Be careful - sharply worded letters might give you a double whammy of papercuts!

Posted at March 21, 2008 8:23 PM in response to Dem Senators Call for HUD Chief's Resignation

For me, it is the totality of Hillary's problems that has driven me away from her candidacy. Had she acknowledged later that it was a mistake, a la Edwards, I could have overlooked the original vote. To top that, she voted for the Iran authorization, knowing full well how this warmongering Bush is itching to start another fight. She can say all she wants that it was NOT an authorization to use force, but once bitten twice shy should have been the guiding principle when such enormous stakes are concerned.

I was at a July 2007 convention where Hillary was supposed to be the keynote speaker in Santa Clara, CA. She ditched at the last minute. Her televised appearance from New Orleans was really poor and ill received. Now her degenerating campaign is making me doubly sure that voting for Obama is the right thing. No human being is perfect, so we should not expect that from Obama. But Hillary has strayed far from the grassroots Democratic ideals that define the party (see the article in The Nation on how her team tried to shut out Dean and his 50-state strategy; she has also denigrated voters in many of the states she did not win). Her campaign has mismanaged the finances - there was a report of her $25,000 Las Vegas bill for ordering high end amenities during the Nevada caucuses. Her last minute whining about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, her threatening the state of Texas Democratic party for the caucus rules. The Texas caucus rules might be stupid, and deserve to be changed, but she should have raised the objections much earlier. Bill Clinton played by these rules twice earlier, so it is NOT as if she did not know.

I feel sad because had Obama not been in the field, I could visualize really being energized by the first real female candidate for POTUS! She can still come out of this a winner - not in the nomination race, but as a person of integrity and a leader of the Democratic party. Larry Kissel and his ilk don't seem to understand this and she is getting bad advice from people like him and Mark Penn and James Carville.

Posted at February 29, 2008 9:14 PM in response to Why Can't Obama Get His Facts Right on Iraq?

I have read with some interest Mr. Katulis' posts, trying to find if he proposes any solutions. Alas, it reminds me of the ad where the pricey consultants offer the final recommendations to the company CEO while offering no plan for execution!

What Pakistan has lacked is civil society and grassroots democracy. The saying is that most countries have an army, while in Pakistan the army has a country. The army probably controls 80% of the economy, and is in all facets of life. Them and a few rich families including those of former PMs Benazir Bhutto & Nawaz Sharif.

US policies are perpetuating this terrible situation. It started with Nixon and Kissinger's famous tilt to Pakistan during the 1971 war with India (when Bangladesh broke off from the yoke of West Pakistani Punjabi domination - when East Pakistan's Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won most votes in the national election, martial law was promulgated to deny him legitimate power). It continued with Zia Ul Haq because then Pakistan became the frontline against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. And today it is so-called frontline for the so-called GWOT.

Yet, there has been many exposes showing that all the military aid sent to Pakistan in the most recent episode of US stupidity has been used to purchase F-16s and heavy weaponry which are useless in the border provinces of Afghanistan, and only can be used against India in a future conflict. The Frontier Guards actually do not have any shoes, proper wireless, IR detectors, or even warm clothes and guns. Is any of this money making it to the proper causes? NO, a resounding NO! That and internal compulsions (China pressuring Musharraf to clean out Lal Masjid led to increased insurgency in Swat and Waziristan) are causing this failure to weed out terrorists in Pakistan. YET, the US continues its naive policy, and "experts" can only identify the problem, but offer no meaningful solution.

China is taking several steps to prevent any disruption of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This stupid administration is so dogmatic that they can't learn simple things even from China - on how to handle these internal compulsions of Pakistan.

The US mountaineer Greg Mortenson in his book Three Cups of Tea showed through personal courage and his own life how one can bring about permanent changes to even the worst Talibanized areas of Pakistan. This administration spat on those type of solutions. He reports that only 25% of the promised US aid for rehabilitation showed up in Afghanistan post 9/11 and even out of that, $640M was diverted to Kuwait for preparing for the war on Iraq! Read and weep in shame for America!

Civil societies must be built and encouraged as the first act. Musharraf has all but destroyed faith in the judicial system with repeated maulings of justice and independent judges. That and other civil institutions need to be slowly built. But before that, the grip of the army has to be loosened on the nation. That is a tall order, but one that only US with help from China (who at least must abstain from negative geopolitics) can bring about. Proper infrastructure must be built in the remote Hindu Kush areas for flow of goods and people. Primary education, specially for girls, must become commonplace in these remote areas. Leaders from civil life must be groomed to reel this primordial society back from the brink of the abyss. Not more hand wringing from the experts while US policies continue to arm the army to the teeth and support unpopular dictators and back room politicians.

