Trump Unbundled

 People deserve the leaders they choose. This is all the more valid for democracies where the assumption is that the electorate is educated and politically astute. Four years ago as Donald Trump created a divisive agenda and embellished a campaign with lies and racist slant one felt the United States of America was getting what it deserved. Even though one knew Trump had hijacked the Republican Party there was an inner voice that hoped he could step in as the 45th President and change by embracing the statesmen like qualities that the Oval Office thrusts upon its incumbents.

Four years later and the circus of the US election is unfolding again. It is obvious that there is a hard core of Trump supporters who continue to embrace President Trump believing in the hyperbole he has been spinning. It is unlikely that die hard core of his base will embrace the truth of Trumps failures as a man and as a President even when faced with his lack of action on the COVID 19 pandemic that has left close to 180,00 Americans dead. The fact he has embraced white supremacists, ridiculed minorities and shunned responsibility for the failures of his office do not matter to them. 

In 2016 the media played into Trumps strategy by giving him more air time each time he made unspeakable remarks and in a sense gave a platform for his views rather than ignoring him. Now the challenge is to unbundle this President even though Trump has a state machinery to defend the agenda and his position. However, one must admit that Trump’s success in 2016 was also on account of the failures of the Hilary Clinton campaign who ignored the states they were traditionally strong in and the Democrats just could not mobilise the voter base who could have titled the balance in their favour.

The challenge will be how to take an electorate who are increasingly apathetic towards the 2020 election to go out an vote? The choice is Trumps dramatic but untrue characterisations versus the Biden camps search of a meaningful message. Trumps assurance is his base, some of whom may have wavered but the question remains if he has marshalled in enough to replace those he lost. Yet it is clear his base also envisions cannot get him elected. In 2016 there was a large blue collar work force who were disgruntled with Hilary Clinton strongly enough to swing to the Trump camp. Biden and his team have to focus on these key segments in addition to the large number of people who did not vote in 2016.

To unbundle Trump is more a matter of focus on his content of his failures rather than a generic denunciation of the man. As we saw in 2016 some of the worst gaffes and revelations (the Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels etc) did not faze him or his base. Unlike the previous election this time his character flaws can be pitched against his policy failures and this should be the focus of any challenge to Donald Trump.

His Presidency has left a litany of lies, and behavioural flaws most if not all of which have effected policy.  The unbundling of Trump is therefore a unique journey into the mind of a man who can only evoke two emotions; you can either love him or hate him, but ignoring him is no more possible.

Trumpism is to embrace the lies.

There is a plethora lies that can be attributed to Donald Trump, to he point he is labelled as a serial liar. Through this summer he has averaged at over 250 lies a month! What is amazing is that Trump continues to utter his lies over and over based on the dictum that if you utter a lie often enough people will believe it to be the truth. This certainly was the case with his accusation that President Obama was not born in the United States, which some of his followers still believe to be the truth. 

When faced with the gravest threats to US society in the shape of the COVID-19 pandemic Trump continued to lie about the gravity of the crisis and the measures he was taking. Sadly as US citizens died each day at an alarming rate President Trump claimed US was a leading example of fighting the pandemic, so much so that claiming the effects of the virus in the US were minor. At one point he was touting untested remedies for the COVID-19 and consistently denying there was a crisis. It was a clear case of the liar believing his version of reality and anyone who did not buy into that reality was enemy.

Politicians, including Presidents, are prone to stretch the truth, but Donald Trump does not bend the truth he simply creates his own version of the truth through a web of lies. One wonders when his wife, Melania, at the RNC meeting stated that people expect the President to tell the truth was it a tongue in cheek reference to her own husband.

Disavowing his former allies.

In Trumps White House it’s been normal to a cavalcade of officials be appointed and then to exit, some within a few weeks. The exits were either because they fell out with Trump and his inner circle or resigned in the face of criminal investigations. Upon their appointment Donald Trump has espoused lavish praise on the appointees calling them ‘very good’ people and upon their exit calling them losers. In cases where his former associates have been criminally charged Trump has been quick to state that he only knew them fleetingly and distanced himself from them. The most glaring fallout was with Steve Bannon, former chief strategist for Trumps election bit and then and advisor. During the early years of Trumps Presidency Bannon was a permanent fixture at the Oval Office and now discarded and facing a criminal charge Trump can only say that Bannon worked for his administration but he did not know him that well.

It would seem that Trump has no sense of loyalty to the people who have  served his cause. They are as good as their total subservience and submission to Trumps whims is the only barometer of acceptance by the President. Loyalty to Mr. Trump is a one way street and explains why sycophancy is the order of the day and a necessary qualification to work with Mr. Trump. This implies that the President will not necessarily get the best advice since there is a propensity on his part to surround himself with yes men. 

Ego before nation.

 Most people who have known Donald Trump attest to his over grown ego. He does not want to be ignored and resents attention to anyone but himself. This ego also shapes the self image that Trump carries to the extent that he considers himself smarter than anyone else, brighter than the best scientists, and considers his art of the deal implies he can negotiate with anyone, including dictators in North Korea or the NATO leaders. Having an over sized ego is one thing but in Trumps case he holds a vindictive nature against people who may be considered better than him. This explains his benign hatred for President Obama and everything the previous administration achieved. 

The result of this egoistic trait has meant that valuable time and resources have been wasted on proving he can deal with North Korea, when the lack of results shows how his ego cannot be out before the national interest. Trumps position on climate change, Immigration, healthcare and Russia show how one mans ego has been the focal point of a policy that he cannot rationalise. 

Trumps Achilles heel.

In 2016 Trump came under pressure to release his tax returns to which he declared if he won the election he would do so. Four years later not only have the tax filings not been released he and his lawyers have Ben fighting the courts which have ordered their release. What is it that Trump does not want to be disclosed?

