Tweets, Lies and Videotape – Colluding with the Enemy is a Crime!

A Washington Post report on Saturday so riled President Trump that he took to Twitter to respond, “Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!” The significance of this tweet cannot be underestimated.  Shortly after he was elected, the Trump team insisted that there had been “no contacts” with any Russians during the campaign.  Then after the Mueller probe was launched in May 2017, the Trump administration changed its tune to “there is no collusion.”  

Now, after over a year of proclaiming “no collusion” at every possible chance he got (and there’s a ton of videotape to prove it), President Trump has further qualified his position to “collusion is not a crime.” This qualification is tantamount to an admission of guilt, as the Mueller investigation zeroes in on Trump’s part in his campaign’s nefarious activities during 2016.  In the first place – if one had to really split hairs about Trump’s oft repeated claim – he’s invariably voiced it in the present tense, using “is,” instead of the past tense, as in, “there was no collusion.” So, he is either telling the truth, in that, he is no longer colluding with Russia, or he’s got a Clintonian problem with what the meaning of “is” is?  Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that he always meant “there was no collusion,” whenever he made that denial over the past year – but it increasingly has that Shakespearean feel, like the man “doth protest too much.”  

As the evidence of collusion started to mount, the Trump team quickly adopted the aforementioned new talking point that was swiftly disseminated over the airwaves, most prominently on Fox News that “collusion is not a crime.”  In fact, Trump was also rattled by the progress of the Mueller investigation that he had taken to Twitter earlier on Wednesday stating, “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further.”  Thus, in addition to tacitly conceding to collusion with Russia, our long-standing adversary, the president appeared to also impede justice with this imprudent tweet.  Even if we grant the Trump team, its hasty public backtracking of the tweet’s intent as the president’s “opinion,” not as a presidential “directive” to the Attorney General (who in any case has recused himself from the Mueller investigation), the tweet is pretty damning from an intent to obstruct justice perspective. 

But Trump is right about one thing – the question is no longer about collusion, it’s now about treason, which still needs to be proven.  However, we need Mueller to establish the exact (witting or unwitting) level of the Trump campaign’s disloyalty to the country by its illicit engagement with Russia. In the interim, unlawful behavior as captured in the acronym TREASON – Trump-Russia Election Activities Suggest Operational Nexus – i.e., collusion has now clearly been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The Trump administration has finally realized when its looks like collusion, smells like collusion and feels like collusion – it must be collusion!  It’s what made the Trump team change its tune to “collusion is not a crime,” which might be technically true and legally ambiguous, but it sure as hell sounds quite sleazy.  

In any case, acronyms aside, everyone can agree that real treason as we all know it – is treacherous, traitorous and simply cannot be tolerated.  So, for the long-term health and integrity of our nation, let’s hope that as far as Trump is concerned – a benign version of collusion holds true, that treason is never proven, and that obstruction of justice is largely what we have to worry about.  But then hoping, where Trump’s word is concerned, has proven to be a big disappointment – as the Post’s Fact Checker database shows through the end of July, “In 558 days, President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims.”  At an average of 7.6 falsehoods a day, the prognosis for Trump’s collusion claims being benign aren’t good.  So, it’s imperative that Mueller determine exactly how far the collusion went and how detrimental its effects have been to our democracy.

Moscow on the Potomac

Background:

When I first submitted my op-ed, “Moscow on the Potomac,” on December 20, 2016 to The Washington Post, I had no idea that the Trump-Russian connection was about to explode into the headlines with the CNN/BuzzFeed exposé?  Three weeks ago, I believed I had put together a rather cogent analysis on the possible repercussions of what seemed to be a rather strange, yet cozy, Trump-Putin relationship.  In fact, I went on to submit my op-ed to several other publications without much success.  Now, given some of the shocking political developments this week, I would first like to present my original take on what I thought was a disconcerting situation even back then before Christmas.  Following my op-ed, I have listed in a postscript all of the startling events that unfolded this week and have been reported in various national media.

Moscow on the Potomac:

In December 2016, we marked the 25^th anniversary of the Western world’s victory over the Soviet Union in a metaphorical “Cold War” that spanned much of the second-half of the 20^th century.  But this seminal victory might turn out to be pyrrhic, if President-elect Trump refuses to recognize that Russia, which emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Union, is no longer akin to a friendly western ally that its then President Boris Yeltsin wanted it to become?

U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the CIA, have concluded based upon a preponderance of evidence that the Russians clearly interfered in this year’s U.S. presidential elections, which are a quintessential part of our democracy.  In fact, the DNI’s “intel” consensus was that Russian President Putin directly approved of cyber efforts to help “Comrade Trump” win the White House.  With Trump in the White House, Putin believes that his dream of returning Russia to the heyday of the Soviet Union will be given a new impetus. 

In fact, and more ominously, with Trump’s appointment of “Comrade Tillerson” as U.S. Secretary of State, Putin must sense that the resurrection, of what then President Reagan so derisively called the “evil empire,” will gain momentum.  In all likelihood, Putin will be allowed to keep Crimea and Secretary Tillerson might even choose to turn a blind eye to Eastern Ukraine.  Putin would then be free to re-deploy his 2008 Georgian annexation (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) “you don’t ask, we don’t tell” model in Eastern Ukraine without any further badgering by the West?  Thus, the resurrection of a new “evil empire” will have begun – with Putin’s “near abroad” strategy firmly taking hold in the first year of the Trump presidency. 

It won’t be too long before Putin’s tentacles start spreading to the Baltics and Eastern Europe, especially if Trump restructures NATO to deemphasize its post-Cold War members.  Mother Russia with her enormous natural gas and oil reserves remains Putin’s “trump” card.  With rising energy prices, Putin could then resume playing this trump card to pressurize Western Europe into lifting sanctions against Russia.  If “Comrade Tillerson” sides with Putin on this critical issue, which can be quickly determined by the Trump administration’s policy on Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, the sanctions regime would immediately collapse.  Putin’s “near abroad” strategy will then enter a more penetrative “further abroad” phase.  

In choosing to bring Russia closer to the United States, Trump is simultaneously seeking to distance us from China.  It appears to be a foreign policy strategy based on economic power, in which Trump views China’s economic strength as a threat, but does not see Russia’s military strength in the same vein.  More distressingly, Trump seems completely unfazed by the cyber threat Russia poses against the West.  Many American pundits believe that Trump will change his tune after taking office and when the linkage between his presidential victory and the role played by Russian cyber espionage begins to fade in the American public’s memory. 

But the political opposition, anti-communist patriots, and the news media are not likely to let go and there will be ongoing questions about whether we have a “Moscow on the Potomac” situation at home?  However, unlike in the 1984 movie, “Moscow on the Hudson” – in which a Russian Robin Williams is trying to defect in a New York Bloomingdale’s department store – this won’t be a laughing matter!  In our current real life situation, Democrats and Reagan conservatives alike will wonder whether we have an American president in the Oval Office kowtowing to the Kremlin?  Trump might not want his presidential victory to be tainted by claims of Russian interference, but he simply cannot place the integrity of our intelligence agencies below that of Putin’s cyber thugs.  After all, these selfsame agencies will be critical to the success of his presidency – they might have flubbed on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, but they also helped President Obama nail Osama bin Laden!

