Pakistan and India and China have almost three hundred million people. Some people guess Al-Qaeda is worst our threat in the World, but it's not correct. Actually we are in danger now than at 2000. Bush didn't provide better solution about Iran, North Korea, and Russia. China moderated than about 2002 and Qaddafi agreed making relationship with West are helped by angel, it's not success by Bush.

The number one objective of the Bush Administration should] be the defeat of AQ, which IMO it simply hasnt addresed since 9/11.

The White House [at present] seems more interested in Regime change in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

How to defeat AQ.
AQ were able to develop into a very nasty organisation thru a number of scenarios, only one of which is the US Government.

The mid east is a collection of radical religious or family originated nations.
The vast sway of Muslims simply dont have any say in how their countries are ran, or by whom.

This has caused generations of resentment among the Arab populace.
Nations like Saudi Arabia, were democracy is viewed as a dirty word, and outside influence is at the least frowned upon,and Shia law is enforced by the ruling family,while at the same time, that families playboy princes are whoring their way around London, Paris, spending money like its going out of fashion. These Ruling Families armed to the teeth by the west, especially the United States, are greatly resented, and seen as being kept in power by the 'evil empire' America.
This combined with US Foreign Policy in in the entire region which for years has been directed in a fashion that always see's Israel as the benefactor,
no matter what Israel does, the US stands over it.

It seems that Musharraf is resigning. He spoke to a televised speech and has said he is resigning and going to an unknown other country for exile. It will be interesting to see what happens next there.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/18/musharraf.address/index.html

Musharraf has no choice really. Since giving up his post as CnC of the Armed Forces he has lost his power base.

Most of the Generals who helped put him in power, and keep him there, have retired, and the younger ones coming thru have no loyalty to him.

Al-Qaeda can't have over a million soldiers, but Pakistan and India and China have almost three hundred million people.

ROTFL. No, not a million. A tad fewer than that.

""Al-Qaeda probably never had more than a few hundred committed members, and many have been killed, including the three men said to be its last three operations' chiefs.""_______From the print edition of The Economist (http://media.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7854470)

Al-Qaeda is simply the latest boogie man the ConservaFascists have settled upon to use to dupe the simpletons out of their taxdollars; trillions of dollars which are being funneled to the military/Industrial complex.

""Al-Qaeda probably never had more than a few hundred committed members, and many have been killed, including the three men said to be its last three operations' chiefs.""_______From the print edition of The Economist (http://media.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7854470)



Hmm, US send many troops and airplanes as B-1, F/A-18 with aircraft carrier and more to defeat just a few hundreds soldiers of Al-Qaeda for many years...
I completely agree shortage of US troops.

I completely agree shortage of US troops.Very good, koutaka.

That was funny. :)

""Al-Qaeda probably never had more than a few hundred committed members, and many have been killed, including the three men said to be its last three operations' chiefs.""_______From the print edition of The Economist (http://media.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7854470)
The number varies greatly depending on what you define Al Qaeda to be, as the author himself explains later in the article.

The number varies greatly depending on what you define Al Qaeda to be, as the author himself explains later in the article.

True, and that's a valid point. But no estimate I have ever read or heard of, from any source, places their number of members at anywhere near a million, or even a fourth of that.