So the verdict is in... and its four more years. Only this time it is with a mandate! Mr. Bush has made it clear that he will reach out to people who support his ideas! So what will 4 more years look like? I believe this will be more divisive than any other presidency this country has seen. All the so-called reforms that could not be passed in the first four years will be implemented.
First will be the continued retreat on environmental reforms. Drilling in Alaska will be pursued with determination. Emissions standards will be degraded. Second will be the social security reform. By giving control of the social security to the people while in some ways good, I believe in the end will only be detrimental. Investing in todays global market requires some understanding of the global markets. If the common Joe takes over this I fear we will see a problem with retirement savings being badly mismanaged.
Third is the foreign policy. This will be continued push for the American Hegemony in the Middle East. Policies to "impose" democracy in various unfriendly states in Middle East will be continued. After Iraq, I believe it will be Iran and Syria's turn. While I donot think there will be an allout war in either of these countries, atleast not while US is engaged in Iraq, there will be significant international pressure brought to bear on these countries. However countries like Saudi, Egypt etc whose governments are on friendly terms with the US will basically be allowed to govern without any major changes though we might hear reform rhetoric once in a while. Also Israel will be essentially allowed a free hand to conduct its policy in the region (The death of Yaseer Arafat should it happen will probably be to Israels advantage in the short term, but that is the subject of whole new topic). However I feel while the US gets bogged down in the Iraq, the next threat to US hegemony is probably taking shape in the form of China and to a lesser extent India. But I donot think the next four years will see any new strategy towards these countries other than more of the same. US will rudely awaken one day to the new reality and it will probably occur in the next decade.
The last will be the tax reform. Everytime some one has touched the tax code it has only got more complicated. So we will see what Bush does. But one thing is sure, if you are rich (earn more than $200K/yr) relax you will definitely stand to benefit.
So that is my prediction. There are going to be record number to protest rallies in the capital of US. More truths about the Iraq campaign will come to light. Some of the administrations moderates will quit (Colin Powell), the neocons will take center stage. In the republican party itself there will be a fight between the neocons and the conservatives. And I have not even touched the so called moral values; abortion rights etc... So let the games begin.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Sunday, September 19, 2004
The World of Nuclear Weapons: A Response
RESPONSE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL "The World of Nuclear Weapons" (See Next Post to read the article)
Dear Editor:
The Nuclear Weapons issue is a very complicated issue. While the aspect of the threat this poses to the United States is quite well captured in the article, what the article doesnot explain is some of the complexity behind the reasons why each of these states try to acquire this technology.
The reasons for North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons is completely different from the reason for Iran to acquire them. Similarly the reason India acquired this technology is very different from why Pakistan exploded theirs. Regional power struggle issues are in some cases the drivers for these countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
US policy, I feel, focuses mainly on the threat these weapons pose to US. While this is a valid concern it only focuses on one aspect of the issue. There seems no efforts by current US administration to satisfy other legitimate concerns of these states. Also in the case of Iran and North Korea, Nuclear Weapons issue is, but one issue, part of a complex relationship with the US that needs to be addressed by this countries policy towards these countries.
The threat posed by terrorists acquiring these weapons is another aspect of this. Here fits Russia, Pakistan and other countries which possess this technology but donot have enough controls in place to ensure that these weapons donot fall into the wrong hands.
Unfortunately since 9/11 and the "with us or against us" rhetoric some of the complexity of these issues have been couched in highly simplistic terms without addressing the underlying problems.
Dear Editor:
The Nuclear Weapons issue is a very complicated issue. While the aspect of the threat this poses to the United States is quite well captured in the article, what the article doesnot explain is some of the complexity behind the reasons why each of these states try to acquire this technology.
The reasons for North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons is completely different from the reason for Iran to acquire them. Similarly the reason India acquired this technology is very different from why Pakistan exploded theirs. Regional power struggle issues are in some cases the drivers for these countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
US policy, I feel, focuses mainly on the threat these weapons pose to US. While this is a valid concern it only focuses on one aspect of the issue. There seems no efforts by current US administration to satisfy other legitimate concerns of these states. Also in the case of Iran and North Korea, Nuclear Weapons issue is, but one issue, part of a complex relationship with the US that needs to be addressed by this countries policy towards these countries.
