Once the Obama Administration came to power, the expectation was that many of the excesses of the Bush era would come to a stop; however, if you look at the policy position of Obama once in power, he has dumped the term of ‘enemy combatant’ but kept the same powers (almost) (refer this article):

There will no longer will be “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Obama administration said Friday. Moreover, the new president no longer claims that his title as commander in chief allows him to order people deemed to be dangerous captured and held without trial. Having abandoned a favored Bush administration term in the war on terrorism, however, the new administration has claimed roughly the same power to hold Guantanamo’s detainees indefinitely — even those who never held a gun or went near a battlefield.
President Obama’s lawyers said Congress gave him the authority he needed when it authorized the use of military force one week after the Sept. 11 attacks. It said the president can use the military against “nations, organizations or persons” who planned or aided the terrorist attacks. President George W. Bush cited the same authority when he created the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, but he also said he could act on his own as commander in chief.

For people who had been hoping that the change in administration will lead to a total reversal of policies, the enunciation of the new policy would not have been very comforting. One factor that would have led to the policy not being as liberal as many would have liked was the statistic released recently about the new of people who were released from Guantanamo who went back to being terrorists and fighting US interests.

After mounting pressure from the United States and India, Pakistani authorities raided a camp run by the militant group suspected of carrying out the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani and American officials said Monday. The operation on Sunday appeared to be Pakistan’s first concrete response to the demands from India and the United States to take action against the militants suspected in the attacks, which have raised tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors to their highest point in years.
A senior Pakistani security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said about a dozen people had been arrested in the raid, which took place in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The raid on Sunday appeared to be the first step by the Pakistanis that at least tacitly recognized the American and Indian claims. Counterterrorism experts familiar with the behavior of the Pakistani security services said there was a need by Pakistan to be seen to be doing something to alleviate the American and Indian pressure, as well as to avert the possibility of an Indian military strike.

However, the reality is that Pakistan is facing tremendous pressure, which is limiting the ability to do much:
- For the first time, US and other western tourists were targeted, and given the soft nature of these targets, a successful attack such as this will make these tourists seem more susceptible to such dangers
- Pakistani politicians, because of their past projection of India as the enemy, cannot afford to be seen as acting against so-called Kashmiri freedom fighters under US pressure
- The Pakistani military as well as the Government are financially strapped and need desperate financial support (especially when China and Saudi Arabia have refused to provide support)
- The military has just shown how powerful it is in the running of the country, and it would seem that the civilian leadership is buckling under the pressure, especially with the ISI being seen as a rogue party
- These militants, at the same time attack many Pakistani interests (including a much higher rate of suicide and other bombings)
- The incoming US administration comes in with the understanding that Pakistani was deceiving them in terms of previous efforts against the militants, and a lot of the aid was not used as the way that the Americans intended
- The US remains dependent on the Pakistani authority for the war against the Taleban, given that the last few days have seen the support convoys for the Americans in Afghanistan getting attacked in Peshawar

With all these factors, many of them at cross-purposes, it is hard to really guess what the Pakistanis will do. For their own survival, and under tremendous US pressure, they need to show action, while carrying the military along, and yet the public projection should be as low key as possible to avoid being seen to be acting under foreign pressure.

US President George W Bush has signed into law a nuclear deal with India, which ends a three-decade ban on US nuclear trade with Delhi. The landmark agreement was approved by the US Congress nearly a week ago. The deal will give India access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel in return for inspections of its civilian, but not military, nuclear facilities.

India says the accord is vital to meet its rising energy needs. Critics say it creates a dangerous precedent. They say it effectively allows India to expand its nuclear power industry without requiring it to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as other nations must. The US restricted nuclear co-operation with India after it tested a nuclear weapon in 1974.

