Mumbai Misperceptions: War is Not Imminent

Following the November 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, we repeatedly heard two messages. One, these attacks were India’s 9/11, and two, war between India and Pakistan was just around the corner.

Writer Amitav Ghosh divined a crucial connection between the two messages. “When commentators repeat the metaphor of 9/11, they are in effect pushing the Indian government to mount a comparable response.” Indeed, India’s opposition Hindu nationalist BJP has blustered, “Our response must be close to what the American response was.” Fearful of imminent war, the media has indulged in frantic hand wringing about Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals and renewed fears about the Indian subcontinent being “the most dangerous place on earth.”

As an observer of the subcontinent for over a decade, I am optimistic that war will not be the end result of this event. As horrifying as the Mumbai attacks were, they are not likely to drive India and Pakistan into an armed international conflict. The media frenzy over an imminent nuclear war seems the result of the media being superficially knowledgeable about the history of Indian-Pakistani relations, of feeling compelled to follow the most sensationalistic story, and being recently brainwashed into thinking that the only way to respond to a major terrorist attack was the American way – a war.

Here are four reasons why the Mumbai attacks will not result in a war:

1. For both countries, a war would be a disaster. India has been successfully building stronger relations with the rest of the world over the last decade. It has occasionally engaged in military muscle-flexing (abetted by a Bush administration eager to promote India as a counterweight to China and Pakistan), but it has much more aggressively promoted itself as an emerging economic powerhouse and a moral, democratic alternative to less savory authoritarian regimes. Attacking a fledgling democratic Pakistan would not improve India’s reputation in anybody’s eyes.

The restraint Manmohan Singh’s government has exercised following the attacks indicates a desire to avoid rash and potentially regrettable actions. It is also perhaps a recognition that military attacks will never end terrorism. Pakistan, on the other hand, couldn’t possibly win a war against India, and Pakistan’s military defeat would surely lead to the downfall of the new democratic government. The military would regain control, and Islamic militants would surely make a grab for power – an outcome neither India nor Pakistan want. Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has shown that this is not the path he wants his country to go down. He has forcefully spoken out against terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and has ordered military attacks against LeT camps. Key members of LeT and other terrorist groups have been arrested. One can hope that this is only the beginning, despite the unenviable military and political difficulties in doing so.

2. Since the last major India-Pakistan clash in 1999, both countries have made concrete efforts to create people-to-people connections and to improve economic relations. Bus and train services between the countries have resumed for the first time in decades along with an easing of the issuing of visas to cross the border. India-Pakistan cricket matches have resumed, and India has granted Pakistan “most favored nation” trading status. The Mumbai attacks will undoubtedly strain relations, yet it is hard to believe that both sides would throw away this recent progress. With the removal of Pervez Musharraf and the election of a democratic government (though a shaky, relatively weak one), both the Indian government and the Pakistani government have political motivations to ease tensions and to proceed with efforts to improve relations. There are also growing efforts to recognize and build upon the many cultural ties between the populations of India and Pakistan and a decreasing sense of animosity between the countries.

3. Both countries also face difficult internal problems that present more of a threat to their stability and security than does the opposite country. If they are wise, the governments of both countries will work more towards addressing these internal threats than the less dangerous external ones. The most significant problems facing Pakistan today do not revolve around the unresolved situation in Kashmir or a military threat posed by India. The more significant threat to Pakistan comes from within. While LeT has focused its firepower on India instead of the Pakistani state, other militant Islamic outfits have not.

Groups based in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan have orchestrated frequent deadly suicide bombings and clashes with the Pakistani military, including the attack that killed ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. The battle that the Pakistani government faces now is not against its traditional enemy India, but against militants bent on destroying the Pakistani state and creating a Taliban-style regime in Pakistan. In order to deal with this threat, it must strengthen the structures of a democratic, inclusive political system that can also address domestic problems and inequalities. On the other hand, the threat of Pakistani based terrorists to India is significant. However, suicide bombings and attacks are also carried out by Indian Islamic militants, and vast swaths of rural India are under the de facto control of the Maoist guerrillas known as the Naxalites. Hindu fundamentalists pose a serious threat to the safety of many Muslim and Christian Indians and to the idea of India as a diverse, secular, democratic society. Separatist insurgencies in Kashmir and in parts of the northeast have dragged on for years. And like Pakistan, India faces significant challenges in addressing sharp social and economic inequalities. Additionally, Indian political parties, especially the ruling Congress Party and others that rely on the support of India’s massive Muslim population to win elections, are certainly wary about inflaming public opinion against Pakistan (and Muslims). This fear could lead the investigation into the Mumbai attacks to fizzle out with no resolution, as many other such inquiries have.

