Posted on 11/27/2008 5:33:47 AM PST by Xth Legion
If the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Islamist militants as it appears, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw the United States into the fray.
At this point the situation on the ground in Mumbai remains unclear following the militant attacks of Nov. 26. But in order to understand the geopolitical significance of what is going on, it is necessary to begin looking beyond this event at what will follow. Though the situation is still in motion, the likely consequences of the attack are less murky.
We will begin by assuming that the attackers are Islamist militant groups operating in India, possibly with some level of outside support from Pakistan. We can also see quite clearly that this was a carefully planned, well-executed attack.
Given this, the Indian government has two choices. First, it can simply say that the perpetrators are a domestic group. In that case, it will be held accountable for a failure of enormous proportions in security and law enforcement. It will be charged with being unable to protect the public. On the other hand, it can link the attack to an outside power: Pakistan. In that case it can hold a nation-state responsible for the attack, and can use the crisis atmosphere to strengthen the government’s internal position by invoking nationalism. Politically this is a much preferable outcome for the Indian government, and so it is the most likely course of action. This is not to say that there are no outside powers involved — simply that, regardless of the ground truth, the Indian government will claim there were.
(Excerpt) Read more at stratfor.com ...
Can you vote “present” during an international crisis?
I’ve heard rumors of a joint bombing campaign. (maybe nuclear)
US/Israel vs Iran and India vs Pakistan
"The One" will.
The RATS are very good at walking the fence and then blaming the consequences for not making decisions on others.
The good news is that the more international turmoil there is, the more 0bama’s domestic agenda gets neglected.
“...this may be above “that One’s” pay grade.”
I can think of little of consequence that isn’t.
Yes he can! vote present.
Perhaps the Indians can stop hassling the Christians for a while, and go after the radical Muslims.
Pakistan also harbors known Al Qaeda in their territory.
However, it is not just Pakistan who is harboring known Islamic terrorists, and I'm not just talking about those whose rhetoric inspire Islamic terrorism, but those with actual blood on their hands. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Indonesia, and Syria are but a few nations that are guilty of this, and therefore guilty of supporting the murderers from last night.
They ALL need to be taken to task for this, and as a minimum shunned by the rest of the World; embargoed, and in some cases invaded and the Islamic terrorists they're harboring caught and killed.
It really is a Holy War, directed and fought by Islam, against the rest of the World.
This statement is a piece of conventional wisdom that I don't agree with. Sure, the U.S. will try to play peacemaker. We can't help meddling, after all. But our involvement in this fray, which goes back decades, is peripheral, at best.
I say let them fight it out. It's about time that the Muslims got a bloody nose, and I think India can do it.
“I’ve heard rumors of a joint bombing campaign. (maybe nuclear). US/Israel vs Iran and India vs Pakistan.”
No way, no how.
Cause?
You don’t suppose the Indians will throw a couple of “Big Boom-Boom’s” into Pakistan, do you? Just the thought of that happening would give anyone a laundry problem.
“It really is a Holy War, directed and fought by Islam, against the rest of the World.”
And the rest of the World continues to cower in denial.
Obama’s ties to Islam, Pakistan, and the current Pakistani government are too deep for me to believe he really meant his threat to chase Al Qaeda willy nilly within the Paki border.
Was it a feint to appear not as pro-Pak as he is? Because he’d go to whatever ends to back up their current rule? Sophomoric quoting of a security briefing he’d heard as Senator?
Either way, I imagine Pakistani militants believe he’d back them over India in a flash and so will act more and more boldly as the Obama administration comes along.
Sorry, the incoming EPA has ruled out bombing - too much carbon generated.
“Cause?”
First off, India has closer ties with Pakistan than many think. It will not attack Pakistan over this, just like we didn’t attack either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for 9/11. More likely, India and Pakistan and will develop some sort of joint effort to “punish” those behind the Mumbai attacks (in other words, it will all be a show “offensive” but nothing of substance will be done).
As for a joint US/Israel attack on Iran, the Bush Administration has pretty much washed its hands of the Iranian nuke issue, so it will not contribute much — if anything — towards any serious attempt to knock out the Iranian nuke program. Bush is a lame duck in the truest sense, and will not do anything that would possibly put The Obamunist in a difficult position come January 20, 2009 vis-a-vis a Mid East war (which would be the result of any atack on Iran).
Nope, I just don’t see anything of consequence happening on either front.
“this may be above “that One’s” pay grade”
This may be above “the Ones” Gay Parade. There, fixed it.
Or just gets “reported” in the back pages. The Clintonistas will be busy “governing” from day one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.