Sadly, to use a Trumpian term, ignoring Russia’s cyber threat in this highly and hyper connected world could cause the West to lose the Cyber War – a more sophisticated 21^st century version than its metaphorical 20^th century cousin, the Cold War, which took us almost five decades to win.  The Cyber War’s devastating impact could cripple western economies, which are so dependent on the Internet, without any physical WMD being actually deployed?  So it is imperative for President Trump to understand that the Cyber War is a war that no president can afford to lose.  He must begin by acknowledging the problem – Putin has his cyber sights set on the West and the interference into our 2016 elections was only a sampler battle; the bigger war is yet to come!

***

Post Script:

1.     CNN online report, datelined January 10, 2017, with the headline, “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him”:

 

“A salacious 35-page document, a summary of which was presented to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump last week, included allegations that Russian operatives claim to possess “compromising personal and financial information” on Trump, CNN first reported, citing multiple U.S. officials.”

2.     Senator Marco Rubio asked Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, at his January 11, 2017 confirmation hearing: “Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?”

Mr. Tillerson replied: “I would not use that term.”

3.     David Ignatius revealed the following in his January 12, 2017 Washington Post op-ed online, “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?”:

“According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.”

4.     Matthew Miller in his January 13, 2017 Time magazine report online, “James Comey Cannot Be Trusted With a Trump-Russia Investigation”:

“It was always going to be difficult for FBI Director Jim Comey to oversee an investigation into ties between President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. Thursday’s announcement that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General will investigate Comey’s conduct during last year’s presidential election makes it impossible.”

5.     On late Friday evening January 13, 2017, NBC News reported:

“The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said it will conduct a bipartisan inquiry into possible Russian intelligence agencies' involvement in the U.S. election, and the probe's scope includes interviewing officials in the Obama and Trump administrations.”

Moscow might have tried to soft land on the Potomac, but unfortunately it has been caught making a big splash – the consequences of which are yet to be fully determined!

Assuring Victory in Afghanistan

The failed Mayday bombing incident in Times Square exposed the involvement of the Pakistan Taliban in a jihadist plot against the United States. Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, was apparently distraught over collateral damage caused by Predator drones along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Increasingly in the past year, disgruntled Pakistani-Americans have made various attempts to avenge for stepped-up drone attacks in the critical AfPak border area. This latest effort – another foiled attack on the homeland – brings a new sense of urgency to our overall mission in the Afghan theater of operations.

A recent New York Times editorial lamented that

“Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has a clear military strategy. We are less certain about the administration’s political strategy.”

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that if these two strategies are not in sync, failure is no longer an option, but becomes almost certain. We were experiencing a similar situation in Iraq until late 2006, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was fired and the current Defense Secretary Robert Gates took charge. Secretary Gates quickly aligned the Bush Administration’s political strategy namely, to defeat the insurgency and stabilize Iraq, with its military strategy, which was to surge forces with a clear, hold and build objective – and, thus ensured success. Today, the U.S. is on target to withdraw most of its combat troops from Iraq by late summer.

More curiously, the Times editorial appeared to have analyzed the Karzai problem strictly within the confines of Afghanistan, ignoring its larger geopolitical context. Pakistan’s influence on the outcome in Afghanistan is as much, if not more relevant than, what Iran’s influence would have been to the outcome in Iraq without the surge. President Karzai’s weakness is, in part, due to the Pakistani military’s ongoing covert relationship with the Afghan Taliban.

The Obama administration’s political strategy in Afghanistan is thus compounded by the “what do we do about Pakistan” factor? Gen. McChrystal will not be able to effectively clear, hold and build in Afghanistan until President Obama delivers an enforceable ultimatum to the Pakistan military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. President Obama should warn the ISI in no uncertain terms to cease and desist from further meddling in Afghanistan – a good start would be to give the Pakistan military a deadline to begin its much-delayed operations in North Waziristan to flush out all of the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. Only then, can President Obama seriously expect to achieve his own goal of starting to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan by mid-2011.

Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, wrote recently in the Washington Post about the selfsame Pakistan factor. Mr. Rashid’s analysis of the dilemma facing the United States boiled down to “Karzai vs. the ISI.” Even he acknowledged that Pakistan is trying to influence the outcome in Afghanistan to its advantage. The ISI is again hedging dangerously with respect to the Taliban – turning against them at home to satisfy the U.S., but coddling them in Afghanistan to counter the Indians.

The bottom line is just as the “Sunni Awakening” preceded the Iraqi surge, the U.S. needs to feverishly work with Karzai on a “Taliban Awakening” in Afghanistan to guarantee the success of the surge there. The United States cannot let the ISI dictate the terms of its Afghan policy; else it is bound to fail. Pakistan must focus its energies internally to rid itself of a compounding “Jihadi” menace; else it will continue to degenerate into chaos akin to a Somalia of the subcontinent – a situation that would not be beneficial to the world at large. Pakistan must accept the role of the Predator drone in today’s war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership as it did the role of the Stinger missile launcher in yesteryear’s war against the Soviets – as a necessary instrument to drive out foreign fighters from Afghanistan. Only then can Afghanistan achieve a lasting peace with a stable government.

New START be damned, it’s the beginning of the END… an END to Armageddon!

In its March 27th editorial, “A worthy U.S.-Russia arms control treaty,” the Washington Post calls the new arms control agreement “a solid diplomatic achievement” for President Obama. While it is great to hear that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to slash their nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels in half a century, the reality is that the original START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was signed in 1991 towards the end of the Cold War!

Five years earlier, President Reagan had remarked privately to his Secretary of State, George Schultz, “Why wait until the end of the century for a world free of nuclear weapons?” Ten years into the new millennium and we are nowhere close to what President Obama more recently called as “a world without nuclear weapons." Nonetheless, the current accord is being dubbed a “New START” and the White House emphasized that this new treaty does not in any way restrict U.S. missile defense plans.

Meanwhile Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, at a White House Press Briefing on March 26th, made it clear that

“I don’t think anybody expects us to come anywhere close to zero nuclear weapons anytime soon.”

So I have a symbolic gesture that could go a long way to show the world that we are indeed serious about a nuclear weapons-free world. Given that over the past two decades, we have had a successful START I, followed by an un-ratified START II, and now another New START – I would imagine we should be way beyond the starting gate at this point. I therefore humbly suggest to President Obama that the new treaty be called END as in Eliminating the Nuclear Deterrent.

