Obama on Pakistan, Urdu Poetry, Cricket, Daal, Keema

President Barack Hussein Obama has had close connections with Muslims and Pakistanis. For example, his father was a Kenyan Muslim and his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim. Obama also had Pakistani roommates during college days, with whom he visited Pakistan.

According to his staff, Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent “about three weeks” there, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, but also traveling to Hyderabad, according to the New York Times.

The NY Times report says that Mr. Obama appears not to have mentioned his travel in Pakistan in speeches during the campaign. In “Dreams from My Father,” he talks of having a Pakistani roommate when he moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik who “had overstayed his tourist visa and now made a living in New York’s high-turnover, illegal immigrant work force, waiting on tables.”

Mr. Obama, his staff and his publisher have not provided any details about the identity of Sadik, according to the Times report.

During his years at Occidental College, Mr. Obama also befriended Wahid Hamid, a fellow student who was an immigrant from Pakistan and traveled with Mr. Obama there, the Obama campaign said. Mr. Hamid is now a vice president at Pepsico in New York, and according to public records, has donated the maximum $2,300 to the Obama campaign and is listed as a fund-raiser for it.

Mr. Chandoo is now a self-employed financial consultant, living in Armonk, N.Y. He has also donated the maximum, $2,300, to Mr. Obama’s primary campaign and an additional $309 for the general election, campaign finance records show.

Here is a Dawn report on an exclusive interview President Obama granted to Anwar Iqbal of Pakistani newspaper Dawn:

WASHINGTON, June 20: US President Barack Obama, in an exclusive interview to Dawn, has said that he believes the Pakistani state is strong enough to win the military offensive against the extremists.

In this first-ever one-on-one interview by any US president to the Pakistani media, Mr Obama assured the Pakistani nation that he has no desire to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or send US troops inside the country.

The US president also emphasized the need for resuming the dialogue process between India and Pakistan, which was stalled after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November last year.

The interview covered a wide-range of subjects — from the controversy involving the Iranian presidential election to Mr Obama’s speech in Cairo earlier this month in which he called for a new beginning between the Muslim and the Western worlds.

The venue, the White House diplomatic room with murals of early settlers, brought out the importance of Mr Obama’s historic victory in last year’s general election. Close to the murals — under the watchful eyes of George Washington — sat a man who overcame gigantic hurdles to become America’s first non-White president.

Here was a man tasked with finding a graceful end to two unpopular wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and to steer America, and the rest of the world, out of an unprecedented economic crisis.

Yet, when he strolled into this oval-shaped room, Mr Obama seemed completely at ease with himself. Tall and slim, the 47-year-old US president had the youngish looks of a man who works out daily.

He walked straight towards the camera, greeting everyone, shook hands, occupied the chair reserved for him, and started talking about how he had a special affection for Pakistan and its people.

Asked to comment on Ayatollah Khamenei’s statement that the US was interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, Mr Obama said what’s happening in Iran was remarkable. “To see hundreds of thousands of people in peaceful protest against an election that obviously raised a lot of doubts tells us that this is an issue that the Iranian people care deeply about.”

The US and the West, he said, had been very clear that this was not an issue between the West and Iran; this was an issue about the Iranian people seeking justice and wanting to make sure that their voices were heard.

“And it’s unfortunate that there are some inside Iran and inside that government that want to use the West and the United States as an excuse,” he said.

“We respect Iran’s sovereignty, but we also are witnessing peaceful demonstrations, people expressing themselves, and I stand for that universal principle that people should have a voice in their own lives and their own destiny. And I hope that the international community recognises that we need to stand behind peaceful protests and be opposed to violence or repression.”

Mr Obama said that since there were no international observers in Iran, he could not say if the elections were fair or unfair. “But beyond the election, what’s clear is that the Iranian people are wanting to express themselves. And it is critical, as they seek justice and they seek an opportunity to express themselves, that that’s respected and not met with violence.”

“Your speech in Cairo indeed was a speech that created a lot of stir, both in the US and in the Muslim world. Was it the beginning of something bigger to come, or was it just a one-off thing? he was asked.

