World Political Blog » Ashish

US Republican race – now the focus will be on Rick Santorum

Ashish — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:09:59 +0000

Each time the political parties get into this dance, things get more intense. This time is an especially interesting year in the Presidential race, with Obama having come down sharply to earth since his election just 3 years ago. His election promised to bring about a radical change in politics, some amount of moderation of the harsh politics between the Democratic and Republican party, and bring the country out of the depression it had got into (whether these be the wars it had got into, where soldiers and money were being spent in huge numbers, and without seemingly making too much change in the ground; and the recession that started with the crash in 2009 and continued with low morale and low levels of employment).
However, the President was somewhat of a disappointment, with an inability to take the country out of the economic downturn it had got into (although his supporters claim that he managed to prevent the fall of many eminent economic institutions of the US and prevented the country from getting into an even deeper recession). In addition, the Republican establishment was totally against him, and did whatever they could to oppose any measures he took. The Tea Party movement that came up was vehemently for a rationalization of the economic policies of the country, for reducing the high debt levels of the country, and also against the policies that Obama had been pushing. This movement, and a low level of confidence in the President, saw the Republican party making advances, getting a clear majority in the House and also reducing the strength of the Democratic Party in the Senate.
With this environment in place, and not much of a movement in terms of improvement in the economic situation, it seemed that the Presidential election was for the Republican Party to win, as long as they had a candidate who would appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party and also the Independent voters who have supported Obama in the previous election. But there remains a problem – the list of candidates leading the Republican Party had to seem conservative enough so that the candidate can get past the primaries, and yet appeal to voters in the end. The only person from the list of candidates is Mitt Romney, but a seeming liberal who has supported abortion rights, who had a state health care plan similar to the one by Obama (and hugely hated by Republicans) and other policies (on all of which, Romney has gone back, or ‘flipped’), make him a difficult candidate for the GOP to support. But, on the other hand, he is the only likely candidate who is centered enough that he can draw an overall majority. But, any person who seems more conservative than Romney gets support (atleast for some time), and the latest was Rick Santorum, which is a staunch anti-abortion, against gay marriage, and other policies that make his a favorite among conservatives.
So, in a surprise, Rick Santorum, challenged Romney for the lead in the first primary, the Iowa caucus, and almost made it. And guess what, so far the Romney campaign had targeted Gingrich and Perry, seeing them as the primary contenders; now, with the sudden emergence of Santorum, he will become the main target of the Romney campaign. Already, one can see the impact of an increased focus, there is investigation about the earmarks he did, as well as his involvement with the companies which he promoted when he was a senator. Such articles would seem to portray the Senator as a lobbyist, which would discredit him very badly.

The timetable for US withdrawal from Afghanisation going beyond the declared 2011 timeline

Ashish — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:45:19 +0000

Barrack Obama inherited a huge can of worms from his predecessor, George Bush, in terms of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And his political base, the Democrats, consists of a large number of more liberal supporters who abhor the US military presence in these countries and want the military to get back. Obama has been lucky in Iraq, with the country slowly settling down into an uneasy peace (and with a lot of political jostling); the US military has been disengaging and not facing too much pressure during this process. However, it is in Afghanistan that things are not going to plan. The US cannot just up and leave from the country, since that would effectively mean turning the country over to the Taliban, with a huge chance of re-emergence of the country as a terrorist training ground, it would mean that the US would be seen as a defeated rival and militant Islam will get a huge face lift from such a step, and the credibility of the US as a force that is capable of staying will be lost.
It would be pretty clear that Obama realizes this, and sought to reassure all sides of opinion by declaring that the US will stay, but will move towards withdrawal from Afghanistan by July 2011. However, this had an immediate negative effect on the field of operations by letting the Taliban know about the long term plans of the US, and also letting them gain the upper hand by threatening the populace that with the US going to leave in a matter of months, they better not support the US, or they would face a reaction from the Taliban later. The US military was pretty understanding of this reaction, and also passed on the same sentiments, since it got more difficult to get the Taliban on their side.

