Not the smartest fish in the pond

Sometimes, it is better not to say anything at all.

The insurgents were invisible, hidden behind the thick mud walls of the compounds, their rifles poking through narrow slits.

“Small arms have no effect on the walls, and that’s what we were carrying,” Colonel Baluch said. “We did not know where to fire back.”

The attack came from three directions, but the guerrillas made a mistake.

“When they shouted, ‘God is great,’ it was helpful to us,” Colonel Baluch said. The voices gave away their location. -NYTimes (Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah)

How to deal with Pakistan following Mumbai

It is slightly depressing, yet totally foreseeable, to see the reactions following the terrorist attacks on Mumbai. It seems that everyone follow the script: the BJP talks tough, the Congress tries to look tough with Pakistan, Pakistan tries to appease India while Indians put all the blame on Pakistan. Those reactions are normal given the history of the region, it seems things have not changed much since the debate between Jinnah and Gandhi.

But an interesting aspect is that the reactions have been fairly muted until now; there is no trouble in Kashmir, there have been no violent riots in India and Pakistan is trying to be helpful. While nationalist tendencies push both countries to follow the usual route, it seems both governments try to keep the lid on the boiling cauldron. I find this an encouraging sign. This event could end up being important for the region because it might make the civilian government and the army in Islamabad realize that they are once again losing control of their country and their foreign policy.

When I heard that Obama was planning to spend energy trying to solve the Kashmir crisis, I said it was a dangerous waste of time. It was not because I did not believe that settling the Kashmir issue was worthwhile, it was because I did not believe it was possible under the current circumstance; largely because there is no consensus that could be achieved which would have widespread support in both nations and that the governments (especially Pakistan) have no control over actors that could easily spoil negotiations. This is exactly what happened in Mumbai. While the specific of the attacks could not be predicted, anyone could have predicted that third parties would try something similar and what would be the reactions.

So what is the solution? Like I said before the attacks, Obama should drop his Kashmir plans. They were unrealistic before the attacks and they look like daydreaming now. But I think he should attempt to spin recent events in Islamabad in a way that could benefit the region and the US. The argument would be that those attacks, as well as the recent Islamabad Marriot bombing show that the strategy of using armed groups to achieve political objectives might be good in the short term but ultimately lead to a loss of control over the country. I agree with Juan Cole that the attacks are more than likely a splinter group of a Kashmiri mujaheddin organization. To the government this means that they have their hands tied, they can not move the country in a direction if the third party groups they funded in the past disagree.

Zardari would be obviously in agreement with this, but the goal would be to bring the army to agree. Zardari is took weak to take on the ISI and the now largely independent Islamists, but with the army on board he might be able to turn things around. The problem is that since General Zia's coup in 1977, the army has been packed with fundamentalists; but even if they might be sympathetic to the aims of Islamists, their interests lie with the state (they are the state's strongest institution after all).

So what is my solution? Drop the ridiculous attempts at peace with Kashmir and attempt to convince state actors that clamping down on non-state organizations is in their interests. No durable peace will be achieved unless the Pakistani state can regain the control it once had, and the attacks of the last years (Bhutto, Marriot, Mumbai) might begin to make people in power realize that they need to take action for their own good (and not to please some hated distant US).

Obama is a dove?

And yet liberals and anti-war types should not declare the new president a kindred spirit too hastily. As Obama himself said in the now famous 2002 speech denouncing the Iraq adventure: "I am not opposed to all wars." It's true that he avoids the phrase "war on terror". But that is not because he thinks there is no war to be fought. His disagreement with Bush was that the latter had failed to define America's enemy clearly. -Jonathan Freedland

This should not surprise anyone who has read about Barack Obama's opinions or anyone who is reading Daniel Larison (if you aren't, you should start now). But the MSM has largely ignored this very important point until now. Obama is a hawk who will merely tilt USA foreign policy slightly. Yes he is for diplomacy with Iran and Syria, but Bush was for diplomacy with Iraqi Sunnis and North Korea; both of which are certainly in the same league as Iran and Syria. So it's not that much of a change. If diplomacy were to fail, Obama has constantly refused to rule out military action against Iran. On the subject of Pakistan and the Taliban, Obama has been more hawkish than the Republicans, favoring strikes within Pakistan itself.

It will be interesting to watch how he acts once in power, but big changes should not be expected. Except, of course, in the tone and general attitude.

Obama's first blunder?

According to M.K. Bhadukumar from the Asia Times, Obama has insulted the Indian government by discussing the Kashmir issue with the Pakistani president Asif Zardari while not calling the Indian government at all since he was inaugurated. This is a faux-pas because according to the 1972 Simla accord, no third party is supposed to mediate over Kashmir's dispute. I agree with Daniel Larison that is probably a blunder on Obama's part and is probbly not a calculated snob.

If true, all of these moves by Obama would be as clumsy and stupid as his handling of the Russian government was sensible and intelligent. The Indian relationship is probably the one major foreign relationship that Mr. Bush has managed to improve over the last eight years, and the nascent alliance with Delhi has been one of the few that has become noticeably stronger despite foreign policy blunders everywhere else. Embarrassing the government that negotiated and is trying to pass the nuclear deal over strenuous objections from the Indian left and criticism from the BJP hardly seems the right way to develop that relationship. -Daniel Larison

It will be interesting to watch if this develops into a more pro-Pakistani tilt in Indian-US and Pakistan-US relations but I doubt it. Zardari's mind is probably focused on the northwest and the people who are trying to topple him than to the east in a desperate struggle that he will never win against a much stronger enemy.

Edit: Well I should have read more before posting. Apparently, Obama serisouly wants to tackle Kashmir according to an interview with Joe Klein (via Larison). This is pure madness. Pakistan will never be happy unless they have all of Kashmir (maybe with the exception of Ladakh) and India will never give up Srinagar, especially since they have the upper hand and see no reason to back off. If Pakistan is made happy, it will anger India and if Obama gives Pakistani hopes that he'll mediate the dispute, they will be angry when they realize he is powerless. Hopefully Obama will realize this soon.