On so many issues, there is not bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill.
It is difficult to find consensus with the far right extremists who dominate
today's Republican party in Congress. Yet ...
We can always count on our Congressional leaders to push for escalating conflict.
Candidly, I was not thrilled about the continuation and escalation of the Afghanistan conflict. I understood the case for our action in Libya. I give some latitude towards this President in the arena of national security as his original positions on Iraq and Afghanistan were appropriate and he has followed up on reducing the armed presence in Iraq and is ending offensive operations there.
To say that Pakistan has been a mixed bag is an understatement. Pakistan, as we know, is a hotbed of terrorism and is a nuclear power. As a result of their unreliability, we correctly (in my view) took out Osama Bin Laden on our own without informing them.
As a result of the support by the ISI for the attack on our embassy in Kabul, the situation has grown more complicated. I, like most Americans, support war/ armed conflict in certain limited situations. I understand that we need to prevent genocide at times in places that are important due to their strategic importance for our country. I understand that we need to prevent the spread of terrorism. I understand that we need to defend our national interests and our national security. I understand that we need to stand with our allies. So, I am hardly Neville Chamberlain the second.
Balancing that, I recognize that we need to realize that there are costs and consequences for escalating conflict, especially with the use of our armed forces.
First and foremost, we need to realize that when we escalate conflict, it affects others. It affects the civilian people in the country we attack (even if their disposition is favorable towards those we attack due to possibly limited and biased information ). It affects the stability of the region in which we attack. It can leave a power vacuum which is filled by another bad actor in the region. It seems, normally, it is next to impossible to impose a friendly democratic government elected by the people in the country we attack upon those who live in that country. It creates instability. It can lessen our prestige in the world.
Second, it is costly. It costs our soldiers their lives. It separates families. It is costly financially. It limits resources that we have to spend towards our needs at home.
In this particular case, escalating conflict against Pakistan seems rather insane. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a large terrorist presence. Our relationship with Pakistan is very delicate. India, their next door neighbor is also a nuclear power. It is well known that Pakistan and India are adversaries.
While Pakistan's spy agency supported the attack on our embassy in Kabul, it is unclear what the benefit or purpose of escalating conflict on Pakistan as a whole would serve. Would it not immediately raise tension in the region if we escalated the conflict with Pakistan ? What if open hostilities resulted from an attack by us? What if they decided to raise the stakes and responded to our attack by an attack of their own ? With an unstable nuclear power, it seems unwise to escalate conflict.
Nevertheless, we read the following:
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the United States should “put all options on the table” in response. “That’s a pretty stunning statement,” host Chris Wallace said and repeatedly asked Graham to clarify whether he was referring to military action against Pakistan. “I will leave it up to the experts,” Graham said, adding, “but if the experts believe that we need to elevate our response, they will have a lot of bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.”