Afghanistan after the US withdrawal.

 Based on current announcements and actions it would seem the US and its NATO allies will soon be withdrawing all their troops from Afghanistan. This will be the end, as many hope, of the long US involvement in a war in a foreign country. One may question what did the US achieve in these two decades other than dislodging Osama bin Laden and the removal of the Taliban regime. Back in 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan, it was safely assumed that majority of Afghans welcome the removal of the Taliban regime.

The adoption of a new Constitution in 2004 and general elections accompanied with economic and social reforms were seen by many as heralding a new era of peace and well being. Today as the US and NATO troops pack up to leave Afghanistan's future is more uncertain then ever. The fact that after the invasion of the country in 2001 the Taliban were never really militarily defeated negates the very purpose of the invasion and does not abode well for the future. In fact in most of the 38 provinces of Afghanistan, where the Taliban had major influence in the rural areas of the country, a war of attrition by the Taliban continues with occasional bomb attacks on both civilian and military targets.  The inability of the Afghan government and its Western Allies to bring peace and security to the Afghan populace highlights the incompetence of the current government and the failure of the policies of its Allies. Added to the incompetence is the large scale corruption within the government which is not only rampant but also blatantly visible to the common Afghan. 

The much touted economic recovery of the country and the rebuilding of government institutions including the armed forces was indeed a failure. These efforts by the US and its allies to help the Afghan government stand on its feet were an exercise prone to massive corruption. One report suggested that every single contract had an element of either bribery embedded in it or the whole contract award was fixed. This malaise of corruption effected the military too where it has been common to hear of theft of fuel, equipment and ammunition accompanied by a desertion rate in excess of 25%. 

While the Taliban have been engaging in a dialogue of sorts with the various stakeholders and suggesting a working arrangement with the current Afghan government, the reality is that once the Western forces are out of the country all bets will be off. Within the Taliban there are various factions and while the moderate ones have been speaking in reassuring tones, the more militant sections of the Taliban are unlikely to be reined in with ease. Securing the key assets after the departure of Western forces is the first priority and suggests that securing the Kabul and Bargham airports will be a major test of the new be t Afghan order. 

The US has been talking of a military presence in the region close enough to intervene if necessary. Such a role is more likely to be air support to Afghan troops. However, the Taliban will be flexing their political and military strength on the ground and through the local administration in the 38 provinces where air power is of limited influence. The US has tried to engage the principal stakeholders outside Afghanistan with little success. Indeed Pakistan, especially through its historical ties with the Taliban could play a constructive role but its leadership is aware of the instability this can produce within Pakistan too. India, while not a neighbor to Afghanistan will claim its stake for political influence more so to counter Pakistan than anything else.

Sadly the idea of a peaceful transition from the present to a new scenario without Western military presence in Afghanistan is only going to work during the transition process thereafter the risks of Afghanistan spinning into a civil war are high. There is no denying that the majority of Afghans would not a return to Taliban rule but the twin problems of corruption and incompetence within the current government have eroded the will of people. A civil war will not be good for Afghanistan's neighbors and countries like Pakistan, Iran and Turkey will try to influence the various parties to avoid a civil war but the dynamics are too complex to be assured of this. 

Ideally it must be the Afghans themselves who decide on the future course for their country. The Taliban are also aware that Western forces can return to the country just as easily as they left, even though one may doubt if the political will to stabilize Afghanistan will exist in Washington once all the troops are out. It is possible in the current situation China might be the country who may, directly, or indirectly through Pakistan, try and bring some element of order to Afghan society. A civil war in Afghanistan will not suit Chinese economic and political ambitions in the region and while Chinese troops in Kabul is not going to happen, it can create enough proxy power within Afghanistan to influence outcomes.

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....

Pakistan-USA relations in a 'New' Pakistan.

Relations between Pakistan and USA are steeped in the history of the Cold War, the Russian invasion of Pakistan and recently through the prism of the War on Terror. Imran Khan, the newly elected Prime Minister, has promised a 'New' Pakistan and with it is the implication of a new policy framework for relations with the major powers, and especially USA. There is more than stifled anxiety in Washington over the new Pakistan and the US press, while mixed in its response of Khan's election victory has been quick to say that 'a dangerous Pakistan has suddenly got more dangerous.'