Here is a theory, and mind you only a theory. Let’s go back to 2014 and Trump is flirting with the idea of entering the Presidential race. It was no secret amongst top banks that Trump was a risky client and since his earlier bankruptcies top western banks avoided lending to the Trump group. The exception was Duetsche Bank who at one point had an exposure of $2 billion to Trump companies. In addition there were a number of syndicated loans on projects where Trump was a significant minority shareholder in a project.  For instance the developer of 1290 Avenue of America, in which Trump owns 30% equity borrowed from a consortium of banks almost $1billion of which $ 211 m was provided by Bank of China. The loan was signed in November 2012. Around the time of the election in 2016 Bank of China denied it had leant the money however in 2017 its name appeared on listed of banks holding a mortgage on the said development. If it was an arms length transaction why would the bank deny it ever loaned the money? 

Now here is the theory and at the outset one must state that it is entirely conjecture. Prior to the election banks lending to Trump got nervous that a risky client would be impossible to handle if he became President. Some of these banks called in their loans. It is possible that some of these loans were bought by Russian banks and this may explain why Trump has been soft of Mr Putin and Russia. This would explain why the battle for the tax filings is so important as it would reveal the trail of the financial dealings. 

Either way whether true or not it does make an interesting plot for a financial thriller.

As the final run for the election of the next president heats up Americans have to make a moral choice not an emotional choice. One can excuse any number of Trumps failures and indiscretions but forgiving him for his failure to handle the COVID-19 pandemic is something one cannot do.  Jimmy Carter lost the election for the handling of US hostage crisis in Tehran, but today with thousands of Americans having died of the COVID-19 virus Trump not only survives but thrives on laying blame on others or flatly denying that he failed. If Trump is to be judged solely on his handling of the pandemic then he will lose the election. This is where the soul of America will be tested; is a second term for Trump worth more than 179,000 dead Americans?

McCain: Imprint from his death.

The passing of John McCain is a monumental, but sad, event in two crucial ways; its the end of an era for a man who stood by what he believed and on the other hand it defined the pettiness of the man who happens to be the President of USA, Mr. Donald Trump.

John McCain was a permanent fixture on the US political scene, with his presence in the Senate, his unsuccessful bids to become the President of the country, and most of his conviction in what he believed. While one may not have agreed with him on many issues one had to concede that he was a Republican with a heart of decency and good values. For me one of the most memorable moments was when one of his supporters lashed out, in a Q&A session against Barrack Obama, with whom McCain was locked in battle for the Presidency, he stopped the lady and told her that Obama was a decent American and showed a rare pedigree of respect for his opponent that makes it a memorable moment.

He put the interest of the country first at all times and worked in the Senate with a bipartisan spirit which won him the respect from the other side of the aisle. While for us foreigners abroad he did articulate an aggressive foreign policy stance, which one could disagree with, he still allowed his conscious to decide his position of matters. He was against the use of torture as a means of policy and while not pro-immigration, was certainly not devoid of humanism on the issue. His critics may say he was too wishy washy and middle of the road, but it would seem he was torn on many issues, like abortion, immigration and taxes. I showed that he tried to gauge the pulse of the nation in deciding at a particular time his voting pattern.

As he gradually drifted closer to his end from the brain cancer, John McCain was detailed in planning how his funeral must be held and in it sow the seeds of a remembrance that would define him for generations to come. The fact that amongst others he asked for former President's Bush and Obama to offer an eulogy at his funeral shows the depth of the man. Absent from even the list of invitees is President Trump.

This brings us to the second imprint from the death of this American hero, John McCain. Trump has shown a pettiness in dealing with the death of John McCain that shows the character, or the lack of it, in Trump himself. Just as one cannot forget the image of McCain correcting the woman one cannot forget the image of Trump hands folded in front of him and ignoring questions about the death of John McCain. He even stopped the issuance for a formal statement from the White House on the death of the Senator, and some suggest was behind the fact that the flag did not fly at half mast over the White House on that first day.

Yes McCain was no fan of Trump and disagreed with him, and indeed he was a bitter rival of both Bush and Obama. However, both Bush and Obama had the class, as indeed did McCain did, to know that political differences and personal respect do not have to be strange bedfellows. At the end of the day we are brought up to say that once a person dies we must not speak ill of them.

All differences aside Trump could have acted Presidential, he could have taken the higher moral ground and invited or not to the funeral made sure he pays the right tribute to an American who was first and foremost a patriot. Sadly the death of John McCain defines the greatness of McCain in the same way it defines the characterless pettiness of Donald Trump.

Thank You Mr Trump.

We have a great deal to thank Mr Donald J Trump for; he has single handedly shown us how important Twitter and social media is, he brought the name of Putin into every home in the Bible belt, showed us how important walls can be in our life. I cannot understand why people are not acknowledging that finally in the White House we have a well read, successful businessman, a man with a sense of history and the man who taught the world how to negotiate. Mr Trump is the wizard of brevity, who else could sum up the most complicated world issue in less that 140 words on Twitter.

Most people do not know that it was this remarkable man's secret hand behind some important historical events in modern history. He was the one who  told President Bush not to invade Iraq, he was the one who brought attention to the importance of keeping your birth certificate in your wallet. Few know that it was Mr Trump who masterminded the end of Osama bin Laden, but since he did not have political ambitions he let President Obama take credit for it.

Just when the United States was losing its identity, its ethnic foundation and its religious compass, Mr Trump appeared on the scene and taught us to see how angry the white man living in a trailer park without a decent job really was. Mr Trump made sure we do not focus on the black-white divide, even though Black Lives Matter tried to distract him, and instead look at something much bigger, THE MEXICANS. He made Americans realize that the US will not remain a piñata for immigration and he, in his infinite wisdom, showed us that MS-13 is really the silent army and it must be that every Latino must be a member.

