Townsend's remarks drew an immediate response from the Pakistan government asserting U.S. military action would not be necessary. Pakistan has assured the United States that it is doing all it can to capture or kill Bin Laden; but President Musharraf is under pressure from the United States to do more against tribes that may be sheltering him near the Afghan border. Musharraf is also threatened by Muslim extremists in Pakistan, and there have been several attempts on his life. Musharraf is no democrat, but he's the best we've got in Pakistan at the moment. The alternative -- an Islamist theocracy like Iran's -- would be far worse.

The United States does not want to jeopardize Musharraf's hold on power. He is an ally in the war on terror. However, if there are safe havens in Pakistan from which terrorists can plan and prepare for future attacks on Americans, we must act. Helping Musharraf root out terrorists in these areas would make his own position more secure.

These secluded areas are not in direct control of the Pakistani government, which is a point that supporters of a military mission make. If the Pakistani government does not control the region, is it legitimately Pakistan? Bin Laden is protected by jihadists who themselves would be a threat to the security of the United States even if it weren't for his presence among them.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a history of strained relations with India, and an unstable society. Any military action the United States undertakes there must be covert or have a very small footprint. The best scenario would be a special operator or CIA agent directing an air or cruise missle strike on Bin Laden's precise location.