On Sept. 3, American troops staged a raid inside Pakistan's border. Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas of Pakistan told the AP on Tuesday that U.S. troops would be fired upon if they did so again. The AP quoted one analyst who seemed to believe Abbas was taking a necessary tough stance for political reasons.
The economy has taken over election politics for the past few days, and with good reason. Both candidates see an opportunity right now, and they're fighting to seize it. But there are other reasons neither candidate would want to comment too much about what's happening in Pakistan. Obama has previously said he would act on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan without the nation's consent, which appears to be current U.S. policy. McCain called this "naive," but then undercut his own reasoning for the war in Iraq by arguing that going after terrorist targets in Pakistan would violate their sovereignty.
But Obama has remained quiet as well, despite having taken advantage of his differences with McCain on this issue, most memorably in his convention speech. Christopher Hitchens is probably right that if Obama is as serious about his Pakistan policy, as far as that region is concerned, there may be more conflict rather than less with him in office, something we don't want to think about and Obama probably doesn't want to talk about. At any rate, a real debate about the benefits and drawbacks of a policy that is likely to increase radicalism in Pakistan but seems necessary for limiting Taliban influence in Afghanistan would be welcome. Foreign Policy has an interesting roundup of ideas about what the effects of current U.S. policy in Pakistan, and whether or not it runs counter to our interests there.
--A. Serwer