“No, I think that this is going to be a sustained process. As I said in Cairo, one speech is not going to transform policies and relationships throughout the Middle East or throughout the world,” Mr Obama responded.

“But what I wanted to do was to describe very clearly that the United States not only respects Muslim communities around the world but that there’s an opportunity for I think a new day, where there’s mutual understanding, mutual tolerance; where the United States is seen as somebody who stands with people in their daily aspirations for an education for their children, for good jobs, for economic development,” he said.

“And just as the United States at times has, I think, not fully understood what’s happening in Muslim communities, sometimes there have been countries that haven’t understood the rich history of Muslims in America,” he added.

“As I mentioned in that speech, it was Morocco that was the first nation to recognise the United States. We have Muslim Americans who are doing extraordinary things. In fact, their educational attainment and income is generally above the average here in the United States. We have Muslim members of Congress. And, in fact, we have 5 million Muslims, which would make us larger than many other countries that consider themselves Muslim countries.”

Mr Obama then explained how he plans to further expand the peace process he introduced in Cairo.

“So what we want to do is just begin to open up a dialogue around which we can constructively work together to deal with significant issues,” he said, acknowledging that “part one of those issues is the issue of the Middle East.”

Mr Obama explained that he has been “very aggressive” in saying that Israelis and Palestinians have to resolve their differences and create two states that can live side by side in peace and security.

He said he also has put forward a special envoy, George Mitchell, a former majority leader of the US Senate, to work with the parties involved.

“But part of the key is also to isolate the extremists who have been wreaking havoc around the world. And we’re seeing that now in Pakistan, and I think the Pakistani government and the people of Pakistan recognise that the kind of mindless violence that we’ve been seeing, that that cannot be the answer to long-term prosperity.”

His comments led to a larger discussion on Pakistan and the issues confronting this nation of 170 million people.

“Some people say that it is still too early to push Pakistan into a military offensive in South Waziristan; that the Pakistan army, and the Pakistani state, is not strong enough to win this war and that it may break up the country. What do you say?”

“Well, let me make two points. Number one, nobody can or should push the Pakistani government. The Pakistani government is accountable to the people of Pakistan,” said Mr Obama.

“I think the Pakistani government and the people of Pakistan recognise that when you have extremists who are assassinating moderate clerics like Dr Naeemi, when you have explosions that are killing innocent women and children, that that can’t be the path for development and prosperity for Pakistan,” he said.

“And so there’s been a decision that’s made that we support, that the Pakistani military and the Pakistani government will not stand by idly as extremists attempt to disrupt the country,” Mr Obama said.

“But ultimately these are decisions to be made by the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people. What the United States believes is, is that we are a partner in will telecast the full interview at 12 noon today (Sunday) and repeat it at 14:30, 16:30 and 18:30.

the process of peace-loving nations seeking to root out extremism, increase development, and that is the kind of role that we want to play with Pakistan.”

“Do you believe the Pakistani state is strong enough to win this war?”

“I have confidence in the Pakistani people and the Pakistani state in resolving differences through a democratic process and to isolate extremists. Dating back to Jinnah, Pakistan has always had a history of overcoming difficulties. There’s no reason why it can’t overcome those difficulties today,” Mr Obama said.

“Going back to what we discussed about the Muslim world, there are issues that are too difficult even to discuss – for instance, the Indians don’t even want the ‘K’ word (Kashmir) to be mentioned to them. In your inaugural speech you did mention Kashmir and after that it had been absent from your statements and those of other officials in your administration. Why?” he was asked.

“I don’t think that we’ve been silent on the fact that India is a great friend of the United States and Pakistan is a great friend of the United States, and it always grieves us to see friends fighting. And we can’t dictate to Pakistan or India how they should resolve their differences, but we know that both countries would prosper if those differences are resolved,” said Mr Obama.

“And I believe that there are opportunities, maybe not starting with Kashmir but starting with other issues, that Pakistan and India can be in a dialogue together and over time to try to reduce tensions and find areas of common interest,” he said.

“And we want to be helpful in that process, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be the mediators in that process. I think that this is something that the Pakistanis and Indians can take leadership on.”