 Most importantly  by exposing the 'fake media' Mr Trump drove millions and millions (his words) of followers to my blog for that I must personally thank the Donald. He is right, why can't CNN give him credit for his role in the taking down of OBL, or for redefining the essence of diplomacy. Is it his fault that Mrs Merkle (Trumpets that is the Chancellor of Germany) cannot use Twitter. My friend Imran Khan is, as we speak, involved in Twitter exchange with President Trump which is redefining the war on terror and the role of US and Pakistan. In order to recover the $72 million Mr Trump spent on his golf trips as President he can not down size the Embassy in Pakistan and save that money, after Twitter diplomacy is the way to go.

On a personal level I want to thank Mr Trump for helping me sort out my Facebook friends. I always thought the 4,500 friends were there because of our love for horses and photography. Along comes Mr Trump and slight joke by me during the election suddenly divided my Facebook dear and close friends into three distinct groups. The ones who love the Donald, the ones who hate him and then the ones who don't care a damn but like the banter on my Facebook page. I lost four friends on Facebook one of whom I knew in person for 30 years and visited me a few times a year and had lunch with me each trip and copious amounts of beer. Another was a childhood friend of mine who told me that since I criticized 'her President' I was anti American and a terrorist. How else could I filter out the true character of these people were it not for Mr Trump. I have been saved such angst in figuring them out on own.

 I know the 'fake media' will say that it is not becoming of a President to have these Twitter tantrums. Well I see it differently, it makes me realize that the President of the United States is human, not a wax figurine without emotion. His burst of Tweets show he is no different from my friend who will post about what she eats at each meal, or another one who will tell the world about every little illness she has, or indeed the rather nutty one who informed the Facebook world that while in an elevator she was grabbed by her p....y. I got blocked when I asked her 'Was it at the Trump Tower?'


SO Mr Trump thanks for being human, or even sub human, thanks for filtering out my Facebook crowd, its more clear now, and thanks for making this blog so important to world peace. You are my hero....

Trump: Why is he weak with the Russians?

For the ardent students of history, especially in my age bracket, we have seen since the Cold War meetings between former Soviet and now Russian leaders with regular frequency. From the  spirit of detente to establishing a new World Order, the mood of these meetings ranged from the icy cold to the cordial and warm; yet the language of the dialogue and the public exposition of the content of the meetings was carefully picked. Each word, each gesture was carefully put in place to ensure that each side, especially the US was asserting its position.

President Donald Trump always has asserted that he has been more 'hard' on Russia than any of the recent Presidents before him. Talking the talk has been easy for this President, but when it came to walking the talk this week in Helsinki, President Trump not only stumbled but fell flat on his face at the feet of a gloating President Putin. One must assume that the diplomats and national security staff around this President would have briefed him in detail. Then we have to remember President Trump fancies himself as the most intelligent human on the planet and without a sense of history he failed miserably.

One has to then wonder why a President who has been tough on his allies, ripped up agreements, ridiculed opponents and anyone who has had the gall to criticize him suddenly is played by the Russians in plain view of millions of viewers. If he had come back from Helsinki after a bout of being tongue tied one could have asked why he didn't say this or that. On the contrary in one sweeping stroke he said he speaks for Russia, implied he believed in the Russian President more than his own intelligence experts and asked about the DNC servers, almost forgetting that he was in Helsinki and not on some right wing Trumpette political rally. So what is it that makes Trumps knees go shaky and his temperament become so submissive when it comes to a man called Putin?

Speculation is that the Russians have some smut on the man who sits in the Oval office from his raunchy (alleged) nights when he was in Moscow years ago. Personally I think this is not something that would bother Trump enough to sell out his country over; after all his loyal supporters, including the evangelists, forgave him for grabbing women by their........So what is the Russian Achilles heel that prompts this out of character submissiveness.

Here is my theory, and I insist it is a theory but it merits a thought.

Perhaps prior to 2015 Trump had borrowed money from Russian banks and oligarchs to build his golf course in Scotland. This could well be around $400 million. We know that a Chinese bank leant Trump companies $500m related to an Indonesian project. So it is likely that with US banks unwilling to lend to him given his past defaults, he often did turn to foreign banks. It is possible that before he announced his bid for the Presidency he could have transferred these loans to either his sons names or his daughter's in laws companies. However it is possible that the underlying assets did not change hands and the loans were simply taken over. 

Now imagine that these loans are in default or chronic delays in payments! Given that Trump never disclosed his tax returns for this period because doing so would show the changes on the liability side of the balance sheet. This puts the Trump Presidency at huge risk because it violates election laws and thus keeping all this silent is what the Russians have on him. 

To me the leverage on Trump has to be more than sex, and this can only be a money connection hence my theory.

Trump: Visited again.

My friends joke that I seem to have a vendetta against a certain Donald J Trump, even though I admit I am at times infuriated by his words, and actions and the persona of the man who has debased the office of the President of United States and conned millions of people into believing he is the real deal. Yes he has done a few good things, the initiative with North Korea (still a long way to go) and reduced taxes but most of all the only good he has done is made us realize how gullible we can all be.

D J Trump, the ultimate opportunist, was clever to notice the cracks in American society and in the American mind set and no matter how ugly the consequences of prying open that crack he felt it was the one ace he could play that might just work. This crack revealed the fears of the disfranchised Americans, the blue collar,mostly white workers, the ultra conservatives who in their hearts never liked the 'others', the many who privately felt their jobs had been stolen by not only the immigrants, both legal and illegal, but also the worker in China, Indonesia or where ever he may be. Opening this crack wider would be flirting with the likes of the KKK and their many cousins, calling a ban on 'all Muslims' from entering the United States of America, and even picking an ugly fight with a gold star parent.

