Working at the office today I overheard this report on CNN in which the network's correspondent in Pakistan made an argument that I think goes to the heart of our policy in the region. He was talking about a rally yesterday in Islamabad, filled with anti-American rhetoric, in which one of the main grievances of the protestors was the argument that Pakistan wasn't overrun by suicide bombings before the US and NATO got involved in Afghanistan.

US officials, the reporter said, disagree. But, he said, that's what the Pakistanis believe.

Now, there are a host of historical points to be made and the issue of blame is obviously vexed and complicated. This whole thing started when a Islamist movement, actively supported by Pakistan, played host to a terrorist group that pulled off the first and so far only catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil. We know that.

But more narrowly speaking, is it really even a question whether Pakistan has become a vastly more violent and unstable place since we arrived in Afghanistan? And what does that tell us about our ability to generate support for our policy in that country? Were there anything like the number of suicide bombings in the country in the 1990s as there have been in this decade, let alone now? Again, fault is a secondary issue in a case like this, a distraction from strategic realities. And when you're involved in a counter-insurgency as we are not only in Afghanistan but in real ways in Pakistan too, these realities really put the whole basis of the policy in question. See the video here.