Is It A Good Idea For The US To Escalate Military Operations In Pakistan?

An ultimatum was issued to Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president, last week by US officials.  The US is dissatisfied with Pakistan's reluctance to deal with the Taliban's ruling council, which is believed to be situated in Quetta Shura, a region in Baluchistan.  The US position is that the militant leadership residing in Quetta poses a grave threat to Nato forces operating in Afghanistan, and may be targeted for drone attacks.  This however, moves such drone attacks much deeper into Pakistani controlled territory - bringing with it almost certain protest from the Pakistani people and an escalation of tension.

While it is militarily understandable that the US would want to eliminate a powerful Taliban stronghold, politically this could be disastrous.  Pakistan's stability rests on very fragile ground.  Extremists would very likely take advantage of the public outcry against these attacks to recruit.  This is especially true if these drones end up killing many civilians, which is likely given that the Quetta region is more heavily populated than current strike zones.  An uptick of radicalization within the much needed moderate population poses as much, if not more of a security threat than any Taliban.

Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar who also served as the co-author of Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, has previously stated that Pakistan, "has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.”

A Pakistan that veers out of control, brimming with US supplied money and arms, could send the entire Middle East as well as India into chaos - and large scale attacks into the heart of Pakistan could very well open up a Pandora's box of trouble.  Why play with fire?