Musharraf says U.S. needs to stay out of the war on terrorism in Pakistan

Is Osama bin Laden still alive? This came into question recently when it was finally revealed that the late Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto had told David Frost in an interview on Nov. 2, 2007, that Omar Sheik had killed bin Laden. (Watch the YouTube video. Her statement on the subject starts at around 6:10.)

But I suppose that's neither here nor there. Osama bin Laden apparently doesn't matter, even though it is believed that he and his al-Qaeda terrorist network were behind the 9/11 attacks. No big deal, bro. George W. Bush feels bin Laden is not worth spending much time on.

On the other hand, I happen to believe that we (Americans) are in much less safe since the Bushies took their eye off the ball in Afghanistan in 2002 in order to instead invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and which (at the time) had no significant ties to terrorism.

So now al-Qaeda is indeed in Iraq, because we are there.

And, according to our own CIA, they've been building major training camps in Pakistan.

Remember Pakistan? Run by Pervez Musharraf, whom George W. Bush refers to as "a loyal ally in fighting terrorists"?

In fact, Musharraf is such a loyal ally in fighting terrorists that he is now saying that "U.S. troops are not welcome to join the fight against al-Qaida on Pakistani soil."

It really doesn't matter whether Osama is dead or alive. We have easily created enough angry Muslims to pose a sufficient threat without Osama's leadership.

And we blew it to the point where we're not going to get any cooperation from Pakistan (or anyone else) to get to the heart of the terrorist base.

And, sadly, Pakistan is probably right. Look at what messes we've made in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We attacked Iraq just under five years ago, and the poor Iraqi civilians are still reeling. Many insist that their lives were better under Saddam.

No wonder Pakistan wants us to keep our distance.

Still, Pakistan is harboring al-Qaeda, and we probably would need Musharraf's support to do anything about it.

You see, the answer isn't necessarily a military one, at least not by itself. We need to get back to the practice of diplomacy, which in the long run would be much more effective than unilateral troop surges in addressing the threat of terrorism.

Even though Bush doesn't waste any time on it, we should, and the next president should.

Only then can we have any positive influence in the world. Bush's policy of "might makes right" just hasn't cut it.