I blame George W. Bush and his dysfunctional foreign policy process.

When Iraq started, I predicted that we would find WMD, but several middle Eastern states would be destabilized, and possibly their governments toppled by anti US islamists. Its the good with the bad, and illustrates how difficult it is to predict the consequences of our foreign policy.

well, thats great but I think some of us feel that not enough attention is brought to certain 'hot spots', I couldn't tell you how many people I've met who have no idea whats going on in Burma, as you know it is by incouraging an interest in international 'hot spots' that will reinforce the need to look more closely and bring more awareness to africa and asia in a more substantial way then the occassional violent outbreak headline, which is then quickly forgoten about.

Things are also looking more positive on the Pakistani side. In late October, Musharraf recognized as unlikely the idea of a plebiscite by Kashmiris to choose between accession to Pakistan or India, which has been a Pakistani demand opposed by India. Furthermore, he publicly pondered the idea of demilitarization of some of Kashmir under UN auspices. While these signs are promising, the road ahead is bumpy. Musharraf will need to build a coalition of interests in his own country in order to sell the idea of further negotiations, difficult considering his current unpopularity. Also, the fact that he feels the need to muse over Kashmir in public belies a diplomatic discourse that is unproductive. The UN will need to play a large role in progressing the Kashmir settlement, and it remains to be seen if significant diplomatic energy will be concentrated on this situtation, particularly given the other "hot spots" around the world.

I am skeptical about moves iN Kashmir, having seen many of them come to naught in the past many years, but there is at least a little bit of timing that may favor a rapproachment.

There are indications that many of the fighters from Afghanistan who had moved over to Kashmir (indeed the Kashmir conflict exploded almost immediately after the Soviets left Afghanistan), are now moving to the latest 'whack-a-western-infidel' site, i.e Iraq, especially from groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, or whatever they call themselves nowadays.

Maybe this is therefore a good time for parties that are interested in a peaceful settlement to make a move, while the hardline terrorist groups are "distracted".

Dissent from the popular trend: Interference in local affairs always delays the resolution of strife, as major Powers develop their favorites. American foreign policy should be 'Isolate and Contain' with even blackout of News reports. All Participants could no longer play to an audience. lgl

Yes, I noticed this article too, had the same thought about it, and wished there had been more detail.

As I recall, at this time last year the press coverage of the standoff on a Kashmiri glacier was becoming increasingly -- well, comical.

Does India's move reflect a newfound media-pragmatism, viz. that the less-ridiculous party to the dispute will ultimately prevail? Or are just adjusting to climate-appropriate ideals, i.e. that while the nation may be worth dying for, it's not worth freezing for ...?

Dan is right on, here. I'd just add that annual growth rates for India and Pakistan BOTH are between 7 and 8% for the year. Maybe you don't feel like pushing the envelope so hard when the future's bright enough to require shades?

It's worth noting the the thawing of relations here has _not_ been due to hands-on involvement by the Bush Administration. I believe Powell has sent encouraging messages to both sides and relayed positive encouragemnt, but the achievement is primarily bilateral.

It's true that it's good that they aren't fighting now. Still, I don't see much hope for that situation in the future. They have a long history of tension ebbing and flowing. Mostly flowing.

Musharraf has been forced to make tactical concessions over Kashmir; he's given nothing away that he cant easily go back on.

1. Its winter, so the jihadis cant infiltrate into India because the snow covers passes and Himalayan infiltration routes anyway. Winter remains the best season for peace-making. The jihadis spring later (pun intended)

2. There's plenty of conflict going on in Western Pakistan, along its borders with Iran and Afghanistan. A rebellion in Balochistan is growing, and the conflict in Waziristan is having less to do with al-Qaeda and more to do with cheesed-off tribesmen fighting Pakistani forces. Due to this conflict, huge numbers of Pakistani forces --- army and paramilitary --- have been pulled from the border with India and redeployed along the western borders.

3. As Suresh points out, the jihadis have turned their attention to Iraq, where they've been fighting American forces. Pakistani jihadis have been captured there as early as March this year (a fact kept away from the American mainstream media).

Note, none of this has anything to do with Powell, Armitage and Rocca, who visit Islamabad now and then and score self-goals. (The latest, Armitage declares Osama is NOT in Pakistan. Where is he, then?)

Note also, that Powell and Armitage are not exactly welcome in New Delhi; it appears that the Indian government actually uninvited Armitage and Rocca last week; forcing them to go to UAE for Sheikh Zayed's funeral instead.

Here's another dog that didn't bark, or if it did, it was pretty stifled - I haven't seen nearly the same level of outrage in the world press etc. about the fighting in Fallujah, as I did in April. Sure there was some nattering from Kofi et al. as the noose tightened, but for the most part it's been pretty subdued. Any idea why this may be so ? Or am I missing something ?

fingerowner, just wait, it's coming. It hasn't come yet for 3 reasons:
a) no one could get in to see, it's too dangerous, and b) deliberate actions by the US to impose information dominance (that's why they took the hospitals) c)Sistani has been keeping his mouth shut.

I predict that information dominance cannot be maintained indefinitely, and once people see the devastation, Sistani will be forced to say something. The one difference with last time is that critics of US actions now know the US is serious and is not going to be deterred, no matter what the cost. So they are left with just two choices: acquiesce and shut up, or support the insurgency more actively than they have. My money is on lots of people are thinking hard about this choice as we speak.

I agree with Suresh-- we've seen many such gestures come to nothing. We're back to the usual Indian/Pakistani programming :-(

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=59240

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 19: As the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to New Delhi nears, both countries are hardening their stands with Pak President Pervez Musharraf telling AFP today that he was ‘‘not encouraged’’ by signals from India.

And that if New Delhi did not show more flexibility, Pakistan could renew its demand for plebiscite—a stand that he has, earlier, ruled out as an option. ‘‘The vibes that are now coming do not encourage a process of normalisation,’’ said Musharraf.