Would it matter if India and Pakistan decided to settle their political differences on the battlefield rather than through a diplomatic initiative that has blossomed in recent weeks?

Almost unbelievably, some commentators say no, suggesting that a “good little war” between the two longtime adversaries — which India presumably would win — might finally settle matters on the subcontinent.

I couldn’t disagree more. That leave-them-alone perspective shares the same unsteady, questionable ground as the idea that certain civil wars should be given room and time to burn themselves out — even if that course resulted in widespread death and destruction.

Despite the daunting odds in South Asia and the need to keep expectations low, I much prefer the incremental steps that New Delhi and Islamabad have taken to restore diplomatic ties, mutual confidence and transportation connections, including the resumption of rail service late last week.

This month’s meeting between India’s Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf added momentum to peace efforts and further distanced the two nations from their dangerous flirtation with nuclear madness in 2002.

It boggles the mind to imagine the carnage that a 21st-century war between India and Pakistan could produce. In addition to 3 million troops, regular and reserve, that face each other across the border, the two nations’ nuclear weapons add a frightful dimension.

India is believed capable of quickly producing and deploying nearly 100 nuclear weapons, Pakistan about half that number — in other words, 150 nuclear weapons too many for the region. Further, it should be noted, nuclear war and its fallout would not observe the subcontinent’s borders and would precipitate multiple problems for neighboring countries.

The hugely more constructive vision emerging from the Vajpayee-Musharraf meeting fortunately will continue with high-level talks in February covering all issues that divide India and Pakistan, including the status of disputed Kashmir.

Toward that end, India and Pakistan deserve strong diplomatic support from all countries, especially the United States, which has a big stake in the stability of South Asia.

Indeed, The Economist magazine, while indicating that many actors deserve credit for the turn of events, singles out the United States: “Fearful of seeing a vital front in their war (on) terror disintegrate — as it would should India and Pakistan once again come to blows — they (the Americans) have twisted arms, the general’s in particular, with vigor.”

But that forceful role has also attracted critics in South Asia, namely those who fault the United States for taking too much credit for improving the India-Pakistan relationship.

That’s an unnecessary complication. It’s no secret that Vajpayee and Musharraf are thinking about their legacies and that an unexpected upturn in India-Pakistan relations could secure prestigious places in history for them. What’s wrong with letting them claim responsibility, no matter what really happened behind the scenes?

Nothing, and Washington now has come around to the idea. The latest word from the U.S. Department of State refocuses attention squarely on Vajpayee and Musharraf, showers them with credit and offers to continue to provide a helping hand, “if we can contribute to that process.”

Actually, the United States has an obligation to participate — with vigor — in the historic transformation that beckons on the subcontinent.

John C. Bersia is an editorial writer for the Orlando Sentinel and the special assistant to the president for global perspectives and a professor at the University of Central Florida. His e-mail address is jbersia@orlandosentinel.com.