Posted at December 13, 2007 4:45 PM in response to Pakistan: The Real “Central Front” in Fighting Terrorists?

But we should all remember that the DLC played an instrumental role in giving Bill Clinton ...

Yes. Let's also remember that today's Republican party gave us Abraham Lincoln. Hence, we should forgive and forget all its current transgressions. You are making a fool of yourself!

Posted at April 5, 2007 10:26 AM in response to Common Ground Found

As an American of Indian origin (South Asia), I have deep sympathies for the state of israel. Since India has long suffered from Pakistani state sponsored terrorism, and continues to do so, India has much to learn from Israel in how to fight terrorism within its own boundaries. Unfortunately, during the cold war, India's socialism-inspired ruling class abdicated principles by supporting the Arab league Muslim nations (primarily to placate and pander to the large Muslim minority in India). Only now has it realized where the state's true interest lies and recognized Israel and extended a hand of friendship. Between the two nations people, there is great affection. Perhaps the largest number of foreign tourists in India are from the state of Israel. India is close, is exotic, and cheap - many a Israeli youth take time off after selective service to sample Indian hospitality.

Having said that, there are many policies of state of Israel that I fnd repulsive. And political correctness be damned, I have no hesitation in saying so when I can rationally defend my view. YES, there is NO parity in the US support of Israel. No doubt that the Arabs are to blame for much of what ails them today, including the misguided philosophy of Yaser Arafat (specially on the Oslo accord, and the Wye River Plantation intransigence). But the current hard line state policies of Israel are also to blame.

I find it disturbing that whenever a balanced viewpoint emerges, there is a significant pro-Israeli lobby that kills it - so no proper balanced dialogue ever takes place in USA - EVER! There is no parity in the dialogue that takes place. And that honestly, makes me HATE the state policies of current Israel.

Nothing to do with Jews or semitism or anti-semitism.

Posted at January 24, 2007 10:37 AM in response to Brandeis Applauds Carter, Walks Out on Dershowitz

I am from India, and while I was born after the partition, I have heard enough stories from my parents, grandparents, friends, and others to feel for those who lived through it. One does not wish it on anyone. Deepa Mehta has done a fabulous movie on it called Earth - if you get a chance to see it, it will be well worth the time.

BUT... Iraq is NOT India in 1947. The same genocide need NOT happen. However, the biggest constraint against avoiding this scenario is the ineptitude and plain callousness of this administration. You advocate a brief surge to protect resettlement. What do you base your faith on that this administration can capably handle this logistical challenge? In fact, all their past actions have demonstrated that they will botch any such major operations, simply through their ineptitude and lack of understanding of the Iraqi culture (witness US soldiers peering into inner courtyards from rooftops while doing house to house searches - severe insensitivity to the Iraqi culture).

The solution is there - but will NOT happen with King Bush in power. Divide it into 3 countries - norther Kurdistan (Turkey will need to be given entry to EU as compensation for the border pain it will go through), middle Sunni region, and southern Shia region which will most likely be absorbed by Iran at a later date. Some oil sharing formula between Kurdistan and mid-Sunni region, with brokering from Saudi Arabia. If it had been any other person in charge, then a brief troop increase to allow for resettlement would have made sense. Not with this idiot in office.

Posted at January 4, 2007 10:57 AM in response to The Human Face of Iraq

As an Indian-American, I am not sure that this is a good deal for either India or USA. I think India needs to develop alternative energy sources like wind, solar, biofuels. But in the short term, there are huge gaps between power demand and supply. Only yesterday, Montek Singh Ahluwalia - head of India's Planning Commission - admitted that there will be a substantial gap in the power generated and planned in the 10th plan. The demands are growing rapidly for a 1 Billion people plus economy that is coming into the light of capitalism from decades of misguided socialism under Nehru-Gandhi clan.

How does India solve this short term deficit in power? France & Japan have shown that nuclear power can be generated safely. What they, and others, have not shown is how it can be stored safely. Also India is under constant terrorism threats from neighboring countries - so there needs to be additional precautions for Indian nuclear power plants. Can India do it? I think the answer is yes, but the jury is still out.

