I don't care that Egyptians threw tomatoes at Hillary Clinton

I have not been happy with Hillary Clinton's conduct as U.S. Secretary of State, but even two years ago I would've been outraged at the insult to the office of the Secretary that was represented by the tomato (and shoe) throwing incident. These days I spend all my outrage on an issue I consider far more pressing than a show of disrespect for the U.S. government. 

What I care about is that Americans are being murdered and maimed by proxies for a military that the United States government is helping to prop up.  So I would like to see something called 'prioritizing.'  I want Hillary Clinton to stop running around the world like a chicken with its head cut off, while all time she avoids the key issue for America.

The key issue is that the American government, including the Congress and the U.S. Department of State, continues to aid and abet the murder and maiming of American troops in Afghanistan by proxies for Pakistan's military. That's the number one priority.  Everything else is a distant second until the first priority is dealt with.

I also want Mrs Clinton to stop pushing the straw man argument that strengthening Pakistan's civilian sector will translate into a less dangerous Pakistan.  Mrs Clinton, if the World Bank and IMF couldn't 'solve' Pakistan, what makes you think that USAID helping The Gap import jeans made in Pakistan or a Wal-Mart subsidiary in England import Pakistani mangoes can solve it?

Solving Pakistan is not the key issue at this time; again, the issue is to stop the U.S. from actions that encourage Pakistan's military to use proxy militias in Afghanistan against American troops. 
   
I also want John Bolton and Barack Obama to cease telling the American public that Pakistan is too nuclear to be allowed to fail. Given the history of Pak military-instigated terrorism, where is the evidence that piling more aid on Pakistan's military will secure the country's nukes against terrorists?  

Messrs. Bolton and Obama and a long line of other American politicians and so-called defense experts have created a false dilemma to rationalize continued U.S. military and civilian aid to Pakistan. This, even though they know full well that by continuing aid, they're encouraging Pakistan's military to continue its proxy war against the United States in Afghanistan.

As to the argument that the U.S. Congress had to release military aid in order to get NATO supply routes reopened in Pakistan because European countries couldn't pay the higher fees to use the northern supply routes -- this is just more verbal Three Card Monte. The Europeans and the Congress know that by NATO continuing to use Pakistan as a supply route, this means revenue not only for Pakistan's military but also for the terrorists who rob the supply trucks. So if the Europeans find it less cost effective to use the northern supply route, can the U.S. Congress tell me how much an American life is worth in euros?  

And if Senator John McCain and his cohorts in the Get Russia crowd in Washington and European capitals don't want to use the northern supply routes because it means the U.S. government has to remain on civil terms with Russia -- what are they implying?  That a highly adversarial relationship with Russia has to be paid for with the blood of American troops in Afghanistan?

On July 11, Long War Journal summarized its report on the U.S. deal with Pakistan to reopen NATO supply routes by noting::

The bottom line is that Pakistan has manipulated the supply route issue -- which even the Taliban have called a "drama" orchestrated by the Pakistani government -- to continue to siphon billions of US dollars while at the same time maintaining Pakistan's jihadist proxies in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

While the administration considers the reopening of NATO's supply lines a major success in US-Pakistan relations, the reality is that Pakistan continues to shelter and support the same groups that kill US and NATO soldiers, and Afghan security forces and civilians across the border. Nothing to see here, please move along.

To my knowledge Long War Journal is the only news publication that addresses the NATO supply line deal from the viewpoint of the key issue for the United States. If I'm correct, that would be an indictment of the American news media. And without question what LWJ says about the details of the deal is an indictment of the White House, Pentagon, State, and Congress -- and NATO.