The editors of the New York Times finally squeeze in a mention of the gravest news story of the day:
The current focus on North Korea’s growing arsenal obscures the fact that the most likely trigger for a nuclear exchange could be the conflict between India and Pakistan.
Long among the world’s most antagonistic neighbors, the two nations clashed again last week before, fortunately, finding the good sense to de-escalate. The latest confrontation, the most serious between the two nations in more than a decade, gave way to more normal pursuits like trade at a border crossing and sporadic cross-border shelling.
But this relative calm is not a solution. As long as India and Pakistan refuse to deal with their core dispute — the future of Kashmir — they face unpredictable, possibly terrifying, consequences.
I think the editors have the wrong end of the stick on this. Kashmir is only a pretext. The root of the problem is that Pakistan is a country at all, is barely holding onto statehood, and has nuclear weapons.
That is not an accident. All countries with Muslim majorities barely hold onto statehood. That is true both for doctrinal reasons as well as persistent efforts at radicalization, mostly emanating from the Gulf. I don’t think that there is any permanent modus vivendi for India and Pakistan. There are only temporary cease-fires.
What then is to be done, other than waiting for nuclear conflagration? Start chipping away at the problems not starting with Kashmir but with the support for violent radical Islam In Paksitan being funded by Saudis.