The talking heads that support the surge in the war in Afghanistan will point to the instability in Pakistan as reason for being in Afghanistan.
The fear is the Taliban would overthrow the Pakistan government and control Pakistan's nukes.
It was General Patreaus who in May of this year that said "the Pakistanis have run out of excuses."
This being said in response to the Taliban increasing terrorist acts in Pakistan.
The question should be asked; by the Taliban moving into Afghanistan, did we create a perception the Taliban were/are going to overthrow the Pakistan government?
It was also in May when the question was raised on what would be the impact on the movements of the Taliban into Afghanistan with a military surge.
The buildup of US troops in Afghanistan could force more Taliban fighters into neighbouring Pakistan, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff conceded last night.
Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate's foreign relations committee: "We can't deny that our success may only push them [the Taliban] deeper into Pakistan."
Mullen said military planning was under way to overcome that risk. He said the increase of 21,000 US forces in Afghanistan was "about right" for the new strategy of trying to quell the insurgency and speed up training of Afghan security forces.
"Can I [be] 100% certain that won't destabilise Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that," Mullen told the committee.
As I pointed out previously, who will stop Iran from destabilizing the area once they have nuclear armed weapons?
Moreover, history points to Iran having sympathy to the Hitler regime when Hitler Germany was in power and quite frankly, Iran is a nation that would like to see Israel no longer Israel...
And Iran has over a million Afghan refuges in their country and historically had strong ties with the Afghans...
With the dynamics between Iran and Afghanistan, some have pointed to Iran's history of fighting against the Taliban.
But that is not the case right now.
Iran is working the Taliban/Al Qaeda and have been working with them for sometime.
So once we are out of Afghanistan, who will establish ties with Afghanistan and the Taliban/Al Qaeda?
Will it be Pakistan or Iran?
What is to keep Iran from using or supporting the Taliban/Al Qaeda in their quest in terrorism?
Moreover, it was McChrystal who said in testimony before congress, we should allow the Taliban to be part of the new political process in Afghanistan.
This is a point of appeasement coming from McChrystal borne from the realization that the Taliban are not going away.
They will just keep moving away with hit and run bombings to weaken support and kill troops.
The Clock is Ticking
So why is the clock ticking on Iran.
The U.S. national security adviser says Washington is still open to nuclear negotiations with Iran, but the picture is not a "good one."
Jim Jones said Sunday the "clock is ticking" toward the end of the year, when President Barack Obama plans to review U.S. diplomatic efforts with Iran.
What will the U.S. do to stop Iran?
Senior U.S. officials have proposed pursuing new sanctions at the U.N. Security Council if Iran does not cooperate with the international community on its nuclear program.
Think sanctions will work with China through Sinopec helping Iran with building refineries in Iran?
What does General Petreaus think about Iran?
Iran recently announced plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants.
General David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, said Sunday a lot of experts have questioned Iran's ability to do that.
But, he said, Iran's recent activity has caused enormous worry and concern.
Sound like a general who is confident in his assessment on Iran? Does it sound like a general who has a military plan to handle Iran?
And how many experts have been wrong on Iran's nuclear program in the recent past?