Any US discussions of India's nuclear proliferation or arms capabilities always comes up short of the major role US played in the genesis. China had been collaborating with Pakistan for a very long time before Mrs. Gandhi decided to detonate India's first nuclear device in the 70s. Also Nixon and Kissinger's famous tilt towards Pakistan during the war of liberation of Bangladesh did not help assuage fears that India was alone in its security concerns on the sub-continet. Yes - India was reclining the Soviet arms, but that could be much better understood through the lens of Nehru's utopian ideas of Fabian socialism. It was certainly no threat to US, and Nehru also was keen on US friendship when he visited Kennedy. Thus like in Afghanistan, US played direct and indirect roles in India's push for nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, US is toothless against the threats from China. China has with great impugnity exported nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan, partially through its surrogate in North Korea. US practically looked the other way when China was caught red handed in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Fact is, when it comes to China's intransigent behavior, there are no "good" Democratic options. So then India is alone in its worries from China. Why - only this past week Chinese Academy scholars have started clamouring for the Chinese viewpoint that one state of India - Arunachal Pradesh - belongs to China historically. Their main reason is because Tibet is in the rain shadow of the Himalayas, and Arunachal Pradesh has abundant rain, river waters, forests for timber, and other mineral resources.

I wonder what US would have done if a proximate neighbor - say Mexico or Canada - became a hostile country, harboring B-grade nuclear technology, training terrorists on their soil, who would attempt to kill US Congress and Senate members on Capitol Hill (this happened in the Parliament in New Delhi), then worked with other rogue states like North Korea to proliferate missile and nuclear technology, claimed North and South Dakota or Arizona, had unstable military dictatorships. Oh wait - we already know what US would do. They would drop nuclear bombs till Africa was wiped out off the face of the earth - we invaded Iraq for 9/11 - so this would be proportionate response in the same manner, and Africa would be as liable for this as Iraq was for 9/11 - we know the answer how US would behave. And no - Democratic presidents do NOT avoid culpability - Jimmy Carter's Afghanistan policy was as blinkered as Reagan's and Nixon's. And even Clinton turned the other way when China was doing its misdeeds!

Posted at November 17, 2006 10:23 AM in response to Time to Get SMART about South Asian Nuclear Arms

I recently (July 2006) spent 1 week in China as part of a US National Science Foundation panel studying a specific aspect of technology transfer from academia to industry. We also went to South Korea and will be visiting Europe later.

What I came away with from China gives me pause - both for US competitiveness, as well as for India - my country of birth.

First India - India has 3 major advantages over China:
1) Younger population - because of the 1 child policy, China's population pyramid has already inverted - 1 child, 1 set of parents, 2 sets of grandparents. India's population is 7 years younger, and the pyramid will not stablize till 2005.
2) Language - I found that outside academic circles, few people speak English (practically no cab drivers in Shanghai, Guangzhou, or Beijing spoke English). Even in academia, where people can speak English, they are very uncomfortable in it. As soon as they knew we had a Mandarin speaker in our team - they reverted completely to Mandarin, to the point of rudeness at one dinner in Tsinghua University! The situation is significantly better in India with regard to English as the lingua franca.
3) Diversity - in college I found that I was amongst people from all over India, with different backgrounds, cultures, experiences, foods, languages, scripts - being in that milleu gives Indian students a very early advantage to cope with diversity of ideas and opinions that will be needed in the workplace

BUT, and it is a capitalized BUT:

China has laser focus which India lacks. Time and again we came across examples, not all by design, of how city, provincial, and central governments worked towards funding a specific economic activity in various areas (Xian province, Anhui province, Beijing metropolitan area) and because of central government support, how some have become industry leaders in a wide swath of areas (SOx & NOx scrubbers for coal fired thermal power plants, biochips, power electronics for computer battery management, die and mold for automotive industries). India says it wants to compete in several areas (IT of course, but medicine, drug discovery, some manufacturing) - but there is no coordinated effort to seed areas over a long time (say a 5-10 year horizon). What is happening today is all private entrepreneurship, despite the government. The government plays political football with even the few things that work (the excellent IITs and IIMs for example).

