The attack on Afghanistan put as many troops in as many places as was possible in that short a time given the crappy logistics. The terrorists headed for the tall grass the second the first attacks started.

We may have made a mistake trying to ingratiate ourselves to the Afghans by letting them take the lead in some battles, particularly Tora Bora (December 2001), but be that as it may, bin Laden and his crew were probably already kicking back in Pakistan by January of 2002.

The first deployment of troops to the Gulf area in the Iraq conflict began in January of 2003, over a year after Tora Bora. It is inane to think that the Iraq issue made any difference in who got away and who didn't in the early Afghanistan war.

This leaves the main problem: How do we attack al Qaeda in Pakistan? At what point could we have ever done so legitimately? An attack without the Pakistan government's permission would have been an act of war. An attack with the government's position would be an act of political suicide on the part of the government. This was true in 2001, and it's true now, and would be no matter WHAT was done in Iraq.

Leave western Pakistan alone and the terrorists will build their bases there, work their way into the rest of Pakistan, and launch constant attacks across the border of Afghanistan. Perhaps even work up attacks against other nations.

Attack western Pakistan and Musharaff either has to oppose the attack and the U.S. alliance, or go along with it and lose far more than the tenous support he already has. Maybe leading to a coup, and nuclear weapons in the hands of people who really shouldn't have them.

Don't forget the nuclear weapons. This isn't Iran "working on them," or North Korea "testing them," or Iraq "maybe having a program," this is a full up set of enriched uranium warheads.

A classic no-win situation. The more I look at it, the more I am coming to believe that terror bases in Pakistan is a problem that does not have a workable solution (outside of total war), and maybe never did.

Well, there are a couple of things that might be at least possible:

Secret missions into Pakistan might work--anything the government of Pakistan could disavow and make it stick. Given the enthusiasm of those in the U.S. who dearly love blowing secret operations, I'm not betting much on this.

Another option might be if Musharraf requested official U.N. military assistance to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda, he would come off looking at least marginally better to his people. Of course, that leaves the question of what the U.N. would or could do. Given past examples, I'm not holding my breath there either. Maybe NATO? Of course, when anybody talks about the U.N. or NATO taking military action, that just ends up pretty much being the U.S. anyway.

Two more points:

I can see only one main factor where more troops in Afghanistan could make a bigger difference right now, and that is in guarding the border. It's a hell of a lot harder job in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq.

The Taliban are growing in Pakistan, but Conventional Wisdom aside, they aren't doing that well in Afghanistan. The vaunted spring offensive went down the crapper, and they've been losing more battles than they've been winning.