> If India strikes first against Pakistan in spite of > its self-declared "no first strike" policy, then obviously > it will become a pariah in the international community,
Then again, nobody can ever verify who started what between India and Pakistan. Given that the world has identified pakistan as the culprit, and given their distaste over the taliban in afganistan, and teh support that pakistan has for the mujahideen, taliban, and osama bin laden, you expect the tilt in belief.
> you should expect Pakistan to launch a series of > low-intensity conflicts against India, thanks to the > right-wing Indian government's actions.
That has been happening for the last decade. Kashmir, Punjab, and Assam. All of that is gone. What remains is terrorists bombing civilians in india. When that continues, more and more people will only support the RSS, VHP and BJP.
> The US is better off if Kashmir breaks away from both
> India and Pakistan. Then it can gain a secure > foothold in a small, "independent" nation that looks up > against the soft underbelly of China.
Pakistan, and the region was important only because of the soviets in afganistan. Rememember the US got the hell out of afghanistan when the soviets got kicked out. The US would rather have the Saudis and the egyptians than the pakis if they needed to exert influence in the middle east.
What is turning out is that the US needs more allies to counter china in south/south-east asia where pakistan does not figure at all. |
