Ummm... no. Not comparable at all. Even when our intel structure was out doing completely insane things, like arranging the Bay of Pigs f*ckup, or funding & arming terrorists in Central America, or trading arms for hostages in the Middle East, never forget that they were doing what they had been told to do by their proper chain of command, up to & including the President.

I seem to remember not too long ago the FBI screwed up a CIA project, because the goals of the FBI were different than the goals of the CIA. Granted, in that case, neither side knew they were working counter to the other. In both cases, however, the President was not personally aware of what was going on.

Within the ISI, there are groups dedicated to fighting India, and groups that are dedicated to fighting Islamists. If the India group can use Islamists to accomplish their goals, they probably don't have a problem with that.

No, it means that ISI is made up of many sub-agencies, responsible for different things, much like how are CIA and FBI are responsible for different things.

Ummm... no. Not comparable at all. Even when our intel structure was out doing completely insane things, like arranging the Bay of Pigs f*ckup, or funding & arming terrorists in Central America, or trading arms for hostages in the Middle East, never forget that they were doing what they had been told to do by their proper chain of command, up to & including the President.

I suppose the gov't of Pakistan (such as it is) could really be pushing brinkmanship over the edge by setting up the bombing of the embassy of a neighboring nuclear power, or it could be completely uncontrolled elements deciding on their own that it was a "good idea"... Either way, if someone doesn't pull on their Grownup Pants over there, there will be a regional nuke exchange in the next few years.

Steve

Not monolithic? Isn't that some sort of half-assed spinning of "completely rogue"?

No, it means that ISI is made up of many sub-agencies, responsible for different things, much like how are CIA and FBI are responsible for different things.

I mean, they may not be trying to attack us, but at least the Taliban never had nukes, right?

I don't think the ISI has access to nuclear weapons either.

Should we not be pissing our collective pants at this point?

No.

But he acknowledged that the Pakistani intelligence service is “not monolithic.”

Not monolithic? Isn't that some sort of half-assed spinning of "completely rogue"? I mean seriously - Our own intel officials are as much as admitting that elements of Pakistani gov't intel can, on their own initiative, engage in open acts of warfare with a neighboring nuclear-armed regional power.

How is Pakistan any less dangerous a rabid animal than the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was? I mean, they may not be trying to attack us, but at least the Taliban never had nukes, right? Should we not be pissing our collective pants at this point?

Some American officials have begun to suggest that Pakistan is no longer a fully reliable American partner and to advocate some unilateral American action against militants based in the tribal areas.

No longer? When exactly was Pakistan reliable?

Also, I heard on NPR this morning that the ISI was very recently (within the past few days) moved from being under the Defense Ministry, to the Interior Ministry. The implication was that this move was in response to Pakistan being confronted with this information. However, looking for a link to post this morning, it seems that the ISI may have been under the Prime Minister all along....Again, when was Pakistan reliable?