I don’t think it is wise to allow ourselves to be deterred by any fanatical state.
It is insanity to allow ourselves to let al-Qaeda use Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent as a shield against an American response against al-Qaeda. When Pakistan allows al-Qaeda to camp on its territory while prohibiting the United States from attacking al-Qaeda forces, al-Qaeda should be considered to be in de facto control over Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent because Pakistan’s actions effectively create a nuclear umbrella for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda’s lack of tactical control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons doesn’t undermine al-Qaeda’s strategic control over those weapons.
Al-Qaeda will attack the United States regardless of what Americans may do in response. So, why do we let ourselves get deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella? Respect for Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella effectively creates a stronghold for al-Qaeda that we won’t destroy while the terrorists can attack us with impunity.
I don’t think an all-out attack against Pakistan is necessary or wise. Instead, we should act as if Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent doesn’t exist. For that matter, we should act as if the present boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan does not exist, instead regarding Pakistan’s internal boundary with the tribal regions to be Pakistan’s western frontier. Pakistan’s acquiescence to al-Qaeda’s control over the northwest frontier should be considered to be an abdication of legitimate claim over that territory. (I would be surprised if Peshawar doesn’t fall to the Taliban within the next two years.) Al-Qaeda as already attacked us with the equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons against civilian targets; letting Pakistan deter us from attacking al-Qaeda is effectively letting Pakistan get away with murder.
Iran is the land of the minesweeper boys; one cannot assume that the Iranian government values human life in the manner that we do. Why should we “dare not take disproportionate action” against a regime that regards the annihilation of our people to be a blessed event? There is no basis for negotiation with a regime that promotes suicide bombing.
In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, “victory” is often assumed to be survival. But what if “victory” means ensuring that the other prisoner hangs? This is the problem we face with any society that engages in suicide bombing. Any society that idolizes suicide bombing necessarily cannot be reasoned with on the basis of a “win-win” scenario. As harsh as this may sound, given the behavior of groups that support suicide bombing (such as Palestinians), it would be logical to regard one’s own life as less important than killing a Palestinian because there is no basis for thinking he would reciprocate any decency.
The Soviet Union was materialist, and it was that materialism that allowed limited negotiations on the basis of deterrence. However, we must not assume that all of our enemies will be dialectical materialists.