The threat posed by terrorists acquiring these weapons is another aspect of this. Here fits Russia, Pakistan and other countries which possess this technology but donot have enough controls in place to ensure that these weapons donot fall into the wrong hands.
Unfortunately since 9/11 and the "with us or against us" rhetoric some of the complexity of these issues have been couched in highly simplistic terms without addressing the underlying problems.
EDITORIAL PUBLISHED IN NEW YORK TIMES
A World of Nuclear Dangers
Published: September 19, 2004
The cold war generation grew up worrying about the bomb, the Russians and World War III. Today's nuclear nightmares are more varied, but no less scary. The list of nuclear-armed states is lengthening alarmingly, and each new entry increases the chances that some nasty regional war could turn nuclear. Nuclear terrorism has emerged as a terrifying new threat. Russia has huge, poorly guarded stockpiles of nuclear bomb fuel and there is a small but increasing possibility that its decaying early warning system could trigger an accidental launch.
President Bush often says he means to halt the nuclear arms programs of North Korea and Iran, although he has yet to produce any workable plans for doing so. In February, he rightly called for tighter controls over nuclear fuel processing, used by several countries to produce bomb ingredients.
As a senator and a candidate, John Kerry has offered constructive proposals addressing almost every aspect of current nuclear dangers. While Mr. Bush has tended to focus narrowly on rogue states like North Korea and Iran, Mr. Kerry wisely favors a more comprehensive approach that would combine crisis diplomacy on these two priority cases with accelerated efforts to protect Russian stockpiles. The North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs are at the top of the nation's agenda. But it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that 95 percent of the nuclear bombs and most of the nuclear weapons fuel are in the hands of Russia and the United States.
Mr. Kerry would also break with Bush policies that unintentionally encourage nuclear proliferation, like the Strangelovian plans for research on unneeded new nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan tested their first nuclear bombs in 1998. North Korea is close, if not already there. Iran is not very far behind. In the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and the Korean peninsula, an escalation of conventional conflict into nuclear war has to be treated as a realistic possibility.
The steady spread of these weapons also increases the risks of backdoor sales of nuclear technology, as the worldwide arms bazaar run by A. Q. Khan of Pakistan so chillingly demonstrated. This creeping proliferation has meant the dispersal of nuclear bomb ingredients like highly enriched uranium and plutonium into countries with poor governance, uncertain stability and corrupt officials. That makes it easier for terrorists to acquire such material and try to fashion usable nuclear bombs.
Mr. Bush once lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea together as an "axis of evil." But his decision to invade Iraq limited the diplomatic and military tools left available to influence North Korea and Iran - which were undoubtedly taught by the Iraq experience that the best protection against a pre-emptive strike is a nuclear arsenal.
In both cases, precious time has been lost while the administration has followed largely unproductive diplomatic strategies. Mr. Bush now wants to ask the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. But many Council members, including major European allies, are not ready to do so. On North Korea, the administration has insisted on discussions including Russia, China, Japan and South Korea as well as North Korea and the United States. These have made no discernible progress, in part because Washington waited until this summer to put its first serious negotiating proposal on the table. With the talks stalled, North Korea has all the time it needs to reprocess its plutonium into several nuclear bombs.
Mr. Kerry would try to jump-start the North Korea talks with a comprehensive new American proposal. He would, like Mr. Bush, insist that Iran renounce all domestic processing of nuclear fuel while promising that it could count on access to reliable imported supplies of civilian reactor fuel in return. Any distinction between the two candidates on Iran rests on Mr. Kerry's contention that he could better line up European support.
If there is still time to dissuade these two countries from going nuclear, there isn't much. North Korea may already have assembled test devices. Iran may soon have all the technology and raw materials needed to proceed. Still, the international community should explore every avenue to persuade both countries that it is not in their best interest to build nuclear weapons. In exchange for a verifiable dismantling of their nuclear programs, Washington and other governments ought to be willing to offer substantial economic, diplomatic and security concessions. If that fails to produce results, international pressure will have to be substantially ratcheted up. Further months of stalemate while nuclear fuel processing work continues is not an acceptable option.
