As noted here, Pakistan is pulling its troops from the border with Afghanistan, where they have been helping the U.S. look for Al Qaeda fighters, to beef up their eastern flank, in expectation of an imminent war with India.
In addition to numerous other reasons why a conflict between the two nuclear nations would be disastrous for Asia and the world, there’s this other little matter: Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership are re-organizing within Pakistan, and are even getting to the point of offensive operations again, against the reconstituted Afghan government (and who knows when against more direct American interests). As noted in the Washington Post.
This leaves the USA in a sticky situation.
American relations have certainly warmed with Musharraf since Sept. 11, but it’s always seemed to be with the proviso of “help us and it will benefit our relations and, therefore, your country’s well-being. But you damn well better help us.”
As it’s becoming more and more clear that further dismantling Al Qaeda involves direct operations in Pakistan, what does the U.S. do? It’s been quite reluctant to this point to overtly operate in hostile regions of Pakistan. And Pakistan is understandably a bit preoccupied these days.
As a broker helping to facilitate a stand-down between India and Pakistan, America needs to avoid picking sides. But the fact remains, America needs the Pakistani government’s support to be effective in eradicating the terrorist threat in that part of the world.
Yes, there are a lot of speculative threats against the US and the West worldwide, which are no doubt real. Let’s not forget, however, that we know the threat Al Qaeda poses.
So, now what?
Does the U.S. idle away weeks and months, hoping things cool off between India and Pakistan? Does it take a more direct role in doing its work within Pakistan’s borders? The dangers of doing that during a full-blown war that doesn’t really involve the U.S. - a war that could at any time go nuclear - would seem self-evident.
What a mess.
