Sunday, March 27, 2005

The Neo Con Job

The question has been asked so many times since 9/11 that asking it one more time might seem redundant – why do they hate us? However, one of the answers to this perennial quandary can be found in a report in today’s Washington Post by Dafna Linzer entitled, “Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy”. It begins with this devastating exposé:

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, “They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.” Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago. Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb.
Talk about a 180 – this incredible report further reveals the following:

“It is absolutely incredible that the very same players who made those statements then are making completely the opposite ones now,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Do they remember that they said this? Because the Iranians sure remember that they said it,” said Cirincione, who just returned from a nuclear conference in Tehran -- a rare trip for U.S. citizens now. In what Cirincione described as “the worst idea imaginable,” the Ford administration at one point suggested joint Pakistani-Iranian reprocessing as a way of promoting “nonproliferation in the region,” because it would cut down on the need for additional reprocessing facilities.

After the Iranian revolution toppled the Shah of Iran in 1979, it caused a dramatic reversal in U.S. foreign policy in the region. In fact, the Reagan Administration went on to support Iraq through much of the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties. Hence, we should not be too surprised in the near future, if “newly declassified documents” from that era go on to establish that Reagan Administration officials had sanctioned the supply of the chemical and biological ingredients for Saddam Hussein’s fledgling WMD programs? After all, there is that infamous video from December 20, 1983 showing Donald Rumsfeld, as President Reagan’s special envoy, meeting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. It’s no wonder comedian Mark Russell had quipped prior to the start of the current war with Iraq, “We know he’s got those weapons of mass destruction… We’ve got the receipts!”

Any wonder why they hate us?

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

The Unwritten Amendment

In a 10-2 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed what a three-judge panel from the same court had decided earlier today, which was what U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore had ruled yesterday – Congress will make no law that makes a mockery of our system of justice – I call it the unwritten amendment to the Constitution. But seriously, the judicial branch firmly rejected President Bush and Congress's nocturnal attempt at subverting states rights over this past weekend. In a brilliant editorial on Tuesday entitled, "A Blow to the Rule of Law", The New York Times lambastes this blatantly political effort by the ruling troika (Bush, Frist, and Delay) –
“The new law tramples on the principle that this is ‘a nation of laws, not of men,’ and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one tragic woman is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy.”

It would be ironical if this case finally lands up in the Supreme Court, whose questionable intervention in that other famous Florida court case (Bush v. Gore) in 2000 epitomized the dilution of states rights. After their infamous 5-4 ruling handed the presidency to George W. Bush, the popular joke back then was that we were not a banana republic, we only had banana Republicans – but the real life GOP of the past weekend surely imitated the art! The Times editorial concludes with this dire warning –
“President Bush and his Congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.”
The original George W. – father of our nation – must surely be turning in his grave.

Monday, March 21, 2005

The Age of Truth

When both, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, run op-eds that come down on the same side of the same issue on the very same day – it feels like you have died and gone to heaven! I experienced this state of nirvana today, which is ironically the traditional day for the vernal equinox or the start of spring. But I am getting ahead of myself…

Robert D. Blackwill, who was the U.S. ambassador to India from 2001-2003, and deputy national security adviser for strategic planning in 2003-2004, wrote an op-ed entitled, “A New Deal for New Delhi” in the March 21, 2005 edition of The Wall Street Journal. Larry Pressler, who is a former Republican senator from South Dakota, wrote an op-ed entitled, “Dissing Democracy in Asia” in the March 21, 2005 edition of The New York Times.

Both these editorials basically say what every Indian-American has been pining for the past decade or more – and, pardon me for using a worn-out cliché one more time - it’s about time that the world’s oldest democracy and the world’s largest democracy “hooked up” in a more meaningful relationship. The Bush Doctrine, which in its second term incarnation – is more sensible and appealing – puts liberty and democracy in the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Pressler calls for “a fundamental policy shift for the subcontinent” that “should enthusiastically improve our treatment of India”, “favor India in all major regional disputes”, “help India match China's arms buildup”, and “work toward a modified free-trade agreement with India”. Mr. Blackwill wants to “integrate India into the evolving global nonproliferation regime as a friendly nuclear weapons state”, “sell India civil nuclear reactors”, “enter into a vigorous long-term program of space cooperation with India”, “sell advanced weaponry to India”, “support India as a permanent member of the Security Council”, and “initiate an intense and secret discussion with India regarding the future of Pakistan”.

As a Hindu, I am inclined to believe that in the Vedic cycle of life, “Satya Yuga” or the “Age of Truth” has finally returned. If this were a dream, I wouldn’t want anybody to wake me up!

Sunday, March 13, 2005

From the Gulag to the Gitmo

Today's Washington Post editorial "More Excuses" reminded me of that memorable scene from the Jack Nicholson movie, “A Few Good Men”. In this instance, however, I envisioned Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III roaring at his recent Senate Armed Services Committee panel hearing, “You can’t handle the truth!”

When President Bush looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and got a sense of his soul, he must have also realized why the Soviet Union thought that the gulags were indispensable during the Cold War? They believed that the security of the state was paramount, and it had no constitutional provisions for individual liberties. In the post-9/11 era, the Bush Administration has perpetrated the likes of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and an incredible phenomenon called “rendition” in trying to ensure the security of the United States. Putin must surely be thinking, "What used to be good for the goose (i.e., the Soviet Union), has become even better for the gander (i.e., the U.S.A)? So why does this Jim Hoagland[1] guy think I have a "siege mentality" and a "defiant demeanor"? Reassess this, comrade!" Note to Bush: in the long run, the gulags did not guarantee the security of the "evil empire".

