Troubled World and Challenges to American Leadership

Not that anybody believes much when Pres. Bush and his team preach America that Democracy in other countries is good for America and hence it is worth for Americans to die in the Iraq war. Everybody kind of understands that as a cheap way of selling Administration’s Iraq policy – stay the course, do not admit any mistakes, keep the high ground – to American voters. Hopefully events of last few weeks around the world should ‘shut up’ such foolish talk.

It is not foolish to advocate Democracy in countries where there is no such thing. Of course America should always stand for Democracy and from time to time America will need to sacrifice her lives and dollars for this goal. What is foolish is trying to sell this as a policy to counter terrorism. As like Iraq war which never could have been the central part of Global War on Terrorism, promotion of democracy in rogue regimes has been a careless foreign policy. It is a policy which abducts the responsibility in securing America.

The reasons are clear – either you would get political forces legitimized via election who advocate ‘state terrorism and fanatic ideology’ (Hamas in Gaza) or a weak state which can not control forces of terrorism (Lebanese state which can not control Hezbullah and elected Iraqi government which can not control Sadre militia). It is utterly nonsensical that this Administration failed to visualize such possibilities and kept on justifying the wrongs of starting Iraq war by talking democracy promotion. It is not just Pres. Bush, Condi Rice, NeoCons; but many non-conservatives fell for such thinking. Tom Friedman in NYT at least had the humility to admit that he was wrong in this case.

Democracy promotion and taking steps to secure America are two different things and Pres. Bush mixed those two for his political convenience and his political benefits. It is the same pattern of mixing Iraq war with Global War on Terror. It is sad to write it but this Administration used America and gullible American voters. That will be the legacy of this Pres. Bush.

What should be done now? It is fine for ‘Time’ to write a cover story declaring ‘end of cowboy diplomacy’ as an eye catching cover; but that neither accurately describes the reality nor a way out. There never was any meat in Pres. Bush’s aggressive, unilateral, militaristic foreign policy when early on it became clear that Iraq war would bog down America’s ability to use force in executing Global War on Terror. Remaining illustrious members of Axis of Evil (Iran and N. Korea) were never in any danger after the Iraq war fiasco and refusal of Pres. Bush to increase American Army. The Administration realized this dark reality soon, Americans realized too and rest of the world has been knowing it for a long. So the cowboy foreign policy was only in name.

Iraq war has fundamentally sapped all available bandwidth of this Administration as well as has bogged down America’s Army. With every passing day it is becoming clear how this Administration has cornered itself and effectively dropped balls about the real wars. No wonder we have many pundits who wish ‘how America had been at war with Iran instead of Iraq’. (America's Nemesis by James Kitfield, National Journal Friday, July 21, 2006. http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0721nj1.htm) Implicit to this lament is a thought that even if America was to get bogged down in Iran as like how it has in Iraq; it would have been acceptable. Discussing merits of such an argument is beside the point and in any case reality is not that. But it does show how desperate and ineffective America’s position has become as well as how the true enemy Iran has become after friendly Shiite regime in Iraq. This other sub plot of President Bush’s grand scheme – Iraq is a key to Arab-Israel conflict – turns out to be equally wrong as like other parts (removing Saddam is a step in Global War on Terror and dieing for Democracy in Iraq is worth the price in securing America). One rather wonders whether resolving issues with Iran could have helped in addressing back room dynamics of Arab-Israel conflict.

So does the solution lie in what Time, many Media outlets and duo of Sen. Kerry and Sen. Finegold advocate – negotiate whosoever wants to talk with USA and pull out from Iraq? It is not that simple.

It is imperative to understand that there are people (Islamic Fundamentalist primarily) who basically are against the Western Democratic Nations, their reasonably secure way of life and any one who works with them. History has conclusively shown that all those who attempted some kind of justification of Hitler and his policies were completely wrong. Hence West and the World must not take threats posed by these Mullahs lightly. If Hezbullah and Hamas are dieing to start Third World War – they will get it and they will be ‘wiped out’ – that is the resolve required by America and those who want to come along with America. Then how does talking with these extremists help? It does not help, assuming that ‘talk means negotiations and negotiations mean giving something’. You don’t give anything to Terrorists, elected or not elected. Then it matters much less whether you don’t talk at all or you do all the talk but do not negotiate.

It is possible that many European countries and many other democracies of the world (India, Brazil, etc.) may not see this danger and would not like to commit so much themselves for this fight. Russia and China will also sit on the fence for as long as it is possible. (In any case China gets around 20% of it’s oil from Iran and Russia would like to see high price of oil for quite long.) So the goal should be to reposition forces from Iraq to the extent it adds capability in addressing other theaters of war because other countries are unlikely to help much. Force withdrawal or reposition from Iraq should be dictated by America’s security needs and not some political needs to avoid Civil War in Iraq. Stopping Civil War in Iraq may be beneficial to an extent, but in the unavoidable part of prioritizing limited resources it goes down the list of priorities America needs to address.