Asked if he was urging India to resume bilateral talks with Pakistan, Mr Obama said: “Well, what we have said is that we think that all of South Asia would benefit by reduced tensions between India and Pakistan. I think that dialogue is the best way to reduce tensions.”

Mr Obama noted that recently the Indian and Pakistani leaders met at a regional conference in Russia. Although they did not hold an extensive conversation, it was the start of what may end up being more productive talks in the future.

“Well, I won’t engage in hypotheticals like that,” said Mr Obama when asked if the US could seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to prevent the Taliban from capturing them. “I have confidence that the Pakistani government has safeguarded its nuclear arsenal. It’s Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.”

His main concern, said Mr Obama, was to make sure that the Taliban and other extremist organisations were not taking root in South Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

“And we want to partner with everybody to make sure that this cancer does not grow. One of the things that I said in my speech in Cairo is that Islam has an extraordinary tradition of tolerance and peaceful coexistence and that tradition is being distorted and being warped,” he said.

“We do not want to be in a position where we’re having to send troops to Afghanistan, for example. We would love the Afghans’ government to be secure and stable so that it can ensure that it does not become a safe haven for organisations like Al Qaeda,” he said.

“We would much prefer being a partner with countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan, and simply work together on issues of common interest like commerce and increasing trade and improving development in all countries,” he said.

“But it’s very difficult to do that if you have people who have distorted a great religion and are now trying to wreak havoc not only in the West but most often directed against fellow Muslims in places like Pakistan. And that is something that we will always stand against.”

Responding to a question about drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal zone, Mr Obama said he did not comment on specific operations.

“But I will tell you that we have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan. Pakistan and its military are dealing with their security issues.”

The US, he said, was focussing on helping those displaced during recent military operations.

“Our primary goal is to be a partner and a friend to Pakistan and to allow Pakistan to thrive on its own terms, respecting its own traditions, respecting its own culture. We simply want to make sure that our common enemies, which are extremists who would kill innocent civilians, that that kind of activity is stopped, and we believe that it has to be stopped whether it’s in the United States or in Pakistan or anywhere in the world.”

“Any plan to visit Pakistan in the near future?”

“I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,” said Mr Obama.

“What can you cook?”

“Oh, keema … daal … You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.

“You read Urdu poetry?”

“Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,” said Mr Obama.

“And obviously one of the things that I think ties our countries together is the extraordinary Pakistani-American community that is here in the United States who are thriving and doing great work as physicians and as lawyers and as business people. And one of the great opportunities I think for Pakistan is to be able to draw on all this talent and extraordinary entrepreneurship to help provide concrete benefits to the Pakistani people, and I think that’s one of the biggest challenges for Pakistan,” he said.

“We want to be a partner in opening up trade opportunities, but making sure that people on the ground, day to day, they’re getting an education, children are going to school, that farmers are able to get a decent compensation for their products, that electricity and infrastructure is built, because I know the Pakistani people and I know that if the tools are there available to them, then they will thrive and continue to be a great nation.”

“Some people say that you’re against some of the restrictions introduced in the House version of the aid to Pakistan bill. Are you?”

“Well, my view is, is that we have to help Pakistan – to provide them the resources that will allow for development. Now, we have in the past supported, I think, Pakistan militarily. I think it is important to make sure that military support is directed at extremists and our common enemies,” said Mr Obama. “But I also think that the relationship between the United States and Pakistan can’t just be based on military-to-military cooperation. It’s got to be based on something richer that involves development and exchanges of students and business people. And so we want to encourage that kind of work, as well,” he said.

“And we helped to lead an effort that raised $5 billion of development assistance for Pakistan at a donors’ conference in Japan, hundreds of millions of dollars that we’re trying to provide to support internally displaced people. That’s the kind of strategy that I think will bring our countries closer together. And having known the people of Pakistan, I am convinced that the future between our two countries can be very, very bright.” “You cannot escape cricket while living with Pakistanis. Did they leave a cricket bat with you?”

“You know, I have to say that I have tried to get up to bat a couple of times, but I’ve been terrible. So I’m an admirer of great cricket players, but make no claims in terms of my own skills,” said Mr Obama, breaking into a broad smile.