Politicians bend the truth rather habitually, Mr Trump, as candidate Trump, went one step further, he habitually told lies, even privately gloated about how he told a lie to the Canadian Prime Minister. Till last count he had crossed 2,149 misleading statements, and he is by no stretch of the imagination finished this ploy. He talked of a wall that Mexico would pay for, and then when that was not going to happen he brought the immigration issue including the DACA regulations to the forefront and deflected from his promise of Mexico paying by suddenly asking Congress to approve the cost.

The Democrats, led by Hilary Clinton and her clan, played into the game, running a reactive campaign, over confident that Trumps gaffs, including his boast of grabbing women by their private parts would sink him. So much so Hilary and Co lost sight of the fact that their vote bank of blue collared workers was slipping away and she did not even bother to go and bolster support amongst the very people who normally would have voted Democrat, but Trump somehow spoke to their fears better than she ever could. Tinged with over confidence Hilary Clinton faded, even though one may argue that the email scandal so near the election eroded her vote bank even more drastically in the key states. While the popular vote remained in her camp she just did not have a strategy for the electoral college.

I assumed after the election Donald J Trump would somehow become Presidential in his demeanor, somehow the Oval Office does that, we saw that with Bush Jr, and others before. The resonance of the oath taking ceremony had not yet left our ears and the first of the many lies came from the White House over the size of the crowd at the inauguration ceremony. This time it was not President Trump but his press secretary lying for him. But the undertone was even more sinister, it was like President Trump and his cronies want the world to somehow accept that he is more popular, more smarter and better loved than his predecessor, Barrack Obama. In the months that followed everything that President Obama did had to be unscrambled and attacked. It was almost like some White Supremacist had drawn up a list of things that need to be attacked that were done by the first black President of the United States.

On a global level President Trump has embarked on an even more bizarre journey. Hugging the adversaries of the US, ridiculing its allies, and in the midst of it all launching a trade war which no one, not even the mighty United States can win on its own. The Russian President Putin could not have asked for a more likable ally in the world than Donald J Trump; after all he is dismantling or at least undermining NATO, imposing tariffs on the best trading partners of the US, and in a sinister sense working to Kremlin's agenda and perhaps the slogan of Making America Great Again is working to Making Kremlin Great Again.


I then stop to think of this is a more societal context. Perhaps Donald J Trump is right that the soul of America does not want immigrants, that the average American does not want a Muslim living in his neighborhood, that the US farmer wants America Great Again even if he has to burn his crops because the trade war means he cannot sell his grain to China! Perhaps in the past two decades the average American I met in my many visits to that lovely land has changed from the curious, warm hearted welcoming American, to a NRA sticker branding white supremacist who this time around would not welcome me for the BBQ in his back yard. Perhaps the US is going to become isolationist leaving the world for the Chinese and Russians to carve up between them, and withdraw itself into closed borders (as opposed to controlled borders), nagging problems with neighbors and torn up alliances and abandoned allies.

The impact of this is far reaching as social media exaggerates the platform of debate. Indeed people do not discuss issues they argue them now and even blatantly fight over them, throwing in the good measure of fake news to skew the battle lines in their favor. Political tolerance has been washed aside to the extent that even social tolerance is now not visible on the edges of this divided society. Discussion even with facts does not work because of perception of facts have been bent out of shape on both sides of the divide. One has to now define our friendships with those of differing political views with the adage 'lets remain friends but not discuss politics!'

Whether Trump caused this societal paradigm shift or merely saw it as a useful tool to exploit is debatable. The fact he fueled the fires of hate was enough and when he had that one historical moment to change the tempo and tenor of his message to one of tolerance he let it go after his inauguration.  Instead he embraced the division, fed the fire with more lies and hate, creating a sense of the victim remedying the flaws of many Presidencies before him. The appeal of the evangelists who see him as some Christian savior resonated in his sense of self importance and perhaps he truly sees himself in the only possible way he can; as the greatest of all times!

If this is a societal shift then the politics of hate and division that President Trump started as an election ploy have now seeped into the grain of the US national psyche; something that cannot be washed away with soap and water. Yes poison does leave the body of the victim, before it kills him, but this will not go away on its own. His base, as he calls it, will forgive him for his fornication, for his hatred, for his lies and hell even if he steals, but then is his base larger than the values that have always held the United States of America as the land to which the hopeful aspire for freedom and liberty?

Media and the US Political Process.

One of the principles of the US political process has been the process of accountability of politicians and government by the vast and power media. To the purists the power of the press as been seen as an important watchdog over executive power enshrining the principle of free speech into a legal right, thus giving it  unmatched ability to not only question but even bring down political figures. Gary Hart, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton all faced the sanctions of the press and these episodes exhibited to the average thinking American that there was someone outside the political process speaking out for the excesses of politicians.

The emergence of Donald Trump onto the political scene in a sense changed the working formula between the press and the politician. While today we are overloaded with the jargon of 'fake news' and 'alternative facts', there has been something more interesting happening. When Trump announced his intent to run for President most felt that not only was it a far fetched idea he also would be the largest target for the press to go after, his bankruptcies, his treatment of women, his almost xenophobic and racist view, all suggested he would be brought down by the press before he even finished spelling the words PRESIDENT, (assuming he could spell).

 Then something quite unique happened. Trump knowingly or unknowingly, started to use the press, yes the very press who could target him, to manufacture consent amongst the public. In the backdrop of the political climate of the US, he enraged the liberal within us, and was embraced by the disfranchised American who seemed betrayed by the political process. When he claimed he would 'drain the swamp' in Washington DC, he spoke out what millions of Americans felt that there was a stinking swamp in DC. When he went after the Mexicans and talked of wall be appealed to the millions of Americans, who rightly or wrongly felt they lost their job to the illegal immigrants. When he painted a religion as 'terrorist' and called for a total ban on all Muslims from entering the US, he voiced what many not familiar with the rise of terrorism were really thinking.