There is nothing secret anymore about how to process uranium or plutonium to the purity needed for bomb-making, nor is it all that hard to acquire the raw ingredients. And every nuclear wannabe has now learned how to disguise the early phases of a nuclear weapons effort as part of a civilian nuclear energy program, a trick pioneered decades ago by India and most recently employed by Iran. Unfortunately, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was explicitly intended to encourage such power programs, making it much harder to fend off the emergence of new nuclear weapons states. Obviously, the treaty needs to be toughened.
Mr. Bush has rightly called on other countries to deny nuclear-related exports to any nation that refuses to forgo such fuel processing plants. He should accelerate the process by calling on the four other main nuclear exporting countries to join Washington in an immediate ban.
It is also vital to extend the reach of the nonproliferation treaty with a proposed new fissile materials agreement. Senator Kerry strongly supports this and President Bush says he supports it too, but his administration recently undermined the treaty talks by announcing, perversely, that Washington would insist that the agreement contain no provisions for verification or inspections.
Although the United States and Russia have deactivated thousands of nuclear warheads since the end of the cold war, tens of thousands remain activated or sitting in stockpiles where they can be quickly reassembled. The arms reduction agreement signed by President Bush and President Vladimir Putin in 2002 calls for most of these warheads to be deactivated by 2012, but no reductions are required sooner than that and many of the deactivated warheads will still be retained in stockpiles. America's stored and deactivated weapons are well secured, but many of Russia's are not. In addition, Russia's poorly maintained launch command and early warning systems may be dangerously degrading. At some point, they might conceivably become vulnerable to terrorists. Well over a thousand warheads on each side remain on hair-trigger alert.
Washington is helping Russia upgrade its storage security, but at such a slow rate that hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium will be lying around for many years. Every ton of highly enriched uranium can be used to make more than 100 nuclear bombs. A ton of plutonium can go even further.
The answer is to sharply increase funding for the broad range of American programs intended to secure this material and reduce or eliminate other threats from cold war weapons. This is the most cost-effective defense spending in the federal budget. A bipartisan commission in 2001 recommended tripling spending for these programs, but the Bush administration has failed to follow through. Senator Kerry proposes a significant increase aimed at securing all of Russia's loose bomb fuel in four years.
While Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry seem to agree on many nuclear proliferation issues, the difference lies in their approach to international problems. Voters will have to decide whether Mr. Kerry's emphasis on diplomacy and international cooperation is the best way to keep a lid on these nuclear threats, or whether Mr. Bush's more unilateral approach to foreign affairs is better. There is no graver subject for their consideration this election year.
A World of Nuclear Dangers
Published: September 19, 2004
The cold war generation grew up worrying about the bomb, the Russians and World War III. Today's nuclear nightmares are more varied, but no less scary. The list of nuclear-armed states is lengthening alarmingly, and each new entry increases the chances that some nasty regional war could turn nuclear. Nuclear terrorism has emerged as a terrifying new threat. Russia has huge, poorly guarded stockpiles of nuclear bomb fuel and there is a small but increasing possibility that its decaying early warning system could trigger an accidental launch.
President Bush often says he means to halt the nuclear arms programs of North Korea and Iran, although he has yet to produce any workable plans for doing so. In February, he rightly called for tighter controls over nuclear fuel processing, used by several countries to produce bomb ingredients.
As a senator and a candidate, John Kerry has offered constructive proposals addressing almost every aspect of current nuclear dangers. While Mr. Bush has tended to focus narrowly on rogue states like North Korea and Iran, Mr. Kerry wisely favors a more comprehensive approach that would combine crisis diplomacy on these two priority cases with accelerated efforts to protect Russian stockpiles. The North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs are at the top of the nation's agenda. But it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that 95 percent of the nuclear bombs and most of the nuclear weapons fuel are in the hands of Russia and the United States.
Mr. Kerry would also break with Bush policies that unintentionally encourage nuclear proliferation, like the Strangelovian plans for research on unneeded new nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan tested their first nuclear bombs in 1998. North Korea is close, if not already there. Iran is not very far behind. In the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and the Korean peninsula, an escalation of conventional conflict into nuclear war has to be treated as a realistic possibility.
