There have been talks about having reviewing options for a possible strike against Pakistan, given of course that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the state has been exporting terrorism to US soil. Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, and his ties to the Pakistani Taliban have been bandied about as the reason for this tough stance by the Obama administration.
The problems of getting all Rambo-ed up is essentially one of a slippery slope. Going to Afghanistan, Iraq and now the possibility of Pakistan are all justified on the basis that the US had the obligation to go to war against any nation that infringed on its national security. But should a state be held accountable for what a small segment of its citizens choose to do?
Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, a government that aided and abetted the terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda. So yes, there was a link, given that Al-Qaeda was crowing from the rooftops about the sinister “success” of 9/11. However, though Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein, a decided bad guy in the realm of international politics (failed invasions, genocide and starving your people while living in opulence never won any dictator widespread love and popularity), weapons of mass destruction were the stated reason for going into Iraq. And now with Pakistan, a state teetering on the edge of imploding, there is a move towards planning for a strike that seems to be in the cards in the not so distant future.
Now don’t get me wrong, the Pakistani government is not a bastion of the truest upholding of democratic values, but it is trying. The government has been trying to distance itself from the hold of the military, a definite step in the right direction. It does have problems with domestic and regional terrorism, and has a long-standing conflict with India over Kashmir. But does it deserve to get invaded because of the influx of terrorist influences from across the border? Maybe. But then again, maybe not.