I’m sure the question of India and Pakistan will be at the top of Obama’s agenda; and, obviously, the issues of Afghanistan and the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea–which he did mention–do involve Pakistan. But you have to imagine that another president-elect would have used his first big national security press conference to jump all over the national security issue currently getting the most headlines. ~Jason Zengerle

Zengerle also suggests that Obama neglected to say much about India and Pakistan out of a desire to be circumspect and non-dramatic. There may be some of that, but I think the explanation is slightly different. Having already seen the very negative Indian reaction to his Kashmir comments and his perceived “snub” of PM Singh, Obama probably wanted to avoid saying anything that might add to the already volatile situation. There is some similarity to his initial response to the war in Georgia, but he quickly adjusted his stance on that war to full-throated denunciation of Russia. There is already a great deal of suspicion about Obama’s intentions in India, which means that he probably thought it better to say nothing than to risk another controversy so soon and on the heels of a major terrorist attack. Had he re-stated his interest in mediating the Kashmir dispute in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, this would have gone down even more poorly in New Delhi than it did in recent months. As it is, what little he has said about possible Indian responses to the attacks is being interpreted in some Indian media as something like a green light for Indian retaliatory strikes inside Pakistan.

Filed under: foreign policy, politics