Surprisingly, quite the anemic editorial on Pakistan (below) in today's WSJ.

"The Pakistanis have long played a double game, supporting the U.S. and Islamist militants."

Yes, and we've been hearing about it for way too long. Besides plying them with "blood money" - which you'll be happy to hear is permitted under sharia law (as are most things relating to vengeance, bribes, blood, and punishment) - and lecturing them about the evils of terrorism, what have we done to counter Pakistan's double-game?

The WSJ editorial board continues: "Yesterday's deal [i.e., the release of CIA agent/contractor Raymond Davis, in return for blood money] reflects a recognition of the importance of the strategic relationship with America that has come under so much strain in recent months."

Really?! A recognition by WHOM? (And talk about defining deviancy down...)

If double-gaming is part and parcel of Pakistani/Muslim culture, then I'm sure they won't mind if we engage in a little double-gaming ourselves, particularly of the in-your-face kind. How about diverting the aid we give to Pakistan, to their mortal enemy #1 and biggest concern of all, India.

Yes, we already provide aid and support to India, but we do it with India much the same way we do it with the rest of the world, i.e., by hedging our bets, or arming, aiding and supporting our allies, while doing the same with their (and our) enemies.

When dealing with the Muslim Middle East and North Africa, we have a nasty habit of trying to outsmart the natives. But it's the natives who have the street (or desert) smarts, and it's the natives who've been around a helluva lot longer than us. And looks like they'll continue to be around, a lot longer after us, as long as our political leaders insist on fighting wars the genteel or politically-correct way.