Goodbye Jack Rosenthal.

In the writers world networking is a key part of expanding ones horizons. Years ago Pranay Gupte introduced me to Jack Rosenthal and his lovely wife, Holly Russell, who were visiting Dubai. Something must have clicked because after their official trip was over, we asked them to spend sometime with us and they stay a few days at my home. It was perhaps because rarely, in this world so energized by the material pursuits of people, does one meet someone who simply engages the mind. I vividly recall a dinner we had at home and after everyone had retired I made some mental notes about Jack.

He was a journalist of class and standing, but he brought that unique skill to his social engagements. It was not like he was interviewing people around the dinner table, but he was getting them to speak about themselves. He asked a few questions, always encouraging them to open up and feel comfortable. Jack never once spoke of himself, his enormous and indeed iconic standing in the word of the written world; New York Times, the amazing social role and his role with government too. I guess when you have achieved as much as he had you do not speak about it. In essence I was impressed with the man who graced our table and I wondered if the curry had not been too spicy.

On the few trips after that first encounter in Dubai that we made to New York, we made it a point to meet up with Jack and Holly. One remarkable trip we were in New York with the renowned equine sculptor Karen Kasper, and heard that there was an exhibition at the New York Metropolitan Muesum on the history of the horse. The problem was we were leaving at mid day and with the exhibition opening at 10 AM we would really have to give it a miss. Somehow over dinner the fact we would miss the exhibition came up, and Jack smiled and said yes it would be lovely for horse people to see something as unique as that.

Arriving at the hotel we found a message, an urgent one, from someone from the PR team of the New York Met and that I must call back. Doing so I was almost instructed to be at the a steps of the Met at 8 AM, given a phone number and the final words, 'see you there.' I had a deep suspicion Jack had something to do with that phone call but past mid night did not wish to disturb him. Sure enough at the 8 AM in the morning our party of five was escorted by the curator of the exhibition and given a royal tour of exhibition and indeed it was Jack who had arranged it. Even when I called him to thank him about the thoughtfulness of this amazing man, he sounded embarrassed to be thanked and simply wished me bon voyage.

Jack in a sense anticipated what people would like and did it without any fan fare it was like a true act of giving.  The New York Times have posted an obituary of this amazing soul and my words can never compare or do justice. But in my own experience of Jack Rosenthal all I can say is rarely have I met a man with such compassion and empathy. I know he passed on  and I would simply like to think of him being in the other room and whenever I want to visit him I can recall the memory of the man. I believe I just visited him with this memory of the New York Met, and yes he smiled back, and like he said it 9 years ago, 'my pleasure please you don't need to thank me for it.' he repeated those words and yes he smiled also.

Be safe you will be missed. I will visit you often.

Trumps Afghan Policy.

President Trump's time in office was conspicuous thus far by the absence of a cogent and clear statement on foreign policy. He seemed to tweet his foreign policy feelings and yet his campaign promise of a new policy of NATO, Afghanistan etc were realms of international affairs he could ignore for long. I would also suspect that barricaded by the Russian probe and the chaos in the White House Trump needed to do something dramatic. The Afghan policy can best be received with mixed emotions. While, from an American perspective, Afghanistan seems to be a thorn on the side of a super power like USA, history would tell us that this barren harsh land has been irksome to both the British and the Soviet Union in the past.

Insofar as the intent to have a surge of US forces in Afghanistan is driven by America's strategic objectives, which are murky in terms of Afghanistan, has its own merits. One can argue if the original aim was to rid the world of Osama bin Laden, and that since done during the Obama administration remaining there is in a sense strategically futile. The argument runs that the area is the home for both radical groups like the Taliban and recently the ISIS, so there is a strategic aim to rid them of a home base. One cannot argue against that, however to assert the US is not into nation building but fighting terror is all fine, and something even Obama asserted, a weak nation is more prone to be fragmented by terror groups.

The core of the policy seems to be a military solution. However, we all know from Vietnam to Lebanon that one cannot have a military solution to what is essentially a political problem. In the case of Afghanistan it is the political vacuums that has existed now for over four decades. Trumps open invitation to India to help fill the gap is in a sense short sighted because while India can provide economic and trade based interaction the core of Afghan society is deeply Islamic and staunchly tribal which would be at odds with a Hindu dominate India. Yes India has a role to play but with Pakistan in between the two countries the solution would have been more for both Pakistan and India to be jointly encouraged to stabilise the region.

This leads Trump and his host of sycophants to make statements about Pakistan being the 'safe haven' for the Taliban and the Haqqani network. Such an argument ignores that all shades of the current terrorist groups were created and supported by virtually all the current powers that are fighting them. They were created with the aim of fighting the Russians and Pakistan was the conduit to fund and train them. Yes indeed Pakistan had its own motives in this and when Afghanistan slipped into civil war after the Soviet defeat, they with other allies promoted and created the current Taliban with the idea of replacing the crumbling power structure in Kabul.

