Today’s edition of The New York Times features a story on the rising tensions between India and Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks. The new U.S. administration set to assume power in January will have to address this situation, potentially triggering a crisis of the sort predicted by the Vice President-elect. As noted in the aforementioned New York Times article, this particular round of tensions in southern Asia has led to troop movements in Pakistan away from the northwest where its military is combating Taliban forces, and towards areas bordering India.
However, the U.S. role in resolving this situation may be more complicated than initial appearances may suggest. Of course, Pakistan has been an important ally in the War on Terrorism, and in the past eight years, U.S. relations with India have similarly improved. But, the situation is more complicated; during much of the presidential campaign, Senator Obama expressed a willingness to violate Pakistani sovereignty in the name of combating terrorism. This statement was particularly damaging when one considers that, as a candidate, Barack Obama expressed a willingness to negotiate with hostile foreign leaders, but openly expressed hostility towards a long-standing U.S. ally. The approach to policy expressed by the candidate Barack Obama may diminish trust of the U.S. in the region precisely when such is needed the least.
Hopefully, the present impasse between India and Pakistan will cease short of war. The United States has a clear interest in preventing an armed clash between nuclear powers India and Pakistan. Episodes such as the ongoing tensions in southern Asia demonstrate the need for discretion in rhetoric. After the past eight years, Barack Obama of all people should know that.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
- Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010
- In Defense of Michael Steele - July 9th, 2010
- McDonald and Kagan - July 2nd, 2010
- The Petraeus Dilemma. - June 23rd, 2010
