I just checked this to be sure, and "AfPak" definitely stands for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's the region in which we're currently engaged in a hot war that we're desperately trying not to lose. So - at least in theory - alienating the leaders of both Afghanistan and Pakistan would be one of those geopolitical blunders that we've been assured were hallmarks of the Bush administration. Smart...

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai questioned the reliability of the United States as a partner Sunday, as he fought off criticism of his government's legitimacy following fraud-marred elections... underscoring the political headache that Washington faces if Karzai wins a run-off against Abdullah next month, Karzai pointed the finger at the United States in a separate, pre-recorded CNN interview. "Is the United States a reliable partner with Afghanistan? Is the West a reliable partner with Afghanistan?" Karzai asked... The comments appeared to allude to Karzai's longstanding criticism of civilian deaths in US air strikes, and to President Barack Obama's still unresolved review of US strategy and his commander's request for up to 40,000 more US troops.

... power:

In Lahore, Pakistan, today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a blunt message to six prominent Pakistani newspaper editors. Asked by Asha'ar Rehman, an editor of Dawn, why the US war on terror is so localized to Pakistan, Clinton did not mince words. "Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002," she said. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to... there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment.''

Which is not to say that Clinton was wrong to be concerned about everything from Pakistan's internal stability to the reliability of their security forces. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is most definitely not secure. And it's no secret that the ISI has some gentlemen who are disinclined to view the West favorably. When Pakistan finally becomes a failed state - and ignoring the geopolitical situation its economic freefall will ensure that it does - things are going to get real dicey real fast.

But Clinton's job as a diplomat is to express those concerns in a way that doesn't cause potentially irreparable rifts with countries we rely on for military victory. Though she did find the time to blame it all on Bush! So at least there was that.

There's a much broader discussion to be had about the sheer self-absorbed gullibility of liberal foreign policy experts. They've spent the last 7 or 8 years in conferences at Geneva and Doha, and they actually belied the cocktail party chatter about how things would be copacetic if only Bush was out of office. "Emir so and so, don't you think that President Bush is destroying the US's credibility in the Arab and Muslim world?" "Certainly Madam such and such, Islam would totally abandon its thousand year ebb-and-flow intrusions into the West if the US had a 3 point electoral shift."

Morons.

References and related after the jump...