Is India Allowed to Attack Pakistan?

The better question is "should they?"

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw asked President-elect Obama whether India had the right of "hot pursuit" to go after terrorists in Pakistan.

Many Americans are likely to respond with a "hell yeah". And you'd think that Obama would be there along with them--as early as August 2007, he famously said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [former Pakistani] President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Hell yeah, indeed. This is pretty much the same thing, right?

But wait. In response to Brokaw, Obama offered only vague assurances, saying, "I'm not going to comment on that. What, what I'm going to restate is a basic principle. Number one, if a country is attacked, it has the right to defend itself. I think that's universally acknowledged."

Did something change? It sounds like Obama is supporting India, but he sure doesn't seem very enthusiastic about fightin' terror.

Let's start with some legalese. Brokaw's reference to "hot pursuit" is a term enshrined in the U.N.'s 1958 Convention on the High Seas that permits coast guards and navies to follow law-breaking ships into international waters. In the post-9/11 era, "hot pursuit" has been adapted to justify cross-border counter-terrorism operations in self-defense, so long as the pursuer is acting on specific intelligence.

The United States has relied on "hot pursuit" repeatedly to bomb suspected al Qaeda locations in Pakistan. So even if Obama supports that "basic principle," why isn't he explicit about India's situation?

It's a question of India's rights vs. strategy. India's military right to pursue the Mumbai attackers into Pakistan remains unquestioned. But if India chooses to exercise that right, it could be disastrous military strategy.

India and Pakistan have fought three major wars and numerous skirmishes since 1947 over the disputed Kashmir territory. What's more, the rivals engaged in a nuclear arms race, both gaining nuclear devices in the late 1990s.

Pakistan would likely consider any Indian incursion onto its soil--particularly Kashmir--as a cloaked attempt to retake the entire Kashmir province. Significant military escalation would ensue, and it would be a question of when, not if, Pakistan would retaliate.

Given the already heated regional tensions, Obama's immediate priority is to avoid war between the nuclear powers.

Any public statement the president-elect makes is scrutinized for hints of his administration's preferences. Therefore, he will endorse the basic right of "hot pursuit," so he can retain its use for America, but will studiously avoid the slightest encouragement for an Indian military strategy that targets Pakistani Kashmir. Thus, the vague wording of Obama's answer to Brokaw: he punts before potentially escalating an already delicate situation.

Cross-posted to allourmight.com

Comments

[messy]

So you want them to "party like it's 1999" and stop at the border where the terrorists are safe and snuggly?