Obama and Pakistan

[Blodrast]

Well, thinking about it a bit more (I'm trying to be as objective as I can here, I don't get off on US-bashing), I can see how sometimes a combination of stick and carrot can be useful... but, frankly, I fail to see how this is the case. If any of you guys can figure out a way to interpret it like that, I'm all ears (well, eyes, in this case).

I can see a situation like this: "We'll help you if you get those bastards". And you help them, and you help them, and they don't come through. And then you say: "You up, now we'll bomb you". *scratches head* Seems to me like this loses you money, AND goodwill.

Then what would a good strategy be ? Keep paying them off until they deliver - or, more accurately, hoping that they will, eventually, deliver ? What if they don't ? You end up more the fool, and with your money given away.

Bomb them from the start ? I won't even get into this, it's wrong and stupid for too many (obvious, you'd think, after the last 5-6 years) reasons.

Bomb them and then give them money, to help them rebuild, and as some compensation, etc ? That kinda worked with WW2, but things were very different, and nations were actually at war (unlike this half-assed non-declared pseudo-war); would it work in such cases ?

Hmm, how about some joint operations on their (Pakistan's) territory, US troops allied with Pakistani troops, trying to weed out the bad guys ? (The emphasis is on joint). Would they go for that, or would they deem it as an unacceptable loss of face/sovereignty ?
So far, this looks to me like the best scenario I could think of, at least right off the top of my head...

What do you guys think ?