Now that's a good point. The key is by invitation. The question is, who invited whom? Was the 'who' officially recognized as the current government in the world (at least the west), or was it a case of the invitee choosing to recognize a specific party as the government because it suited their purpose to do so? :o)


>>When and where did I write that there was such an agreement in place? I'm pointing out the fallacy of your argment that 'searches are a breach of sovereignity.' I guess I must have missed part of the discussion (my apology) where it was written that the U.S. is in Pakistan conducting searches now without permission and where that information came from. I thought it was more of a general statement. My bad. :o)
>
>And my bad to state it in such absolute terms - "... unless there's an invitation or agreement". But then, weren't there, historically, cases when there was a coup, and the new government would all of a sudden invite a friendly power to, well, secure the country (starting with the new government). Or even the cases when nobody was really sure what came first, the helping troops or the government which invited them ;).
>
>>You might find this interesting. It may be NATO, not solely the U.S. though in the future:
>>
>>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004110032_pakterror06.html
>
>Pakistan surely goes through interesting times... from day one.
>
>>We do have folks in Pakistan. I'm sure you know that. The roles and authority are quite different than a military action though. They are working with the Pakistani forces. Now, to be fair, no where do I state that the U.S. or NATO troops in Afghanistan are NOT inside the Pakistani border at times conducting raids and searches, intentional or unintentional. Afterall, you spent time in the military. You know how fluid the border is when chasing the enemy and you know that typically troops are indeed pulled back (as frustrating as it is). You know the enemy will intentionally operate from right across the border so they can slip back to elude capture. You also know that at times a border is breached - sometimes with the knowledge of leadership and sometimes not. When it does happen, it is almost always without the permission of leadership though.
>
>Or this is how phrase "plausible deniability" sprang to life.