Symbolism plays a big role in the politics of the Middle East and Asia, where we face the biggest threat of nuclear proliferation. In fact, the Post concludes its March 27th editorial by lamenting that “it’s hard to see how new treaties will bring about the disarmament of North Korea or stop Tehran’s centrifuges.” If the U.S. and Russia were to sign an END Treaty, as opposed to a New START Treaty, we might just signal to the world that the end game is actually in sight. Also, in the age of the Internet and social media that demands remarkable content with catchy headlines, an “END to Armageddon” makes for one memorable tweet! But seriously, the END treaty will likely gain more popular acceptance because as the old adage goes “well begun is half done.” So, Mr. President, please let’s make it the END.

Mossad on the Move

There has been much brouhaha in the media of late about an Israel vs. United States sparring contest. Following Vice President Biden’s recent contentious visit to Israel, Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times went apoplectic in his March 14th column, “Driving Drunk in Jerusalem.” He accused Israel of making it “look like America’s most dependent ally can push” us around. Then Robert Kagan got into the act with a contrarian viewpoint that not only empathized with Israel but also was more scathing in his judgment of President Obama’s overall foreign policy. In his March 17th column in the Washington Post, “Allies everywhere feeling snubbed by President Obama,” Mr. Kagan suggested that “Israelis shouldn't feel that they have been singled out.”

On the same day, John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, spouted his usual hawkish tone in the Wall Street Journal. In “Israel and The Crisis With Obama,” Mr. Bolton pointed out that “Israel has sought to accommodate Mr. Obama on two critical issues: negotiations with Palestinians and Iranian nuclear weapons.” After glossing over the distraction of the Israeli settlements, Mr. Bolton reiterated his long-held position that “Americans must realize that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is empowering an existential threat to the Israeli state, to Arab governments in the region that are friendly to the U.S., and to long-term global peace and security.”

I suspect that a lot of Americans already recognize that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to world peace given some of the vile pronouncements of its holocaust-denying leaders. So let me expand on a conspiracy theory that I believe is playing out right now in the Middle East. First, it is almost impossible to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was blindsided by his own Interior ministry during Vice President Biden’s recent visit. Second, the Israelis are too smart to expect anyone to believe as much. Thus, per their master plan, Israel’s Mossad began by intentionally blindsiding the British government with their infamous Dubai operation in January – assassinating a prominent Hamas leader using British identities – and is now making it appear like they can push the United States around as well.

This “modern-day David taking on two western Goliaths back-to-back" is a staged precursor to an imminent Israeli action aimed at taking out relevant Iranian nuclear facilities – without giving Iran any reason to suspect any involvement of the traditional Anglo-American alliance. If the Israeli airstrikes are successful, they will simultaneously achieve both of Mr. Bolton’s stated objectives and additionally contribute to a more favorable outcome in Iraq. It seems to me that Mossad is on the move – setting the stage for what Mr. Bolton has been propagating for a long time, which is “a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program.” Israel recognizes that such action is the only way to achieve a lasting Middle East peace because it will:

1. Neutralize the Iranian threat and its ascendancy much to the satisfaction of the Arab nations and leadership in the Middle East.
2. Force the Palestinian leadership to jettison “proximity talks” in favor of “direct talks” with them towards a permanent peace settlement.
3. Ensure that Iran will no longer influence the formation of a pro-Iranian government in Iraq following recently concluded parliamentary elections there.

Americans can only hope that Israel gets it right this time just as it did with its pre-emptive strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility back in 1981. Two decades later, we were unable to find WMD in Iraq in large part due to that prescient action. If the United Nations cannot convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of WMD, maybe the mighty arm of the Mossad will?

Google Me Once, Shame on You; Google Me Twice or More and Make the Google God Happy…

With apologies to President George W. Bush, I mangle that old adage even more to make a point. In this era of Search Engine Optimization and Social Media, it is becoming imperative for the LinkedIn individual to also show up on Facebook and Twitter as required ̶ for me it’s more about trying to control my online exposure (i.e., my digital footprint) than mere socializing (or as we still call it in the business world ̶ networking ̶ but that’s a topic for another day).

Nonetheless, to have any effective say on my digital footprint online, I would have to battle the Google God, which I know I cannot. Sidebar: How about I coin a new pet name for the Google God right now – the GooGod (one pronounces the name so that it almost sounds like “Good God” with the middle D silent!)

Now, back to my feeble attempt to appease the GooGod ̶ in the laundry list below, I am linking to the media that have published me in the past several years. Folks, feel free to click away on the links below and help the good stuff rise in the SERPs ̶ go ahead and Google me twice or more, so that the GooGod makes me look nice for sure! If that doesn’t work, I’ll go back to what good old Popeye used to say, “I yam what I yam” and live with it.

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on February 20, 2010, "An Apology, for What It’s Worth”

Jack Nargundkar in the International Herald Tribune on February 7, 2010, "A Shift for U.S. Foreign Policy”

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on January 22, 2010, "Lessons to Learn From Scott Brown's 'Tea Party'"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on December 31, 2009, "Navigating the nation's course after Flight 253"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on November 21, 2009, "A Compromise on Muslim Freedom"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on October 10, 2009, "Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Laureate”

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on August 26, 2009, "A Changing Tide on the Wars"

Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on May 1, 2009, “Securing Government Contracts”

Jack Nargundkar in Digital Signage Today on January 21, 2009, “Broadband creates digital signage opportunities in the SMB market”

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on January 20, 2009, "President Obama: A Day of Uplift”

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on September 27, 2008, "Is Marking to Market the Problem or Part of Solution?"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on August 24, 2008, "Russia, Georgia and the West”

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on April 14, 2008, "Do Asians Really Want a Red-State America?"

Jack Nargundkar in Digital Signage Today on March 24, 2008, “Digital signage strategies for small-to-medium businesses”

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on November 6, 2007, "If Sen. Clinton Were President Clinton"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 15, 2007, "Elections in Pakistan Don't Equal Democracy"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on October 3, 2007, "Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas, Redux"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on July 27, 2007, "What Do We Leave Behind in Iraq?"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on June 22, 2007, "Vetoing Stem Cells, Vetoing Life"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on March 8, 2007, "A Verdict for Libby, a Cloud for the White House"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on November 3, 2006, "A Man, a Cab, a Cellphone, a Laptop"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2006, "Counting War Dead Is Difficult -- Therefore, Let's Not Exaggerate"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 6, 2006, "Musharraf May Be Our Fair-Haired Boy Now . . . But Watch Out"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on September 4, 2006, "Are We Seeing a Half-Empty Glass?"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on July 29, 2006, "Still Dreaming"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on March 8, 2006, "Bush and the Nuclear Subcontinent"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on January 8, 2006, "Other Voices: How The Times Handled the Surveillance Story"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on April 11, 2005, "No Individual Blamed"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on April 1, 2005, "A Life Ends, and a Nation Pauses to Reflect"

