World Political Blog » US

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.

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!

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.

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.

Having to defend the decision of announcing the withdrawal from Afghanistan

Ashish — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:55:41 +0000

Afghanistan is a country which has a long history of not giving an easy time to foreign armies. From the time of the British who spent many battles in there, but could never claim that they had an easy control, to the Soviets who spent a huge military effort over there but finally had to retreat in the face of a harsh and determined, religion-fired insurgency, to the Pakistanis who used proxies (Taliban) to control the country, but could never claim that Pakistan ran Afghanistan. The history of the US in terms of running military campaigns in foreign countries after the Second World War has been bad; they had to retreat from Vietnam, retreated from Beirut after a huge truck bomb killed many marines, the Iraq war had seen a huge amount of internal opposition, a balanced Somalia effort was stopped after a street fight in Mogadishu killed 18 US soldiers, and so on. There is a huge internal debate in the US about evaluating the needs of sending troops to battle overseas, even if there is a need; and the sight of body bags of fallen soldiers causes this debate to get even more heated and emotional.
In Afghanistan, the US has a bad reputation; they were heavily involved till the Soviets left, and then the US abandoned the area, only picking it up after it started sensing terrorism efforts originating from there, and finally after the 9/11 attacks. Now, after President Obama did a balance of the military needs and political needs by announcing more troops, but also announcing a deadline, he has to balance multiple reactions.

Internally, the US President is coming under huge strain; his fellow Democrats don’t support adding more troops to the Afghan war since it is highly unpopular with their base; the Republicans did not support his announcing of a deadline to commence withdrawal of troops. The biggest fear of everyone is that by announcing a date, the Taleban, which has been out of power for 8 years now and fighting the insurgency, can afford to wait 2 more years and then make the effort to overthrow Karzai when the US leaves. Pakistan would no longer be willing to invest in an effort to fight the Taleban if it sees the US disengaging from the area, and needs a friendly Afghanistan to counter India.
So now, you have US officials trying their best to persuade leaders from all over that the US has not announced a disengagement, that the withdrawal would only happen if the Afghan army and security services are in a good enough condition, and that the end date for the withdrawal is not decided. Further, the US would set up bases in the area to ensure that it retains a sizable balance. However, Obama is also being accused of making decisions based on politics by ensuring that a withdrawal is in place when he is fighting for re-election.

What will Obama do in Afghanistan ? More troops, or … ?

Ashish — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:40:40 +0000

When people talk about Afghanistan and its history, there is unanimity that no outside country can win inside Afghanistan. The British tried it in ‘The Great Game’s in the 19th century, and they lost troops, but never looked to be in a position where they could claim that they had repressed all discontent. The Soviets tried it in the 1980′s, but they were defeated by the terrain, by the fierce Afghans (although aided by the combined weight of Saudi Arabia, the US, and Pakistan); all together, it has always been claimed that no outside force can take control of Afghanistan, and it is predicted that the same will happen to the Americans in their effort in Afghanistan.
After the 2001 WTC attacks, the US supported the Northern Alliance in their battle against the Taleban, and literally bombed the Taliban into giving up their entire occupied territory. However, after that the Americans forgot all about history. George Bush gave up the effort in Afghanistan for the war in Iraq, and the unrest in Iraq made sure that Afghanistan did not get enough troops to protect against a resurgent Taleban, there was not enough support to ensure that development of the incredibly backward regions would happen, and the combination of a weak President Karzai supported by former warlords ensured that development and reform would not happen even though it was incredibly needed.
On the other hand, the Taleban, after taking its knocks in 2001, used a strategy of getting support and medical help for its fighters in Pakistan, and slowly started assuming enough strength to attack the US soldiers.

Now the situation in Afghanistan is that there are just not enough troops on the ground to support the cities, forget the countryside where the Taleban reigns supreme. The US military commander in Afghanistan (Gen. Stanley McChrystal), who was given charge earlier this year, has now asked for 40,000 – 60,000 troops more, making clear that less number of troops than that will lead to a defeat. Obama is already facing many of his own supporters who are asking for a reduction of troops from Afghanistan, or even a complete removal. It is difficult for him to add the number of troops requested, but any refusals (or even going with his veep’s half-baked proposal of less troops, and more missiles and UAV’s) will open him upto the charges of being weak on national security. And if the US now withdraws or reduces its presence, or allows the Taleban to control more territory, this will be a sign of weakness that the US cannot really exhibit, given that it has foes such as Al-Qaeda (and its linked organizations), enemy states such as Iran and North Korea. For these foes, a US withdrawal means that the US does not have the stomach to go in for fights, and is an open invitation to attack it closer to home. Obama needs to take the correct decision, looking into mind the long term, and disregarding the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.

