Or, so says the New York Times in this story to be published tomorrow morning.

I don’t have any real insight beyond what’s in the story, and gladly defer to our resident WoT expert, Mr. Geraghty.

But it does seem to me that if we know bin Laden and others are re-establishing control, we ought to be able to shoot at him, right? Certainly we ought to be able to take out these new camps. The story also raises troubling questions about Pakistan’s commitment as our ally in the War on Terror. I realize this is nothing new, but up until now, Pakistan’s military has at least been trying to look like they’re playing along.

Anyway, the story is nothing but a bummer.

Jim: Yup, Marshall (and BTW, you’re being way too generous by calling me an expert on the war on terror - an informed fan is more like it) — this story, if accurate, confirms many of the worst fears that Pakistan is now a completely ineffective ally, or perhaps better described as an ally-in-name-only.

Wouldn’t it be great if instead of wasting time debating competing versions of nonbinding resolutions on Iraq, Congress actually debated what the U.S. policy regarding Pakistan ought to be? But no, we can’t do that, because there’s no easy answer, no easy way for our lawmakers to promote themselves and grandstand, no seductive simple solution to promote.

If the Senate were to consider this argument from Robert Kaplan –

The situation is tragically simple: the very people we need to kill or apprehend we can’t get at, because they are in effect protected by our so-called ally, Pakistan. All we can do is win tactical battles against foot soldiers inside Afghanistan, who are easily replaced.

It isn’t that President Musharraf is doing nothing. He has deployed troops along the border that have somewhat cut down on the activities of Mr. Haqqani. Moreover, many of his troops are busy quelling a separatist rebellion in the border province of Baluchistan.

But he feels himself atop a volcano of fundamentalism. He is among the last of the Westernized, British-style officers in the national army; after him come the men with the beards. The military and Pakistani society are filled with those who do not see the Taliban as a threat: it is an American problem, and one for an Afghan government toward which they feel ambivalence. So President Musharraf must walk a fine line. And he must be as devious with us as he is with any other faction…

We can’t reverse this drift without a stronger policy toward Pakistan. I say this with extreme trepidation. President Musharraf, for all his faults, may still be the worst person to rule his country except for any other who might replace him. And yet it is necessary to hold his feet to the fire to a greater extent than we have.

– then there would be no way for Chuck Hagel to pound the desk and bellow that our troops are real people not just numbers (thanks, Senator, I’m sure all of your colleagues thought the opposite), or for Jim Webb to threaten to punch out somebody because he’s so angry. Got to show he was Born Fightin’, you know, actual concrete policy proposals be damned.