And now we see that the US is slowly changing their projection of this date as a important milestone, with the US already talking about a 2014 date (which is a further 3 years) (refer article)

In a move away from President Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.

This is a welcome change. Even though one would not want the US to be in Afghanistan and lose more military members (and also the Afghanistan population who are suffering the confrontation between the US and the Taliban), the mission that the US has set for itself in Afghanistan in terms of ensuring that the country is not a center for terrorism will need this time and effort to come to a result.

Congo – a failure of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force

Ashish — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:23:43 +0000

The United Nations Peace Keeping force is an international force comprising of contributory soldiers from many countries, who are deputed for deployment in countries where there is a need for some security forces to maintain law and order. These could be situations where there is a huge amount of internal strife, or the governing party are subjugating other sections of the population (as happened in some parts of the former republic of Yugoslavia), or where there is no effective country (such as the country of Somalia where a contingent of Ethiopian soldiers had entered under the mandate of an agreement by the African Union). In some cases, these contingents are successful in enforcing the peace, but in many other cases, the various constraints and controls placed on these peacekeeping forces prevents them from being effective.
Consider the case of Congo, where there is a Government, which has an army and police force, and is fighting some very determined rebels. The fight between the army and the rebels is quite bitter, and the rebels have also taken to terrorize the population. The incidence of rape and killings is high, with the use of rape being an instrument to punish entire localities. In addition, there is money involved with mines in the vicinity, and some of these mines are controlled by the rebels. The army and police are not exactly straight either.
In these circumstances, the peacekeepers have their tasks cut out, and are failing to implement the peace. There was a recent terror campaign in which a huge number of the woman in a township were gang raped one after the other, and there was nobody to stop them. The peace keepers were not to be found nearby, arriving there after everything had happened. Further, the responsibility of covering this area was on the Army, which had suddenly vanished. In such a case, the local people do not really appreciate the efforts being put in by the peace-keeping forces, and do not really perceive a sense of security.
UN peace keeping forces are sometimes called as police work being done by soldiers, in the sense that most of their work is around ensuring that there is a sense of security in the area, and not indulging in combat operations as they are trained to do. This sort of work is not really what they are supposed to do, and postings in such areas also dulls their edge. Further, their hands are tied in terms of local politics, in terms of what they can do and what they cannot do; such policies prevent them from being able to take effective steps to counter such grisly episodes, or being there to stop such disasters from happening.

US proposes a huge amount of arms for Saudi Arabia, to counteract the growing power of Iran

Ashish — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:37:35 +0000

The United States is proposing a huge sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. This is a sale that is worth around $60 billion, and primarily comprises of new F-15 fighter aircraft, military helicopters (both attack and troop transport helicopters). These are meant to increase the firepower of the Saudi Arabian forces, and also replace the older fighters in the Saudi arsenal. Saudi Arabia remains a strategic ally of the United States in the region, and given the problems both these countries have with Iran, this sale is meant to also convey a message to Iran. There is a long standing confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia (and several other Gulf states that are on the side of the Saudis). Iran is a leader of the Shias, while almost every country in the region is ruled by Sunnis. Further, Iran is ruled by a theocracy, while other countries are ruled by monarchies, or by a chosen few; and none of them would like to see an increase in the influence of the militant Islam in their countries (which will threaten the current rulers).
The strategy seemingly being followed by the United States along with the Gulf countries is to increase the military might of each of these countries, both in terms of offense and defense (with increased counter-missile technologies). This is meant to convey to Iran that even though it would gain some strategic increase through its nuclear program, it will have to face more powerful military neighbors, all of which are tied together with the United States, and even more surprisingly, with Israel. In the face of a common enemy such as Iran, even Israel and the Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait will make common cause.
The deal is currently making its way through the United States Congress, but there is very little chance that the deal will get stopped; the strategic imperative in such cases is very high and the push to make this deal through all approvals is very high. One can expect that in some time, these arms will start to make their way into the Saudi Arabian arsenal.

