THE TENSION: War on Terror Open Thread

Richard Miniter, writing in the Wall Street Journal, states:

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction.
Then, Minter asks whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's. Minter goes on, both debunking Clinton's on air tirade and adding to the list of missteps of the Clinton administration. In closing, Minter states:

There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

Tony Blankley, writing in Townhall.com, says, with little notice from the mainstream media (this was discussed, however, in the current issue of the Weekly Standard) the U. S. suffered a substantial defeat in the war against radical Islam, when three weeks ago, Pakistan signed the terms of the Waziristan Accord with the northern region of its country called North Waziristan.

According to intelligence sources cited by The Fourth Rail and other sources above, the Accord includes: (1) Pakistan to abandon its garrisons in Waziristan, (2) Pakistan military to not operate in or monitor actions in the region, (3) Pakistan to turn over weapons to Waziris, (4) Taliban and al Qaeda to set up a Mujahideen council to administer the region, (5) region to be called "The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, (6) unknown but substantial amount of money paid by Pakistan to the Taliban, (7) al Qaeda and other jihadis to be allowed to stay in region, (8) 2,500 foreign fighters linked to al Qaeda and Taliban released by Pakistan from their prisons (this fact also confirmed by London's Daily Telegraph), and (9) Taliban to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.
Musharraf recently stated that he was threatened with U.S. bombing if he didn't become our ally and that he agreed to it only after calculating the consequences. Pakistan presents a number of unknowns.

Blankley says the administration doesn't have much time to mull over their reaction to the changes in Pakistan:

We must come to terms with reality -- and soon. We are going to have to substantially increase the size of our army and Marines to face the growing threats to our national security.