4. The international attention to this attack – somewhat difficult to explain in my opinion given the general complacency and utter apathy in much of the western world about previous terrorist attacks in places like India, Pakistan, and Indonesia – is a final obstacle to an armed conflict. Not only does it put both countries under a microscope in terms of how they respond to the terrible events, it also means that they will feel international pressure to resolve the situation without resorting to war. India and Pakistan have been warned by the US, Russia, and others not to let the situation end in war. India has been actively recruiting Pakistan’s closest allies – China and Saudi Arabia – to pressure Pakistan to act against militants, and the US has been in the forefront of pressing Pakistan for action. Iran too has expressed solidarity with India in the face of the attacks and is using its regional influence to bring more diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

Still, however unlikely, it must be said that an unforeseen constellation of unfortunate events and colossally stupid decisions could result in war. Just before Christmas, Pakistan began moving military forces from the west where they had been engaging the Taliban to its eastern border with India as tensions between the two countries rose, despite recent conciliatory gestures on both sides.  However, because of the reasons outlined above, one can hope that both India and Pakistan will continue to aggressively engage in diplomacy, intelligence sharing, and military cooperation to cripple the types of organizations that have carried out the heinous attacks in Mumbai, and who threaten both countries.  If these efforts are fruitful, peace is indeed possible. War is not imminent.

Che and Evo: ¡Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

As the wide scale release date for Steven Soderbergh’s new film, Che, starring Benicio del Toro as Ernesto “Che” Guevara, draws near, the second half of the movie, Guerrilla, needs to be placed in a proper historical context.  The first half of the movie has a more accessible plot considering the general populace is more familiar with the Cuban Revolution. But what about Bolivia during Guevara’s involvement there?  What about Bolivia today?  The small South American nation seems to be left out of worldwide political discourse for the most part.  Soderbergh’s biopic about the radical ideologue will certainly increase awareness not only about Che and Marxism, but also his continuing struggle that is embodied by current Bolivian president, Evo Morales.

Che is concerned mainly with two pinnacles of its namesake’s existence.  The first half of the film, The Argentine, covers the Che’s involvement in the Cuban Revolution alongside Fidel Castro.  The latter half, Guerrilla, follows Guevara’s final revolutionary attempt in Bolivia.  His endeavor eventually fails, and he is executed for his subversion.

Guevara’s activities in Bolivia came during a time of quasi-military rule under President René Barrientos of the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement. The Barrientos administration attempted to maintain popular support within the peasantry while blatantly serving foreign interests, mainly the United States.  The president had initially come to power through an armed coup d’état in 1964 while he was serving as vice-president.  He would later be elected with help from the military.

After recovering in Prague from a failed revolutionary effort in the Congo, Che began to meet with Bolivian dissidents in late 1966 or early 1967.  With a band of Cuban soldiers and supplies from Havana, Guevara made his way to the Ñancahuazú region of Bolivia where a military training camp was set up.  There he began to recruit and train Marxist-sympathizing peasants.  The recruiting process was largely unsuccessful given that the Communist Party of Bolivia did not support his guerrilla movement.

In total, a ragged band of about 50 guerrilla warriors began an armed assault against the Bolivian army.  They won a few small victories throughout 1967, but the tide turned against them as Barrientos, with help from the CIA, took a strong stance against Guevara’s efforts.  Guevara’s small forces were quickly encircled by the Bolivian military and subdued in October of 1967.  Che himself was captured and placed in a schoolhouse where he was later executed. Reportedly, his last words were “shoot, coward, you are only about to kill a man.”  The execution had been ordered by President Barrientos himself.

Barrientos’ decisions surrounding the quelling of Guevara’s movement and his local supporters would eventually lead to his political demise.  During the onslaught against Che’s troops, a group of Bolivian miners came out in support of the insurgency.  Barrientos sent soldiers to extinguish this spreading sentiment.  This resulted in the soldiers massacring approximately 30 civilians of both sexes.  His authoritarian actions in both situations led to the loss of what popular support he still had.  In order to regain his popularity, the president took to traveling around the Bolivian countryside and explaining his actions.  While on this journey, Barrientos perished in a helicopter accident in 1969.  The country then plunged into decades of political and economic turmoil that lasted until the early 1990s. The political situation remains unstable even today.

Che’s gift to Bolivia would not be his dream of a violent revolution, but his socially progressive ideals.  He also encouraged anti-capitalist sentiments within the largely indigenous populace.  These concerns would later form the basis for the backlash to neoliberal globalization and neocolonialism imposed by the international community.

Evo Morales was elected to the presidency of Bolivia on December 4, 2005.  Since then he has carried on a legacy that began in his country with Che.  He is the first indigenous president of Bolivia and is seen by many as the first step to throwing off the shackles of Western imperialism.  He raised the minimum wage by fifty percent soon after his election.  In a landmark move, he partially nationalized Bolivia’s natural gas reserves, the second largest in Latin America after Venezuela.  In doing so, he has exponentially increased the amount of capital available to the national government.  This has allowed Bolivia to heavily invest in social welfare programs, which have been largely successful; as of December 21, 2008 Evo Morales has declared Bolivia an illiteracy-free region.

Despite Morales’ success and popularity, in early 2008 there was an autonomy movement in the Santa Cruz regions, the wealthy area of Bolivia, which was instigated by wealthy oligarchs.  This move led to rioting, which was reportably supported by the US ambassador to Bolivia.  The ambassador was promptly expelled from the country for his alleged subversive position. Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, in a show of solidarity with Morales, also expelled the American ambassador to Venezuela.

The US “War on Drugs” has also been a point of contention for Bolivian policy as the coca leaf is a traditional herb used by the indigenous people there as a remedy for altitude sickness and as a mild stimulant.  Morales, a former coca farmer and union organizer, has allowed for more legal production of the plant.  In response to this action, the United States has placed Bolivia on its narcotics blacklist and has stopped all aid to the poorest nation in South America.

