Sometimes you can’t improve on an insight.  From Michael Crowley (h/t Michael Cohen):

The Pakistan Puzzle | The New Republic

In a New York Times op-ed today largely in support of Obama’s Afghanistan plan, Nate Fick of the Center for a New American Security writes:

Progress depends on two political developments: inducing the administration of President Hamid Karzai to govern effectively, and persuading Pakistan that militant groups within its borders pose as great a threat to Islamabad as they do to Kabul.

The latter proposition–bolded by me–is an oft-repeated one. But there’s something odd about it. Why wouldn’t Pakistan have at least as clear an idea of who poses a real threat to Islamabad as we do? Indeed, chances are they have a better grasp of this question than do policymakers in Washington.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the militants in Pakistan are extremely nasty and dangerous, and I hope they’re wiped out quickly. But even in light of their recent advances, the risk of the radicals taking over the government seem slim. I sometimes wonder whether we’re trying to convince Pakistan of something we want them to believe is true –but which in fact is not true enough to make them pursue the policies we’re advocating in our own interests.

I mean, I hate to disagree with the 42nd most important man in Washington, but, I mean yeah.