Imran Khan, while no stalwart of foreign policy affairs, is not a fool to take on the might of the US, who may well have sympathizers within the Pakistan military, but he is neither going to be a push over. As much as Islamabad will want to reframe the relationship, Washington will also have to accept that Khan would be open to redefining a relationship along new lines. Khan wants the label of Pakistan being a 'hired gun' to be removed through a new policy of engagement. To the US policy makers the strategic needs of Pakistan are secondary and something that Khan perhaps knows too well. To the US the war on terror is their number one policy objective and they see Pakistan as the destabilizing pawn in their efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan.

From Khan's perspective the wanton usurpation of Pakistan's sovereignty through drone strikes, which have caused large number of civilian casualties, need to stop. In an interview in 2012 Khan, then just a hopeful for leadership, spelled out some of his thoughts on this subject. His main view was the use of Pakistan army as a hired gun within Pakistan had resulted in a degree of alienation of the people from the government within Pakistan. He did not say it but implied that fight the problem of terrorism cooperation was needed and based on proof against the suspects it should be left to Pakistan to deal with the problem. However, it was also felt that the encouragement of the Pakistan Taliban by Afghan elements across the border also needed to be reined in.

The US has always been suspicious of the ties between Pakistan military and some of the suspected terrorist groups. While the policy of the military has been to eradicate the problem of terrorism, especially after the attack on school in Pakistan, there has always been an element within Pakistan, born from the Zia era, who supported the terrorist elements. Since the terrorists turned on the Pakistan population and with the passage of time such elements within the military have either been purged or have no conclusive influence in policy. The US needs to have an open and closer dialogue on this subject with the new government.

Imran Khan has in the past advocated a dialogue with the militant Islamist groups and something that has labelled him as an active supporter of such elements. Khan will need to spell his position on this subject more clearly, while one would agree with him that the fight is not for land but for the minds and hearts of the young generation. He argues that drone strikes drive the mind and hearts of young people into the lap of the militants. On a broad front one cannot not dispute this argument, but by the same token Imran Khan has to frame a clear and cohesive policy on dealing with the militant elements within Pakistan.

Khan, if reports are to be believed, has the support within the military to carry his agenda forward. He can also use this influence within the military to draw up a policy on dealing with militants. It will then arm Pakistan with a stronger moral argument to press Washington to influence Kabul to stop their support for the Taliban elements from Pakistan who are based on Afghan soil. If the US wants stability within Afghanistan then recognizing that Pakistan also has a role, however small, to play in this that strategy.

On the broader front the two countries will need to look at relations through a new perspective. Khan has been on record that he is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he wants an economic agenda to be the forefront of his foreign relations as he and his advisors realize that being an economically weak nuclear power is counter productive to the country. The US policy makers have a chance to reset their relations with Pakistan if they are willing to see that aside from the rhetoric from Imran Khan, he sees a mutually respectful relationship with Pakistan is possible.  Washington will need to learn that rather than tell Pakistan what to do, they will need to learn to discuss what needs to be done and then develop a consensus through discussion.

The flip side is that US policy, especially under President Trump, may just decide they can ignore Pakistan's role in the region and draw harder lines in dealing with Islamabad. While one would reason that sane minds within the State department in the US would argue such a policy would hurt US interests in the region, it is a possibility that Trump would ignore them. In such a scenario US policy would gravitate towards India, and Pakistan would continue to rely on its historical ally China. Thus Pakistan could well be the policy battleground between Washington and Beijing.

 In the coming months the roadmap on Pakistan-US relations will become more visible, and no matter how it may have been in the past there will have to be a fresh approach from both sides. Imran Khan would do well to ponder upon this and set out his road map and then leave it for Washington to respond. There will need to be an acceptance within US stakeholders that Imran Khan's priority will be economic development of his country and side by side the reining in of the terror groups because economic development in the backdrop of bomb blasts and domestic violence would erode public confidence in his government.

To move forward stereo types will have to be washed aside, the stakeholders on each side will need to discuss the new format of relations in depth and agree to disagree on some elements and agree to agree on others. Pakistanis also need to accept that the US has high stakes in the future of Pakistan, the trick is to make sure that the vision of that future is not too divergent.