All of these events culminated in an unsuccessful attempted coup against the Morales government in 2008.  The coup may have been tacitly supported in my opinion, although not very vocally, by the government of the United States.  Unanimously, the leaders of every South American country came out in support of the Morales government, and Hugo Chavez pledged military support for his political ally.  The coup failed, but some of the regions were granted a level of autonomy as a result of the coup attempt.

The rejection of US authority when viewed with Guevara in mind can be seen as a continuation of his beloved revolution.  Although for now, mass bloodshed has not been necessary to attain progressive goals in Bolivia, the future is uncertain. Recent declines in worldwide commodity prices put many of Morales’ social programs in jeopardy. This has the potential to lead to tumultuous times not only in Bolivia, but also throughout Latin America. Time will tell whether a socialist democracy can survive such an economic shock. As such, history will either view Guevara and Morales as idealistic failures or heroic humanitarians.  As for me, I’ll hope for the latter.

Arab Fiats: Islamicism is the New Communism

While many in the Western world cower in fear of radical Islamic terrorists and the Arab World in general, many of our fears are completely baseless. The truth is that in radical Islamists do not govern any Arab country with a significant population. That’s right, while many people see the entire Arab World as fanatical Islamists, the fact is they control nowhere.

It is clear that the true holders of power have often encouraged the fanatics in order to provide a distraction from the poverty and lack of development in many of their nations. This is in fact a strategy we also see used very effectively in non-Muslim countries. China continues to fan the people’s disgust for the massacres and tortures carried out by the Japanese during World War II in order that the people do not focus on leaders such as Mao Tse Tung, who was largely responsible for the starvation and genocide of his people. President Mugabe in Zimbabwe inflames the people by blaming the British for the cholera epidemic and malnutrition of the population.

In this light, historical lessons of the past century give us some interesting parallels to current realities. In the Arab world of 50 years ago, many countries were embracing communism, not fanatical Islamicism. After World War I, as anyone who has seen Lawrence of Arabia will know, the Ottoman Turks lost their Empire in the Arab World.  Much of it was divided between the British and the French, which caused huge resentment as Lawrence had promised they would have domain in their own nations as payback for their assistance in defeating the Ottomans. The British and the French set up puppet leaders and Monarchs, who assumed full authority when the bombed out European powers deserted most of their empires after World War II. When the European powers left, there was a wide power vacuum in much of the Arab world. The Soviet Union, which had just won the World War II on the eastern front, tried to help fill this vacuum. General Nasser took power in Egypt where Communism was fully embraced for a number of years. The Soviets gave considerable military aid to the Egyptians and built the High Dam in Aswan to control the flooding of the Nile and generate electricity. Communism was embraced by most of North Africa and became very pervasive in Yemen. In Saudi Arabia, communism was only put down violently by the House of Saud when they began to see it as a threat to their power. Socialism was established in Syria and Iraq under the ruling Baath Party. The Baath Party in Iraq had made many improvements for the status of women, education, and medicine before Saddam Hussein became a paranoid tyrant and took up the faith again to try to regain some credibility with his people. Some of these Communists Parties survive in limited forms to this day.

Over the past 50 years, many sons and grandsons of atheist communists have become fanatical Islamists, yet little has really changed in their day to day lives. Their financial situation has not improved, health services have improved minimally, and education has improved little. At the same time, their leaders and monarchs, as they did several generations ago, continue to live lives of uninterrupted luxury, hiding much of their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. They know very well that if they deceive their people to be engaged in rage against the West, whether it be by the Bible of communism or the Koran of Islam, they will maintain their status indefinitely. “The Great Satan of the West has caused their problems, and when he is banished it will be Heaven on Earth for them.”

In this light, it is unfortunate to have political leaders in the Western world who do not see this whole picture. The terrorists can never be beaten by firepower. They are only made martyrs, and like the Hydra, each head that is cut off results only in replication by many more. If we are to win over their minds and souls, tanks and warplanes can never succeed. For the trillions of dollars spent on weapons, how many hospitals could be built, how many wells dug, how many schools built, how many miles of sewers, aquifers, roads. How many farmers’ crops and lifestyles immeasurably improved? How many minds changed in favor of benevolent, trustworthy individuals bringing honest Western help, without questioning the beliefs of the recipients? Mind sets may not change in one generation, but they will in two. If such a fanatical movement can be built in this amount of time, with the power of good will, it can likewise be destroyed.

Complementary to this good will, the Western World must also cut off the leaders of these corrupt nations and city states, banish them from the club until a little more of their wealth, personal enterprise, and interest trickles down to assist their own people. Of course, as long as the Western world relies on their oil for their continued economic growth, this is unlikely. Such is the curse of economic inequality that often accompanies vast national resources in the developing world. Dubai, with relatively few natural resources, has been forced to make that the jump for the good of their people. As other illegitimate Arab monarchs and dictators freeze their Swiss bank accounts and overseas assets, don’t let them ski at our resorts and moor their yachts anywhere in the Mediterranean. Make them unwelcome in our lands. Let them feel the weight of their perfidy to their people. Let’s deal with the illness, not the symptoms.

