Musharraf is smarting from the fact the at least two of the English-born Pakistanis involved in the first London attack had made visits to Pakistan shortly before the attack.  The Egypt attacks definitely have a Pakistani component to them also.  It is abundantly clear that Pakistan is a hotbed of extremist Islamics (right behind Saudi Arabia), including Al-Qaeda.  I guess Mr. Musharraf wouldn't mind us checking out those mountains in the west of Pakistan...nawww on second thought, in his mind if Al-Qaeda has been eradicated from Pakistan there would be no reason for us to check.  I think he is taking cues from Bush...don't question me I'm always right.  I didn't know denial was a river in Pakistan also.

If it turns out totally verified that both London and Egypt were operations born or controlled from Pakistan, I think we also have to assume that al-Qaeda wants the outsiders to put the arm on Musharraf, causing him homeside problems.  They have always wanted to generate the proof that he is the Bush-Blair-Mubarrak poodle dog.  Thus discredited, he might be easier to take down.

What Musharraf obviously needs to do is find the elements in the Army -- and in the ISI that are protecting al-Qaeda, and take them out of circulation.  That's bin-Laden's life line at this point, alsong with the religious parties on which his government depends in NWFP and in Baluchistan.  Bucause these groups are also the leadership of the Proxi militants attacking Kashmer, they have wide approval in Pakistan.  No Pakistani leader beginning with Jinnah has ever tried to tame this faction.  Huge Risk, but it probably is something Musharraf has to consider.  In a Pakistani context it is camparable to asking George Bush to have a little war with Pat Roberts, Dobson, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, all at the same time -- and then throw in a little bottle with the Pope at the same time.  It is just not a possibility given the interests of Pakistan, or at least how they describe them, and Musharraf's power center. 

The solution is something so covert and untracable that everyone has a degree of deniability. 

That's bin-Laden's life line at this point, alsong with the religious parties on which his government depends in NWFP and in Baluchistan.  Bucause these groups are also the leadership of the Proxi militants attacking Kashmer, they have wide approval in Pakistan.

Therein lies the fundamental contradiction on Musharaff's pledge to support the war on terrorism...in the mind of more than a few people in Pakistan, there are bad terrorists and there are good terrorists. Except, of course, they aren't called "good terrorists,"...they're called "freedom fighters," (just like the days in the Reagan administration).

Also, Musharaff's power in Pakistan is derived, in no small part, on his hard-line tough guy sabre-rattling stance with respect to India and Kasmir.  The Council on Foreign Relations notes "Pakistan-watchers say the general was able to seize power because his predecessor backed down in a 1999 showdown over Kashmir."

Again, parallels with Reagan after Carter.

Actually, I believe the accepted protocol is that they be pardoned and given a complementary estate house.

Well, instead of "invade Pakistan for OBL" it turned out to be  "invade Iraq for nothing".

Wesley Clark made one of the more interesting suggestions regarding this complex of problems.  He suggested that Saudi Arabia, or / and several of the Gulf states probably had the greatest interest in eliminating the al-Qaeda set up in Pakistan, and the support for Jihad extremists that threaten the stability of Pakistan.  At the same time, they are less invested in the specifics of a settlement of Kashmir -- but do have interests in India where they do much business.  (One must always recall that in India, slightly more than 20% of the population is Muslim, and many are linked to the gulf through business relationships.)  Clark's point was that Saudi and Gulf states interests might be a base for both a political-diplomatic approach to the Pakistan conondrum, and their security services might have assets that could identify precisely where bin Laden is at any particular time, and figure how to deliver him up in a way that would be less likely to provoke "the street" if you will.

I don't know if Clark is correct, but at least he seemed to have a creative thought that rested at least in part on comprehending the political context, and working in a covert way with diplomatic processes. 

Well, the point of the war in Iraq was supposed to be to secure Iraq's nuclear weapons, so the Pakistan invasion plan wins hands down; its objectives - to capture terrorists, secure nukes and keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists - would be well-founded.