If I might ask a hypothetical -

In the context of the immediate 9/11 aftermath, what ought the US have done if the Pakistan government had refused to cooperate, given the clear links between Osama, the Taliban and Pakistan?

In response to your question Kalin, let me ask you a question.
If I came to your house and threatened to burn down your house
if you did not cooperate, would I really get your full cooperation
in future?

Rather then big threats, perhaps its better first to try the
reason approach, how you say things some times matters more then
what you say. Everyone knows that the US has lots of bombs.
To ram it down peoples throats only upsets their own egos
and makes them hostile before you even start! Thats the difference
between Clinton and Bush. Clinton understands all that, Bush
simply does not.

Yabby,

I agree that Bush is a clumsy idiotic cowboy next to his predecessor and it has no doubt been a great tragedy for the world that the US electoral system didn't allow Clinton another term.

Nevertheless, to answer your hypothetical question simply, the US had the big stick, made the big threat, and as history shows, obtained considerable cooperation from the Pakistan government. Whether this was morally sound is a different question, but noting the obvious rage in the US, I think a precipitous approach from the US was at least understandable.

Could they have obtained it by asking nicely? Possibly, however, Pakistan had long been known as a 'recruiting/training' ground for anti-western militant Islamist groups and the US had previously been unable to gain real cooperation from Pakistan to curb these activities using a purely diplomatic approach. This previous attitude of Pakistan, plus the believed (and subsequently proved) presence of many of the Al Queda hierarchy, would naturally have left the US VERY suspicious of Pakistan's role.

Do you truly believe that in the rage filled atmosphere of post 9/11, Bill Clinton would have taken a significantly less direct approach?

Had the US asked nicely and been rebuffed, as before, what ought the US have done then

Kalin, you forget that the US funded some of those Jihadi groups
and trained some, in order for them to defeat the Soviets. Alot
of the Arabs had gone to Afgahnistan, for that very purpose.

The camps you speak of were in Afgahnistan, they moved to Pakistan
later where they still remain. Do you really think that the US
won full cooperation from Pakistan? I see that Mullah Omar has
just done a deal with the Govt, they will leave him alone.

Clinton had the right approach to Bin Laden, he bombed his camp,
but sadly missed him by hours.

Look at it this way with threats. In the end politics is also about
people and relationships, thats why my analogy. If you tried to
win over a girl and she didn't agree right away, do you think she
will respect you more if you threaten to rape her if she doesent
agree?

The US has plenty of leverage over Pakistan, especially
economically. No need for the big stick approach. Its that big
stick approach that has upset so many. If you read Bin Laden's speeches, he goes on about Western humiliation of the Muslim world.
He has a point. We can be an arrogant, know all bunch. Look at Dick
Cheney, you could not meet a more arrogant man.

A skilled politician knows how to win peoples trust and respect and
then how to influence them from there. Look how close Clinton got
to solving the Middle East problem.

Yabby,

I think your analogies are a little biased. The US taking a menacing line with Pakistan, at a time when it was circumstantially implicated in terroism, cannot fairly be compared to "threatening to rape a girl." Such colourful hyperbole is not conducive to rational argument.

We can agree on Clinton's skill as a president and diplomat. I suspect history will be very kind to him and perhaps he would have done a better job. Nevertheless, Bush's threats were a very human response to a very trying situation. Oafish, undiplomatic, and likely to contribute to long lasting ill feeling between the US and Pakistan, but very human.

"Such colourful hyperbole is not conducive to rational argument."

Kalin you are free to call it that, but when people threaten
to burn your house down, rape you, or bomb you back to the
stone ages, the principle is much the same. Fact is if you
threaten people with those kinds of things, you are unlikely
to ever achieve their respect and full cooperation. Thats
very human too.

"Nevertheless, Bush's threats were a very human response to a very trying situation. Oafish, undiplomatic, and likely to contribute to long lasting ill feeling between the US and Pakistan, but very human."

Very human perhaps, if one lacks wisdom and people skills. There
are humans at various levels of intelligence on this planet.

Have you ever met an extremely rich and powerful person? If
that person spends his time telling you how rich and powerful
they are and what they could do with that power, would you
respect him for that? On the other hand, I've met rich and
powerful people who have no need for that kind of primitive
behaviour at all. They impress by their sheer humility despite
their obvious power. They impress by their reasoning skills and
their wisdom. They see the big picture and can swing others
around by those reasoning skills. They understand that cooperation
will achieve far more in the long term, then boasts about power.
Thats the difference between Clinton and Bush. One has wisdom
and intelligence, the other is a buffoon, sadly for all of us.