Video: Talk of "consequences" for Pakistan empty

Former CIA operative Michael Scheuer explains to Fox and Friends this morning why Hillary Clinton’s talk of “consequences” for Pakistan over the Times Square bombing rings very, very hollow. We already know that Faisal Shahzad trained in Pakistan, so the notion that we’re waiting to apply those consequences for some forensic confirmation is laughable. So are the consequences themselves, as Scheuer points out, for the simple reason that the Pakistanis don’t need us nearly as much as we need them. The Right Scoop has the clip:

In other words, this administration has once again decided to speak loudly and carry a very small stick. What threat could we issue to Pakistan? We’ll pull out of Afghanistan if they don’t invade North Waziristan, where the bulk of the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda are believed to be? We’re in Afghanistan for our own interests, not Pakistan’s, and our presence there destabilizes Pakistan, whether we like to admit it or not.  We can’t invade Northern Waziristan in any effective way except clandestine raids for the same reason Pakistan won’t: we don’t have the necessary resources to hold it.

We need Pakistan to continue fighting the Taliban and AQ.  We also need them to continue turning a blind eye to our drone attacks and occasional clandestine forays into Pakistani territory.  The Pakistanis just need us to leave at some point.  Which side here has the big stick?

Besides, Shahzad is at least as much our problem as Pakistan’s.  After all, we granted him citizenship, didn’t we?