The Indian side faced tremendous challenges in getting this deal through. The process was started by a discussion with the BJP ruled Indian Government and the Bush Administration, and was then negotiated by the Congress Government with the US Administration a couple of years back. The Indian Government was a minority Government, and dependent on the Communist Parties and many other parties. The Communist Parties, although against the nuclear policies of the Indian Government, have always despised a closer relationship with the United States and refused to flatly support such a policy, warning of a end to the Government (and since the Government was in a minority, an end seemed quite natural if their support ended).
For a long time, it seemed that the Government had given up, after all the nuclear deal was not a vote-winner, the deal also seemed to be against the interests of the Muslim minority vote that the Congress wants, and so on. And then, after many months, Dr. Manmohan Singh finally decided that enough is enough; he literally forced the Government to agree to his stand that they back the deal; to the extent that manipulations were allowed in order to make sure that the Government retained a majority in Parliament.
Getting the deal through the Nuclear Suppliers Group was another difficult task. There were many nations wedded to the cause of denial of technology to anybody who had not signed upto the NPT, and it required intensive effort by the US to get the group to agree. China in the end tried to prod other nations, but the US pressure (and a small amount of Indian pressure) was enough to get the member to eventually agree, even though it was totally under pressure.
The United States also had to face opposition internally, both within the Administration, and outside in the strategic community; people were reluctant to approve any exemptions to the NPT; thought was that this gave India the right to use its uranium resources to push its military weapons program; also that this gave the wrong signal to others such as Iran and Pakistan.
Overall, this deal will provide a vast impetus to the nuclear energy commercial business; with India planning a large number of reactors to meet a portion of its energy needs, a number of companies worldwide will benefit.

- Ordinary citizens worried about being able to payback the loans and repay the mortgage are outraged that no one cares about them, and everybody is instead worried about some Wall Street gents who already have too much money. How does a collapse affect the ordinary Joe on the street ?
1. Tainted assets means that banks are unsure about the value of assets they hold, and make it more difficult for them to estimate their losses; this in turn causes a loss in confidence about the financial status of the bank and prevents the bank from being able to get capital – this in turn will surely and steadily lead to the bank going down the disaster bank
2. It is not just Wall Street that is affected, mainline banks in which Americans hold their deposits, are getting affected
3. The finance sector is so closely integrated with the overall economy (and is in fact a major glue of the whole economy); a crash will bring the economy down to its knees
4. People do not realize, but they are heavily involved with the stock market. Pension funds and retirement plans are typically heavily invested into the market, and downturns in the market affect the overall value of these funds

- Republicans believe that the Government needs to be small,and the market should be free. Such a bailout plan is likely to reverse both of these concepts, and this is a matter of principle
However, right now the US economy is on a major precipice, and it badly needs sentiment to be reflected. The overall aim of any ruling structure is to take measures such that it improves the life and condition of citizens, and the current situation is that a recession needs to be avoided and the economy is brought back from the brink (as stated by any number of economists and finance experts).

However, in a major setback to the President, and to the leadership of both parties, a majority of Congressmen rejected the bill. It is the treasury secretary who is responsible for ensuring that the economy remains purring, and he (and a number of experts) believe that such a plan is necessary to prevent the economy from going into a severe crisis; unfortunately a majority of the elected representatives don’t agree.

Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari lashed out at the United States after their troops traded gunfire sparked by claims Pakistan forces shot at two US helicopters for alleged violation of airspace on the border with Afghanistan. “Just as we will not let Pakistani’s territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbors, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends,” he said without citing the United States or the border flareup. “Unilateral actions of great powers should not inflame the passion of allies,” he further said, cautioning that any cross border raids could be counterproductive.

But a State Department spokesman earlier said Washington wanted an explanation from Pakistan, commenting that “the Taliban are not flying helicopters.” “We have been in touch with the Pakistanis about this and we certainly want to have an explanation,” the spokesman said.
A US official told AFP recently that Washington was frustrated with “delays and sometimes non-answers” from Islamabad regarding “actionable intelligence” on militant movements in the tribal areas in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants were believed to be hiding.

