Is Pakistan an Asset in the War on Terror?

After reading through the packet the "No" section by Sydney Freedberg seems to stand out. Being completely honest, it was hard to understand and make sense of arguments that seemed to jump all over the place. I also do not believe I have enough knowledge of the "War on Terror" to have an opinion, however; I tend to follow Freedberg's thinking.

Freedberg's argument is the Pakistani government and the tribes of the north will not be able to work together to find Osama bin Laden or cease military actions of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Freedberg said, "The danger, of course, is that dead bystanders can turn a military success into a political disaster. If Al Qaeda's dilemma is, lie low at the risk of irrelevance or take action at the risk of exposure, the American dilemma is, push so soflty that nothing happens or push so hard that force drives neutral Muslims into the enemy camp" (120-121). This means that Pakistan is a balance; when there is military action there is political disaster and when there is political action the military creates disaster. The dilemma then is, America can "push so softly" and there is no change created or America can "push so hard" and the neutral Muslims under the government leave for the enemy. Clearly Pakistan is "a country that has become both ally and battleground in the war on terror" (126). It is both a place against terror and a place where terror is fought.

In the "Yes" argument Teresita C. Schaffer says, "even a frequent visitor like me was overwhelmed by the sense that the Pakistani government has made a far-reaching policy change, one that may turn out to be strategic" (113). She seems to mention the government's efforts towards securing and strengthening peace but as a traveler she will not be exposed to the lawless tribes?? Overall, she makes a few good points about building up the institutions that the government rests upon in Pakistan but she seems to ignore the northern half of the country which makes her argument weak.