Lone Star Rumblings: So Goes the Party

Top to bottom, the GOP in Texas seems to be foundering in a sea of disillusionment and infighting. Not just nationally, but in the Lone Star State as well, the Republican flock that gave rise to the Bush dynasty seems to have lost its faith.

The State of the Electorate

If a recent poll from Hill Research Consultants, entitled “Beyond Bush: Texas Republicans in an Obama Era,” is to be believed, Texas voters suffer from “Bush fatigue,” believe that the GOP is “arrogant, racist, corrupt, and unwelcoming” when compared to its Democrat counterparts. A generic R vs. D gubernatorial ballot gives Democrats a clear advantage at both the state representative and gubernatorial levels.

Generic Ballot Preferences	Republicans	Democrats
Governor	31%	44%
State Representative	31%	45%

Other points of interest note that “multiple deceased Democrats handily beat still living Republican office-holders in favorability,” and “Republicans are also failing to connect with younger voters and the Hispanic community.” Considering the state of Texas is growing younger and more Hispanic by the day, the Texas GOP seems to be on the wrong side of demographic trends.

So goes the opinion of the electorate in Texas, once the bread and butter of the Republican Party. They seem disillusioned and wavering in their support of the GOP and its direction. Hill, et al., warn that what happened in Colorado, a decidedly red state in 2000 whose governor, both chambers of the legislature, and both U.S. senators are now all Democratic, could happen in Texas. “The time to ring the alarm bell, if necessary, is now,” declares Hill.

Finally, it must be noted that the poll referenced in detail above was taken November 15-17^th, right on the heels of the general election. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the voters surveyed were encircled by the “Obama halo,” a feel-good sentiment that seemed to wash over much of the country, proud of itself for electing its first African-American president. In general, polls taken in the weeks immediately after an election are not as reliable. Many moderate voters often have a confirmation bias toward the winning candidate or party. However, with that said, the Texas GOP should ignore the results of this poll at their own peril.

Gubernatorial and Senatorial Implications

With the laity in such disarray, it’s no surprise that the Republican Party leadership is struggling to maintain order within its own ranks. Two key Texas Republicans are looking vulnerable, and not necessarily just from Democratic vectors.

Sitting Governor Rick Perry, who won reelection in 2006 with only 39.3% of the vote, announced in April his intention to run again in 2010. Texas does not place limits on reelecting its governor, but a third term would be unprecedented and apparently not necessarily welcomed by some of the Republican elite.

On December 4^th,Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior U.S. Senator from Texas, filed paperwork with the Texas Ethics Commission to form an exploratory committee for the office of governor. The filing was not revelatory, as she’s been dodgy for months about directly answering the “would she or wouldn’t she run” question, and noises were even made about her running against Perry in 2006 and 2002. What was surprising was the speed with which the two camps traded barbs after her filing.

Hutchison initially remarked that there’s “too much bitterness, too much anger, too little trust, too little consensus and too much infighting” in Austin. Mark Miner, a Perry spokesman, replied “Kay Bailout has been talking about running for governor and passing legislation for years, and neither has ever happened.”

It will be an interesting gubernatorial primary in 2010, indeed.

Other Political Rumblings

Hutchison’s U.S. Senate seat does not come up for re-election until 2012. Should she vacate the Senate before then (she doesn’t have to in order to run for state office), the governor has the power to appoint a replacement. The word around the campfire is that sitting Lt. Governor,David Dewhurst, would be at the top of Perry’s short list.

Third behind the governor and lieutenant governor in power, the Speaker of the Texas House is elected at the beginning of each new congressional session, the next one beginning January 13, 2009. Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland, whose leadership style has been likened to that of Vlad the Impaler, has held the Speakership since 2003.

He has caused controversy and consternation among both Democrats and Republicans by his heavy-handed use, some would say abuse, of the powers given him as speaker by the Texas Constitution. Not only has he refused to recognize representatives motioning for house rules changes that may challenge his power, he has even refused to allow direct votes to remove him from power brought before the House by half a dozen of his fellow Republicans at the end of the last session. He thought it would set a bad precedent.  Those who have challenged him from his own party have found themselves being passed over for desirable positions that their seniority may have given them dibs on.

No less than eleven representatives, seven of which are from his own party, will challenge Craddick for the Speakership for the next legislative session. On Friday, December 12^th, Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, filed a constitutional proposition that would allow the removal of a speaker in mid-session with the approval of 100 of the 150 representatives. Obviously, Craddick is not a popular guy, even among his own people.

Overall Lone Star Outlook

With a core constituency that no longer seems to trust its leadership or the direction the party is taking, the GOP in Texas is a rudderless mess. Its captains can’t decide who should be at the helm, and Texas Democrats are eagerly waiting in the wings to stage a mutiny the scale of which would be rivaled only by the 1994 “Republican Revolution.” In 2010, it looks like they’ll have their chance.

Israel: Nuclear Implications of Corruption?

The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increasing risk of global catastrophe have been on the minds of all western nations since the end of the Cold War. Nuclear weapons were falsely used as justification for the invasion of Iraq, and they are currently used as justification for harsher sanctions against Iran. Two of the U.S allies in the Sub-Continent of India possess nuclear weapons along with sophisticated delivery systems, and China and North Korea are also members of the nuclear club. All of these countries developed them, despite being party to agreements not to do so. However, why do most of the western world seem to ignore the nation with the largest number of unofficial nukes, all illegal by international convention?