Is Mosque a Symbol of Jihad – the problem in New York ..

Ashish — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:55:23 +0000

The United States has never been more divided on any issue in recent past that this issue. The issue that has brought up this situation is the building of a Mosque near the September 11 site. It is not exactly a mosque but a community building which will include a mosque, sports facilities, theater, restaurant and possibly a day care, and would be open to all visitors. The community center will be called Cordoba House and will approximately cost USD 100 million. The site on which the proposed community center is currently occupied by the 152 year old Burlington building and was also struck by a piece of one of the hijacked planes. The building has been used in a variety of ways from manufacturing to retail stores and currently serves as a makeshift Muslim prayer center.
Even US president Barrack Obama who initially backed the plan of building a Muslim community center had to change his stance. Later Obama changed his loyalties by saying that he would not like to comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. A New York community board already gave a green signal for the construction of the building in May. In a desperate attempt to stop this building a request had been raised to the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission to grant landmark status to the building currently on site. The request was later discarded by a rather unanimous decision. The opponents of the building raise question about the source of the funding of the project and also about the connections of the father of the main proponent of the mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf with radical group Muslim Brotherhood. Some people say that it would be humiliating that you build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired attacks on 9/11. People are also of the view that even if the building is built it will be a permanent sore point and a lighting rod for anti-Muslim feelings. Socially liberal Muslims are even urging Imam Feisal to abandon the project.

Now, the big question is: Is building a Mosque near ground Zero in any way going to support the 9/11 attacks? The answer is a candid NO. Muslims have a right to practice their religion as anyone else in the US. That includes a right to build a place of worship and a community center on a private property in lower Manhattan. Imam Feisal’s might have had dubious relations with Muslim radical groups but the general opinion about him is that of a progressive leader. Why not put it this way. Let this building be a message to the entire world that US has a big heart and it does not hold all the Muslims of the world responsible for 9/11. 9/11 was a misdeed of a few radical Muslims and every Muslim can’t be humiliated because of that. Why not give a message to the world that US can forgive wrong doers and can very well distinguish between the wrong doers and people who have no connection with the attacks after all A Mosque is not a symbol of jihad!

Openbook vis-à-vis Facebook: The privacy issue

Ashish — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:49:38 +0000

You are aware of facebook and I am sure many of you are using it. Yes, I am talking about the social networking website Facebook. But what about Openbook? Any why you should know it? Read on…..
Well, more often than not, users of Facebook post careless updates for their own small group of friends can now be read by anyone with the help of a new internet search engine. This new search engine named Openbook can scan all “public” updates left by members of the social networking site. Ultimately it makes the updates available to anyone through internet. The software has been created to highlight Facebook’s complex privacy settings. The Facebook privacy settings have been blamed for perplexing users into revealing personal information more than they intend while updating Facebook.
The content explored by Openbook is already in the public domain and can be viewed by all. This will certainly land the social networkers in a uncomfortable situation. It was only in last month that Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg announced simplification of Facebook privacy settings. This was in relation to mounting complaints that users were being duped into sharing private information.
The new website, Openbook is the idea of three website developers from San Francisco: Will Moffat, Peter Burns and James Home. It offers internet users a search engine that allows them to search for updates on public Facebook profiles. Reports are just in that by typing a keyword they can now easily get access to tens of thousands of updates from the last few hours. I tried the infectious word “booze” in the search box of Openbook and got so many posts with Facebook photo of the user. I am sure, most of them have not dreamt of this while posting in the Facebook. Facebook’s has almost 500 million users. Most of are unaware that their profile is not only available to their intended small circle of friends, but to the whole internet community. Openbook has been created to highlight this issue. The Openbook privacy campaigners desire people to think twice before sharing any information. The story (and this may not be unique) of unnecessary status updates with unlucky consequences include: A girl who posted “bored” on her Facebook status while at work was later fired because of revelation of the incident.