Jack Nargundkar in the New York Times on December 16, 2004, "Medals at Odds With Reality of War"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on May 27, 2004, "Punctuate a Comma Date"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on February 4, 2004, "Screening Bush: The Winners"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2004, "Hey, Big Spender, Spend a Little Less"

Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on December 29, 2003, "The Challenge From India"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on December 5, 2003, "'Cut and Run' and the Right Approach in Iraq"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2003, "Don't Let Conservatives Define Liberals' Views"

Jack Nargundkar in the Washington Post on April 12, 2003, "Next Steps on Iraq"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on January 8, 1998, "Behind ’90s Success Is Fiscal Discipline"

Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on March 17, 1997," WEBCASTING: A FEW TANGLES"

Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on October 25, 1993," THOUGHTS FOR CHAIRMAN GERSTNER"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on August 12, 1993, "Dear Laura Tyson…"

Jack Nargundkar in the Wall Street Journal on October 19, 1992, "Reap the Silicon Whirlwind"

Jack Nargundkar in the Business Week on July 13, 1992," SELL THE GREEN CARD TO THE AVERAGE JOE"

The Real McCoy

The Internet has become the great equalizer, in that; it has empowered so many people in so many professions in so many ways. Google has given new meaning to the saying, “You can run, but you can’t hide.” YouTube has redefined what we mean by “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Bloggers have neutralized the news cycle by publishing “All the News That's Fit to Print” on a 24/7 basis.

And yet, there is not a Google search item, not one YouTube video, and nary a blog post that brings out the real Senator McCain. So I have decided to publish this satirical take on my alleged tête-à-tête with the Senator. Here’s how I think my faux conversation would expose the real McCoy:

Jack: Senator, let’s cut to the chase… have you heard of the saying “The more things change, the more they remain the same?”

McCain: Yes, but are you trying to suggest something…

Jack: Nothing. How long have you been in Washington?

McCain: I have been in Congress since 1983… I began as a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution…

Jack: Yeah, it’s quite amazing how you went from being a well-decorated, retired Navy captain to start out all over again as an ordinary foot-soldier in Congress.

McCain: I have paid my dues, my friend.

Jack: O.K., but many presidential candidates have promised to change Washington in the past 25 years, so how are you any different?

McCain: The others let Washington change ’em. Washington won’t change me. I am the same guy I was 25 years ago. I am set in my ways.

Jack: So you haven’t changed, but you will change Washington?

McCain: Damn straight!

Jack: How do you propose to do that?

McCain: I will veto every earmark that comes across my desk.

Jack: You realize that you will be likely working with a strong Democratic majority in both branches of Congress?

McCain: Yes, but I am determined to approve only pork-free bills.

Jack: Wow! Are you trying to appease the Muslims…

McCain: Very funny, Jack! Everyone’s a comedian…

Jack: But seriously, the last president to veto too many bills lasted only one term – your predecessor’s father – remember, “Read my lips…”

McCain: Of course, but he lost because he raised taxes, not because he vetoed bills!

Jack: Clinton raised taxes and vetoed bills – and still served two terms that saw unprecedented peace and prosperity?

McCain: That is because Clinton had a Republican Congress…

Jack: Reagan worked with a largely Democratic Congress…

McCain: Yeah, but they gave him what he wanted…

Jack: I would imagine that the GOP Congress gave Clinton what he wanted…

McCain: Look Jack, what’s your point?

Jack: You can’t bring about change by veto, especially with a Congress run by the other party.

McCain: My friend, I know how the system works, and I intend to change it. Period.

Jack: O.K. So you are going to change the meaning of “change?”

McCain: Exactly! Wait a minute – is that a trick question? Look, my friend, the Democrats are big spenders and they will insist on all their pork-barrel projects. Hillary with her healthcare plan – no amount of lipstick on that pig will get me to ever agree…

Jack: Excuse me, did you just call Hillary a pig?

McCain: Of course not! I was talking about her healthcare plan…

Jack: Just like Obama was talking about all your plans the other day…

McCain: No, no he was talking about Sarah – we even made an ad about it, so that the American people would know him for the Muslim that he is. You do know that Muslims consider pigs unholy and dirty, right? Why else, would he call Sarah a pig?

Jack: That is absolutely not true – are you trying to Swift boat the poor guy?

McCain: That is the only way we are going to win, my friend! I tried the “experience” thing first , then usurped the “change” mantle from Obama even though I don’t believe in it for a second. Heck, I have been a part of this old boy network for 25 years – why would I want to change anything now, when I am 72 years old. Hey, Obama threw us a freebie with this pig line – we are going to ride that baby to victory in November! All’s fair in love and politics!

Jack: Thank you, Senator McCain for the straight talk – you are the real McCoy!

P.S. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am guilty of using the self-same term, “lipstick on a pig,” as can be evidenced by my letter to the Wall Street Journal dated October 15, 2007.

Don’t Misunderestimate the Strategery – It’s Stay the Course!

Our first MBA president has taken the Drucker principle of management by objectives and turned it on its head. President Bush has instead managed by strategy and manipulated the objectives to fit the strategy. This has clearly been the case with his Iraq policy, where the president has used a very nebulous and ill-defined strategy, which has been consistently referred to as “staying the course.” And yet, the objectives in Iraq have been frequently manipulated – from finding WMD, then establishing democracy, to defeating the insurgency, etc. – all to fit the same adamant “stay the course” strategy.

In the first year of the war, the objective was pretty much to find Iraq’s WMD and President Bush was determined to “stay the course” until they were found. Following David Kay’s shocking “I don’t think they existed” revelation in January 2004 about Iraq’s WMD, and the Iraq Survey Group’s subsequent confirmation of the same, President Bush changed his objective for Iraq. Following his own reelection, and with Iraqis then voting in their first elections, President Bush’s objective for Iraq became,

“a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform.”

Alas, his strategy to get there remained essentially to “stay the course.”

Even more unfortunately, a month before President Bush stated this new lofty goal for Iraq, Vice President Cheney had already predicated “staying the course” by dismissing a growing insurgency as being “in its last throes.” In early 2006 a critical Shiite mosque in Samara was torched and much of central Iraq was overwhelmed by violence. So the Bush Administration changed its objective in Iraq yet again. The objective was no longer to build a liberal democracy but to focus on defeating a raging insurgency. Regrettably, the strategy to get there was essentially a “clear, hold, and build” version of “stay the course,” in the sense that it relied on Iraq’s notoriously unreliable security forces to do the “hold and build” part.

Meanwhile “staying the course” in Iraq for almost four years without tangible results did not go down well with the American public. So they expressed their displeasure in the 2006 mid-term elections by voting the president’s party out of power from both chambers in Congress. Shortly after, the Iraq Study Group (ISG) issued its recommendations and endorsed President Bush’s new post-election strategic goal for an Iraq that could

“govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”

However, President Bush chose not to implement the ISG’s methodology of getting there. Instead in January 2007, President Bush finally announced a new “surge” strategy to be executed under the auspices of General Petraeus.

