Even anti-war presidential candidate Barack Obama said Pakistan is flooded with al-Qaeda terrorists, and should fight them. Now with the unrest (to put it mildly) in Pakistan, the war just began?
If a government comes to power who supports the cause of millitant islam it will topple the balance of the whole region. Pakistan, being the only country with a nuclear arsenal and a muslim majority could become responsible for the nuclear armament of Jihadists. If such weapons get into the hands of people who worship suicide bombers and grew up with a religious longing for the end of the world then those weapons will be used regardless of the consequences. I think the best strategy would be to increase pressure on the current administration to voluntarily disarm their nuclear weapons and to seize an officialy hostile position towards neighbouring India.
IMO a preemtive strike to seize or destroy this nuclear weapons is MUCH more possible than an atack on Iran. Aside political reasons, we need a war that won't increase oil prices, further.
IRAN. On the scale of terrorism. Hezbollah is the two ton Gorilla. al-Queda is the chimpanzee who got in a lucky shot and is currently getting the most press.
Pakistan: already has nuclear weapons. Iran: may get only one in five years, at most. Iran: 70 million people, most of them farmers in remote rural areas, who don't care about terrorism. Pakistan: 165 million people, most in poor urban areas who are mad, constantly receiving terrorist propaganda; and resented with the US because of their poverty (Pakistans are MUCH poorer than Iranians).
The best cure for terrorism is prosperity. People who are well off do not wish for the end of the world. Freedom, democracy and capitalism are spreading across the world pretty fast. I just hope it will spread to these nations before something really bad happens.
IRAN is wooing Russia and China and North Korea. Hezbollah as a much larger organization than al-Queda funded by Iran. They are also much better trained and organized. You could be right though.
You're right Iran's hezbollah is an army. Well funded and trained as you stated. Pakistan al qaeda are guerrillas. It's much easier to deal with one centralized army than with separate (and often rival) guerrillas. Iran is a totalitarian state, Pakistan is -almost- a failed state. History shows us that wars (even if they are irregular wars, like guerrilla or civil wars) are more prone to occur in failed states.
First off, Pakistan's official connection over the last 15 years is with the Taliban not Al Qaeda. Big difference- Taliban wants Shari law in Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan, while Al Qaeda is much more anti-US. While the 2 mix, it's important to recognize the difference before talking about a confrontation with Pakistan. Secondly, Pakistan's main problem for the last several decades is piss poor governance from both democratically elected leaders and dictators. The military/ISI has had an unofficial policy of aiding various extremist Islamic groups in the region. The majority of Pakistanis do not subscribe to such a hardline version of Islam. Furthermore Pakistan is far from a failed state (unlike Afghanistan), it's just a very poorly run one. Rather than attack Pakistan or give more money to the Pakistani military or blindly support anti-democratic military dictators, the US policy should be to promote better democratic governance in the country. Not doing so for the last 3-4 decades is partially why the situation looks so difficult at this point.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/04/stories/2007110450650100.htm. Musharaff is the main problem in Pakistan.