What we want is repositioning plan which will change the focus of American forces from stabilizing Iraq to contain and stop Iran- Syria nexus. Supporting Israel in the current conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon is the first right step. Cutting support of Syria to Hezbollah is the second step. Meanwhile, if Iranian regime thinks it needs to jump to the war it will try to stop oil deliveries of it’s own and of other countries from the Gulf. That is the single most battle scenario America needs to be ready for.

Any leader, Democrats included, who want to argue an alternative Foreign Policy must need to spell out plans along these lines. And for such plans to be creditable with American People, the ones who pay the price in the end; it will be useful if those come from the people who in the first place did not wrongly sold Iraq policy.

Repositioning of forces form Iraq, coordinated action with Israel and relentless pressure on Iran on global stage are some of the required steps. Russia and China will surely block any meaningful action against Iran. Then there is no choice for America to go along with all those who are willing to work with her. It is no time to worry about America’s International Image. True, Pres. Bush has roiled it lot and that can not be excused. But American voters do not elect their leaders to be Mr. or Mrs. Nice to the world. They are elected to solve the challenges America faces in a troubled world.

Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 22, 2006.

Misguided Indian Foreign Policy

Times of India in its latest editorial laments that USA reaction to Mumbai blast is inadequate, much to be desired and falls way short of what is needed. ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1748242.cms ) TOI Editorial is expecting that USA should pressurize Pakistan and hold them publicly responsible for all the help it is giving to terrorists. These are all tall claims, misplaced expectations and in a way incorrect reading of how things work in foreign policy and how they should work too. Here are reasons why TOI Editorial and such orientation of Indian Foreign Policy are wrong.

1. American Congress has been relatively quick in passing resolutions in condemning these blasts. It is important that elected representatives of America go on record to condemn these terrorist acts.

2. The basic question is when India is spending all its international political capital in passing of ‘Indo American Nuclear Accord’ the way she wants; she does not have anything left to bargain when it comes to terrorism. Mumbai experienced bomb blast in 1992. Dawood Ibrahim and his gang had been generally identified as the master mind behind that. The question is all these 14 years did India make extradition of Dawood as the corner stone of her foreign policy? Did India say that if Pres. Bush or Pres. Clinton wanted to visit India, they must deliver concretely on this terrorist? There seems to be perceptible lack on that front. India keeps on harping USA for Nuclear Status or UN SC permanent seat or now UN Secretary Nomination. Then, whose foreign policy is misplaced? If India itself asks for something else other than what she really needs to have, how correct it is to expect that world gives what she needs?

3. After 9/11 when USA started Afghanistan war against Taliban, there was heightened, and completely misplaced, expectation on behalf of NDA government that USA would topple Pakistani government. In effect there was euphoria that India would get ‘free ride’ as far as removing the antagonistic government of Pakistan. No one is trying to justify Pakistani regime here or their participation in terrorists act. That is completely besides the point. But the fact is Indian rulers attempted to base country’s foreign policy on a free ride. It took a while and in specific some reality checks from Colin Powell to NDA government to realize that USA would not blindly tilt the balance in South Asia.

4. The objective for America is to get Bin Laden. American establishment (again the principle architect of that policy had been Colin Powell and Rice is following that in a way) has fundamentally made the calculation that it is much cheaper to keep Pakistan as a client state and try to achieve America’s objectives instead of opening yet another conflict front. Merits and demerits of this policy can be discussed and Indian foreign policy makers and Union Cabinet can very well chew on that privately. But publicly to expect that effectively America comes into India’s camp as far as Indo-Pak conflict goes, is rather a naïve expectation and surely not a wise way to base India’s Foreign Policy.

5. Finally, to what an extent India is participating in America’s Global War on Terrorism to demand that America reciprocate help to India? Sure, it is in America’s best interest to be on the side of helping India in all respects – nuclear energy, trade and fight against terrorism. But there is no single concrete act in which India has accorded a helping hand to America and here we are criticizing America not helping India. It may very well be the case that America is late to the war against terrorism which Indian has been facing quite long. But just being early ‘there’ does not entitle a country to claim that every one else accord that country leadership. Leadership will be determined by your contribution.

6. Take the case of fight against LTTE. India is not in the position to side with Sri Lankan government in this fight. Tamil province, its state politics and votes complicate all that matter for Indian politicians. When Kashmir terrorists took minister’s daughter as hostage, Indian government in the end released captured hard core terrorists. So India may be paying the heavy price of terrorist acts; but her actions do not inspire the confidence that she wants to fight the menace of terrorism at all cost. Iran is another case in point. India’s ambivalent policy towards Iran and approach of hedging her bets do not let her come with any clarity as far as her policy towards terrorism goes. In the global war against terrorism, there is no luxury in compromising your resolve and yes, it applies to USA too.

