Hmmmm! I thought the NYT was only good for printing scurrillous untruths to discredit the Bush Administration. Suddenly you've started waving their articles to support your agenda. Is this a scurillious untruth that you like? Funny that. Oh. And another point. If "Pakistan has [truely] lost control of Taliban tribal regions", it seems more like an argument for a US invasion of Pakistan than a justification to lob a PGM into a house here and a house there. Now, are you going to invade Pakistan before or after Iran? Before or after Syria? Let's just look at Pakistan's credentials in the US 'reason for war' tick-card: Tick - Islamic state? Tick - Possessor of WMD? (Irrefutably and current not projected) Tick - Un-democratic leadership? Tick - Direct connection with 9/11? Tick - Safe haven for al-Qaida? X - Oil rich state? Bar the last one, looks like an open and shut case for invasion to me.