A Tale of Two Horrors

Ramadan is a Holy Month for reflection, prayers and spiritual closeness to Allah; a month of fasting but also a month were patience and understanding and appreciating the message of Islam is utmost to Muslims. Clearly this was not the message that ISIS or its loosely affiliated groups wanted to give to the Muslims the world over. While there were scattered attacks elsewhere two of them stand out as the tale of horror; Dhaka shooting and the Baghdad blasts. Sure they follow the terrible attacks in Orlando and Istanbul but these two attacks need a fair bit of thought.

Baghdad Attack:

The awful attack in a shopping area of Baghdad killed over 200 Muslims who were busy shopping for the approaching Eid Festival; which is at the end of the month of fasting. For the people of Baghdad since 2003 there has been an undertone always of terror attacks, and this year alone it has been a vicious year of horror. In January 105 people were killed, February 66 killed, March 92 killed, April 32 killed, May 144 killed, June 15 killed, and July 215 plus killed. These attacks in the backdrop of major battlefield reversals for the ISIS in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq.

As the pace of attacks on ISIS has increased and have been more successful the battlefield in their eyes has moved to soft targets within the population of Iraq. I doubt given the disarray their command and control structure is in the ISIS would not be directing each attack with the traditional military intent. More likely for some time now the ISIS strategy seems to have been to have various militants prepared to carry out these attacks but leaving the timing and choice of the attacks to their local minders on the ground. These cells therefore would be operating under a very lose structure and little or no communication, other than within the cells, making interception and pre warning of the attacks impossible. This is precisely the most dangerous aspect of these attacks that a direct plan to stop each particular attack is quite difficult to implement.

The question remains what does the ISIS achieve from the political or military point of view?
Frankly from a political view such attacks actually alienate the populous from the ISIS even more given that the attacks kill Sunni, Shia and anyone who happens to be there. Militarily one could argue a small percentage of attacks were directly targeted at army and police targets, but of the 700 odd people killed this year in these attacks almost 80% very innocent civilians. So it would seem the purpose of the attacks is merely to give a message that ISIS may have suffered reversals on the battlefield but it has the ability to hit back whenever it wants.

Iraq is a fragmented country, a weak central government, sectarian discord and a propensity for violence on a scale that is unimaginable. One has to struggle to find a single strong unifying factor that can make Iraqi's, as a nation, say "ENOUGH". Somehow, as horrible as this attack was, I would hope this is the wake up call for the Iraqis to unify to bring peace to their land. Indeed this alone will not stop the attacks, a lot more effort has to be made to change the mind set of the people who get lured into the ISIS ideology, and indeed as ISIS loses foothold after foothold in the country one would imagine their ability to carry out the attacks would reduce.

Dhaka, Bangladesh:

I watch the TV and see images of the attackers posing in front of an ISIS flag, smiling, almost cynically prior to their carrying out their attack on a Dhaka eatery killing 20 people, mostly foreigners. What is alarming is that this attack is perhaps the first in the Indian subcontinent where direct allegiance to ISIS has been pledged by attackers before an attack. The radicalization of the youth in this manner is a surprise but can be explained by domestic political developments within Bangladesh. The Jammat i Islami (JI) party was aligned with a united Pakistan and during Bangladesh's war of Independence they sided with the Pakistan army. Since 2011, forty years after Independence, a series of legal steps were taken to deregister JI as a political party and from 2013 a number of its leaders were tried and sentenced for crimes related to the 1971 war of Independence.

In 2013 many of the JI followers took to the streets to protest the verdicts and attacked not only government buildings but also Hindu temples and other minorities. I believe that given the loss of their leadership and the sense of persecution by the government has driven these right wing elements into the hands of the ISIS recruiters. These attackers did not have the background and profile of the madrassa type indoctrinated youth, but came from middle class homes with a good education. I have always argued that an educated fanatic is the most difficult one to argue with because they have a sense of belief that they believe is intellectually well argued in their minds.


To me of the two trends the developments in Bangladesh are more serious as it indicates a policy and planning of attacks, coming from an educated militia of followers which are going to be hard to combat. This also ties into the passionate politics of Bangladesh and to the rank and file of the JI followers will be seen a just retribution for the verdicts against their leadership. One could argue that the trials of the JI leadership could have been handled differently, but then this is hindsight, for the moment the spectre of the ISIS finding a breeding ground for its twisted philosophy in the delta of Bengal is scary to say the least.

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.

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..

