John Perry Barlow has written a very interesting piece about the implications of the recent US war resolution. There’s a lot of it that’s out in loony-land, and I even disagree with it’s basic thesis – I think this was a simple but strangely-worded declaration of war, not a more general and threatening extension of war powers to the executive – but there is much about it that’s thought-provoking. In particular, there’s this thought:

We’re also accepting rather blandly American support for a brutal military dictatorship in Pakistan which really *does* have nuclear weapons as well as the means to deliver them quite a distance. Why are we not disarming Pakistan?

Why not, indeed? Pakistan is particularly interesting in this regard because every argument we’re using to justify an attack against Iraq – nuclear proliferation, involvement with al Qaeda, etc. – applies even more to Pakistan than to Iraq, and yet we provide aid to Pakistan instead of invading them. Why?