The steady spread of these weapons also increases the risks of backdoor sales of nuclear technology, as the worldwide arms bazaar run by A. Q. Khan of Pakistan so chillingly demonstrated. This creeping proliferation has meant the dispersal of nuclear bomb ingredients like highly enriched uranium and plutonium into countries with poor governance, uncertain stability and corrupt officials. That makes it easier for terrorists to acquire such material and try to fashion usable nuclear bombs.
Mr. Bush once lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea together as an "axis of evil." But his decision to invade Iraq limited the diplomatic and military tools left available to influence North Korea and Iran - which were undoubtedly taught by the Iraq experience that the best protection against a pre-emptive strike is a nuclear arsenal.
In both cases, precious time has been lost while the administration has followed largely unproductive diplomatic strategies. Mr. Bush now wants to ask the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. But many Council members, including major European allies, are not ready to do so. On North Korea, the administration has insisted on discussions including Russia, China, Japan and South Korea as well as North Korea and the United States. These have made no discernible progress, in part because Washington waited until this summer to put its first serious negotiating proposal on the table. With the talks stalled, North Korea has all the time it needs to reprocess its plutonium into several nuclear bombs.
Mr. Kerry would try to jump-start the North Korea talks with a comprehensive new American proposal. He would, like Mr. Bush, insist that Iran renounce all domestic processing of nuclear fuel while promising that it could count on access to reliable imported supplies of civilian reactor fuel in return. Any distinction between the two candidates on Iran rests on Mr. Kerry's contention that he could better line up European support.
If there is still time to dissuade these two countries from going nuclear, there isn't much. North Korea may already have assembled test devices. Iran may soon have all the technology and raw materials needed to proceed. Still, the international community should explore every avenue to persuade both countries that it is not in their best interest to build nuclear weapons. In exchange for a verifiable dismantling of their nuclear programs, Washington and other governments ought to be willing to offer substantial economic, diplomatic and security concessions. If that fails to produce results, international pressure will have to be substantially ratcheted up. Further months of stalemate while nuclear fuel processing work continues is not an acceptable option.
There is nothing secret anymore about how to process uranium or plutonium to the purity needed for bomb-making, nor is it all that hard to acquire the raw ingredients. And every nuclear wannabe has now learned how to disguise the early phases of a nuclear weapons effort as part of a civilian nuclear energy program, a trick pioneered decades ago by India and most recently employed by Iran. Unfortunately, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was explicitly intended to encourage such power programs, making it much harder to fend off the emergence of new nuclear weapons states. Obviously, the treaty needs to be toughened.
Mr. Bush has rightly called on other countries to deny nuclear-related exports to any nation that refuses to forgo such fuel processing plants. He should accelerate the process by calling on the four other main nuclear exporting countries to join Washington in an immediate ban.
It is also vital to extend the reach of the nonproliferation treaty with a proposed new fissile materials agreement. Senator Kerry strongly supports this and President Bush says he supports it too, but his administration recently undermined the treaty talks by announcing, perversely, that Washington would insist that the agreement contain no provisions for verification or inspections.
Although the United States and Russia have deactivated thousands of nuclear warheads since the end of the cold war, tens of thousands remain activated or sitting in stockpiles where they can be quickly reassembled. The arms reduction agreement signed by President Bush and President Vladimir Putin in 2002 calls for most of these warheads to be deactivated by 2012, but no reductions are required sooner than that and many of the deactivated warheads will still be retained in stockpiles. America's stored and deactivated weapons are well secured, but many of Russia's are not. In addition, Russia's poorly maintained launch command and early warning systems may be dangerously degrading. At some point, they might conceivably become vulnerable to terrorists. Well over a thousand warheads on each side remain on hair-trigger alert.
Washington is helping Russia upgrade its storage security, but at such a slow rate that hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium will be lying around for many years. Every ton of highly enriched uranium can be used to make more than 100 nuclear bombs. A ton of plutonium can go even further.
The answer is to sharply increase funding for the broad range of American programs intended to secure this material and reduce or eliminate other threats from cold war weapons. This is the most cost-effective defense spending in the federal budget. A bipartisan commission in 2001 recommended tripling spending for these programs, but the Bush administration has failed to follow through. Senator Kerry proposes a significant increase aimed at securing all of Russia's loose bomb fuel in four years.
While Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry seem to agree on many nuclear proliferation issues, the difference lies in their approach to international problems. Voters will have to decide whether Mr. Kerry's emphasis on diplomacy and international cooperation is the best way to keep a lid on these nuclear threats, or whether Mr. Bush's more unilateral approach to foreign affairs is better. There is no graver subject for their consideration this election year.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
A Movie and A Book
This weekend I watched a movie; "Fahrenheit 9-11" and read a book by Robert McNamara; "In Retrospect".
Both have a lot of relevance to what is happening in the world today. The movie while looking at the recent events, does not offer any solutions but rather wants to convey a kind of shock value using some dramatics. I felt the movie could have been made much better as this is a very important topic. However I think Michael Moore focuses too much on the dramatics rather than focus and research the topics at hand.
For example the scene where in he is standing outside the Senate Building asking Senators to sign up their kids for the war. Now this is pure drame; how can a Senator (or for that matter anyone) commit their adult kids. That is something the kids should decide for themselves. However this has a dramatic effect and nothing else.
Also when talking about families who have lost kids in Iraq, he again focuses on one family from Flint Michigan. He doesnot talk to any of the other families. When he talks to people who have lost dear ones in the 9-11 attack again he only talks to one person. No different perspectives are given or additional families are interviewed.
He doesnot cover the search for the WMD or the intelligence issues or how the Bush Administration has changed its message on Iraq over time. So in a way the movie defeats itself as it focuses too much on drama rather than the message. I would classify the movie as a documentary drama.
The book on the other hand is invaluable. It offers a history of how America got involved in Vietnam by one of the key members of the cabinet at the time; Robert McNamara. It shows how intelligent people, because of the circumstances, make decisions without analyzing data or questioning the underlying assumptions. This book should be necessary reading for everyone interested in the Iraq war. The chapter on the lessons from the Vietnam war is just compelling. It is amazing that if one were to ignore that the book is on the Vietnam war one would easily mistake it for the Iraq war. The lessons listed in the book, apparently have not been learned and assimiliated yet by the US Government for over 30years!
Both have a lot of relevance to what is happening in the world today. The movie while looking at the recent events, does not offer any solutions but rather wants to convey a kind of shock value using some dramatics. I felt the movie could have been made much better as this is a very important topic. However I think Michael Moore focuses too much on the dramatics rather than focus and research the topics at hand.
For example the scene where in he is standing outside the Senate Building asking Senators to sign up their kids for the war. Now this is pure drame; how can a Senator (or for that matter anyone) commit their adult kids. That is something the kids should decide for themselves. However this has a dramatic effect and nothing else.
Also when talking about families who have lost kids in Iraq, he again focuses on one family from Flint Michigan. He doesnot talk to any of the other families. When he talks to people who have lost dear ones in the 9-11 attack again he only talks to one person. No different perspectives are given or additional families are interviewed.
He doesnot cover the search for the WMD or the intelligence issues or how the Bush Administration has changed its message on Iraq over time. So in a way the movie defeats itself as it focuses too much on drama rather than the message. I would classify the movie as a documentary drama.
The book on the other hand is invaluable. It offers a history of how America got involved in Vietnam by one of the key members of the cabinet at the time; Robert McNamara. It shows how intelligent people, because of the circumstances, make decisions without analyzing data or questioning the underlying assumptions. This book should be necessary reading for everyone interested in the Iraq war. The chapter on the lessons from the Vietnam war is just compelling. It is amazing that if one were to ignore that the book is on the Vietnam war one would easily mistake it for the Iraq war. The lessons listed in the book, apparently have not been learned and assimiliated yet by the US Government for over 30years!
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Amazon.com: Books: When the War Was over [Published in English]
Books: When the War Was over [Published in English]
Author: Elizabeth Becker
" Excellent. A must read on Cambodian History, August 9, 2004
Reviewer: A. Prabhu (San Jose, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(Review Posted on Amazon.com)
I really liked this book. The book covers a lot of ground. Apart from covering at Cambodian history, the book tells the tales of individual Cambodians who have lived or died through the Khmer Regime. The book also covers the world political influence as the tragedy unfolds in Cambodia and how each of these players plays an active or passive role in the tragedy. The reporting on the resolution of the conflict is also very interesting. It shows how geopolitics and individual personalities are so critical in resolution of these types of conflicts.