Coming to US, the major problem is the wage arbitrage and the huge supply of low wage labor for the foreseaable future (from both China and India in limited areas). While wage pressure for more skilled, experienced, and upper management staff brings some wage parity, at the bench level, there is abundant supply of workers who will replace the workers moving upwards. And knowledge industry does not create the huge number of jobs that are being lost in the manufacturing sectors. Yes - US will become a more service oriented country, but only those services that need a customer touch, or are non-tradeable across geographic boundaries (haircut, farmer's market) will be guaranteed to remain. Those that belong to the research arena are going to be outsourced.

The US needs strategic investment in areas where China, India, and even Korea, Japan do not have much presence yet - like human-machine interfaces, green chemistry, renewable energy research. These will create manufacturing jobs provided that the core competency stays within the geographic boundaries.

Of course the instability of the Chinese political system will be the joker for China's path to economic superpower status.

Posted at September 28, 2006 10:36 AM in response to China's Way Forward Not So Clear

Being from India originally, I am not in favor of India promoting nuclear energy for civilian use. Nuclear technology is still not foolproof - India has had continuing trouble with the reactors it has developed, but has also been lucky that no Chernobyl magnitude incident has come its way. Even if no accidents occur during the life time of the reactors, storage of the nuclear waste material is another huge headache. Even here in US, we have not figured out a safe way to store it - the Yucca Mountain proposal is still not final after years of debate and scientific studies. India's population density is 3x that of US, and while there still are some uninhabited areas (like the Thar desert), often there are habitations in not too distant proximity. It certainly does not have as vast tracts of open space as we have here in the western states.

India is very rich in coal. While raw coal burning is a disaster for the environment, coal gassification or synfuel technologies might be better. India can also get natural gas from its neighbors (Bangladesh and Iran) - but the political will is lacking (internally in Bangladesh and through US pressure in the case of getting it from Iran). Other renewable forms of energy (solar, wind, hydro) are also good target opportunities for India to solve its growing energy budget. These are primarily my reasons for not supporting India's attemtp to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes.

I am fully supportive of India developing nuclear weapons technology, primarily because of the continued threat from Pakistan. Now that it is no secret that Pakistan begged, borrowed, and stole technology (from Holland to start with and then several western countries like US and Germany under different guises), and China actively helped it, it leaves India in a vulnerable position to give up nuclear arms in the face of such declared threats. But that is another column, another day.

Now what is most interesting to me is the rank stink of US hypocrisy under the present administration concerning the nuclear proliferation stance. India initially opposed signing the NPT because of its uneven application - allowing the 5 nuclear club members to keep their arsenal while prohibiting others. WHY? I heard Joe Cirincionne (sp?) argue yesterday - that does not hold water because all nuclear states are also bound by this treaty to reduce their arsenals. And in reality what is happening? Yes, some conventional warheads and weapons have been destroyed, but this Bush administration has been putting tons of money into new classes of nuclear weapons and other technologies like thermobaric weapons (bunker busters in common parlance). US does one thing and preaches another thing. All of those who are saying this deal is bad - I have not seen such vehement argument in favor of holding the US to the same spirit of the NPT - it is not enough to just hold them to the letter of the agreement. China has been proliferating (to Pakistan and North Korea) and the US has chosen to ignore it (or just slaps on the wrist much much later). Great! I think US commentators have little moral ground to sound so indignant when they quietly acqueisce to US blatantly violating all that the NPT stands for. 

Posted at March 3, 2006 9:02 AM in response to The India Nuclear Deal Can Be Improved

"Extraordinarily unpersuasive" is just the right moniker for the original post!

 Standing up for what you believe and also winning in 2006 elections are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, one will definitely reinvigorate the other. Republicans have for long fought to define what "RNC" stands for - fiscal conservatism, strong defense, strict right wing ideologies etc. - in the face of contrary evidence (Reagan, Bush 41, and specially Bush 43 have displayed the greatest fiscal irresponsibility when it comes to non-defense spending; Bush 43 has spent more on expensive defense systems, but underfunded VA programs, and also fiscal support for armed force salaries; the Republican nominated Supreme Court justices have been the most "activist" when it comes to overruling the legislature). In face of all of this, the vox populi believe in the Republican message.

What is the Democratice message? There is none that is succintly defined - it is a large laundry list. In this iPod-driven era, people don't have time for that. They need the 19 second sound bite.

Towards that end, Alito's nomination is the best opportunity for Democrats to define what they stand for - moderation, and protecting individual rights against the might of the state. 54 Republican senators be damned.

Mr. Yglesias, what are you drinking these days? 

Posted at January 9, 2006 12:00 PM in response to Carts, Horses, and Judges