This is a natural step up in the series of incidents that have been escalating over the past few months, tremendously fraying the relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It has been an open secret that sections of the Pakistani military have been supporting the Taleban, and the previous Pakistani administration of Musharraf and the military were unwilling to do all they can to get rid of the support to the Taleban from their side (even if these same elements caused much trouble to them inside Pakistan). Reports started appearing in the US media about how the Bush administration is having second thoughts about whether Pakistan really wants to get rid of the terrorism within its borders, and then when the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul happened, the press was all over about how the US wants Pakistan to weed out the elements of the ISI that support terrorism and is no longer willing to believe everything that Islamabad says.
The Pakistanis, under US pressure, have been letting drones into Pakistani territory and attack suspected terrorist hide-outs over there through missiles launched from these drones. However, when President Bush decided in July that rules have changed, and that the US will even attack inside Pakistani territory, this rattled Pakistan. After all, how can a Government allow its sovereign territory to be invaded by foreign forces without permission, and the Government cannot even think about being able to justify this internally. Already there is wide-spread anti-American feeling inside Pakistan. It would seem that General Kiyani, the Pakistani Army is fully behind the push to make sure that American forces cannot come inside Pakistan. Of course, since he is perceived to be not favoring President Zardari, what better way to embarrass him than to create an incident when Zardari is visiting the US and will not be able to explain things.
What the Pakistani Government (including the Army Chief) may not have fully accounted for is the feelings that remain regarding September 11th. No US Government can afford to not be taking action when there are elements of terrorism at large and have been behind the past major attack. With the US being a country where a lot of the pressure happens through the media, there is an incredible amount of push towards making sure that Pakistan cleans up the terrorism in its backyard and gives up the policy of being state sponsors of terrorism. It has already been mentioned in the US campaign as well, and another such incident of firing could quickly escalate the political heat (currently the politicians are pre-occupied in scoring political points with respect to saving the economy). In addition, the Pakistani military gets a good source of funding from the US, and Congress is likely to put more pressure on linking that to showing a determination to get rid of terrorism.

This much movement must have been expected by the West, but this was not it. Russian forced moved out from these territories and moved towards the strategic city of Gori, a city that sits on the central part of Georgia. Georgians considered this move as an attempt to split the country into 2 separate sections and hollered mightily, expecting action from their allies (the West and the United States). The United Nations was out since Russia would have vetoed any such resolution. And the United States depends on Russia to help it on Iran (something that is more important than the action in Georgia), so except for calling for a cease-fire and speaking about how this action of Russia would have far-reaching consequences, it was not able to do anything greater.
It was Russia that is deciding the course of actions, and one is waiting to see how its other interest, of preventing an oil pipeline that would remove Russian influence from oil shipments will play through. In this case, the West can only try and hope that it will be able to influence Russia, and even though a cease-fire is now signed, Russian troops are not currently retreating:

A day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went close to the front lines in Georgia to press for immediate withdrawal of Russian forces there, the Kremlin announced Saturday that it had approved a framework for a cease-fire. On the ground in Georgia on Saturday, the situation remained largely unchanged, with Russian troops occupying large swaths of territory. The Kremlin gave no indication when they would be pulled out.
The six-point arrangement had been negotiated by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, but a dispute soon followed over one of its provisions, which the Russians had interpreted as allowing them to maintain a military presence on Georgian territory outside the two disputed enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The vagueness of the original provision appeared to have allowed the Russians to occupy Gori even after the two countries had agreed to the cease-fire framework. A senior Western diplomat in Tbilisi, speaking on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules, contended that the Russian military maneuvers near the capital on Friday around the time of the Rice visit were deliberate. The diplomat said troops were “moving around to weaken the civilian administration and perhaps create the conditions for political upheaval down the line.”

For all the bluster that Rice and other leaders could raise, it was clear that the initiative lay with Russia. Both Russian Prime Minister (and true force behind the throne) Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev had raised the stakes very beginning with the fast deployment of Russian forces, with some pointed comments and speeches, and with not stopping at the border of South Ossetia, but taking the fight inside Georgia.

The United States plans to shift about $230 million in aid to Pakistan from counterterrorism programs to upgrading the nation’s aging F-16 fighter jets. The new government is facing “a terrible financial crisis with food and fuel problems,” the official said, and the Pakistani government “would rather tell its public they are spending their money on food and fuel,” so it asked the United States to pay for the F-16 upgrades from the U.S. aid fund. Last year, Congress mandated that $300 million in aid to Pakistan go toward fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, partly by beefing up law enforcement and developing tribal areas of the country that are hostile to the United States.
Skeptical lawmakers worry that the F-16 upgrades will divert funding from crucial counterterrorism programs and could be more about helping Pakistan competing with its rival, India, than fighting terror. Nita Lowey, chairwoman of a House subcommittee on foreign operations, said the request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reprogram the funding “raises serious concerns.” Lowey is asking for more information before signing off on the change. “Congress provided these funds specifically for counterterrorism and law enforcement activities,” Lowey said in a written statement.