As Trump became more bizarre in his comments and approach the press actually gave him more press coverage! WHY? Simply put as much as the liberal press wanted to go after Trump they knew this outrageous, politically incorrect and often factually off the mark candidate was getting more eyeballs to their channels and newsprint. To media advertising revenue is important and to get that they need eyeballs. The more they fed the news, even if ridiculing Trump, the monster became larger and larger. In a sense it was the Press that created Trump, gave him a media mandate he could not have bought for all the dollars in the world. I believe in that sense the very networks Trumps calls 'fake news' are the ones who created him, and in a sense helped him win the hearts and minds of the unheard vote within America.

On a broader front the political climate into which Trump was stirring the press was fraught with its own problems. The Democratic Party was divided in a more deeper sense than was visible on the surface. Eight years of Obama's administration had in a sense ignored its constituency and the party organization at the state and county level in key states seemed to have been ignored. Hilary Clinton represented a political segment which largely was considered out of touch with the blue collared workers who had been behind the Obama revolution, and too entrenched with the vested interests within the Democratic Party resulting in Bernie Sanders as the voice for the very workers that felt had been ignored by the likes who those who threw in their lot with Hilary Clinton.

It would not be incorrect to say that the Clinton camps shenanigans robbed Bernie Sanders of the nomination and in that one move stepped further away from the very blue collared workers who then swayed to the Trump camp. Hilary's own problems with emails, and lack of focus on the issues all played out in a back drop where Trump was winning over the unheard, making statements and promises that seemed stretched but by then the electorate really did not care.

I have no doubt in my mind that the moment Hilary Clinton hijacked the nomination from Bernie Sanders she lost the heart of the Democratic Party. I also believe that Trump could not have romped into the White House had he been facing off Bernie Sanders. While the Democrats have to reinvent themselves and go back to the grassroots with a fresh approach the media on the other hand has three and half years of waltzing to learn with a Trump who will always be out of step with them.

The media also has to do a major rethink of their role and in a sense bring in a more balanced approach. Feeding the monster will only make it larger than it is, and while resetting the relationship may not be easy it would help if the media realized they were a part of the circus that created the consent that took Trump to the path of the White House.

The Orlando Tragedy and American Politics.

At the outset let me state emphatically that I am against ALL forms of violence and any loss of life under any circumstances is a deplorable act. The tragic events in Orlando where 49 people senselessly lost their lives to a deranged man who attacked a night club armed with guns and the intent to take lives. The tragedy speaks for itself in overtones of grief that cannot be cured by words alone. In the same breath the shooting has been become a political tool for both Republicans and Democrats camps and centres around two crucial issues; the role of radical Muslim militants in this shooting and the issue of gun control.

In essence there is no difference between this attack, in its intent and ferocity, from other attacks in schools and public places all over the United States. What makes this a political issue is that the attacker was a Muslim and purported to call 911 during the attack and pledge his support for ISIS. In sincerity the attacker does not fit the profile of a Muslim radical; yes at times he attended prayers at the local mosque and claimed he had friends in ISIS and in Hezbollah, (which is very unlikely as both those organisations are sworn enemies). What is more likely is that this deranged man had an issue with gay people and exacted his anger by killing people. He was not someone fired up with ISIS ideology looking to carry out their promised attacks on America. In essence his actions in acquiring guns and entering a public place and randomly shot people no different from the actions of the shooters in the cases of Sandy Hook Elementary School and Columbine High school.

Since Jan 1, 2015 there have been 27 school shooting, (SCHOOL not public shooting) in the US, in which 23 people were killed and 52 people were seriously wounded. It may be pointed out that not one of these 27 shootings was carried out by a Muslim attacker or by a recent immigrant. In most of the cases the shooters had either easy access to guns or had no problems in acquiring the guns, and one can say that none of the shootings were politically motivated. No one has come and claimed that there is some form of Christian radical movement behind the killings only because the attackers in each case was a Christian. The fact that Omar Mateen who was the killer in Orlando was a Muslim does not make the act more radical other than giving ammunition to people to play the Muslim terrorism card. There is just as much a chance of a fundamentalist Christian angry about gay rights to carry out such an attack as it was for Omar Mateen to carry out this attack.

Using a paint brush to call all Muslims radical and to assume every immigrant to the US comes with the intent to carry out attack is ludicrous. From an international perspective lets get something very clear, that radical Muslims are attacking more Muslims around the world than targeting Americans. Yes there have been some attacks by them in Europe and the West, but these are minuscule attacks compared to what is happening in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Pakistan just to name a few countries.

Now onto the issue of gun control; why would a man want to buy an semi automatic high powered rifle to shoot rabbits? Why are these guns so freely available to the average man in America? Can we assume a proper sense of responsibility about using guns on the part of each owner? If this was the case then how come we have thousands of gun deaths in the US each year. Simply put the guns need to be controlled and ideally should only be in the hands of the law enforcement people and hunting guns should be better defined and better controlled. Yes a radical or deranged man will still try and get illegal guns but then the access will be more difficult.

I live in the UAE, we do not have guns in the hands of people. We have Muslims, Christians, Hindus and people of other beliefs living here, to the extent that one can argue the non Muslims are over 50% of the population. We have not had one public shooting, not one school shooting, not one attack based on religious hate and to the extent that any religious or ethnic hate talk is immediately dealt with by the law.

Obama's Open-Minded Middle East Solution

Washington Post discussion


The Current Discussion: Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?