Israel started to develop nuclear technology in the 1950s and had a bomb by 1968. The Wisconsin Project which monitors nuclear weapons around the world has for many years placed that arsenal as between 100 and 200 warheads. Israel itself maintains a policy of refusing to confirm or deny its stockpile of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East or Europe.

One of the reasons to ignore Israel’s alleged breach of non-nuclear proliferation agreements may have been our assumption that society in Israel is somehow more stable and less corrupt than other nations. However, a quick look under the surface shows that is not necessarily the case.  Because of a lack of transparency, we can not assume that the finger on Israel’s nuclear button will necessarily be rational or that Israel has the proper protocols for nuclear detonation.

Israel’s parliamentary leaders have faced much recent controversy. Three recent premiers, Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon have all been subjected to allegations of fraud. It was the recent resignation over fraud allegations of Ehud Olmert that has resulted in a stalemate in government. Tzipi Livni, his successor, has been unable to form a successful coalition with the other parties, and it is unlikely that the situation will be resolved before spring. The President was also being investigated for allegations of rape and sexual assault and has resigned. This is only at the top–some other ministers and MPs have been also been subjected to allegations of fraud and/or resigned.  In 2008, Israel placed 33^rd in the World Corruption Index, tied with the West Indies and the Commonwealth of Dominica. This ranking was the lowest of any developed nation. Israel scored especially low on the transparency sub index. According to recent public polling in Israel, 72% of Israelis rate the corruption as high to very high, and nearly 50% of all young people would like to leave Israel if they could. The main reason given is government corruption followed by poor educational availability and fears over security. Seven thousand more people left Israel permanently in 2007 than entered.

Given such an epidemic of alleged corruption among Israeli leaders, the real question then is, “Whose finger is on the nuclear button, or may be on that button, and what controls are there on that person’s unilateral ability to press such a button”? In most of the world, there are many strict controls placed on a President or Prime Minister before the option to use nuclear weapons would even be considered. If that stage is ever reached, there are codes to be entered keys, held by separate officials and a multitude of complex procedures before they can be mobilized. For example, India and Pakistan  have their own systems of multiple protocols as a condition of acceptance into the nuclear club. The leaders of these two countries have put in hotlines with direct access to each other and have established other protocols in the event of a crisis that could lead to nuclear confrontation.  Given that Israel does not even admit to having nuclear weapons, we have no idea if such protocols exist. There are many national security reasons that could explain why Israel is less than fully transparent about their nuclear program. However, considering the recent alleged corruption of its leaders, the time is ripe for more transparency.

Sometimes, Terrorism Doesn’t Happen to the United States

Joshua Micah Marshall made a good point yesterday: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that there may be some intelligence indicating that the Mumbai terrorists were plotting to kill “Americans and Britons.” But all the evidence points to the contrary. Mumbai was attacked due to its prominence, not the amount of westerners there. According to accounts of the violence, the terrorists appeared to be firing indiscriminately, not targeting particular people. Their purpose was to incite general terror with a “no one is safe” tone.

Is it American arrogance that makes Secretary Gates think that the purpose of the attack was to target Americans? Partially; American ubiquity demands it. Just like American clothing and pop culture is everywhere in the world, so too must American tragedies be recognized and venerated, and whenever a roughly analogous local tragedy happens, that tragedy must be understood through the lens of the American tragedy. In this case, since the local tragedy was terrorism, the American analogue is September 11.

President Bush (and now the rest of the country) seems to think that the Sept. 11 attacks were the first time any country has ever dealt with terrorist attacks on its own soil, and furthermore, that the United States, as a result of those attacks, is the only country that has experience dealing with terrorists. Prior to Bush’s tenure in office, the United States was not so cocky: of course we knew that Ireland has been dealing with terrorism since the 1920s, that Israel and Spain have been dealing with it since the 1960s, that India itself has been dealing with it from the Tamil Tigers, Kashmir separatists, and both Hindu and Muslim nationalists. Everyone seems to have forgotten, though, that the United States is not the world’s expert on dealing with terrorism.

So, no, it’s not likely that the attacks in Mumbai were designed to target Americans. But in order for the United States to lay claim to a War on Terrorism, it must lay claim to every instance of terrorism that occurs in the world in order to assert a leadership role in that war. The Bush administration has used the September 11 attacks as a throughway by which the United States may assert a “Me, too!” role in worldwide terrorism, even if the terrorism didn’t directly impact the United States.

It could be called the Cheney Doctrine after Vice President Cheney’s pronouncement earlier this year that the United States has a right to invade any country in the world, even if that country didn’t directly harm the United States, if the United States thinks that country has the capability or intent of harming the United States. Of course, the doctrine is nothing more than a unilateral pronouncement by Cheney and does not have the effect of law, but at least it shows us what he’s thinking. It’s the foreign policy equivalent of the “interstate commerce” clause, the section of the Constitution that has been interpreted so broadly as to allow Congress to control any aspect of business that could conceivably or theoretically impact interstate commerce (protecting endangered species in waterways that, through a series of even small creeks, eventually drain into interstate rivers, for example).