This is about as short-sighted as can be. It is of critical importance that funds be spent on improving the lot of the tribal areas and improve the force that works over there. Instead, if these funds are used for improving F-16′s, machines that are hardly of much use in anti-terrorism except when a force needs the support in a head-on fight with the terrorist, not something that is typically seen in the border regions.

For the second month in a row, U.S. and allied troop deaths in the Afghan war have surpassed those in Iraq, according to official figures tallied by CNN. In June, 46 foreign troops died in Afghanistan and 31 troops died in Iraq. In May, 23 foreign troops died in Afghanistan and 21 died in Iraq. A Pentagon report issued last week about Afghanistan said that security in many areas of the country is regarded as “fragile” and that Taliban militants have regrouped into a “resilient insurgency” after the Taliban was toppled from power in 2001.

The United Nations said recently that civilian deaths in Afghanistan have gone sharply upward in the past year, largely because of stepped-up Taliban attacks and an insurgent shift toward tactics like roadside bombings, U.N. officials said Sunday. Afghan civilian deaths in the first six months of 2008 jumped 60 percent, from 430 in the first six months of 2007 to 698 this year, John Holmes, the U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said.

If the coalition loses Afghanistan to the Taleban again, they will face a breeding ground for terrorists like never before, and will have to fight a massive battle on all fronts (in Afghanistan and at home) to recover from this situation.

However, it is very hard to justify locking people up for years altogether without bringing in charges against them; it goes against the concept of law and the rights of man whereby everybody is entitled to a trial in a free society. The United States is not a banana republic whereby laws and the rights of individuals are at the whims and fancies of a single person. In this overall discussion, the US courts are slowly changing their stance, from initially supporting the policies of the Bush administration to questioning their treatment of the detainees:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo prisoners have constitutional rights has fundamentally changed the rules for trying them and could bring down the special war crimes court, defence lawyers said. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling did not directly address the legality of the Guantanamo court but it gave the defendants a new avenue to challenge its jurisdiction to try them. The 2006 law that laid the foundation for the trials at the U.S. naval base in Cuba said that court can only try “unlawful enemy combatants,” a term used by the Bush administration for fighters it considers undeserving of the legal protections granted to civilians and soldiers.
That status was determined by an administrative panel of military officers, a system that critics said allowed the jailers to be the judges. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling said prisoners had the right to challenge that status in the U.S. federal courts, forcing the government to show evidence to continue holding them.

This ruling forces the Bush administration to think anew over its policies in the area of the treatment of the detainees; even though the administration, and even the Republican candidate, McCain has opposed the judgment, and the judgment was delivered by a razor thin minority of 5-4.

President Bush has finally set a target date for reining in U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases but the plan is falling flat in the international arena, where critics have long accused him of not moving quickly enough on tackling global warming. “Losership instead of leadership,” Germany’s environment minister said late last week of Bush’s new strategy. A major disappointment, South Africa said. Too little and too late, a Chinese official added.
Since Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, many nations have viewed him as an obstacle to the fight against global warming, which scientists say is worsened by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. American environmentalists and congressional Democrats criticized the Bush plan for not setting an earlier deadline for curbing emissions, and his speech was widely viewed elsewhere as out of touch with the rest of the world. Bush is “lagging hopelessly behind the problems with his proposals,” German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said in a statement in Berlin.

What is significant is that there are many state and city level officials who are recognizing the problem, and are willing to take steps to solve the problem. President Bush is not able to stop these local initiatives, although he would dearly love to; the problem is more likely that industry does not want to take these measures and Bush is so influenced by these industries and by the arrogance of his own belief that this is a made-up problem that he would rather go down in history as the leader who stood by when he could have been taking a leadership role.