The cost of attack

Any response to the terrorist attack has to focus on only one issue - how to increase the cost of further such attacks for the perpetrators. Assuming that the agency responsible for this attack is a state sponsored agency, in this case the Pak ISI, the issue becomes more complex - are we to attack the country or the agency.

The ISI thinks it is in win-win situation. Assuming that India were to increase the pressure on Pak borders, it would be legitimate for the Pak army to move from its western borders (where it "fights" that so called war-on-terror at the behest of the USA) to the eastern border. The ground is already being prepared for this. This will not be acceptable to the USA - and the expectation is that this will lead to greater pressure from the USA on India to "act in a restrained manner". President-elect Obama has already indicated that he will want to get involved in Kashmir. The ISI would have killed two birds with one stone - get the USA involved in keeping India on a leash, and get USA involved in Kashmir (especially in the background of a hugely successful election in Kashmir - ignore the title of the linked article - a 50% plus turnout has to mean something in the context of violence threatened by the separatists).

On the other hand, the best that the US and Indian govts can do, is to pressure Zardari to change the ISI chief. This has already happened in the recent past, but with General Kiyani himself of ISI vintage, does that really mean anything?

To break this logjam, India therefore has to figure out a means of increasing the cost for ISI to go about its business. The debate in India has to move towards this ...