Mumbai--What should Obama do next?

The siege on the city of Mumbai by a team of just 10 or so terrorists has left us all trying to answer a number of questions. Why did this happen? What are India's and Pakistan's responses? What is Obama's response to this question?

Since our current President (W.) has basically left the building at this point, the next steps taken here by our President Elect will be the ones that the eyes of the world are focused upon.

So let's take a look at the situation--Pragmatic Pundit-style:

Q. Why did this happen?

A. We aren't sure yet, but it appears that there is an interest in the terrorists in destroying the seemingly growing "detente" between India and Pakistan. After all, both countries are democracies now (fragile as each may appear to be these days). It is in neither country's interest to attack the other.

Pakistan, in particular, has no interest in pursuing a policy where international strife darkens its western AND eastern borders. This is a country that is basically broke, from an economic standpoint (they have been taking loans from the IMF), and has enough internal tensions as it is. Pursuing a war with India at this point would be ruinous.

India, in turn, also has little to gain. The country had been thriving from an economic standpoint, and getting involved in an international entanglement, while the Afghanistani conflict is taking place not too far away, would provide them no benefit whatsoever. With a new democracy in Pakistan, the idea of pushing towards diplomatic ties (and even Cricket matches) made all the sense in the world.

The only answer at this point seems to be an intentional de-stabilizing of the region by groups intent on seeing the situation move towards their position. An al-qaeda like group, or perhaps one more specifically tied to the issues of Kashmir are the most likely culprits. They seem to be the groups with the most vested interest in turning the status quo in their direction these days.


Q. What could India or Pakistan do to make this better? What could their reaction be?

A. I think many in India would call for blood. It would be hard for America to tell them to sit on their hands, and do nothing, especially after our response to 9/11. However, it may be that our own overreaction to the events of 9/11 (not necessarily Afghanistan, but the language, the attack of Iraq, etc) serve as a warning to India as to what overreaction can lead to. An overreaction to Pakistan, and its leaders in particular, would be a powder keg that could propel a larger World War. There would be no winners in such a scenario. India has, and will continue to renounce such attacks, but could call for an immediate summit, or meeting with top Pakistani leaders, to discuss how to address the border, Kashmir, and the other issues that face the two nations.

Interestingly enough, this is a set of countries that has more in common than they do differences. It was a common colony under Britain only 60 years ago.

The good news is that I think that this kind of diplomatic solution is more apt to come to pass this time. More people recognize that war is not the answer to this kind of attack.

Q. What is Obama's response to the situation?

A. I think that condemning the attacks is the right first move, but that is kind of a given. No one encourages terrorism, as the leader of a sovereign nation, and should be expected to have any credibility.

But the hard part is what to do next. Obama and Clinton must use this as an opportunity to work with both the Indians and Pakistanis on a larger set of talks about the region, and what a concerted effort to fight terrorism could look like. Also, economically, Pakistan must be helped. It is a country of over 140 million people, and it is has a large educated, and economically savvy population. This is a country that can continue to be an ally of ours from many standpoints.

An initiative to help two countries solve their differences would go a long way towards easing relationships with the middle east as well. This horrible incident should be an opportunity to work on one of the 3 to 4 most difficult disputes in the world. Certainly, a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute, and the Indian/Pakistani conflict, could be a start to easing the "persecution complex" that so many in the Islamic world feel. To be sure, some of this feeling is justified in the Muslim community, and these feelings must be listened to, and addressed in some fashion.

Addressing the current crisis, in the larger context of solving Islamic/Hindu relations, would be a fantastic start. One I would hope President-Elect Obama would work towards. We don't need lofty speeches, and we certainly don't need threatening language from the US President. Hopefully we have learned that lesson over the past 8 years.

I see this incident as a reminder that the world is not a safe place, and probably won't ever be the kind of Pax-Romana that existed centuries ago. But I am more encouraged with the American response to this incident, and I hope that the pragmatic response from us, and the leaders of the countries in the region, carries the day here. It could turn the tide on the way these situations have been addressed the last 8 years.