Diplomatic Implications

The United States would especially like to stick its nose into relations between Pakistan and India. Al-Qaeda is or was hiding in Pakistan on the Afghanistan border. Former president Pervez Musharraf didn’t send the military up there to investigate for fear of alienating those populations. The new Pakistani government will not be as America-friendly as the last one, since the United States supported the unpopular Musharraf. Without Musharraf, the United States has no reason or authority to be involved in India/Pakistan relations. Using the terrorism angle allows the United States to remain involved in that relationship.

We still think we are the gatekeepers to all the world’s diplomacy: no one anywhere in the world can have any bilateral talks without inviting the United States, as well. Every talk is necessarily multilateral because every relationship between any people anywhere in the world is relevant to the United States. It’s time for us to get over this attitude. When James Monroe asserted U.S. diplomatic hegemony in the Western hemisphere — essentially telling the rest of the world that, if you wanted to deal with Latin America, you had to go through the U.S. first — the arrogance was apparent, but at least it was confined to America’s sphere of influence in the world.

As the United States’ diplomatic clout has waned — particularly under the watchful eye of the Bush administration — its ability to assert leadership roles in negotiations in which it has no stake has similarly waned. Thankfully, there will always be the War on Terrorism there to insist that, by virtue of the United States being attacked on September 11, and its self-proclaimed doctrine of warfare against terrorism, the United States automatically has a stake in any negotiation that may even be tangentially related to terrorism.

It is a gross disservice to the people in Mumbai who were killed, wounded, and terrorized to narcissistically focus their tragedy in terms of our tragedy. Perhaps going through the same kind of event allows Americans to better understand what Indians are feeling right now, but we should no more shift the focus to our own attack any more than we would eulogize our own losses at someone else’s funeral.

Lessons in History: Saudi- Pashganistan

Spanish born philosopher and poet George Santayana is famous for saying, “He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.” For politicians, military leaders, and many so-called experts, ignorance of the history of the Middle East and the subcontinent of India have created much of the chaos in those regions today.

Let’s start with Saudi Arabia, which with the aid of its vast oil wealth has spread religious hatred and intolerance around the world. Saudi Arabia was conquered by the “House of Saud” in the early years of the 20th century. Their success was only possible with the assistance of the Wahhabi tribe of the Bedouin. The Wahhabi adhered to a brand of Islam that originated in the 7th Century and was based on old desert tribal traditions. Unfortunately, in return for the support of the tribe, the House of Saud agreed to adhere to the Wahhabi’s fundamental version of Islam. This created few problems until the 70’s when the Royal Family made some attempts to modernize the Kingdom. In retaliation in 1979, the Wahabbi’s and other fundamentalists seized the City of Mecca. This was devastating to the Royal Family. Mecca is the ultimate city to Muslims. It is Jerusalem, Vatican City, and Varanasi all rolled into one. It is also a major source of revenue, as Muslim beliefs dictate that all believers should visit the City at least once in their lifetime. The Saudi Royal Family could not rely on the support of their military, as many seemed to side with the rebels. Thus, the Saudi Royal Family had to call in French Commandos to re-seize Mecca. Those Frenchmen were of course rapidly sworn in as Muslims, as no unbelievers are allowed in the Holy City.

Since that time, the House of Saud, which consists of over 40,000 individuals, has attempted a balancing act. Royal Family members ski in Switzerland, gamble in Mexico, have their yachts in the Mediterranean, and party and debauch around the world. In return, they have handed education, the courts, the mosques, much of the total revenues, and all religious enforcement to the Wahhabbi’s. Entertainment, music, and literature outside of the Koran are discouraged. Today 40% of all education in Saudi Arabia is according to the rules of Wahabbi Islam. They also fund the majority of all the world’s mosques, which now often preach the same hateful Islamic rhetoric, where the killing of an Apostate [unbeliever] is considered no sin. Life for women in Saudi Arabia is bleak. They cannot drive, they are stoned to death for adultery, and are often whipped for promiscuous behavior after being raped. Change of faith is punished by death. The Royal Family maintains its own small army to protect themselves from the population.

Afghanistan has always been a hard country to subjugate. The major and controlling tribe is the Pashtun or Pashto. They are divided into many clans, but all comprise the main tribe. Their tribal lands extend into Northwest Pakistan, and they do not recognize the border. Pakistan since its foundation in 1948 has always been a failed state. The Presidency has consisted only of corrupted officials or military dictatorships. They have never had control over the Pashtun lands. The Pashtun have always been renowned as fearful warriors in this very rugged area. This landscape is a guerrilla army’s dream. In 1842, the Pashtun totally destroyed a British Army of 60,000 with only one survivor. In 1978, the Russians invaded Afghanistan, with again their major opponents being the Pashtun. They too were forced to withdraw in 1989, after their casualties grew too great to bear. The Russians won every battle, but could not defeat a guerrilla army in such wild territory.

During the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the US and Saudi Arabia started to supply arms and support to the Pashtun on a 50/50 basis. They were assisted by the Pakistan intelligence service known as the I.SS. This was in the short term successful, and antitank and anti-aircraft weapons undoubtedly aided the resistance. It was, however, the Saudi role that has led to most of the difficulties since. Prior to Saudi involvement, the Pashtun were Muslim, but not fanatics. Once the Saudis were established in Northwest Pakistan, from where the arms were taken over the border into Afghanistan, they set up Muslim Schools or Madrassas in this very poor region. These Madrassas taught only the fundamental Wahabbi version of Islam. Any literary skills picked up by the students were only as a by-product of the repetition of Koranic verses.