Aftermath of BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – Impact on other deep water drilling

Ashish — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:41:34 +0000

Now regarding safety measures, let me tell you that BP isn’t the only company ill-prepared for disaster. Lawmakers in US argued at a House energy committee hearing this afternoon. Although executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corp., and Royal Dutch Shell tried to refute allegations that their contingency plans were “carbon copies” of BP’s, all the evidence suggested otherwise. Testifying before the panel, executives protested that they would not have behaved like BP in the face of crisis. However, lawmakers pointed out that a single firm named ‘The Response Group’ wrote contingency plans for all the companies. Funny things you may find in serious pages of the plan too. For example, the plan includes details of protecting walruses in the event of a spill hit the Gulf although Walruses don’t live in the Gulf. Such lapses in plan diluted their claim that their working practices differ from those of BP and that the catastrophe would not have happened if the leaking well had been theirs.
The executives were unanimous in maintaining that the six-month ban on offshore drilling could be more economically dangerous in the short-term. Now on this public has rightly questioned about ‘Economically dangerous for who? Themselves? Since when did they become so concerned with anything other than their bottom-line.’
An early BP document put the spill rate at between 1,000 and 14,000 barrels a day. Recently, a panel of US scientists presented a grim picture: “most likely flow rate of oil today” ranges from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day. The range is once more far higher than previously suggested figures. The warning bell is already ringing. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has switched the focus of American about a clean energy future. Said Eileen Clausen, President of America’s foremost climate think-tank, the Washington-based Pew Center on Global Climate Change: American citizens are “horrified” by the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, and are starting to think more about cleaner energy sources such as wind and wave power.

Britain’s split verdict – the Conservatives have it, but not fully

Ashish — Sun, 09 May 2010 07:24:04 +0000

Tony Blair must be having the last laugh; he was pushed out of the Labour party by a much less flamboyant personality, Gordon Brown; and now Gordon Brown has lost the election for the Labour Party, leading to the Conservatives becoming the leading party in the elections. There have been a number of factors that have contributed to the decline of the Labour Party, with the overall economic recession being one of the biggest contributory factors, as well as the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (although it is a moot point whether the Conservative Government would have not sent armed forces to these 2 countries). Voters have voted with their feet towards the policies of the Labour Government in overcoming the recession, as well as their policies on many other areas such as Immigration (and feelings against immigration harden) when the economy starts dropping, when the impact of immigration on jobs and social security networks becomes more prominent.
However, the fractured mandate from this 2010 election is pushing Britain towards a new era (or rather a pushback to a previous era, since the last time that such a situation happened was in 1974 when a Labour Government finally took office). Britain, with this election, has moved away from the stage of a 2 party Parliament (with a majority leading party and an opposition that is also numerically strong), and moved to coalition politics where the leading party has to depend on a third party for MP’s, and where some policies of the government are dictated by coalition politics rather than being totally driven by the leading party.

The Conservatives have now taken the lead, but the strong electoral support for the Liberal Democrats (which did not get converted into too many seats, but enough for them to seem like a kingmaker) will lead to some time period of jockeying for power. Gordon Brown would not want to go into opposition, since the minute he loses power, he will face huge internal opposition in the party; but is stuck by the fact that currently the Liberal Democrats would not want to support a party that has lost the elections. However, supporting the Conservatives is not so easy since the policies are widely separate, and it will be distressing for both of them if they have to bring their policies to a common ground in a number of areas.
It would seem that the possible options are:
- Conservatives come to power with the support of the Liberal Democrats – People are not really looking upon this as a feasible arrangement because of the internal pressures
- Labour forms a Government with the support of the Liberal Democrats – this will still remain a minority Government
- Conservatives get outside support from the Liberal Democrats – will work for some time, but there will be many compromises that will be required
In all these cases, there will be a fear that a new election will be required soon to resolve these issues and come up with a new Parliament with new numbers.

Talking peace with the Taliban – will it work ?

