A matter of nuance

WATCHING the two US presidential hopefuls on the TV screen wrangle over the issue of militancy that, they believe, mainly stems from Pakistan's tribal region, fuels insurgency across into Afghanistan, endangers the lives of the US and NATO troops operating there and prolongs the War On Terror, it appeared that there was merely a difference of nuance between them on how they intended to go about putting an end to it. Characteristic of his forthright style, Democrat Barack Obama vowed to launch military strike in case Islamabad was "unable or unwilling" to act against a high-profile Al-Qaeda target the Americans had spotted. Republican John McCain tried to put a gloss over the same approach by saying that he "would not publicly state" that the US forces were going to attack because that would be unhelpful. Senator McCain would work through the Pakistan government to face the challenge, suggesting that his administration would strike targets within its territory with its consent. Thus, the next occupant of the White House would, in essence, not have any qualms in disregarding Pakistan's sovereign right to handle such issues on its own as it deems fit. One would act peremptorily without waiting for Islamabad's nod; the other would take it into confidence.