It is from these Madrassas that the Taliban were born. Their version of Islam is that of their Muslim brethren in Saudi Arabia–hateful, intolerant, with barbaric consequences to all whose views differ from theirs. Saudi Arabia continues to be a main funder of the Taliban, and the funding is generous. A Taliban fighter earns 3 times that of an Afghani soldier. Afghanistan is full of poppy fields, and many think this is the main source of the Taliban revenue. It should, however, be realized that the poppy fields have been there since the time of Alexander the Great, and I suspect that most of the revenues still go to the families who have always received them.

In order to be successful in this part of the world, the first step must be to cut out Saudi Arabia. That country supplies 20% of the world’s oil, and even more of the world’s terrorism. As alternate energy sources are developed, that tap must be closed. As we have seen recently, Pakistan and India have become violently destabilized by the poisonous fundamental Muslim rhetoric spreading out from this chaos. Both of these countries have atomic weapons and long-range delivery systems which are a threat to the stability of the entire world. The consequences are too high for the rest of the world to be ignorant to this complex ethnic, religious, and cultural history. We must strive to learn from this history and to not let it repeat itself.

[Note. The history of the area is very complex, and some generalizations have been made, i.e., not all Taliban are Pashtun, but the vast majority are. The Afghan President Mohammad Kharzi is himself a Pashtun.]

Team of Dysfunctional Rivals

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, has been all the rage lately, as President-elect Obama constantly cites it as a book from which he has learned a lot. For the sake of our country, I hope that he means that he has learned a lot about the general historical context and how to tell a good story. Because, if he is drawing on this book for factual accuracy, we are in for some problems. There is nothing wrong with Goodwin’s book, in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with historical fiction. Dr. Goodwin is a wonderful writer and an even better cult of personality. She takes history to the mainstream in a way for which every serious historian should be thankful.  Her eulogy at Tim Russert’s memorial service was graceful and poignant. However, her work should not be taken for God’s word. It isn’t the past plagiarism allegations or the fact that Dr. Goodwin does relatively little of her own research (a team of countless research assistants are said to do the bulk of the work for Dr. Goodwin) that particularly bothers me. In fact, the latter probably explains the former. What bothers me is that her work, like that of other historians-lite such as Michael Beschloss are taken as historical fact by the mainstream media and many of our politicians.

In an excellent op-ed piece in the November 19 issue of the New York Times, historian and Lincoln expert James Oakes wrote about how dysfunctional Lincoln’s cabinet was. This is an excellent read. (I also recommend Oakes book on the relationship between Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass.)

In this light, let’s go through some popular myths about Lincoln’s team of rivals that Oakes dismisses.  Not all these myths are portrayed in Team of Rivals, but each has become part of the conventional wisdom in recent weeks.  As such, many of the quasi-facts in Goodwin’s book have taken on a life of their own in the meme of the talking heads.

Myth 1: Lincoln selected rivals from other political parties.

This is not fact. Lincoln selected other Republican rivals, but not Democratic ones.

Myth 2: This practice was unique and unprecedented.

Far from it, this was common practice in that day. Many horribly unsuccessful Presidents, such as Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan also followed this practice. Oakes does a good job of giving us the history here. Does anyone remember stories of the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr? Hate to tell you, but those rivals were both part of Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet.

Myth 3: The cabinet worked well together.

Oakes dismisses this and seems to say that Lincoln succeeded not because of his cabinet, but in spite of it.

You may ask, why all this matters. It matters in the current context because if Obama is going to use Goodwin’s book for historical guidance in selecting his cabinet, it is important to know what really happened back in the 1860s. With this knowledge, perhaps one can better judge whether someone like Hillary Clinton is the best choice.

Now let me be clear–no matter how intriguing it might be–I’m not expecting any duels between Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano. However, we can expect some friction and not all of it will be healthy. Is this proposed “team of rivals” model better than classic JFK-LBJ cabinet groupthink that got us into the Bay of Pigs, and arugably led to the disaster in Vietnam? Of course.  Is it better than the one-man fiat of the last eight years (by the way, that one man is not George W. Bush)? Of course. However, we should be careful to draw historical parallels from half-truths and a good story.  Also, we should try to back up a step and determine whether one Republican and one Hillary Clinton truly make a team of rivals. Finally, even if we assume that Obama is aiming for a team of rivals, that he is drawing lessons from Kearns Goodwin, and that Kearns Goodwin’s outline of this history was completely accurate (huge ifs), we would still need to consider the differences in the context of those times that make extending such broad lessons next to impossible in the different world of today. As divided and red and blue states may seem, this not 1860, and we are much more united as a country than many partisans would like to admit.

Sex and the City: Prop K

Memo: Prop K did not pass on Election Day.  For those hoping and praying for victory, San Franciscans, as liberal as they are, voted against decriminalized prostitution.  Prop K, heavily supported by the San Francisco Democratic Party, the National Lawyers Guild, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, along with many other prominent progressive organizations, would forbid law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest, or prosecute anyone selling sex, although it would not technically legalize it.  To the keen visitor, San Francisco seems like a city full of prestige, ingenuity, and rich in culture. However, when you venture into the heart of the city, visitors will find that it is teeming with dirty vices.  Brothels posing as massage parlors and nail salons, narcotics being sold on the corner in broad daylight, and strip clubs innocently waiting for the tired traveler.    If you haven’t been to San Francisco for a while, there is much here to suit your pleasure: It is a perfect city for the undiscriminating John.

