Problems with the Taliban in Pakistan are leading the United States to take matters into its own hands, even at the risk of damaging relations with the Pakistani government. Is it worth it?

Pakistan has been struggling in its effort to stem the advancement of the Taliban within its borders. This failure has not only put Pakistanis at great risk, but it also has advanced additional threats onto American interests.

With the knowledge of quelled terrorists attempts in Los Angeles, the United States clearly has to keep its finger on the pulse of developments in the region, particularly if leadership in Pakistan is unable to eliminate the Taliban hub from the web of terrorism. ...

This failure has led to a succession of strikes in Pakistan -- air strikes by the United States to address the Taliban presence in Pakistan and strikes against diplomacy with the Pakistani government.

As with the rest of the Western world, the United States cannot tolerate the presence of a nuclear-armed militant state in the Middle East. Although most focus on the nuclear developments in Iran, the downturn in political and military stability in Pakistan make the situation critical to America.

However, this approach has, to date, impacted the relationship between the Obama administration and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Because military conflict will always yield casualties of noncombatants, the risk of loss of life looms on Pakistani soil, due to military actions not authorized or conducted by their government.

Will this factor into the American mindset toward our efforts in the Middle East, causing leadership to pull back on taking the lead against the Taliban, even as we see Pakistan losing this battle? Or will this loss of life (and diplomatic peace) amount to a minor inconvenience as we battle to keep America safe before terror reaches our borders again?

Where does the ideological line stop for our new America? We understand that torture is wrong, but some have commented in new media that American loss of life is tolerable as long as we do not sacrifice our principles on torture.

Does that same mantra apply to a "tolerable" amount of loss of life – non-American lives – that are conducted on foreign soil and increasingly against the wishes of the host country in question? What is the purpose of diplomacy if safety cannot be assured through it?

The soft and stern talk of diplomacy is meaningful only to the point where the words of cooperation are met with successful interventions to ensure peace. I believe that the Obama administration will continue to enact this position with the events in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is failing to provide that promise of peace with its efforts against the Taliban. President Asif Ali Zardari is unpopular at at time when the Taliban seeks to regain strength. Although the visit to Washington today could stem the poor direction Pakistani efforts have taken by lending non-military support to Ali Zardari, America will likely continue air strikes.

Until the ideologies change against America, battles and loss of life look to be inevitable. If our diplomacy does not inspire other countries to be productive, our proactive military efforts will, even if it goes against our ideal desires as a global neighbor.
____________________
Lenny McAllister is a syndicated political commentator. His book, 'Diary of a Mad Black PYC (Proud Young Conservative),' is due this spring. LennyMcAllister.com includes McAllister's weekly video commentary, courtesy of 'Fox News' - Charlotte.