The book also covers US attitudes towards the IndoChina region in the aftermath of the Vietnam war and what the implications of the attitude were to the region.
The only drawback of the book I found is that sometimes the narrative gets a little tedious and repetitive."
Author: Elizabeth Becker
" Excellent. A must read on Cambodian History, August 9, 2004
Reviewer: A. Prabhu (San Jose, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(Review Posted on Amazon.com)
I really liked this book. The book covers a lot of ground. Apart from covering at Cambodian history, the book tells the tales of individual Cambodians who have lived or died through the Khmer Regime. The book also covers the world political influence as the tragedy unfolds in Cambodia and how each of these players plays an active or passive role in the tragedy. The reporting on the resolution of the conflict is also very interesting. It shows how geopolitics and individual personalities are so critical in resolution of these types of conflicts.
The book also covers US attitudes towards the IndoChina region in the aftermath of the Vietnam war and what the implications of the attitude were to the region.
The only drawback of the book I found is that sometimes the narrative gets a little tedious and repetitive."
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Intelligence Failures and Gay Marriages
Whew what a week. First we had the report on the intelligence failure from the United States. Then we had the gay rights issues and now finally the intelligence failure report from the United Kingdom. Well I do not think it was any coincidence that these reports came out within one week of each other (bury the story… bury the story). And in the midst of all this what is Mr. Bush and Republicans main concern? To implement a controversial amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriages!
Both the intelligence reports from the two front runners of the coalition of the willing indicated the intelligence flaws which any news reader could have guessed a few months ago (that is there were neither weapons of mass destruction nor links between Iraq and Al Queda before the war). But both country’s press and political authorities have given George Bush and Tony Blair a clean sheet saying that they went to war because the intelligence reports were flawed. Now come on… who are they trying to pull a fast one on? Isn’t this a failing of the National Security Apparatus of both the countries? And what about our country’s Senators who are now giving reasons (Senator Rockefeller says the senators received the NIE a few days before the vote on the war and he regrets having voted) for their votes.
It is the job of our Senators and the National Security Council (Chaired by Ms. Rice) to question and ensure that the Intelligence estimates coming from the CIA are in the very least collaborated and accurate. How difficult is it to ascertain if Iraq had the capability to launch missiles which reach London (to quote Tony Blair) in 45minutes! I am appalled that essentially these reports and the corrective actions suggested (or to be suggested) will basically point to a flawed system without holding anyone accountable. And George Tenet who has anyway quit is now being assigned some of the blame conveniently!
So basically United States and United Kingdom went to war in Iraq to first destroy the infrastructure of that country and then reconstruct that country. Why? As we can see there were no WMD, no links to Al Queda and it is not the policy of either country to assassinate political leaders. So that leaves humanitarian reasons. Now from a humanitarian reason stand point there countries in a more desperate need for intervention than Iraq. And if it was not for oil I do not understand why else other than the fact the coalition of the willing decided it wanted to expend some effort in reconstructing Iraq that they went to war.
In the meantime innocent people are dying (but it is all in the big cause… oh I forgot I have not yet heard what this big cause is …. It must be in the same place where Dick Cheney has kept the evidence linking Al Queda and Iraq) and Mr. Bin Laden is enjoying sleep in a cave in the mountains of Tora Bora or wherever. And we have to watch a confused Mr. Tom Ridge stand and announce a new day with a new alert level based on some unspecific information. By the way what color alert are we on today… does anyone really care anymore?
Both the intelligence reports from the two front runners of the coalition of the willing indicated the intelligence flaws which any news reader could have guessed a few months ago (that is there were neither weapons of mass destruction nor links between Iraq and Al Queda before the war). But both country’s press and political authorities have given George Bush and Tony Blair a clean sheet saying that they went to war because the intelligence reports were flawed. Now come on… who are they trying to pull a fast one on? Isn’t this a failing of the National Security Apparatus of both the countries? And what about our country’s Senators who are now giving reasons (Senator Rockefeller says the senators received the NIE a few days before the vote on the war and he regrets having voted) for their votes.
It is the job of our Senators and the National Security Council (Chaired by Ms. Rice) to question and ensure that the Intelligence estimates coming from the CIA are in the very least collaborated and accurate. How difficult is it to ascertain if Iraq had the capability to launch missiles which reach London (to quote Tony Blair) in 45minutes! I am appalled that essentially these reports and the corrective actions suggested (or to be suggested) will basically point to a flawed system without holding anyone accountable. And George Tenet who has anyway quit is now being assigned some of the blame conveniently!
