Robert Kagan goes completely fucking bananas

I hope you had a happy Thanksgiving. I did, even after my plane was delayed in Chicago. And it remained happy until I read this amazingly delusional piece by Robert Kagan that was somehow published in the Washington Post.

Basically he argues that because the Zardari civilian government in Pakistan is too weak to stop terrorists from attacking India, a nebulous international force should invade Pakistan and secure its more lawless regions.

When I say this is quite literally the worst idea I've heard uttered in a major newspaper in my entire lifetime, know that there were many, many qualified candidates for the honor. But nothing holds a candle to this. The flaws in it are almost beyond description but I'll do my best.

1. Kagan proposes to invade a nuclear power. Let us not forget what we're talking about here. And not just a nuclear power, but the world's sixth most populous country, with no functional institutions besides the army, huge lawless regions, multiple active separatist/autonomy-seeking regions, a rash of ethnic and tribal allegiences, and extremists galore. If you loved Iraq and Afghanistan and thought invading Burma after Cyclone Nargis was a good idea, you'll love Pakistan, because it will be as bad as all three combined.
2. Kagan suggests that using a UN-authorized international force to basically conquer and pacify several lawless provinces of Pakistan -- a force most likely commanded by Americans and Europeans (for reasons I explain below) will make the Pakistani security forces more willing to receive it than an Indian invasion. It's almost as if Kagan has never read anything about Pakistan... specifically, how Pakistan's leadership has constantly been afraid of its neighbors and interested players (India, US, Afghanistan) ganging up against it and carving it up. Witness the furor over the infamous "neocon map" a couple weeks ago. And of course its outraged response to US drone attacks in the FATA. The odds Pakistan would accept an international force to traipse about its territory hunting for bad guys (many with ties to key people in the military)? Zero. This is quite literally the worst proposal one could take if one wanted to fight terrorism in Pakistan, akin to suggesting that throwing a several buckets of kerosene over a fire will snuff it out.
3. Kagan compounds the idiocy by proposing to use this as a test of China and Russia's loyalty in fighting terrorism. He does this by demanding they support Security Council action to authorize the multinational force. This shows a staggering ignorance about the UN. Not only would China and Russia not support such a measure, but neither would virtually anyone else (including many of our closest allies, who balked on Iraq and are wary of even keeping their forces in Afghanistan). Also, just because someone doesn't support your Council resolution doesn't mean they're your enemy. It could just be that they think it's an incredibly stupid idea and a dangerous precedent... like, I dunno, Iraq, for example. (Meanwhile, the one thing no one ever accused either China or Russia of is being "soft on terrorism." The Bush Administration's more hawkish elements can only dream of being able to take the kind of measures Russia has taken against its own self-labeled terrorists in Chechnya, or that China has taken against the Uighur separatists.)
There are many other flaws with using the UN, here. Like, the bulk of UN peacekeepers come from the Indian subcontinent, so who exactly would man this force? Indians? Bangladeshis? It could be African troops, but almost without exception they will be more ill-equipped than the people they're fighting against. So basically, this would be a UN-authorized force led by NATO members, like the first Gulf War. Why is this a terrible idea?
4. Because it fails to understand the nature of the problem. Since the primary motivation of the Mumbai terrorists was (we believe) a sovereignty dispute issue (in this case, Kashmir), what do we think will happen if we violate the sovereignty of Pakistan itself with an international force? Less terrorism? Or much, much, much more?

So basically, Kagan proposes an international force that has no chance of being authorized by the Security Council or being accepted by Pakistan, has no feasible way of being deployed, will actively make the problem worse rather than improving it, and then has the stones to suggest that we delegitimize the UN, China and Russia if the latter two block his stupid idea.

Or, we could try to solve the issue of Kashmir, over which way too many people have already been killed. The possibility of diplomatic progress towards a satisfactory outcome on this issue would be way, way, WAY more likely to draw a positive response from Pakistan in hunting down the militants responsible for the Mumbai attack. In the longer term, it will also drain support for terrorist groups who try to justify their existence with the Kashmir issue, and make it easier to hunt them down without any popular sentiment behind them. The issue here is not that sovereignty is being used as a crutch by Pakistan, but that sovereignty is in dispute in Kashmir. Solve this, and, magically, violence will decline. Quoth Lao Tsu: "Give evil nothing to oppose, and it will disappear by itself." He didn't mean do nothing when he said that.

Or we could pour tens of thousands of troops into a tenuous, fractious, nuclear-armed Pakistan and expect this to improve things.

Unless this piece was a stunt, a la "A Modest Proposal" for Pakistan, it shows only that Kagan has no understanding of international affairs or, more damningly, human nature. If this is responsibility to protect, let it die, quickly please. Good grief.