Bhutto and Zardari are Shia. Despite a 77% Sunni / 20%Shia population, the PPP has a substantial majority in the government via popular vote… which obviously must have included Sunnis voting for Shia. Were this civil war mentality so prevalent, it would have shown thru in the election.

On the other hand, Musharraf was Sunni. And unlike his fellow Sunni, Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf did not want to put Pakistan under Islamic law. No love lost between them either, but not only for that difference. Sharif was pressing as hard, if not harder, to rid the government of Musharraf. And the decades old war between Sharif and Bhutto (and her hubby, Zardari) is rooted in their family history and past administrations.

Granted, the tribal areas, NWFP and SWAT are completely different ball games. It is in this region where AQ and the Taliban are mostly sequestered. Both the neo-Taliban/AQ murder their own Sunni and tribal elders just as quickly as they murder the Shia.

Not everything in the Muslim world comes down to Shia v Sunni, as thru most of the population they constantly mix and intermarry. But everything in their internal Muslim battles *does* come down to their differences over accepting Islamic law as rule of the country.

The hard core terrorists like AQ and Taliban want to thrust Islamic law as rule via violence against what they call “apostate” Muslim nations. The not as hard core terrorists, like Sharif the Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Pakistan’s MMA, work within the framework of their country’s elections laws and prefer to gain majority power legitimately in order to force Islamic law… if they get the majority. However Pakistan votes against that return to 3rd world conditions.

Thus you see Sunnis electing Shia leadership… because about the only thing I see going for Zardari is that he tells Sharif to blow it out his ear when he talks about incorporating the Qu’ran and Islamic law into the government.

Because the US demands governments are freely elected, we can not say as much about countries that choose Islamic law representatives… i.e. Palestine. The idea is that once Muslim nations experience freedom of choice and a certain amount of western culture benefits (better economics, trade, etc), they reject militant Islam. And this has been playing out as true, and increasing in the past couple of years. Since Iraq, as a matter of fact. Noted by the decline in support for AQ and jihad.

They just WISH they could get something like this on McCain…

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/bidens-lobbyist-son-brother-named-in-2.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/10/the-mess-in-mississippi-the-joe-biden-connection/

http://liberalsmash.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamoron-hits-homerun.html

But don’t you DARE mention it about O’Biden. That would be SOOOOO unfair.

But I have to wonder if Fareed already had the subject of Pakistan as his centerpiece, and Obama was just accommodating the producer’s decision there.

Certainly they are both major areas of foreign policy interest. I doubt even Biden could be foolish enough to consider carving up Pakistan. But I suggest his focus on throwing more non-military cash, without including the training of law enforcement or armies (which Pakistan rejects anyway) is a viable solution. Of course the Pakistanis love it. Who wouldn’t love a free US hand out? But just where would that get us but more taxes under this already tax heavy possible admin?

I’ve always had a problem with Obama’s “eye off the ball” analogy. We did as the DNC always wants us to do… gave it to NATO en toto as of the summer of 2006. When NATO started demanding more troops, and the NATO allies refused to pony up, Obama wanted to volunteer US troops and increase the US footprint, while McCain wanted first to hold the NATO allies feet to the fire. And I favor that approach instead.

But the “eye off the ball” was not done by the US, but by NATO and the refusal of the allies to step up to the plate. Yet Obama and Biden would never hesitate to again turn arenas of operation over to the same, deplorable military operation of int’l forces. If you want it done right, the US needs to be in charge.

It also fits with the moves immediately post Biden announcement where the Obama campaign has suddenly fired up ye olde “we took our eye off the ball” lie machine (though few dare to even ponder the date discrepancy aspect of that lie-err, “claim”). Also, I saw that Senator Obama was on Fareed Zakaria’s show today, and guess what?! They were talking about Pakistan.

WOW! That’s incredible. Russia’s threatening to attack Poland, and has already started gobbling up nations in the caucuses while prepping a naval blockade (one of the few universally accepted acts of war/casus belli). Iran’s nuclear bomb factories have thousands of centrifuges hummin’ along, Iraq has been pretty much won by the men on the ground and their commanders (including PRESIDENT BUSH), and the focus on the Obama camapaign re intl affairs is…….

PAKISTAN

I’m not saying it’s not a worthy topic, but it’s odd that they’d go into the Democratic Convention with thousands-tens of thousands of faux-anti-war protesters outside, and make Pakistan doctrine (ie, Obama’s acceptance that the Bush doctrine re Pakistan is the best doctrine and will continue) the center point of their media spin.

I wonder….will Senator Biden be advocating a fractionalization policy for Pakistan as he did the Balkans (which led to mass chaos until US troops went in) and as he did for Iraq in the Biden-Gelb plan which would have left Iraq the central point in a regional war with Baghdad literally deadnuts center between all the warring factions possible in the Middle East?

Yeah, good plan Joe. Try selling that to a nuclear-armed nation like Pakistan.