Iran nuclear issue: Inspection by the UN of the new complex

Ashish — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:14:05 +0000

The most complex problem in international politics today is with respect to Iran. And in this, the situation is not even about the recent elections, or the divided political powers in Iran; it is about the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has consistently maintained that it has a peaceful nuclear program, and this is allowed by the NPT and by the safe-guards under it. Most of the world believes that this is a cover, and the real intention of the Iranians is to bluster and negotiate while moving to a real nuclear weapons capability. Further complicating details is that the nuclear program is a nationalistic program in Iran, which sees the Israelis as having a very powerful local presence, based on their nuclear devices. In addition, there are 2 more nuclear capable states in the locality – India and Pakistan. All 3 nuclear states have got off pretty easily, and so has North Korea, and so Iran feels that it can build one. The Iranian nuclear program is under the control of the Supreme Leader, the cleric Ayatollah Khameini, and also under the control of the conservative President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
For many years now, there has been a concerted effort by the western powers, France, Britain, Germany, and the US about how to control and rollback the Iranian effort, but going the sanctions route with the UN Security Council supporting the sanctions is not easy, since Russia and China both have stakes in Iran, and are resisting efforts to have tougher sanctions.

There are also a lot of games being played in the background, with the western countries having spy rings inside Iran, and one of these spy rings detected the presence of another Iranian secret nuclear enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom. This detection forced the Iranians to announce the presence of this nuclear facility in a letter to the IAEA, and there are complex legalities about whether having a secret facility like this was proper or not (Iran claimed that it only had to announce once it reached a certain stage of activity). This announcement however raised more suspicions about the motives of the Iranians, and whether there were more such facilities that were hidden in the country. The Western countries are also racing against another unstated deadline, possible Israeli activity. Israel sees Iran as a deadly enemy, and may act militarily to destroy the Iranian facilities, something that would dramatically escalate tensions. Other powers in the area, such as Saudi Arabia would also be uncomfortable if Iran went ahead and built a bomb (link to article):

ElBaradei urged Iran to submit to more comprehensive inspections because its nuclear program is so advanced. “It would help the agency to have Iran subscribing again to our regulations that allow us to be informed of the construction of nuclear facilities as early as possible,” he said. He also pressed Iran to give the IAEA “the authority for more information, for access to more locations that would enable the agency to provide assurances not only about declared nuclear activity in Iran but also about possible undeclared activities.”
Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili met with William J. Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, a senior U.S. official and a diplomatic source confirmed to CNN. The men discussed Iran’s nuclear program, a sit-down described as the first face-to-face meeting between the U.S. and Iran over the program. International powers want inspectors to have free access to Iran’s new facility and have threatened more sanctions if the Islamic republic doesn’t change its ways.

Baitullah Mehsud dead in a drone attack – and his successors are now fighting

Ashish — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:07:36 +0000

For Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud has been one of the people who have caused it the most grief. Baitullah was the leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the leader of what has been called the Pakistani Taliban. He first became internationally famous when he was blamed for being behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and in an ironic revenge, he was killed by a missile fired by a US operated drone when Benazir’s husband, Asif Ali Zardari is the President of Pakistan.
Baitullah was hiding in Waziristan, a rugged and difficult terrain that the Pakistani Army has always been reluctant to attack. This was even when Baitullah was blamed for a majority of the suicide attacks (including huge bomb attacks that made international news) that happened inside Pakistan, and yet he seemed to be always ahead of the Pakistani military. It was only in the recent past that the US operated drones (with their fearful missile launching capability) started striking fear in the hearts of these terrorists. The drone with their video coverage meant that these terrorist leaders always had to be on the move; and it was only recently that the drones also started tracking the Tehrik-i-Taliban; earlier the drones would be attacking the Al-Qaeda leadership hiding out in these remote areas as opposed to taking on the Pakistani Taleban. This had created a divergence between the US and Pakistan since Al-Qaeda was threatening Pakistani interest, while Baitullah was attacking Pakistani interests.
Now, the question is what are the next steps ? With recent reports of his potential successors having indulged in severe infighting and firing at each other, there is an opportunity for the Pakistani Government and military to step in and try to clean up. However, it seems much easier to try and strike a deal, since that would ensure that the hard steps of fighting in a difficult terrain can be avoided (link to article):

On an immediate basis, the Pakistan Army needs to decide whether or not to go ahead with a fully fledged military operation in South Waziristan, the headquarters of the TTP. But before that, Pakistan’s government, army and intelligence agencies will have to undergo some existential angst articulating Pakistan’s absolute stance on militancy. The outcome of that thought process will determine what happens next. The Pakistan Army should not make the mistake of sitting back and hoping that a battle of succession will lead to rampant infighting that will forever fragment the TTP.
The US, meanwhile, has expressed concern that Pakistan will try to negotiate with Baitullah’s successor. After all, reports suggest that Baitullah’s father-in-law Malik Ikramuddin had been in touch with government officials looking to strike a new peace deal. Striking now will indicate a genuine desire to rid Pakistan of militancy. Talking, on the other hand, will suggest that Pakistan is still engaged in a double game.

Past deals with terrorists have always led Pakistan into more trouble, with the terrorist seeing such deals as being reflective of the inability of Governments to fight with them (or of having the stomach to take losses), and using this time to regroup and build up into being a formidable force again. The international community also suspects the intention of the Government when it strikes such deal.