The fact remains from 2001 most countries including Pakistan, somewhat reluctantly, took to curbing these terrorist groups and both Afghanistan and Pakistan suffered a series of terrorist attacks. Few understand that Pakistan has suffered over 7000 military deaths and over 65,000 civilians killed and 3.4 million people displaced. Afghanistan during the same period has suffered 61,000 military deaths and 20,000 civilian deaths. It is obvious that Pakistan has borne the brunt of the war on terror no less than Afghanistan and thus to go on talking of the country as a safe haven is incorrect. The TTP (the Taliban faction that attacks Pakistani targets) is based in Afghanistan, just as the Haqqani network which attacks into Afghanistan is based in Miranshah, the tribal north of Pakistan. In 2014 Pakistan launched an offensive against the Haqqani Network and other groups and in November 2014 Gen J Anderson of the US command said that the Pakistan offensive had seriously reduced the ability of the Taliban to conduct offensive operations in Afghanistan.

There is no denying that both Afghanistan and Pakistan want to curb terrorism but in an environment of accusing each other this will not work. The porous border between the two countries is next to impossible to control even though Pakistan has three times as many border check posts on their side compared to the Afghans. I would have felt that Trump should encourage Pakistan and Afghanistan to work together rather than signal Pakistan as partially responsible for the situation in Afghanistan.

On a strategic note such a policy of isolating Pakistan in this vital region will only drive them closer to China, who has been Pakistan's closest ally and China has a long standing border dispute with India too. Many may think that US aid to Pakistan is a leverage but with $750 million is not enough of a tool to change policy alone. Indeed Pakistan needs to do more to fight terrorism and by the same token the world needs to understand that as many people have died to terrorism in Pakistan as any of the countries in the front line of this war. Excluding Pakistan and making it insecure with overtures to India may not really be the best policy.

The single objective of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan is noble in its own context but we have to be realistic that such a war will also bring destruction and suffering to more people. Indeed the balance will be whether this escalation brings more suffering to the people on the ground or the continued attacks by the likes of Taliban do the same. There has to be a plan to bring administrative order, district by district, all across Afghanistan as the Taliban and terror groups are ousted. Merely wining the war and not creating a politically and socially workable system will only remove a threat today but will create the fertile ground for someone equally terrible like the Taliban, to replace it.

North Korea: Brinkmanship that could go wrong.

When studying for my Masters in International Relations one of the cases studies we worked on was the Cuban Missile Crisis. It remains a masterful studying of managing brinkmanship and the art of the graduated response. Kennedy and Khrushchev in that crisis were a blink away from nuclear war and yet we realize that throughout the crisis a process of graduated response and measured strategic analysis was used. From Oct 15th 1962, when the Soviet missiles were spotted in Cuba till Oct 22 1962, when Kennedy made his famous speech asking the Soviets to back down, numerous meetings were held with the NSC and an EXXCOMM was set up and Congressional leaders were consulted on each of the steps.

One of the options that the US Joint Chief of Staff recommended and supported was an all out invasion, something even key Congressional leaders supported, Kennedy decided to use a series of graduated responses from a blockade to diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Indeed, key US allies were briefed on the morning of the 22nd of October BEFORE Kennedy made his speech and side by side back door diplomatic channels were opened to the Soviets to resolve the crisis. By October 28th 1962 the crisis had been defused and the world stepped back from what would have been a major outbreak of war.

Today we a different form of brinkmanship in the stand off between USA and North Korea. It might be more realistic to say its a show down between President Trump and the Korean despot Kim Jong Un, the latter being in his mid thirties with a panache for missiles and nuclear warheads. Unlike Kennedy in 1962, President Trump has taken to twitter and makes speeches about 'fire and fury' and hopes his rhetoric will be enough to get an equally irrational Kim Jong Un to back down. While there is not denying that any military conflict between North Korea and USA may well result in the total destruction of Kim Jong Un's regime and sadly also his nation. However, as one sided as it may be the fact that Kim Jong Un only needs to make sure that one, yes only one, missile armed with a nuclear warhead lands somewhere close to USA or one of its allies.

Analysts, military and non military, keep telling us that North Koreans would not be foolish enough to take such a risk which would destroy their country. First of all its not the North Koreans taking the risk, its Kim Jong Un, and frankly does he care if a million people are killed when he knows he himself will be taken out? Second, as the twitter tirade continues there is no guarantee that Kim Jong Un may well be taking these tweets more seriously than they are and lacking a sense of humor may just feel any one of them is enough of a hint that the US will strike first. Kim Jong Un knows well that if the US has first strike then his ability to have an effective counter strike will be severely curtailed and may be not even possible.

The danger therefore is that Trump, without even meaning it, may well start the hostilities, and perhaps in that process fulfill his wish to be a war-time President. Factoring China's response into this equation of possibilities creates a puzzle that will take far longer than the 20 odd minutes to have missiles land on some hapless people somewhere in the world. While Rex Tillerson is certainly trying to bring in a modicum of diplomacy to the table, it seems that he is fighting an uphill battle. One is not sure of the NSC and Congress has been consulted on the state of affairs.

The flip side is that the ground work for a diplomatic solution does not seem to be visible. What does one negotiate with? Offer Kim Jong Un there will no regime change if he agrees to give up missiles and nuclear warheads? Well that was the promise to Gaddaffi of Libya and he agreed to the deal only to be ousted soon after. Kim for sure will not give up his war toys, so some middle ground needs to be sought out and he is brash enough not to really be concerned about how much his people suffer under sanctions. In a sense Kim Jong Un is like a suicide bomber he has nothing to lose and therefore there is nothing that can be offered to him in a negotiation.