Steve

An essential backgrounder from Arundhati Roy.
Snippet:

Almost always, when these stories unspool, they reveal a complicated global network of foot soldiers, trainers, recruiters, middlemen, and undercover intelligence and counter-intelligence operatives working not just on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, but in several countries simultaneously.

In today's world, trying to pin down the provenance of a terrorist strike and isolate it within the borders of a single nation state, is very much like trying to pin down the provenance of corporate money. It's almost impossible.

In circumstances like these, air strikes to "take out" terrorist camps may take out the camps, but certainly will not "take out" the terrorists. And neither will war.

Also, in our bid for the moral high ground, let's try not to forget that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE of neighboring Sri Lanka, one of the world's most deadly terrorist groups, were trained by the Indian Army.

Regards, C

I think we'd be prudent to cultivate good relations with the regional big dogs and rely on them a little more. I think it's less prudent to make enemies by getting in the middle of things.

So I think it’s prudent that, rather than risking a nuclear World War III by bombing a few tents in the wilds of Waziristan, we stay our hand unless we become sufficiently unhappy with Pakistan that we’re willing to destroy the country (we should communicate that publicly and in no uncertain terms to Pakistan).

Given the events of today India may be willing to take care of that for us at some point. Once again in my view that’s our real recourse in dealing with situations like those in Pakistan: rather than constantly being the big dog we should be encouraging regional powers to take a more active role in bolstering regional security within their regions. But that’s a rather different posture for us than has been held for the last 25 years or so.

Have you changed that position - that India should be the lead regional power in dealing with Pakistan's complicity in terrorism as a proxy force - since you originally wrote that, especially now that a war seems a wee bit closer than it did then? If so, I'd agree with you. India has a lot of legitimate beefs with Pakistan's proxy policy but it isn't always a rational actor in response as partisan interpretations of history keep getting in the way. (In much the same way as the US is with Iran, imho).

Still, I agree regional powers should be the way to go - but I would say a consortium of such powers rather than a single, heavily involved, nation. I note that the Chinese are trying to ratchet down the escalating rhetoric from both sides too - particularly useful as they're more of a military ally of Pakistan's than the US will ever manage to be. The Iranians - who are India's trade route into Afghanistan - could also have a useful role to play if the US would let them. Isn't it a pity that Bush told them to f-off back in 2003?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/12/hillary_mann_le/

Regards, C