[JALU3]

Skybird I agree that religion should be a non-issue when making military decisions, and that no religion should have a special say on any specific action. Granted ones religion will have a significant influence on one's moral and ethical values, but a religion itself as an institution, should not have a direct say.

As for Pakistan, and the new Great Game, the biggest problemn that NATO forces have in Afghanistan is moving supplies to forces there. With a non-compliant Russia attempting to mitigate increased US & Western European influence in Central Asia, and a non-helpful Iran, the only other supply route available to US and NATO forces is through Pakistan. Therefore, NATO and the US must have positive relations with said country in order to garuntee its supply routes. In the previous Great Game, there was a British controlled India/Pakistan to garuntee said access into Central Asia. This is no such garuntee now, thus leading to the relationship the US has with Pakistan today. Sure there is the route through contested Kashmir, or even a much longer route via the PRC, however the most direct is from the Arabian Sea.

What I find interesting though through all this, is the leaning towards a more fundamentalist government in previously secular muslim dominate nations. This can be said about both Turkey and Pakistan, where as in the past the secular nature of the government was garunteed by a strong secular military, something that is not supported by the West, that is the Military having a strong influence on a nation's politics. I think a lot can be discussed regarding the strength of religious parties in muslim majority nations, and how increase of those parties representation in those countries governments have a direct impact on their relations with Western Secular nations.