One of the assurances that Israel has always had is the unwavering support of Washington, both when Israel is harmed and when it acts to harm others in response to its own perception of threat. President Obama, it would seem, is taking a slight detour from this established principle of U.S. foreign policy; keeping Israel as the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but effectively seeking a dialogue with Iran and at the same time wanting to push both Israel and the Palestinians to work out peace. While on the face of it there is nothing new in this approach, look at it in the rhetorical context of how past American administrations have handled Middle East policy. President Obama's approach is more open-minded and more interesting. His call to lead the world through example and deeds rather than simply by bullying has resonated well with many countries.
The Israeli position, as much as it professes the need for peace, takes as a starting point that peace must meet Israeli demands, which of course include the immediate cessation of all nuclear activity by Iran and a dismemberment of Hamas in Palestine. Yes, Iran must stop any activity related to the procurement of nuclear weapons and open itself up for international monitoring. But by the same logic Israel, too, must come clean on its own nuclear weapons, which it does possess, and to come to an agreement with the IAEA on how it intends to dismantle its own nuclear arsenal. If the logic is that it needs them for its defense, then clearly other countries, be they Iran or Mongolia, can make the same argument. As for Hamas, we often forget that it was elected into power. While it does resort to violence, which it too must renounce, the fact remains that its political future must be decided by the ballot box and not by pressure from abroad.

President Obama will face the wrath of many of the hawks in the U.S. State Department on his foreign policy initiatives as he tempers threats with dialogue in the Middle East. While it may not win him friends on the right of the political spectrum, it will certainly bring back fairness to the attempt for peace on the region. The chief complaint for the past three or more decades has been that the U.S. government has never really been balanced and fair in its handling of the Arab world, especially when it came to the issue of Israel. I am not suggesting that President Obama will or should abandon Israel, though the sad truth is that when he does ask for moderation in U.S. support and seek fairness and dialogue, many will assume that Israel has been abandoned.

Israel's preferred solution for Iran would be to first bomb their suspected nuclear sites, as they did with Iraq in 1981. But the world is different place than it was then. It is also well known that after Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel drew up a contingency plan to use Sri Lankan airbases for which they had operational rights, to see if they could disable Pakistan's nuclear capability. The fact that all this never happened does not mean that Israel was never planning such moves. It highlights the underlying mindset of how Tel Aviv would wish to resolve things in the Middle East. Obama has a sincerity of purpose and a resolve for showing the way without force which his predecessor grossly lacked.

While people might assume a U.S.-Israel falling out with the new Obama policy, that's highly unlikely. Strains will appear, but a complete breakdown will not happen. It would be helpful if Israelis also understood that the constraints of world policy are complex. While peace in the Middle East is of paramount importance, there is a need to consider a strategic peace effort which is good for all, not just for a few. The consequences of these changes in U.S. policy will at worst mean a sulking Israeli Prime Minister and at best a realization that the road to peace in the Middle East does not only lead through Tel Aviv. If anything, it goes through all the capitals of the Middle East.

Obama Must Bring Middle East to the Table

Obama's biggest mistake would be failing to bring the warring parties in the Middle East to the table. While the Arabs must also show their willingness to trust Obama, and be willing to allow him the time to settle down, they will also have to moderate their position if they want peace. On the Iraq front the conditions for a substantial U.S. withdrawal, even if incomplete, is more likely then ever before. Afghanistan will be a bigger challenge as confrontation has never worked in the long and checkered history of the country, and I am not sure that the Obama camp completely understands the complexities of that tribal land.

The Israeli government has given him the first real test of his foreign policy acumen. This adds to the Bush Blunder of Iraq and Afghanistan, where Obama has already made clear his position of disengagement, albeit with a slightly different approach. While in Iraq he would favor a quick withdrawal, in Afghanistan he would want to build up troop strength to overcome the resistance and 'bring peace' to the country. While policy action on both Iraq and Afghanistan are more within Obama's direct purview as the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, the situation in Gaza is more a test of his diplomatic determination.

Political observers in the Arab world may be banking too much on the Obama administration, hoping it will immediately seek a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and an end to the hostilities. This might be more a result of military realities. But dealing with the political carnage and the lack of trust in the U.S. as an honest broker in the Middle East are the more pressing issues for the Obama team. The expectation of the Obama administration is not to take sides, but more to be fair and even-handed in its dealing with all parties. Whether the issue is Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan, the world expects the U.S. to restore confidence and be willing to make hard policy choices to bring peace.

On a broader canvas of foreign policy initiatives, Barack Obama will have to re-engage in serious dialogue all of the world actors whom Bush has spent eight long years alienating. Bush created a world where it was assumed, for example, that all Muslims were hell bent on destroying the United States, one in which the onus was on every Muslim to prove he or she was a 'good Muslim.' This clearly is a distorted view of the Muslim world, and it is one of Obama's most serious challenges. It will not be an easy task and there will have to be serious effort on both sides to find trust to engage in a new social set of principles. The 'War on Terror' will have to be replaced with a 'War on Intolerance', anger will have to be replaced with understanding, force will have to be replaced with empathy and most importantly, all must understand that a disjointed world is not in the interest of humanity.

Barack Obama has won the presidency. In the next six months, he has to win the right to be called a world statesman.

Senselessly Barbaric

The ferocity of the attacks by Israel, its use of white phosphorus on civilian populations, its total disregard for women and children dying in Gaza all indicate a rabid barbarism that has not been seen in modern times, all the more as Israel tries so desperately to take the moral high ground on this issue. In the first place it was Israel who on Nov 4, 2008 first raided into Gaza killing Hamas fighters in the raid, and thus broke the ceasefire, there had been no rocket attacks at that point since the last ceasefire. It is convenient to claim that eight years of rocket attacks have caused this invasion is nothing but a spin. While it was acknowledged through the six month ceasefire Hamas has made efforts to stop rocket attacks into Israel there were the odd rouge attack which, even the Human Rights Watch said were hard to stop.

