Several reports out of the region have suggested that the Mumbai attacks were hijacked by Al Qaeda and its allies in order to create as a distraction by jihadist elements in Pakistan, possibly with willing or unwitting assistance of their supporters in Pakistan's Intelligence service (the infamous ISI). In other words the Mumbai attacks were accomplished in order to require a redeployment of Pakistan's military forces away from the current haven of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in tribal laden Waziristan (Northwestern Pakistan) and move them to Pakistan's eastern border to guard against any possible confrontation with India in reaction to the attacks.

Here's how one respected commentator, Ayaz Amir, puts it:

It takes no genius to figure out what renewed Indo-Pak tensions mean for the Pakistan army’s ongoing operations against Taleban and assorted militants in the tribal wild West along the Afghan frontier. The Pakistan army’s heart was never in this fight in which it found itself engaged only because of overwhelming American pressure. Now with India sounding aggressive and thirsting for some sort of revenge in the wake of the attack on Mumbai, the Pakistan army has a valid and pressing reason to turn its attention to something closer to its ethos and training: the threat from India.

Let us not forget that Al Qaeda had declared war on Pakistan for being an accomplice of the United States, the terror bombings, suicide attacks and assassination attempts mounted in Pakistan being a response to this perceived role. But what the terror bombings and suicide attacks inside Pakistan could not lead to, the Mumbai attacks look like achieving: drawing Pakistan’s attention away from the western theatre to the eastern front. Whom does this situation suit? Al Qaeda.

And it appears the the post-Mumbai statements and actions of Pakistan's military leaders support this theory, at least in part. For Pakistan's military leadership has shown little inclination to take the types of action against militants within Pakistan's borders that India and the US are demanding:

KARACHI - Visiting United States officials Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week presented Pakistan with "difficult to deny" proof of the involvement of officials of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Pakistani militant groups in last week's Mumbai attack.

They have demanded direct action, such as the arrest of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the chief of the Jamaatut Dawa, formerly the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), the group with which the 10 attackers of Mumbai were connected. They also want the LET's Zakiur Rahman apprehended, as well as the ISI officers involved in plotting the Mumbai attack.

But the Pakistani military command, the Corps Commanders Conference, agreed on a principled stand on Thursday that Pakistan will confront the threat of militancy through its own course of action, not at the dictates of anybody else. This position has been relayed to Washington, Asia Times Online contacts familiar with the security apparatus say.

India, for one does not seem inclined to wait, and appears to be preparing attacks against the militants within Pakistan's borders which it may very well carry out unless Pakistan's military takes direct action itself. From today's online edition of The Asia Times, here are the details of this policy proposal, which, if carried out, could trigger an all out regional war between these two old antagonists, one in which it might be very difficult to prevent the use of nuclear weapons:

India sets sights on Pakistani camps By Siddharth Srivastava NEW DELHI - Following the Mumbai attacks last week, it is emerging that India intends to take the "war on terror" to the next level - specifically, by taking out militant training camps that India believes dot Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

A senior official in India's Home Ministry told Asia Times Online that a decision had been made at the highest levels that India will be directly involved in "annihilating" some of the terror infrastructure and personnel based in Pakistan. [...][

According to the official, who declined to be named, these operations will essentially be covert to prevent an all-out war between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Officially, India may continue to deny such actions, all the while taking the battle to the terrorists.

Elite armed naval, air and army forces, backed by intelligence agencies, will be involved. The operation could eventually cover border areas along Punjab such as Multan, where some of the Mumbai attackers are believed to have been recruited. [...]

The latest moves by India were conveyed to United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she was in New Delhi this week.

Washington, it appears, does not have a problem with India's intentions as long as it is ensured that there will be no full-fledged conflagration between India and Pakistan. The US also wants to make sure Pakistan's army maintains its presence, even if limited, on the western frontier with Afghanistan.

Perhaps this is all a bluff by India's government. If they really wanted to keep their fingerprints off these attacks why leak them to a correspondent for The Asia Times. Indeed, any attacks inside Pakistan are likely to be blamed on India regardless, so why publicize them now, especially since this only allows the LET, Al Qaeda and those elements of the ISI which support them to prepare for such assaults? I can only assume that Indian officials are trying to force the civilian Pakistani government to take significant steps to rein in its own military and the ISI, even though the chances of any effective action by that government are slim.. Pakistan's civilian government is too weak and fragile to control the ISI and its own military, many of whom have agendas directly at odds with that government. Indeed, American support for Pakistan's military and our own ties and connections with the ISI have fostered this situation in which Pakistan's military and intelligence services are essentially independent of any civilian control. Even General Musharraf, who was essentially an American proconsul, was disinclined to root out the extremist elements in the ISI. He was a frequent target of assassination before his fall from power, and he had the support of much of the military leadership. I doubt President Zardari would fare any better.

Yet, sometimes bluffs turn into reality, when one's hand is called. India's populace, which desperately desires retribution against the terrorist for the victims of the Mumbai attacks (and recall these are the second series of attacks in two years) may be forced to proceed with the military option, if only to appease its own people. As for the report that the Bush administration has already signed off on strikes inside Pakistan by elite forces of India's military, that is an absolutely insane position for an American government to take. Which makes it all the more likely to be true. For when has George Bush ever promoted a diplomatic solution to a crisis, when a military one presented itself?

Let's hope none of these proposed actions occur before January 20, 2009. Bush has already left President-elect Obama andhis future Secretary of State Clinton a stinking pile of crap to clean up in Southwest Asia after its gross mismanagement of our foreign relations in that region over the last eight years. Any military confrontation between India and Pakistan which breaks out prior to Obama's inauguration would turn what is already a severe crisis into a catastrophe. And we all know how fond President Bush is of catastrophic successes.