May be latest Mumbai bomb blast will bring this realization to Indian establishment and it will start rethinking its foreign policy priorities and gives up the habit of expecting help from other countries. It is like this – to be a leader you do not wait for others to nominate you and you do not depend on others to help. When India has dealt with these political challenges on her own, the world will come to India. This is amply proved by the spectacular success of India in the economic field.


Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 13, 2006.

Israel’s new war

Yossi Halevi writes a good article in The New Republic about the current military actions of Israel. (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060710&s=halevi071206) I support the current Israel policy of unilateral disengagement and this article talks about very solid arguments in support of such policy.

Hamas and Hezbollah clearly want war with Israel and Israel is working on what they want. But as this article and many media stories have reported, the real enemy this time is Iran. The end game of this new war is likely to be in terms of confrontation of Israel with Iran. High oil prices have emboldened Iran to pursue now aggressive policies and attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah are likely to have complete backing from Iran.

The key question is what would America do to contain Iran. As of now, America’s pre-occupation with Iraq war and unwillingness of Russia and China to help in any way to evolve consensus to deal with Iran; chances are dim. This mean Israel will eventually act on its own. But it is not clear whether strategic balance is there in today’s world where Israel can pull off victory like 1967 in today’s world. In other words, comparatively Israel does not seem to have enough military power to take on Hamas, Hezbollah and destruction of Iranian nuclear weapons program and their active help. This means decks are lot against Israel this time and there will be no other option for USA than to get involved in this conflict eventually possibly to face Iran head on. The problem will be that participation of USA will be more of forced one at late stage rather than pre planned involvement to drive maximum resolution of the conflict. Hence, neglect of USA involvement and lack of explicit backing to Israel will eventually cost USA and the world lot. It is imperative that USA gets involved in this conflict decisively and quickly.

Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 12, 2006.

2006 FIFA World Cup Conclusion

Slowly Europe and rest of the world will come to senses now that the party is over. All praise to Germany for what seems like hosting a great tournament. What is the beef with that guy named Franz Beckenbauer? Seems like he is always on the positive and winning side of the great game called football! Other games would envy when would they get their Beckenbauers. German team also achieved great success and the whole feel about the team, the nation and the game was very positive and refreshing. Rarely a sports phenomenon has achieved such a positive spirit. Hopefully Chinese organizers attain some of that ‘positive spirit’ in Beijing 2008 Olympics.

Unpredictability in football is the only predictable thing. French played all through a great game in the final, but could not lift the trophy. Two chances late in the game were sensational for French – one just before Ribery came out when he took the shot at the goal post and the second chance of Zidane’s header. Buffon made great save and in a sense Italy won their cup right then and there.

Great deal of media ink and attention will be spilled about Zidane’s red card. But it is pretty obvious that missing the header moments before made him frustrated and angry. Of course there is no way to justify his behavior. Hitting the player in chest was senseless and that was the psychological blow French were unlikely to overcome, for that matter any team. What a sad spectacle for Zidane, French and in the end for World Football. FIFA would have had an egg on it's face if Zidane was not expelled at that time. It is quite likely that he may be further punished or prosecuted. The only thing it demonstrates is in the end hero’s are humans too who can make mistake. Hopefully the world media does not go overboard in berating Zidane and gives due credit to what he has achieved in his life time. The incident was bad but that single incident does not erase all of his achievements over many years.

FIFA needs to worry about what is a better way to avoid penalty kicks in the final. It is disgrace to decide the final in penalty kicks. Hopefully as the FIFA management has said, they would brain storm and come up with better solutions to this problem. Other than that, FIFA stock is rising and at the moment it is at the zenith of its popularity, power and sheer afterglow. We will see what happens in next 4 years when FIFA kicks the next world cup in S. Africa. One thing will be sure - Europeans will unlikely to dominate that tournament. As England team said, cup in Europe was the best chance for England and European teams to win. Italians clinched it. Their defense, as usual, was great and they won that basis.

Something is quite electrifying in staging a physical activity of 22 players which is watched all over the world by Billion people – the game in the same stadium where Hitler organized his 1936 Olympics. Rest of the world does get the message – Germany, Europe and the whole world has come a long way on a better road. Let us keep walking on this good road.

Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 9, 2006.

FIFA World Cup 2006 – The Roller Coaster Ride

(Today’s essay is more of a personal take than any objective analysis of events happening.)

I am ecstatic even though only half of my quarter final predications are true. I was wrong about England and Brazil but no regrets. I am over moon for the scintillating play by the French team.