The new “surge” strategy relied on 30,000 more American troops to “clear, hold, and build” in and around Baghdad so as to bring down the violence and thus give Iraqis a chance at political reconciliation. Fortunately, even before the “surge” started, it benefited from unexpected success in the western Iraqi province of Anbar, where the local population turned against Al Qaeda insurgents. But sadly, the political apparatus in Baghdad far from reconciling began to fall apart as Sunni and Shia leaders began to desert the Al-Maliki government at regular intervals throughout the spring and summer.

By its very definition, a surge is a temporary phenomenon and hence the gains that come with it can also be transitory. The pockets of peace that have been established in the tribal areas of Iraq should thus be celebrated with caution. These nomadic desert tribes have had a history of transient and shifting loyalties. Nonetheless, to maintain these gains on the periphery, a strong central uniting force is absolutely critical. If an Iraqi Prime Minister is incapable of holding the center, a lasting peace will never come to Baghdad, and Iraq will eventually break apart.

Prior to the much anticipated Petraeus Report to Congress on September 10th, a couple of other independent sources, such as the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Jones Commission also released their findings on post-surge Iraq. The GAO found that

“Iraq has failed to meet 11 of the 18 military and political objectives, or benchmarks, set by Congress and agreed on by Mr. Bush,”

according to a New York Times report dated September 4th. A couple of days later, Retired Marine Gen. James Jones presented his commission’s conclusions to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Per a NPR report,

“while Gen. Jones noted that there have been what he called ‘tactical successes’ with the U.S. troop surge, he said that Iraq remains torn by sectarian strife.”

Then, on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, General Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee with his take on the “surge.” This is how ABC News reported one telling exchange between Senator John Warner and General Petraeus:

“Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you’ve laid before the Congress here as a strategy do you feel that is making America safer?” Warner asked.

“Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq,” Petraeus said.

“Does that make America safer?” Warner asked again.

“Sir,” Petraeus said, “I don't know actually.”

For having put General Petraeus in a position where he had to give such an answer, President Bush ought to feel ashamed. President Bush could not very well have made such a candid assessment himself, so he chose to hide behind General Petraeus. It is an even bigger shame that President Bush is thus politicizing our military by using its officers to effectively prolong his failed Iraq policy.

Following the 2006 mid-term elections and the subsequent Iraq Study Group report, President Bush made a gullible American public believe that his “surge” strategy would be different and its primary purpose would be to meet political objectives in Iraq. The “surge” has more or less given us the same old, same old. Nonetheless, President Bush and his die-hard supporters are intent on moving “forward to the past,” which is basically the same as “staying the course.” While the rest of us want to go “back to the future,” in which we could finally “give peace a chance.”

In an ironic case of real life imitating art, it is as if President Bush has all along been pleading with us not to “misunderestimate the strategery.” But seriously, how long can he muddle along in Iraq without further weakening our overstretched Army and Marines? How many more times are we going to hear that “the next six months are critical?” With no exit strategy in sight, when President Bush finally leaves office in January 2009, he is on track to leave behind not only a stalemate in Iraq, but also a broken military – that would be some legacy, indeed!

After Summer Surge, Comes Fall Purge?

Labor Day, which marks the official end of summer, is upon us. Let us hope that this year it marks an end to our discontent with the intense heat both, meteorologically and metaphorically. It was sad to see the President and Congress, who profess to “support our troops” at every opportunity they get, beat a hasty retreat from the hot August nights of Washington, D.C. Before they “got outta Dodge,” they could have at least afforded the same luxury to a few of our valiant troops, who continued to sizzle in the 130 degree heat of Baghdad.

In his July 20, 2007 column, the conservative chameleon Charles Krauthammer decided that after waiting 18 months “for the 80 percent solution,” he now feels comfortable switching sides to “the 20 percent solution.” This happens to be the same 20 percent of the population that ruled under Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – against whom President Bush launched this war, toppled its government, and then proceeded to quickly de-Baathify (akin to de-Sunnify) its new power structure.

Mr. Krauthammer speculated that

“Maliki & Co. are afraid we are arming Sunnis for the civil war to come. On the other hand, we might be creating a rough balance of forces that would act as a deterrent to all-out civil war and encourage a relatively peaceful accommodation. In either case, that will be Iraq’s problem after we leave.”

It is precisely this kind of arrogance and disdain that the Bush Administration has shown in its conduct of the Iraq war and its larger Middle East policy that aggravates and insults Muslim throughout the world. Mr. Krauthammer should have realized by now that his “purely American vision” is unlikely to solve the problem in Iraq and the larger Middle East.

So while he has been cooling off in Kennebunkport this August, President Bush hopefully reflected more deeply on the significance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s recent visit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran. The two beaming leaders clutched hands, just like President Bush and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did in Crawford, Texas back in April 2005. This renewed embrace by the two Shiite leaders of Iran and Iraq was a direct consequence of the Petraeus plan that unfolded in the Anbar province of western Iraq over the summer. It is no coincidence that the Maliki government was simultaneously deserted by Sunni leaders in the Iraqi Parliament just as the larger Sunni population began making its peace with U.S. forces west of Baghdad.


The current Shiite government in Iraq, which the Bush Administration helped elect and install, must have had a sense of déjà vu with the resurgence of Sunni power that was being aided by freshly supplied U.S. arms. How long then, it must have wondered, before a Saddam wannabe threatens to topple a duly-elected Shiite government by force? How long before the whole world is back to square one in Iraq?

So both, Democrats and Republicans might just want to reconsider the notion that the main problem in Iraq lies with Mr. Maliki. In order to get the surge to work in Baghdad, General Petraeus struck a deal with Sunni insurgents in Iraq’s western Anbar province. This peace has come at a big price – it not only drove Shiite Prime Minister Maliki into the arms of his Iranian sponsor Ahmedinejad in Tehran, but also got him to embrace Syrian strongman Bashir in Damascus. Rearmed Sunnis must surely have rekindled flashbacks of the Saddam era in the Shia leader’s mind.

Nonetheless, Maliki might just be smarter than we imagine – he could already be making plans for an Iraq after the U.S. leaves. Prime Minister Maliki might just pull of an early “October surprise” for the United States a full year before our own presidential elections – by calling for a phased withdrawal of American troops before President Bush has even had time to digest the Petraeus report. I suspect that Bush’s recent indictment of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and his subsequent Vietnam analogy could have been directed more at Maliki than at the American public?

The Bush Administration has always insisted that “we fight them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here.” General Petraeus, in lock step with this viewpoint, recently told Rep. Jan Schakowsky that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for the next nine to ten years. Well, pulling out of Iraq might just turn that argument on its head. All manner of pundits have been predicting an all-out civil war in Iraq if we prematurely withdraw. However, there is more likely to be prolonged internecine warfare in the larger Middle East amongst the various Muslim factions – Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc – across multiple borders and involving at the very least Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and the Palestine territories.