San Francisco, the flash-forward city of the Pacific Rim, has, for better or worse, become an extremely liberal city.  It has become a home to the Folsom Street Parade that celebrates sadism and masochism, Lovefest–a street festival where neo-hippies gather to share “love,” and a Hollywood mayor who regards his town as a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants, a haven for those practicing civil disobedience.  Prostitutes, coincidentally, have had a long, famed history in San Francisco, setting up shop on Maiden Lane (a.k.a. Morton Lane) near Union Square during the Gold Rush, then accommodating miners with women of all colors.  Today, Maiden Lane only exists as an alley for delivery vehicles and upscale boutiques. However, the elusive “call girls” have migrated to the online world.  Through this transition, escorts now have access to a more seemingly infinite database than they could ever encounter on the streets and some who they would never imagine soliciting business from.  John’s or “tricks,” one who uses an escort’s service, can now safely view and pick their fantasy in the privacy of their home without the authorities breathing down their neck.  The internet has also given escorts anonymity and has provided them with forums to share their positive experiences, fears, and business information.  Prostitution in the 21st century has become a billion dollar business.

Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession.  And there is nothing anyone can do from preventing a women from selling her body.  Unfortunately, in the modern age, many other despicable trades are associated with it such as pimping, pandering, human trafficking, and child prostitution which have slandered the honest working girl.  To which I am happy that Prop. K did not pass.  Though Prop K’s intent was to protect women and to report abuse without fear of prosecution, it allows pimps to operate legally, opening the floodgates to legal organized crime, threatening the humanity of women.  Whether one thinks prostitution should be legalized or not, one cannot deny the fact that prostitution breads a slew of detrimental activities that ultimately harm society.

A Scottish Bounce? Labour Stuns the SNP

If British Prime Minister Gordon Brown completes an unbelievable rise from the realm of a political dead man walking, he’ll have his native Scotland to thank. In what was thought only months ago to be the last stand for the Prime Minister,  there came a resounding victory in the Glenrothes, Scotland by-election on last November 6th.  Of course, the electoral statement of Scottish voters is a reaction to the economic realities of the day. It is the end product, not the cause. However, it will nonetheless be remembered as a symbolic watershed moment if Mr. Brown is to complete an amazing Labour comeback in time for the general election, which could occur as early as next spring. While most opinion polls have shown the Tories up by least 10-15 percentage points for most of the calendar year, the most the most recent opinion poll shows the Tories clinging to a mere 41-35% advantage.

So what happened at Glenrothes?

The open seat was caused by the death of Labour MP John MacDougall, who won comfortably in his 2005 reelection bid. However, in 2007, the Scottish National Party (SNP) took over the Glenrothes council and won the nearby Scottish parliament seat of Central Fife. In general, the SNP’s rise over the past few years has been indirectly correlated with the fortunes of the Labour party. Labour had recently lost two safe seats, Crewe and Nantwich and Glasgow East, both in by-elections. In fact, SNP First Minister Alex Salmond’s rhetoric recently has been very confident about taking most Scottish seats in the next general election. What made this seat all the more symbolic is that Prime Minister Brown resides over a neighboring district. Glenrothes was seen by many for months as the possible impetus to finally overthrow the unpopular Prime Minister.

However, to the surprise of many, Labour candidate Lindsay Roy, who happens to be the headmaster at Mr. Brown’s old school, defeated the Scottish National Party candidate Peter Grant by a resounding 18 percentage points.

What likely caused this surprise Labour victory?

First of all, one shouldn’t discount former American Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill’s famous words that “all politics is local.” The local SNP-controlled council has made some unpopular decisions regarding taxes that undoubtedly didn’t help them at the polls.

However, I believe the larger lesson lies in the current financial crisis. Although Prime Minister Brown shares much blame in the lack of fiscal control during the boom times that is now somewhat impeding the actions of the government, he does have much credibility economic issues, being the former finance minister. With the financial crisis as his opportunity, Mr. Brown has begun to govern as a populist who is out to help the people from the excesses of the market (of course ignoring the fact that he certainly didn’t help to prevent these excesses). Bailout of banks? Of course. Overall, this bounce could likely recede as times continue to get tougher for several generations of British who have never collectively experienced tough times outside of the history books. Will Labour call an early election? Probably not.  My belief is that 2010 is a safe bet. However, one thing is clear–Gordon Brown and Labour are far from dead.

What about the SNP?

Simply put, regional parties and the sentimentalism that comes with talk of Scottish independence are great ideas in better times. However, in tough economic times, one must look at practicalities and absolutes, and not at historical idealism. How would an independent Scotland be fairing in the current economic crisis? Probably as well as Iceland, which has been a Scottish example for independence in better times. Of course Britain is not exactly in the best shape right now either, but its diverse economy has the ability to weather this shock much better than would an independent Scotland. Local rule for local issues? SNP control of local councils? Of course. However, sending regional-minded representatives to Parliament during a global economic downturn may not be as popular in the days ahead.

Next Page »