When Israel reinforced the blockade of Gaza on December 19, bringing down the supply trucks to a mere 70 trucks that were allowed in, instead of the 500 hundred a day needed to sustain the population of Gaza, the ceasefire had effectively ended. Irrespective of this technicality, and even assuming the Hamas are entirely to blame for the attacks and the collapse of the ceasefire, how can collective responsibility be set onto the entire population of Gaza? Of the 900 killed the actual number of Hamas fighters are a small percentage, so much so that after the incident of Beit Zaitoun where 30 women and children were killed in a missile attack on a building where the previous day Israeli troops had herded the families in on grounds of it being 'safe', one can only assume that war crimes would be an appropriate word for the way the Israeli army has conducted itself.

The question of the conduct of the war cannot be justified merely on grounds that the Hamas started the war, this is a misplaced logic as it assumes therefore Israel is absolved of any responsibility of the way it conducts the military operation. Israel cannot simply say because of the rockets it attacks it is now morally acceptable to kill women and children in Gaza. Once Israeli spin doctors realized there is just so much that can be blamed on the rocket attacks they changed their tune to say Hamas fighters are using women and children as human shields. This is such a weak and feeble argument that international observers have scoffed at the mere gall of Israeli commentators to even suggest this.

When in an article for Postglobal I used the word 'genocide' I was told it was was using terms that were no appropriate. Perhaps I can concede that, but I would need to know then what is the current horror described as? I am not asking for explanations of what Hamas did, I know they have not been exemplary citizens of the world community. I am asking has Israel lived up to its claim that it takes care 'not to target women and children.'?

World reaction has been appalling as far as the governments of the world are concerned. The people with conscious have spoken up, in the streets of Europe, the US, and Asia, but where is the voice of governments. The Arab League is as good as a society of eunuchs who cannot even condemn the Israeli action without worrying about what the Americans will tell them. As for the US government the measure of ethics has been long since discarded and its shocking that President elect Obama has not even spoken up about the Israeli action. Clearly there is more hope, perhaps misplaced, on him changing the tone of what is happening than anyone else.

For the Arab governments, the Egyptians are playing honest broker half hoping that Hamas is weakened to the point where it is ineffective, in the process ignoring the carnage on the streets of Gaza. The rest of the Arab world is caught up in their own issues or at best ignoring them and none of them have seriously told the US to exert pressure on the Israeli's to stop military actions in Gaza, or atleast end them against civilians.

To consider an enduring peace as a possibility is now all the more difficult as the people of Gaza have suffered to an extent where their hearts are hard and the neglect of the world has become all the more obvious. I merely wish to ask if, whatever the reasons, in a war 40% of the people killed were women and children and this was in Europe, or American or Israeli families had suffered this way would everyone have been quiet. Where is the conscious of the American media which questioned the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, where soldiers were convicted for shooting down women and children.

http://palestinianvoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gaza_mother_dead_children.jpg


This is the image that we need to remember.

What a change.

Less then ten years ago we would have said a black American US President was a 'no way' and that the US was not ready for such a step. With the amazing election of President Barrack Obama history has been made, but what is phenomenal that he never once played the ethnic or the race argument in his election campaign and instead concentrated on the issues of the war, the economy and the need for change in American society. From a virtually unknown junior senator he moved to forge the nation forward with a conviction that was infectious and a passion that was calm and his message was consistent. We have to also admire the man who picked off two formidable opponents, first Hilary Clinton for the nomination of his party and then John McCain in a style and way that saw them fall apart.

In this sense Obama was the voice of the young, and the unheard came to the fore with a crescendo that was deafening. He was gracious in his arguments and focused in his temperament allowing John McCain to even speak down to him in the debates, showing for once that while McCain wanted to feed off fear, Obama fed of the message of hope and bringing together an America that has challenges which were the result of the fears that both Bush and McCain, almost by default, were surviving off.

In a world where world statesmen are in short supply Barrack Obama for once has stepped forward and also claimed that role not only for himself but also now sets the stage for America once again to restore respect and dignity in the community of the nations. Indeed this is the moment where not only history is being made but he has offered a rare ray of hope to all, whether you are an American or not..

McCain-Palin: wool over the eyes

If I was only listening to the words from both Sen McCain and Gov Palin talking about Washington and how they will change Washington I would have sworn these were Democrats talking of changing eight years of Washington politics. Actually this is the biggest wool over the eyes attempt by the McCain-Palin camp to pretend that they are part of the people who will change eight years of mismanagement in Washington. It is almost as of McCain is trying to disown the Bush years, and in this way by putting aside the legacy he and Palin are running the risk of being in the mid stream of Republican politics and shedding them to be party less. Lets face it the McCain economic plan is exactly the same as that of the Bush years, so the current pain that is hurting American people is the same economic policies that McCain has embraced.

Gov Sarah Palin is ofcourse a surprise and while initially the gambit has paid off and the 'Palin who?' response was fed with her unique style of speech the reality is that she didn't say a word about universal medical care, education or the economy, actually showing how weak she is on these issues. The reality remains that the likes of McCain-Palin have never had the poor on the agenda and now try to review their mandate with rhetorical speeches; weak on substance, and emotional triggers. At the end of the day McCain played his prisoner of war (we are talking of the one over 35 years ago) card and Palin played her 'hockey mom' card when in reality none of her kids play hockey. Once the euphoria of all this dies we will find that Palin will actually be a liability even though she is being portrayed as an ideological heiress to the George W Bush without the liability of having been associated with him. The issue remains that she does not have the experience for the job and her handlers know (all politicians have handlers who tell them what to do) that there is just so much mileage you can get from stage craft.

If the American people buy this drama then indeed they have the wool pulled all the way over their face, perhaps down to their knees.

End American Alienation

The Current Discussion: In their campaign, should Barack Obama and running mate Joseph Biden advocate a clean break in U.S. foreign policy, or should they rely on continuity and experience?

