I am definitely no expert in political history & analysis and but this Op/Ed by Safire in the NYT set me thinking…
Consider a sovereign nation supporting insurgency inside of another sovereign nation, where terrorist activities are part of the insurgency. Of course, all this is done for what they term the “freedom cause” though it could actually stem from their desire to integrate that land into their country. Now, as Safire writes, “hot pre-emption” (incursion to root out terrorist elements) is not a viable option as it could turn out into a war. If these two nations are nuclear-armed, this situation appears to be a novel political scenario.
(1) Is this really a completely new political dynamic, inspired by the (post 9/11?) concept of “hot pre-emption” ?
(2) Under such a scenario, the only reasonable solution (IMHO) is for both parties to negotiate, which sort of means that terrorism can succeed in its objectives. So, all a nation has to do is arm itself with deadly weapons, and support insurgency in an effort to extract land from its neighbors. As simplistic as it sounds, why won’t Saddam Hussein do it?
The point I am trying to make is that such an apparently new political situation needs a novel solution. Any thoughts?
[Note: I am only using the Indo-Pak situation as a basis for this discussion]