Ashish — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:04:58 +0000

The United States and some other allied countries (who have forces in Afghanistan) have been battling the Taliban for many years now, and they are not winning the battle. The Taliban get a lot of support among the embittered people of Afghanistan who have seen only years of fighting, who are conservative by themselves, who see a corrupt Government that provides zero development and supports the warlords; and in addition, the Taliban have a base in the neighboring country Pakistan where they can regroup, get the required rest and sanctuary (even though the US has drones forever attacking from the sky and killing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda where they can find them).
For many years now, the US has recognized that there can be negotiation with the Taliban since the Taliban has the aim of wresting control of Afghanistan and then would be back to its tactics of promoting its stringent code of Islam, its promotion of the practice of developing Islamic warriors; however, now that the US is becoming war-weary of the Afghanistan conflict, it seems to be silently supporting defining some sections of the Taliban as people who can be negotiated with and who can be made part of a solution to the problem in Afghanistan.
This is a tough call, since for the sake of ending the war, the US looks to be giving up the war; and this is not a fight against some rational but different ideology, this is a fight for the future. If the US, in any way, seems to be losing the war to the Taliban and gives up, it will show up in a wide-spread resurgence of Islamic fervor throughout countries in the whole region, and demonstrate to them that they are on the winning track.

The Jordanian bomber who destroyed a CIA forward operating base in Afghanistan

Ashish — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:30:12 +0000

In any war against terrorism, it is not only the military who takes action. It is the intelligence agencies who play a profound role in this war, whether this be civilian agencies such as the CIA, or military intelligence. These agencies have access to huge amount of funds, have access to the latest of technology, and are also responsible for direct action (which could be action in the form of disinformation campaigns or gathering information, or could be targeted action such as assassination or the use of drones for killing terrorists who otherwise could not be attacked). Imagine a huge wild area where you cannot send your agents, but where you know that terrorists are staying and constantly plotting to do harm. And you can see them through powerful cameras on drone surveillance planes that constantly fly overhead and from which you cannot hide so easily.
A few years back, the US (in the form of the CIA) introduced its unmanned drones that were capable of firing missiles; but it is difficult to know at whom to fire this missiles. Part of getting the information about who and what to fire the missiles comes from the videos that these planes take which are analysed, but a lot more of the information is gathered from informants and other means of getting information; a lot of this information is gathered from CIA forward operating bases such as the one at Base Chapman, near the Afghanistan city of Kost.
This was a huge blow to the CIA, since the people killed were those who were deeply involved in targeting the Al-Qaeda leadership as well as the Haqqani network, and it was known for some time that they were likely to retaliate. And now it seems that they finally succeeded. However, the art of running intelligence operations in dangerous and hostile locations is difficult. You need to ensure that your operatives do not be out of base too much, and hence you need to get your agents back to the base to de-brief; further, in the world of informants and prickly egos, once you trust someone, there is an implicit expectation that you need to show your trust. Putting in place detailed security measures may be necessary for retaining the trust of these people but makes it more difficult to show that you have their trust.

The person who managed to get inside the CIA base and kill these many CIA operatives was a Jordanian doctor who managed to convince both the Jordanian intelligence agency and the CIA that he would bring in valuable information was named Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi. From recent comments by his wife and deconstruction of his life, it would seem pretty evident that the doctor has a hatred for the US, and there was no way for the person to become a informant for the CIA. But in the world of intelligence, it is precisely such a person, who has no obvious sympathy for you, who can be turned and who provides the required information. It seems that the doctor even fooled his own family by pretending to go elsewhere (link to article):

The BBC’s Dale Gavlak, in Zarqa, Jordan, spoke to a family member who refused to be identified after being told to remain anonymous by the Jordanian authorities. He said Balawi had fooled them all about his intentions and his beliefs, telling his family he was travelling to Turkey to join his Turkish wife and children and continue his medical studies.
Balawi was reportedly recruited by Jordanian intelligence officials when he attempted to enter Gaza as part of a medical team last year. According to US media reports, he was a CIA double agent whose specific mission was tracking down al-Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri.