I assume you meant to write strikes against suspected terrorist camps in *Pakistan*.

India has been talking about taking measures against Pakistan since 1990. I see nothing in these recent statements that suggests this time is anything different.

India would do well to read the manual and learn how to do COIN in it's own disputed Kashmir territory. There was talk of self determination there in 1948. I think Kashmiris (and India) would do better going for a Bangladesh type deal, than merging with Pakistan.

Bombing or shelling 'bases' in Pakistan (again) might play well politically in India. But it's likely to be more decisive in recruiting for the enemy and destabilizing a secular Paki gov't, than it is in discouraging trans-border wahabi terrorism.

We should carefully consider those reactive processes ourselves, as we continue to ramp application of our underutilized air arm in the Kush, and consider its use in Iran.

Sure, this is a perennial issue, with the groups over the line of control as a rhetorical and sometimes literal target. But I think Tom is totally right -- this time really is different. Mumbai was different. Perhaps the only reason we haven't seen a strike yet is that the Congress Party did better in recent elections than expected. Still, sort of surprised the Indians didn't do something before Obama was inaugurated, a la Gaza. Why the delay?

Although the thought of 1 Billion Indians involved in a surged against the War on Terrorism sounds like a major game changer, it would inevitable deepen and harden the expanse between the two countries. Could such an action be considered a Hegemonic move by India? Is anyone else allowed to do this besides the US?

India reportedly welcomes the admission by Pakistan's interior minister that "some part of the conspiracy has taken place in Pakistan." So maybe Pakistan isn't "playing ostrich" quite so much now. Indian military officials are hawks, no surprise there. (what's with the bird analogies in this blog post?) But India's not a military regime and any decision would be made by the country's elected leaders. Do they really want a war?

Interesting that the commentary leans toward India as being irrational on some level, if they should go ahead and attack LET positions in Pakistan. It's pretty clear that the group that attacked Mumbai had some pretty sophisticated training -- maybe the ISI didn't do that directly, but someone who has had military training somewhere certainly was involved. Given that the perpetrators were from Pakistan, it's highly likely that someone who is or was affiliated with Pakistani military or intelligence services participated in the training. No question, part of the intent was to stir up internal unrest in India, but that does not appear to have happened (any more than usual). You may think it's folly to attack a nuclear-armed neighbor, but it's also folly to let an attack mounted from inside a nuclear-armed neighbor (or any neighbor) go totally unanswered. Not doing anything would be like leaving 9/11 unanswered -- it's not entirely a question of rationality, in that sense.

Btw, Walking Wounded, pretty sure "Paki" is considered derogatory.

Nomenclature point noted. No slur intended. Poor policy is only irrational if you know it's counterproductive, and do it anyway. I think I said 'cool things off'. But 'do nothing' is better than turning up the heat, in a bloody family feud.

Use of Islamic Republic of Pakistan nukes are deterred by the larger Indian force, but that's obvious. It's the unintended consequence of IRoP nuke-tech (again) going to new state and non-state actors that I raised.

AQ Kahn's house arrest was reportedly lifted, a very credible shot across our bow. He's a proven proliferator, set loose by a country that we are intermittently attacking and partnering with. His network (Maylasia, et al) poses the greatest of risks to US interests. We have a dog in the lethal India-IRoP conflict, and it's bigger than armed clans in Waziristan.

An attack like Mumbai (or 9/11) might be analogous to a chess game, where a poor choice costs a piece or position either way. The player's forked or pinned in a way that costs a man and a move, maybe two. The counterattack is chanelled on the adversary's terms. But chess is a game of anihilation, win or be eliminated. International conflicts between nuclear poweres aren't like that, and aren't a simple binary interaction.

Let's put India's post-Mumbai choice in an American context. The 1915-16 Pancho Villa raids murdered a number of US citizens, and killed our defending soldiers. Villa's last attack almost certainly aimed to pull US troops into Mexico, destabilizing the shaky Carranza gov't. Pres. Wilson obliged, and Pershing's year long campaign ended up fighting Federals, battles between Villa's enemies. We gave up treasure and captives, and punished the wrong party. Messy, and maybe not worth "the message." It left us with an unstable and hostile neighbor, going into a world war.

Now fast-forward to the 2008 drug war; gunfire and RPG's flying, sometimes in El Paso, mostly in Ciudad Juarez. The retail drug profits and easy access to guns are coming from our side. There are Mexican officials who are complicit, at local and federal levels, with 'legal fees', bribes and campaign contributions flowing on our side too.

The killings are comparable to Mumbai, albeit piecemeal. The larger addiction and corruption damage to both our societies is almost incalculable. But 'do something' probably doesn't mean cross-border bombing the baracks of a bad police chief there, or the offices of drug attorneys and gun stores in Tejas. Other options are more attractive.

There are three ways to fight a fire; in most cases putting water on the red stuff does all three. Prevention, or catching them small is even better. Backfires and explosive denial of oxygen are the rarest and most specialized of techniques.