To maintain any sense of credibility, as he goes about promoting democracy and freedom around the world, President Bush needs to use the constitution of the United States of America as a guide, and The Declaration of Independence as a moral compass. The endowments of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are absolute - they cannot be traded for stability or convenience. If President Bush hopes to see, what Thomas Friedman[2] calls, a Baghdad spring "blossom into sustainable democracy" across the Middle East, he needs to practice what he preaches. Charity, per the old idiom, begins at home!

[1] The reference is to The Washington Post op-ed columnist, Jim Hoagland, whose article entitled, “Reassessing Putin” appears in today’s edition of the Post.
[2] The reference is to The New York Times op-ed columnist, Thomas Friedman, whose article entitled, “New Signs on the Arab Street” appears in today’s edition of the Times.

Monday, March 07, 2005

Democracy and the D-word

The Sunday talk shows were abuzz about the possibility of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton being the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s Meet The Press, asked Mike Allen of The Washington Post about it, “One of the senators that you cover, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York--let me show you the latest Gallup poll in terms of the presidential race for 2008. Hillary Clinton, 40; John Kerry, 25; John Edwards, 17. What is going on?”

If you ask me, the world’s oldest democracy has finally succumbed to the lure of dynasty much like the world’s largest democracy. India was ruled by a democratically elected Nehru-Gandhi dynasty for 37 of its first 42 years since independence! If Senator Clinton is elected President of the United States in 2008 and completes even a single term in office, the Bush-Clinton dynasty will have been in power for 24 continuous years! Of course, there is no blood relation between Bush and Clinton, like there was between Nehru and Gandhi.

Nevertheless, for two families to head the government of a mature democracy like the United States for a contiguous two decades is simply remarkable. If Hillary wins in 2008 and is reelected in 2012, then we are talking “institutional duopoly” begging for a constitutional amendment that would bar any other Bush or Clinton from running for President for the rest of the 21st century! Hey, how else are we going to convince the House of Saud, the Assads of Syria, and the Mubaraks of Egypt that democracy is really not a family monopoly?

Friday, March 04, 2005

The Bush Doctrine gets a makeover

My son, Jay, was the first one to call me around midnight from his college dorm shortly after I made my foray into this “fools paradise”, a.k.a. blogdom. Jay made this really original suggestion, “Dad, why don’t you write something new? Who wants to read about Bush’s first term, anymore?” I refrained from quoting Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, but thanked him for his suggestion nonetheless. While we still have Bush to “kick around” for four more years, if we did not analyze his past mistakes, he is more than likely to repeat them (as us liberals fear) or make history (as his conservative base expects). In any event, nobody but nobody wants a war with Iran – even if, as President Bush declared at a news conference in Brussels recently, “all options are on the table”.

So I am reading Charles Krauthammer in this morning’s Washington Post and I am surprised to learn that his “Road to Damascus” goes through Beirut, but makes no stop in Tehran! In fact, Mr. Krauthammer’s only hint of Iran appears in this pregnant statement, “the entire region from the Mediterranean Sea to the Iranian border would be on a path to democratization”. It seems to me like there is at least one neocon who seems to have taken the Iranian option off the table? So will democracy stop at the water’s edge; will liberty be unable to cross the Persian Gulf? The answer lies in Iraq and the subsequent makeover of the Bush Doctrine by all manner of conservatives. They have decided that if the real world outcomes do not match the objectives of the Bush Doctrine, they will somehow make the Bush Doctrine match the real world outcomes.

The rai·son d'être for the Bush Doctrine was 9/11. Its core argument was based on President Bush’s notion that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". It further postulated the right of the U.S. to preemptively wage war against terrorist cells and rogue states that were engaged in the production of, or in the possession of, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which were deemed to be a threat to the U.S. and its allies. While President Bush promised to opt for multilateral solutions, he did not rule out unilateral action, if necessary. In its original incarnation, the Bush Doctrine did not clearly enunciate the need for liberty and democracy in all regions of the world. Such a requirement at the time would have plainly been an embarrassment to a number of our allies such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. So when did the Bush Doctrine incorporate President Kennedy's liberal inaugural vision, as in, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

I would suggest that the creationists turned evolutionary after the collapse of the original justification for the Iraq War – which was Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD that were deemed to be an imminent threat (remember Condi “mushroom cloud” Rice) to the U.S. and its allies – when no WMD were found. Per Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule, we pretty much own a broken Iraq that requires serious fixing. After his reelection, President Bush decided to outdo Kennedy at his second inaugural. Thus Iraq became a beacon for freedom and democracy in the region and around the world. In fact, after a successful Iraqi election on January 30th, the Bush Doctrine is no longer as much about our security as it is about freedom and democracy around the globe. Amazingly, the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal have already started touting a 21st century version of President Eisenhower's “domino theory”. In the post Cold War era, I am tempted to remind them that Vietnam remains one of the world’s few communist countries, along with that “Bay of Pigs” paradise, Cuba! Meanwhile, the original “evil empire” struggles with democracy but gets only a wink and a nod from our “soul penetrating” President. And, don’t even get me started on China, which in President Bush’s 2000 election campaign was supposed to be his top priority because he considered it a “strategic competitor” unlike then President Clinton, who he claimed treated China like a “strategic partner”? But then, we do have four more years of foreign policy evolution to live through, so “fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride”.