Speaking Monday, U.S. president-elect Barack Obama said that India is a sovereign country and has, as a result, every right to protect itself.

He said so in response to questions whether he would support India if it would use military force against terrorists in Pakistan.

During the election campaign, Obama said that the U.S. had the right to strike against terrorist training camps inside Pakistan if it deemed doing so necessary. Obama’s reaction to the terrorist attack in India shows that he does not merely believe that the U.S. but also others have the right to protect itself against terrorists.

Although Obama said that the U.S. should be willing to strike against terrorist targets in Pakistan, many left-wing columnists and bloggers thought he was ‘one of them,’ meaning a foreign policy dove. His reaction to the attack in India, however, shows that not progressives but moderates were right about the foreign policy Obama would pursue: it seems increasingly clear that Obama is a foreign policy pragmatist willing to use force when necessary.

Some left-wing blogs, Firedoglake for instance, are starting to understand the above as well. The blog’s Ian Welsh comments: “The American doctrine that it’s ok to bomb other countries if you invoke the word ‘terrorism’ is a very dangerous one.  Combined with the breaking up of Serbia, it is an assault on the over 350 year old idea of Westphalian internal sovereignty.  The consequences could be war between Pakistan and India, just as Georgia’s breakup by the Russians was justified by the example of Serbia.”

To be sure, Obama did say that India should only act unilaterally when the ‘international community’ and / or Pakistan do not act in a satisfying manner, but since ’satisfying’ probably means ‘wiping out entire terrorist camps, the caveat is reasonably useless.

Of course, the question is not whether India has the right to attack terrorists in Pakistan: it does. The main question is whether it would be wise for India to do so.

To this, I think the answer should be a resounding ‘no.’

India and Pakistan have been enemies for decades. The two governments hated each other and fought against each other, often via proxies, for years. India is Pakistan’s main enemy and vice versa. India counts quite some Hindu extremists, and Pakistan has a very serious Muslim extremist problem. If India would drop bombs in Pakistan, you can bet on it that the Pakistani people will demand revenge from their government. If Asif Ali Zardari remains silent and conciliatory, he risks being removed by either ‘the people’ or the army.

Considering the already existing tensions in Pakistan, a military or, worse, an Islamist coup would be utterly disastrous. It would jeopardize the security and stability of the entire region: lest we forget, Pakistan is a nuclear country.

On the other hand, if Zardari would fire back, the situation could escalate into a full scale war; never a pleasant experience, especially not when both sides have nuclear weapons.

As such, using force against India is not an option for Zardari, but remaining silent and doing nothing is not either.

Obama is right: India has the right to protect itself. But one can only hope that India will let Pakistan and the U.S. take care of the problem, for Indian involvement would escalate the crisis tremendously.