Precedents

Ever since the "War on Terror^TM" began, there have been concerns not only about how we would determine which "sponsors of terror" to go after, and what other countries might do with the precedent we're setting.  One area of particular worry has been the long-running conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and it looks like that dispute may be heating up again.

On March 23rd, 24 Hindus were killed in a raid on Nandimarg, a village in Indian-administered Kashmir.  India is claiming that the raid was committed by Pakistanis, dressed in army uniforms, while Pakistan claims the raid was committed by India's own army.  No rebel groups have yet claimed credit for the attack. 

The dispute over Kashmir has been ongoing for the last 14 years, and it is often hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are in the conflict.  Official estimates indicate that around 37,000 people have died in the fighting, though Muslim rebels claim the number is closer to 80,000.  One of the major sticking points has been that India refuses to enter into diplomatic talks with Pakistan until Pakistan stops supporting the terrorists India believes are behind the attacks.  Pakistan, of course, denies that they are supporting any terrorists.

In response to the attack, the US has once again called upon India and Pakistan to try and work out the problem diplomatically.  India is now complaining that the US is promoting a double-standard in how to deal with terrorism, with some conflicts - such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq - requiring military intervention, while others - such as that between India and Pakistan - being told to handle it diplomatically.

India on Wednesday strongly disapproved the "double standards" pursued by the US and some others in dealing with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, saying the fight against international terrorism was "ill-served" if threats in some cases were met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue.

New Delhi's sharp rebuff came following the renewed call by the US for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue, disregarding India's growing concerns over cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir aided and abetted by Pakistan. "The global war against terrorism can only be won when it is pursued without double standards and terrorism is eradicated wherever it exists, without being influenced by short term political and other considerations," External Affairs Ministry spokesman told reporters. He said, "The combat against international terrorism is ill-served if threats in some cases are met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue."

One of the biggest concerns in the India-Pakistani conflict is that it may turn nuclear.  Both nations have nuclear capabilities, and tensions are obviously very high.  Today, both Pakistan and India have test fired nuclear-capable short-range missles in an apparent response to the recent killings.

The US has at least partially justified our attack on Iraq by claiming the Iraqi government sponsors terrorism.  We also claimed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.  We've said that Saddam has had 12 years to show that he's willing to disarm and basically 'behave' himself.  India's claims about Pakistan are similar.  They believe that Pakistan is sponsoring the terrorist attacks on Kashmir, they know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the conflict has gone on for 14 years.  Granted, they appear to have little evidence to support their claim that Pakistan is behind the attacks in Kashmir, but we have little evidence to support the idea that Saddam is behind the 9/11 attacks.  How, then, do we justify telling India that they need to keep trying to use diplomacy, when we decided that our dispute with Iraq called for war?

I suspect that we will be seeing more problems like this in the future, as we make decisions that set dangerous precedents.  We may want to be the world leader, but if we keep taking controversial actions and then telling other countries they should take a different route, we're going to lose influence quickly - and we won't be able to have much input in what happens as a result.

The United States can't assume that we can do whatever we want, justified or not, and not have other nations follow suit.  We may be the largest and more powerful nation in the world, but that doesn't mean we get to have different rules than everyone else.  Insisting that we do only adds to our image as a global bully - which is an image we can ill afford to have.