While these angry followers of Islam are thus engaged in sorting out their problems, the rest of the western world could be at peace, albeit, an expensive one. We might be forced to pay ten dollars a gallon for gas while it lasts, but in the long run that could well be well worth the price for peace and security in the homeland. More importantly, our overall price tag could be far less than the $500 billion that we have already spent on the Iraq war. Also, at $10 per gallon of gas, I am confident that American ingenuity would quickly develop alternative fuel sources that could rid us of what President Bush referred to as our “addiction to oil.”

A ‘New Clear’ Passage to India

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force in 1970 after China’s first nuclear test in 1964 and before India’s first nuclear explosion ten years later. At that time, the NPT recognized as “nuclear weapon states,” only those nations that had conducted nuclear tests prior to 1967. These nations happened to be the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Although the People’s Republic of China did not take its legitimate place as a UN member until 1971 and then signed the NPT only in 1992.

A recent New York Times editorial lamented that “When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington's only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies.” Even if there were something wrong with this typically conservative principle, it should be noted that U.S. foreign policy had made some rather hefty concessions back in the early seventies to accommodate communist China. This was part of President Nixon’s “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” overture to engage one communist giant while trying to contain the other – the Soviet Union.

These progressive considerations of yesteryear have brought us to the current situation, in which China is now viewed by our foreign policy establishment as a long-term strategic threat to the United States. We find ourselves in this predicament, in large part, because our policy of engagement has helped steer China towards a market economy without bringing about commensurate change in its political system and authoritarian form of government.

The afore-mentioned Times editorial also stated that

“President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success”

and thereby implying that his India strategy could actually chalk one up for him in the win column. It is quite likely that Bush’s forward-thinking nuclear deal with India might do just that. This is one instance where the neocons in the Bush Administration are actually seeing the forest for the trees by laying the foundation for a seminal paradigm shift in 21st century U.S. foreign policy – one that not only addresses our China syndrome, but also considers the larger threat as defined by the ongoing “global war on terror.”

So then why is Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, not a happy camper? In a recent column he accused our “new clear” partner of keeping “bad company” with Iran. Mr. Stephens’ probably needs a refresher course on our own recent haphazard dealings with Iran. After 9/11, a “coalition -- made up of Iran, India, Russia and the Northern Alliance, and aided by massive American airpower -- drove the Taliban from power.” Despite this measure of Persian support, barely a couple of months later in his 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush went on to declare Iran as a charter member of his “axis of evil.” Then, to further confound matters, he placed an unseemly reliance on dubious information from known Iranian-sympathizer, Ahmed Chalabi, and invaded Iraq in March 2003.

If that weren’t bewildering enough, since 2005 President Bush has relied heavily on the Iranian-backed government of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to “sustain, govern and defend itself.” But now, with the weight of the impending Petraeus Report hanging over its head, the Bush Administration figures that Shiite Iran’s influence in the Middle East is getting out of control. So the Administration wants to hedge its bets on Iraq and re-supply our traditional Sunni allies, Saudi Arabia and its satellite Gulf States, over $20 billion in an arms deal. This is the same Saudi Arabia that – accounted for fifteen of nineteen hijackers on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and – gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and the Bush Administration’s original “war on terror.” Is it any wonder then, why they – the Muslim nations – continue to hate us?

If Mr. Stephens could see the forest for the trees, he might have realized that going forward India could actually help us with our tenuous relationship with Iran. More importantly, these two nations could also help us snare our $50 million man, who has enjoyed a safe haven within the borders of another shaky Sunni ally, Pakistan, since his escape from the Tora Bora mountains in late 2001 . From a long term strategic standpoint, just as we look to India as a counter-weight to China in Asia, it is within our national security interests to have a Shia power counter-balance the traditional Sunni hegemony in the Middle East.

From a more practical standpoint, our “new clear” passage to India could mutually benefit not only our two great democracies, but also it could become the basis for new, long-term alliances throughout the western world. My reasoning is based on an observation that I had first made in my 2005 book, “The Bush Diaries,” and is worth repeating:

“The population of the world can be divided into roughly four equal quadrants — Judeo-Christian, Hindu-Buddhist, Muslim, and Communist. A vast majority of the people that constitute the Judeo-Christian and Hindu-Buddhist quadrants happen to live in secular democracies. It would therefore seem natural for these quadrants to be more closely aligned, since they share similar economic and political value systems? One would hope that an alignment of this nature could become an ideal for peace and prosperity throughout the world.”

Gap could sue U.S. for infringement of "Banana Republic" brand

I don’t even need to go into the Bush Administration’s first term transgressions, about which I have published an entire book called “The Bush Diaries.” Here are five revelations, from just the past few months, as to why the Gap, Inc. could sue the United States for infringing on its “Banana Republic” brand:

1. Week of July 2, 2007 – from various news reports: While commuting I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence on July 2nd President Bush said, “I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.” However, the very next day, President Bush refused to rule out a full pardon for Libby saying, “As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out.” Meanwhile, in an American Research Group poll, 64% of Americans voiced their disapproval of President Bush’s decision.

2. Jun 29, 2007 report by the Associated Press: “An assistant attorney general at the Justice Department announced her resignation on Friday, becoming the seventh official to quit the department since the Democratic-led Congress launched an investigation in March into the firing of nine federal prosecutors.” This exodus comes on the heels of Attorney General Gonzales’ April 19 testimony to Congress during which he suffered a bout of amnesia uttering variations of “I do not recall” over 70 times.

3. June 24, 2007 report in the Washington Post: Barton Gellman and Jo Becker’s four-part series “The Angler” provided sufficient evidence of a loose chameleon running amok in the White House. The Post reporters claimed that Vice President Cheney’s general counsel had asserted that “the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch.”

4. May 16, 2007 report in the Washington Post: In March 2004 White House Consiglierie Alberto “Fredo” Gonzales made a midnight run on the intensive care unit of George Washington University Hospital. Fredo and White House chief of staff Andrew Card raced to ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft’s bedside in the ICU to force him to reauthorize President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program of U.S. citizens.

5. April 30, 2006 report in the Boston Globe: “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”

This sorry record reminds me of a joke that I had heard on TV from the Democratic Party pundit, Paul Begala. In the heat of the post-2000 election fiasco, Mr. Begala had wise-cracked,

“We are not a banana republic. We only have banana Republicans.”

At that time, he had it only half-right. Given the way the Bush Administration has governed since, the Gap could easily win its brand infringement case in a court of law, albeit, in a foreign one! The U.S. courts would probably need to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest!

The 21st Century China Syndrome

Prior to 9/11 China was high on the Bush Administration’s priorities, but Iraq has pretty much consumed the Bush presidency since then. Here’s what BBC News reported on the eve of Secretary Powell’s first visit to Beijing in July 2001:

Almost immediately he arrived in the White House President Bush began talking tough on China. President Clinton liked to refer to China as a strategic ‘partner’. President Bush changed that to strategic ‘competitor’.