The past eight years of U.S. foreign policy have been perhaps the worst ever for the image of the United States. I am not supporter of either Democrats or Republicans, especially when it comes to foreign policy. The U.S. policy towards other nations has been one of dictation, coercion and feeding off the fear that is being bred within the U.S. domestic policy. The war on terrorism has been made such a priority that upon its pretext two countries were invaded resulting in more than 5,000 U.S. deaths alone (many more than the 2,800 who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks.) After seven years, the man they seek is still at large, Iraq is a mess and unfortunately the U.S. image in almost every country is at rock bottom. It has become such a farce that the U.S. policy makers (and indeed the fellows in Homeland Security, too) do not know friend from foe, and a criticism of U.S. policy has been equated with being an enemy of the U.S. There must be a departure from this policy of alienation that the present U.S. administration has engaged upon.

So what should Obama-Biden do on foreign policy? First deal with the world fairly, and fairly means ALL parties are treated fairly. Bring the Palestinian question to the forefront, open a sincere dialogue with Iran, disengage in an honorable way from Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of all stop propping up governments that are unpopular (Musharraf is gone, though I suspect now 'General' Zardari will be the vanguard against terrorism in Pakistan.) Let the world see that actually most Americans are actually great people. The U.S. is the only true superpower left, which brings a responsibility to show leadership in world affairs, not hegemony. All these things that have to be done to fix things will be difficult, but they have to be done to make the world a better and safer place.

What will the hawks say about terrorism? Terrorism is a threat that has been made bigger than life; more people died in road accidents in the U.S. than by any other violent acts (42,815 in 2002, of which 4078 alone died on the roads in California, according to Fatality Accident Reporting System and the IRTAD.) Does this mean we wage a war on automobiles? More than 35,000 people each year are killed in the U.S. by guns and another 65,000 are injured, and yet there is no noise about this being an epidemic. But the war on terrorism has been pushed into such a major problem that the broader picture has been ignored.

The U.S. has to lead and it has to assume a responsibility to lead with fairness, a problem-solving attitude and statesmanship that has been frankly absent on the world scene. It is time to bring this all together; it's time for Obama and Biden to step up and do it. There cannot be another way forward because confrontation has never solved issues. While this may sound too aggressive, all I can say is that we have seen a major failure of U.S. foreign policy and it is now time to fix it.

Dear Candidates

My contribution to Washington Posts Postglobal site

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/01/dear_candidates_equal_attentio_1.html



Dear Candidates: Equal Attention to the World’s Problems
The Question: The U.S. starts to choose a president this week. If you could send the candidates one message, what would it be?

What the world today needs, more than ever, is a world statesman: someone who can guide the world with empathy and compassion, not guns and missiles. The world has been brought to the brink of massive destruction, and while one cannot blame American leadership for all of the problems, America must take responsibility for what it has done wrong.

The demands on your attention will be many, some born out of a moral prerogative, others born from the pressures of the commercial world and leading the world’s largest military power. While I do not expect leaders to be perfect, I do expect them to be fair on the issues of world politics.


We wish to see an American president who is willing to be brave and balanced on the issue of Palestine and Israel, to condemn the Israeli aggression with the same tone as Palestinian suicide bombers are condemned. We wish for someone who will act on world affairs based on reason and fact, not emotion and conjecture, to bring to the forefront the values of fairness that are expected within American societies. There is no doubt that America is a great nation, with some of the finest values of freedom of speech and the rule of law, but its leadership seems to have forgotten these values and these need to be rekindled into the body politic of the nation. It is this that will win the hearts and minds of the people around the world. Asking for democracy in Iraq and and Pakistan is indeed a bold statement, but to ignore China's violations of human rights especially with respect to Tibet, or to take the pressure off of Burma, all show that its current leadership seeks selective democracy.

The world ahead of us needs understanding, not an ‘us and them’ approach. American leaders need to become the 'we', with a true worldly view. At the start of this long road to the White House, which of you will embrace this vision, and more importantly which will carry it into your term of office? The world is watching.

Sher View: Clinton Library Funding

The Washington Post yesterday has raised the issue of foreign, which should imply all foreign sources, but names mostly Middle Eastern sources, and implied there was something sinister about the donations to the former presidents' presidential library. For Senator Obama to also be mentioned that the wishes to bring in strict legislation to donations for such foundations shows that both the Washington Post and Senator Obama are way off the mark. First why question donations from the Middle East only, surely the British and European donors also appear on the list, indeed why not also question US donors too, after all they would have a greater vested interest to use donations for a political cause.

Most importantly, why would someone want to 'bribe or influence' a former President of the US? I can see it being an issue funding a presidential hopeful as being a major issue, (not that US special interest groups don't do that), but why would I pay say $10 million for a lovely library to a man who is no more in office, other than out of goodwill or friendship?

Secondly this is an old issue, as far as I see it dead and buried but brought up by Washington Post perhaps to support the Obama cause, consider the Post seems to like the Obama camp more than anyone else.

Thirdly, instead of celebrating such donations as a triumph of understanding and diplomacy its being looked down up either because the source of funding is not politically convenient or sounds sinister enough for respectable numbers to behave like weekend rags. Come on guys this was not like the Middle East funding some clandestine subversive group within America.

Fourthly, the Middle East donates alot of money to alot of causes, when you produce a daily cash flow of billions and need to only spend a fraction of that money, you do have alot of people lining up for donations. If reporters want to really do their homework then do mention the donations made elsewhere by these same Middle Eastern personalities. I know from personal experience, being an ex banker, that the late Sh Zayed of Abu Dhabi alone funded two major hospitals, one airport, a whole road network system in two towns, and a rural development program in Pakistan that ran into billions. Many will find fault with that, so if he then also gave say a million dollars to an EX presidents library big deal.

Finally, political motives could abound anywhere, the reality is that be fair, name all donors, and suggest the motives from all parties, and don't just bash the Middle East.

I marvel at the ability of the human mind to take something good and twist it into something sinister.