I do not feel bad about England. I mean here is Beckham – the guy cannot play full 90 minutes, what is the use? Probably he is just too ‘delicate’ for the rough and tumble of World Cup football. England missed so many plum chances. Rooney was too silly – hitting the player in groins! When it came to penalty kicks, one could tell these English players did not have any confidence, like lambs to butcher post! Their play was superior but the body language and the mental game was too poor. As usual it is the English fan who makes the hype and then they pay for that.

The real pleasure was to watch Brazil truly outplayed by France. This time around Europeans have nailed it down the so called ‘samba’ football (after 1982, the same quartet in semis except Portugal in place of Poland). What is not so attractive in European football? French passes were some times long and other times short; generally the attack was from flanks (as compared to the samba style of box facing ‘wave’ attack); footwork was excellent and by and large the game was clean. It was very impressive how Zidane and Henry were playing ‘clean’ football; with so less fouls.

My basic argument is about the way the whole Brazilian team was hyped. It is always hyped and this time was no exception. I mean they were more in their ‘past glory’ (should we say hubris?) and the world wide ‘samba’ enamored fan club did not help to bring that team to the earth. Too much hype, too much pride and really ‘too puffed up’ for their own good and in the end for the game. The inability of Ronaldo to cope up with the exigencies of this match summed up the whole situation. Did you notice the ‘booing’ of these stars in the final stages of the game? That is how bad it went for Brazilians.

I say not good for the game because as the Brazilian coach said after the match ‘it is shame that there is no South American team left in the world cup’. Imagine final World Cup is played among California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Or imagine Cricket World Cup is played among Mumbai, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka teams. That is how the current situation is - 3 small neighboring countries sharing borders (Germany, France and Italy) and the fourth one slightly at distance - is all left from around 120 plus countries playing football all over the world. Combined population of these 4 countries is 210 million and we have billions of people in rest of the world playing soccer. That is why it is shame that we have no other representation left in the World Cup. True, I am not under the illusion that FIFA system is full proof, but it is best what we have at the global scale. Hence it is reasonable to assume FIFA World Cup represents some approximate state of the game at a particular time point.

But I am glad because these 4 teams are there as a result their of good quality game. It has been very absorbing football and by and large it is a reasonable feeling that no one has reached this stage without being worthy. So shame or no shame, Europeans are bringing forth solid, entertaining football.

It will be interesting to watch what will be political fall outs of this World Cup. Generally it is not a good idea to read a political script in sports drama, but World Cup is gigantic affair, almost unrivalled by any other phenomenon. So I will hazard some political head winds while the Cup party is coming to the climax. Some of these come to mind are:

- This World Cup is good for Germany and really good for Angela Merkel. The sight of lady chancellor with both her hands up in the air due to excitement of Germany win is politically positive. The Beckenbaure led management of cup matches seems to be good so far.

- France had lousy 2005 year politically. Will this impressive performance by the French team help the country to bring some badly needed self assurance? It is noteworthy that the French Team full of immigrant roots putting a solid performance while French National Assembly passing a pro immigration bill. May be the French Football team would help the French society as a whole to loosen up little bit more about the perennial doubts about immigration.

- Since European domination clearly established at this World Cup; will it give fillip to the faltering ‘European’ project? Chances clearly look little better than start of the World Cup. This Cup is bound to generate the feeling of Europeans among those countries. So what has been hard for the politicians to achieve, the Cup seems have attained – fundamental sense of European belongingness.

- Third French victory over Brazil in World Cup matches may create potentially a new rivalry. Falkland wars sustained some high drama between England and Argentina for a while. Now it looks like a new rivalry is born. For a tactical reason Brazilian team might have gone into the match saying publicly that they were not looking for any revenge over France. But going forward is it possible for any Brazilian kid to get raised without the burning desire to defeat France? Doubtful.

- So what does it mean then Developing countries lead by Brazil threaten EU and USA about agriculture subsidies in WTO meeting in Geneva? France is the country with one of the highest agriculture subsidies. I am speculating whether football drama would have any impact in the attitudes of these delegates at WTO disputes.

- As FIFA gets more powerful in years to come, it is inevitable that it becomes part of global diplomacy tool for many world powers. FIFA is drawing so many countries together and with the successful marketing machine is able to generate the feeling of ‘unity’ among the entire human race – the basic job of politicians.

- Finally, only if Europe realizes how even FIFA is more effective that UN. Can UN learn something from FIFA? Of course at present it is FIFA’s moment to be under sun and so comparing it with UN at this time may be like apples to oranges. But still a thought comes to mind, are the ways UN can learn from FIFA to achieve its fundamental charter of brining humans together?

Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 1, 2006.