In the six years of the Bush presidency, the U.S. trade deficit with China has ballooned 180% from $83 billion in 2001 to $233 billion in 2006 per the Foreign Trade Statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau.

In January 2007, the Associated Press reported that

“China's foreign exchange reserves, already the world's largest, have passed US$1 trillion,”

and

“economists believe about 70 percent is in U.S. Treasuries.”

Given these statistics it would seem on the surface that the Bush Administration has only managed to further solidify China’s role as a “strategic partner” to the United States. In fact, with the U.S. economy now so heavily dependent on China, President Bush – in the little time that he has left in his term – and future U.S. presidents are going to find it increasingly difficult to change the status quo with China without a paradigm shift in our China policy.

So I was not at all surprised when George Will expressed his very own skepticism in a recent column, “Real Change In China?” using James Mann’s book, “The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression,” as a reference. However, it is important for Americans to realize that Mr. Will's “regime change” sought by President Nixon’s policy of engagement with China has still to bear fruit after 35 years. By comparison our policy of containment of the Soviet Union and communism, initiated by President Truman after World War II, achieved its objective in 45 years.

Coincidentally, containment was also beginning to languish as an ineffective doctrine around its 35th anniversary until President Reagan took office in 1981. He then jump-started it with his “evil empire” offensive and the Soviet Union collapsed barely a decade later.

As mentioned earlier, President Bush has been overwhelmed by the “global war on terror” that he initiated under the auspices of his very own “Bush Doctrine.” Unfortunately, the magnitude and complexity of conducting this preemption policy has rendered him incapable of seriously revisiting our China engagement policy – which happens to be languishing, like its Soviet containment cousin did, in its 35th anniversary.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. economy continues to get more and more interminably entwined and dependent on China, cold turkey disengagement is hardly a viable option and “real change in China” slips further into oblivion. No matter how China performs in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it long ago won the gold medal for international statecraft.

Alas, we have already begun to witness the 21st century China Syndrome – in which China has already demonstrated its ability to launch a missile and destroy an orbiting satellite, to make and launch a satellite for Nigeria, and has also publicly announced its intention to land on the moon by 2010.

Thus, the strategic imperative for the United States is no longer in doubt – China has already morphed into a “worrisome competitor” – we must therefore redefine and pursue a more holistic relationship with this budding superpower, one that encompasses economic, foreign, and trade policies that are not only in sync with our core values, but also more cognizant of the 21st century China Syndrome.

Foreign Policy Evolution – My Way to the High Way

The recent kidnapping and release of British sailors by Iran should provide much needed foreign policy therapy to the western world. If the west is ever going to win the “global war on terror,” without preemptively calling it off, it needs to exhibit more backbone. It’s no surprise that these British sailors have been chastised for having “sung like canaries” after barely two weeks in captivity.

Instead of hearing “name, rank, and serial number,” the world saw these sailors acting chummy with their captors, “confessing” to their guilt, wearing enemy-supplied business suits, and pumping the Iranian president’s hand in deference. We have had real American civilian hostages, held for years in the eighties by Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon, who behaved with more dignity than these British “hostages.”

More importantly, their behavior is in stark contrast to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who have been held for over five years and subjected to some unquestionably rough treatment, but have yet to cough up the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri. So it has become quite apparent that the western world needs to shift gears in its fight in the war on terror – it needs to reacquire its “Cold War-style” mentality and rely on more human intelligence than raw firepower to win it. (This is the basis for a “Silent War” strategy – that I had advocated back in September 2002 – which is explained in my 2005 book, “The Bush Diaries.”)

In the interim, by its very definition, the conduct of the “global war on terror” needs to be subject to international scrutiny. While speaking before a House appropriations subcommittee about Guantanamo Bay prisoners recently, Defense Secretary Gates requested Congress “to address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn’t get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released, frankly.”

Secretary Gates’ statement was troubling in many ways:

1. It implied continued distrust in the U.S. judicial system, which the Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to circumvent in the handling of suspects related to the attacks of 9/11.
2. By suggesting that some of these people “need to be incarcerated forever,” Mr. Gates was prejudging the gravity of their guilt, which thus far has not been proven in a court of law.
3. Whatever happened to the basic tenet – innocent until proven guilty – of modern western law?
4. Asking Congress to legislate the equivalent of what former Judge John J. Gibbons has referred to as “law-free zones” within the United States sets a dangerous precedent – imagine American citizens being held in foreign countries that established their own “law-free zones?”

As horrific as the events of 9/11 were, the United States has since been viewed internationally as subverting the rule of law at Guantanamo Bay – akin to changing the rules in the middle of the ball game to ensure that it wins. If President Bush is serious about bringing democracy to the Middle East, he must realize that it is not a zero sum game – it does not have to be restricted at home to export it abroad. In clichéd terms – democracy, like happiness, is not a destination but a journey. How one gets there is as important as actually getting there? Noble ends do not justify ignoble means – habeas corpus rights ought to be universal and sacrosanct. Winning over the hearts and minds of those Middle East monarchies has become harder with the Bush Administration’s “do as I say, not as I do” approach to fundamental human rights.

Speaking of monarchies, Jim Hoagland wrote about “Bush’s Royal Trouble” recently in his Washington Post column and why King Abdullah had turned down one of those rare Bush White House state dinner invitations. In my judgment, this trouble is not as much of an indicator that “Saudis, too, know how to read election returns” in the United States, as it is their recognition of the new realpolitik in the Middle East. Apparently, Jordan's King Abdullah has also told the White House – guess who else is not coming to dinner? It is therefore pretty obvious that major foreign policy realignment is in the works amongst the Sunni nations of the Middle East.

It’s clear that the Sunni command structure has been threatened by the outcome of the Iraq war. In essence, they have seen an oil-rich, Sunni-ruled nation fall under the influence of Iran – a rising symbol of Shia power, which supports the likes of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. But they have also seen the growth of this Shia power emanating from their people via popular elections, whereas Sunni supremacy continues to be sustained through unpopular monarchies. The Sunni royals recognize that going forward Islam could be their great uniter, if not their savior – and thus, they must try to co-opt Iran before the West does.

However, co-opting Iran is anathema to the Bush Administration – they won’t even talk to Iran or, for that matter, Syria. Given the Sunni realignment taking place in the Middle East, one would imagine that the Bush Administration would engage these two neighbors of Iraq to ensure that its Iraq policy does not get burned at both – Sunni and Shia – ends of the stick. But then, charity begins at home – if the Bush Administration has a basic problem uniting domestic opposition to its war policies, how is it going to bring foreign opponents to the Iraq table?