So basically United States and United Kingdom went to war in Iraq to first destroy the infrastructure of that country and then reconstruct that country. Why? As we can see there were no WMD, no links to Al Queda and it is not the policy of either country to assassinate political leaders. So that leaves humanitarian reasons. Now from a humanitarian reason stand point there countries in a more desperate need for intervention than Iraq. And if it was not for oil I do not understand why else other than the fact the coalition of the willing decided it wanted to expend some effort in reconstructing Iraq that they went to war.
In the meantime innocent people are dying (but it is all in the big cause… oh I forgot I have not yet heard what this big cause is …. It must be in the same place where Dick Cheney has kept the evidence linking Al Queda and Iraq) and Mr. Bin Laden is enjoying sleep in a cave in the mountains of Tora Bora or wherever. And we have to watch a confused Mr. Tom Ridge stand and announce a new day with a new alert level based on some unspecific information. By the way what color alert are we on today… does anyone really care anymore?
Monday, June 28, 2004
Random Thots!
Iraqi's finally have their sovereignty or do they! I guess only time will tell. It is good to be optimistic.
Also these microbikes... i hate them. There are these kids who drive them in front of my house and boy do they make a racket. I thought that they were illegal and if they are not then they should be. These kids do not realize that anything in excess will finally hurt them. I am sure that like me my neighbours are also quite pissed off and eventually one of us will complain and this will stop.
Bill Clinton is visiting our area for his book signing deal. I am in two minds whether to go get an autographed book from the man. But all the reviews I have read about his book are quite bad so I am not too keen on buying the book. Typically I feel that one should wait for some time before buying a history or biography because by then some of the material is declassified. Anyway lets see what I do!
Also these microbikes... i hate them. There are these kids who drive them in front of my house and boy do they make a racket. I thought that they were illegal and if they are not then they should be. These kids do not realize that anything in excess will finally hurt them. I am sure that like me my neighbours are also quite pissed off and eventually one of us will complain and this will stop.
Bill Clinton is visiting our area for his book signing deal. I am in two minds whether to go get an autographed book from the man. But all the reviews I have read about his book are quite bad so I am not too keen on buying the book. Typically I feel that one should wait for some time before buying a history or biography because by then some of the material is declassified. Anyway lets see what I do!
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Lies and Democracy
America is getting ready to transfer sovereignty to Iraq. It has been a long journey to get to this point. However looking back; the question that comes to my mind is, has this adventure (or misadventure) been worth it. It seems to me that this whole thing started on a lie and since then it has only gotten bad. So lets see what these lies are:
1. WMD: It started off as a hunt for WMD (this 3-letter acronym has entered our lexicon thanks in part to this war). The Bush Administration scared the public stiff with the image of a mushroom cloud delivered from Baghdad. So far the hunt for these weapons has not turned up anything smoking (not even a gun). Somehow this issue has just got buried under tons of other issues like the prisoner issue etc. The press has not pursued this. And the administration spoiled it relations with the UN and world community over this.
2. Al Queda: Sometimes I feel that the administration was probably thankful for the 9/11 attacks because without this it would have been very difficult for them to justify this war. After reading Paul O Neil's and Joe Wilsons accounts it seems like the administration was looking for a reason for this war. In 9/11 it found it. It drummed the beat of the connection between Al Queda and Saddam, again without giving any substantial evidence. And when the WMD reason did not pan out the drum roll only got louder.
There has been a lot of talks about the neocons driving this war and the President being manipulated by them. But the more I think of this, I am starting to form the opinion that the President himself is a neocon who has surrounded himself with neocons and executes a neocon strategy. Why then would the war planning have started even before the 9/11 attacks.
A President who came to power based on the promise of building International coalitions has done the most damage to coalitions. He has gone about with a single minded objective of the war against Iraq and setout to achieve this objective as soon as he came into power. I beleive that if 9/11 had not taken place then he would have used a different reason to go to war.