Al-Qaeda – the United States' Invisible Foe

The Current Discussion: CIA Director Michael Hayden says al-Qaeda is more or less defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should the Bush administration take credit? How much?

When wars are fought with an adversary who is largely invisible, how can one make the assertion that the war is over? CIA Director Michael Hayden says the war against al-Qaeda is over –“more or less.” Now if ever there was a wishy-washy statement, that is one. The question now is, is it “more” or is it “less”? The entire gambit of media output coming from the Bush Administration on Iraq, Afghanistan and indeed the al-Qaeda is so distorted and mixed up. At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the ensuing months, as the management of Iraq literally fell apart under the worst public management ever done by Mr. Paul Bremen and others, an insurgency against the U.S. flared up. This was, and is, a domestic movement, nothing to do with al-Qaeda or others. While some attacks have been attributed to and even claimed by the al-Qaeda of Iraq, this was largely a splinter element. Thus, to defeat the al-Qaeda is not consequential in Iraq. What is consequential is the larger issue of managing the country and bringing about order in a country where insensitivity to the aspirations of the people has led to the worsening of the situation.

In Afghanistan, while the al-Qaeda may well have existed and, perhaps, still do, the issue of law and order is more complex. I have no doubt that while the Taliban were hated by the people, the fact they reinstated order and stopped the internal civil war is what the Afghan people remember as more important. Hamid Karzai has had a tremendous task on his hands. Whether he can restore order has to depend on his handling of the tribal and social fabric of a difficult country – hopefully doing it without foreign troops propping him up.

I have always argued that the underlying problems of these societies have to be resolved, not just through cosmetic changes at the top or on the surface. This means bringing economic well-being to a broader spectrum of people, accepting that the aspirations of each might be different from what the U.S. may want. Yes, al-Qaeda may well be a matter of concern for the U.S. Administration, but one has to understand that within these societies the issues are much larger and more acute than they might expect. One has to admit that mismanagement of these societies was going on well before the U.S. intervened. However, if the purpose of the intervention was to make things better, this has been a total failure and the result is clear – we’ve allowed a destabilized society to be exploited by all factions in this invisible war.

Sher Value: Thought and Action

As the ink on these pages begins to dry out, hundreds of delegates to the Festival of Thinkers will have commenced the proceedings of the gathering, which brings together Nobel Laureates, powerful media personalities and people who have made a difference. While the Festival of Thinkers conjures the image of a hall full of people sitting in exaggerated poses, hand under chin, contemplating and pondering, the reality is that it sets a wonderful stage for bringing together people on a platform from where if nothing, understanding will emerge.

We do live in a fragile world, where issues from global warming to man made political disasters are threatening large populations of humanity. There is a greater effort being made to destroy what humanity has rather than build something for the future. It is therefore all the more important that efforts like this Festival serve not only as a platform for bringing people together for discussions, but also to move the mind set into action, into creating concrete accountable action plans for change.

Today there are hundreds of alliances and foundations for bringing change and welfare to humanity and earth, and they all are carving out a nice, positive role. What we need to consider is to move the envelope of experience further out, and think of such a platform as the Festival of Thinkers to become the aggregator of these alliances under a banner of ‘humane thought’. Such a collective will serve a huge purpose to aggregate alliances, charities and foundations to bring about structural changes in the body of society and economic and eco systems to allow for sustainable recovery. The most vital element today is coordinating the efforts of so many noble minded alliances and charities into a concerted policy of action .

Some years back I recall with the earthquake in Pakistan there were tons of agencies, charities and foundations pouring in aid, and resources to help in the earthquake devastated areas but it cannot be over looked that a large number of these relief efforts were actually duplicating themselves, causing actually a waste in the system of care. The Festival therefore allows people of a diverse range of cultures, educations and attitudes to sit together an work out an agenda of social change which will be followed up and not merely left behind on the delegates tables to be cleaned out the next day.

We live in a world where we need understanding, compassion and empathy. We need to understand why we have, mostly in the past 100 years, undone the quality of life that our future generations could have enjoyed. We have to pause at this moment and create the synergy that is needed between thought, business and compassion. Our model of tomorrow cannot be politically utilitarian; neither can it be economically and socially myopic because the results of these will be catastrophic. A Festival of Thinkers must create an idiom of thought which will force us to make a difference.