This “my way or the highway” culture is inbred – most domestic opponents of President Bush’s “global war on terror” policies are constantly harangued by all manner of conservatives as being unpatriotic. It stems from their extension of Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” philosophy to ordinary American citizens who have a different viewpoint. Again, had the Iraq war – a war of choice – not been a “sacrifice-free” war for most Americans, they would have found it harder to polarize the populace so effectively. Also, if President Bush has been unable to convince a majority of Americans as to the reasons for continuing with the Iraq war, now in its fifth year, he is going to find it increasingly difficult to win there. It can therefore be argued that it is the president who is being unpatriotic by deliberately persisting with a policy that most Americans believe is causing long term damage to the foreign policy and overall reputation of the United States?

Is it any wonder then that we had neoconservative David Brooks lamenting in his recent New York Times column that “a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge” prior to the last election? Mr. Brooks even suggested that the GOP needed to “shift mentalities.” If this is any indication that the neoconservative movement has finally started to unravel, there still maybe hope going forward. It should clearly begin with a new direction in U.S. foreign policy – one that will take the high road to restore the principles, respect, and leadership of the United States, and one that let all the neocons bail out at the last exit entitled, “My Way.”

Blog Hits 4 Bush

The Supreme Court recently heard a case relating to the First Amendment rights of an Alaskan high school kid. This smart aleck was chastised by his school principal because he held up a sign – outside school property and hence its jurisdiction – that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

There were two things that struck me about this case. My initial reaction was – wow! Doesn’t the Supreme Court have enough of a case load without wanting to waste its time on an appeal as seemingly “dopey” as this? But in a more serious vein, I wondered – will this august body ever review more significant First Amendment violations, inherent in Sections 215 and 505 of the Patriot Act, that were imposed upon the larger American public by President Bush?

Fortunately, in this age of interactive digital communications, redress is a click away and in a medium where substance often trumps style. The classical sound bite that used to be proffered by a select few is being superseded by a plethora of instantaneous “vivoda” bytes. This multiplex of video, voice, and data opinions is being constantly disseminated by the people, for the people, and to the people. Welcome to the blogosphere – a fundamental instrument of 21st century democracy!

One would have thought that the Bush Administration would have learned by now that responsibility is when you acknowledge your mistake; accountability is when you pay for it. Oftentimes one can pay for a mistake through a sincere apology, but sometimes the gravity of the blunder is such that it necessitates the perpetrator’s resignation or dismissal from said position of responsibility. Each of the recent major gaffes committed by various Bush Administration officials require a resolution that satisfies the public trust.

In “Walter Gate” the Bush Administration was clearly worried of losing a core Republican constituency – the U.S. military and their families – had the scandal not been quickly contained. As a result, Army Secretary Francis Harvey resigned, Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley retired, and Walter Reed commander George Weightman was fired. They were all forced to take one for Team Bush so that the Administration could actually be seen as “walking its signature ‘support the troops’ talk.”

In “Libby Date” Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, found it difficult to keep track of dates – and, when he had told or heard, what from or to whom – regarding the outing of CIA operative, Valerie Plame. A jury found him guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice and he now faces a June sentencing date with the judge. Per blogger speculation, Libby could get anywhere from 15 months to three years in jail. My own take on an intensely debated presidential pardon for Libby appeared in a letter to the New York Times on March 8, 2007.

In the “Attorneys Fate” fiasco, the blogosphere has more or less concurred with the mainstream media that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will sooner than later meet the same fate as his “non-performing” U.S. Attorneys.

In the “Gay Hate” rant, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shouldn’t be asked, but told by President Bush to issue an earnest apology for his abhorrent views. An initial surge of mainstream media opinions did make this demand, but corresponding blog hits did not keep up the pace. Nonetheless, the general needs to come out and apologize to all gays in general, but especially to those serving in uniform – and particularly to those risking their lives right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, in the “FBI Bait” case, wherein hundreds of unauthorized national security letters (NSL) were issued to unsuspecting American citizens, President Bush needs to lift the gag order. This will allow bloggers an opportunity to legally do what the Washington Post afforded to an NSL recipient under cover of anonymity – an ability to exercise their First Amendment rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, so that they can continue to defend this self same Constitution from such egregious abuse in the future.

Since the WSJ editorial page actually ran a literal clarification for “Bong Hits 4 Jesus – Explained” – I thought it my help to know that the “hits” in my title don’t have anything to do with web statistics. They are simply good old fashioned hits – that represent feedback from the people to the president of the United States – and I can only hope that POTUS is listening!

The Only Way Out of Iraq

On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, the Washington Post editors did an insightful take on the “Lessons of War.” This editorial was all the more conspicuous by the absence of the word “Islam” in any form throughout their analysis. This is a vital lesson that the Bush Administration and its neocon advisors have refused to learn during the four year occupation of Iraq. While the Administration might insist on Iraq being the “central front in the war on terror,” it really does not need to associate any of its brutal aspects with Islam. After all there are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, including about 5 million in the United States.

Having said that, any resolution to our involvement in Iraq will come from an answer to this key question that must be determined by polling the Iraqi people:

Are you Iraqi first and Muslim second, or are you Muslim first and Iraqi second?

If a majority of the Iraqis consider themselves Iraqi first, only then is it likely that President Bush’s current surge strategy will succeed. If a majority of the Iraqis consider themselves Muslim first, it is highly unlikely that any military solution – including the current surge strategy – is going to achieve the desired results. And, if this is indeed the case, the Bush Administration definitely needs to keep Islam out of the equation and pursue a purely political solution for Iraq.

The natural follow-up question to the “Muslim first” Iraqis would be:

Are you a Muslim first and Shia/Sunni second, or are you Shia/Sunni first and Muslim second?

However, this question seems redundant given that Iraqis have been involved, for over a year now, in a sectarian conflict – which is also a confirmation that they have pretty much put religion before country as well.

So if they are Shia/Sunni first, Muslim second and only then Iraqi, it would seem to me that we are inevitably headed for a modified but non-planned version of the Biden-Gelb plan – a violent trifurcation of Iraq without any central control.

Even if we did manage to bring a temporary peace to Baghdad and trained the Iraqi army for what it's worth, can we really teach the Iraqi people patriotism and love of country over religion, when they have clearly shown a preference for their different strains of Islam? This is the real lesson to be learned from not only the Iraq War, but also the larger war on terror – we have to get religion out of the equation because nobody is going to concede that they are the children of a lesser god. Hasn’t history repeatedly taught us that indelible lesson?

I would hope it has. The only way left to get religion out of the equation, even at this late stage, is by co-opting friendly Muslim nations with sizeable armies to join U.S. forces in bringing peace to Iraq. This strategy might seem like naïveté, but we do provide large economic and military assistance to allies like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Turkey. It is time President Bush leaned on them to provide military personnel to help us complete our mission in Iraq. It’s only after friendly Muslim armies join us in Iraq that the local population will quickly assert the primacy of its Iraqi character – thereby ensuring our mission in Iraq will succeed. As we start our fifth year of occupation, this now appears to be the only way out of Iraq!