All in all the administration's strategy is based on a set of lies it has told the public. It has disgraced American intelligence efforts (De Gaulle once told Dean Acheson that he believed the word of President Kennedy about the missiles in Cuba when offered to review evidence, can you imagine this today!) and reversed previous foreign policy strategies of the previous admistrations. America is now stuck in Iraq and needs to complete its mission no matter what administration comes to power. However I sincerely hope that that the people of America will see through an administration who has used lies and half baked truths to push its agenda and turn them out of power.
1. WMD: It started off as a hunt for WMD (this 3-letter acronym has entered our lexicon thanks in part to this war). The Bush Administration scared the public stiff with the image of a mushroom cloud delivered from Baghdad. So far the hunt for these weapons has not turned up anything smoking (not even a gun). Somehow this issue has just got buried under tons of other issues like the prisoner issue etc. The press has not pursued this. And the administration spoiled it relations with the UN and world community over this.
2. Al Queda: Sometimes I feel that the administration was probably thankful for the 9/11 attacks because without this it would have been very difficult for them to justify this war. After reading Paul O Neil's and Joe Wilsons accounts it seems like the administration was looking for a reason for this war. In 9/11 it found it. It drummed the beat of the connection between Al Queda and Saddam, again without giving any substantial evidence. And when the WMD reason did not pan out the drum roll only got louder.
There has been a lot of talks about the neocons driving this war and the President being manipulated by them. But the more I think of this, I am starting to form the opinion that the President himself is a neocon who has surrounded himself with neocons and executes a neocon strategy. Why then would the war planning have started even before the 9/11 attacks.
A President who came to power based on the promise of building International coalitions has done the most damage to coalitions. He has gone about with a single minded objective of the war against Iraq and setout to achieve this objective as soon as he came into power. I beleive that if 9/11 had not taken place then he would have used a different reason to go to war.
All in all the administration's strategy is based on a set of lies it has told the public. It has disgraced American intelligence efforts (De Gaulle once told Dean Acheson that he believed the word of President Kennedy about the missiles in Cuba when offered to review evidence, can you imagine this today!) and reversed previous foreign policy strategies of the previous admistrations. America is now stuck in Iraq and needs to complete its mission no matter what administration comes to power. However I sincerely hope that that the people of America will see through an administration who has used lies and half baked truths to push its agenda and turn them out of power.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Amazon.com: Books: Khrushchev: The Man and His Era
Amazon.com: Books: Khrushchev: The Man and His Era: " Fantastic...Fantastic, June 1, 2004
Reviewer: Ashok S. Prabhu (see more about me) from San Jose, CA USA
This is one of the best written biographies I have read. With so much action going on in this book who needs Fiction. In terms of a historical biography it gives a clear insight into the workings of Khruschev. It looks at his strength and his weaknesses. It covers so much ground and so well that I think this book is an indispensible guide to Cold War, how it came about and how it was played out. It also offers a great insight into the workings of the USSR and the beginning of its end. But above all it offers a look into one of the most complicated man in history. "
Reviewer: Ashok S. Prabhu (see more about me) from San Jose, CA USA
This is one of the best written biographies I have read. With so much action going on in this book who needs Fiction. In terms of a historical biography it gives a clear insight into the workings of Khruschev. It looks at his strength and his weaknesses. It covers so much ground and so well that I think this book is an indispensible guide to Cold War, how it came about and how it was played out. It also offers a great insight into the workings of the USSR and the beginning of its end. But above all it offers a look into one of the most complicated man in history. "
Lastest Books Read
Note: 5 Stars Indicate the best
- Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters: Matt Ridley****
- The First Man: Albert Camus***
- The Persian Puzzle; the Conflict between Iran and America: Keneth M. Pollack***
- War and Diplomacy in Kashmir: 1947-48: C Dasgupta ****
- Free World, America, Europe and the Suprising Future of the West: Timothy Garton Ash ***
- The Missing Peace: Dennis Ross ****
- In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam : Robert S. McNamara***
- When the War was Over: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution: Elizabeth Becker****
- The Palace Walk : Naguib Mahfouz***
- The Politics of Truth: Joseph Wilson***
- Against All Enemies: Richard Clarke **
- Khrushchev: The Man and his Era by William Taubman *****
- 1419: The Year the Chinese discovered the World ****
- Arab and Jew : David Shipler ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)