Source: Dawn.com

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Halal Chicken Curry and Veggie Korma For British Troops

Obama Says Real Life Experience Trumps Rivals' Foreign Policy Credits

Barack Obama's Pakistan Connections

Obama Reaches Out to the Muslim World

American Policies Alienating Pakistanis

WASHINGTON: The United States has alienated Pakistan by demanding that they divert troops from the Indian border to fight the Taliban, says former US ambassador to Islamabad Robert Oakley.

‘We’ve alienated them tremendously. Whether we agree or not, the Pakistanis consider India to be the biggest threat to their security,’ Oakley told a US think-tank, the Atlantic Council.

Oakley, who served in Islamabad from 1988 to 92, also criticized the restrictions proposed in a congressional bill on US aid to Pakistan.

‘What we’re calling ‘benchmarks’ remind them very much of the ‘sanctions’ they had hanging over their heads for so many years,’ he said.

Ahmed Rashid, a leading Pakistani journalist and Taliban expert, said that the United States would do well to set more general parameters for aid.

Rashid told another US think-tank, the Jamestown Foundation, that he was ‘absolutely shocked’ by the conditions in drafts of the US congressional aid bill to his country.

‘No political government can accept a bill like this in Pakistan, even if it is on its knees -- which it is, economically speaking,’ he said.

The proposed restrictions require Pakistan to improve its relations with India, whether New Delhi reciprocates those efforts or not. Pakistan also needs to undertake not to support any person or group involved in activities meant to hurt India.

Another proposed requirement will allow US investigators access to individuals suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation, such as Dr AQ Khan.

Oakley, in his interview to the Atlantic Council, also criticized the US drone attacks inside Pakistan.

The US, he said, needed to ask itself: ‘Are we creating more terrorists than we’re killing?’ And the drone attacks, he said, were probably creating more terrorists.

‘The drones may be killing a lot of Taliban and al Qaeda but they’re alienating the tribesmen we need to win the war,’ he said.

‘We’ve pushed the Pakistani army to fight our war and created a huge backlash. They’re not trained or equipped for counterterrorism and they’re getting killed and killing the wrong people, essentially fighting their own.’

Oakley said that right now, the Pakistani military had control over their nukes. ‘But, if the Islamists gain ground, who knows what’s going to happen?’ he asked.

Oakley was also unhappy with the current Pakistani leadership, particularly the president. They were ‘both incompetent and corrupt and had no clue on the economic side of things.’

Oakley said that unless the US contained the problem in Pakistan, ‘we don’t have any chance in Afghanistan.’

At the Jamestown Foundation, analyst Shuja Nawaz said the Obama team did not make a positive impression during their last two visits to Islamabad.

‘This was probably the worst ever visit by an American team to South Asia in history,’ said Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Washington-based Atlantic Council. ‘It was a complete disaster.’

If this is how the Obama planned to ‘win friends, I just wonder how you are going to create enemies,’ he said.

Nawaz faulted US special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen for publicly demanding that Pakistan’s civilian President Asif Ali Zardari rein in elements of the intelligence service believed to support extremists.

Stephen P. Cohen, an expert on South Asia at the Brookings Institution, said that the United States has made excessive demands of a weak Pakistani leadership -- from fighting extremists to safeguarding its nuclear program to treating women better and reforming its economy.

‘If we think that they can do everything, they will wind up doing nothing well.’

At a separate seminar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Khalid Aziz, a former chief secretary of NWFP who heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research, screened ‘Cries of Anguish,’ a short documentary about Fata.

The film recounted the many unsuccessful foreign attempts to conquer the region. It also focused on the tribal society of FATA’s 3.5 million ethnic Pashtuns.

A major theme of the documentary was FATA’s lack of development, which the film’s commentators attributed to the region’s inaccessibility but also to a lack of funds from Islamabad.

While development aid has increased in recent years, this assistance was now threatened by the rapid spread of extremism.

The documentary depicted FATA’s Pashtuns as demoralized, their hopes shattered ‘for reasons beyond their control’ and their lives threatened ‘by a war not of their own asking.’

After the film, Aziz addressed what he described as the ‘burning issue:’ How to pacify the region.

He noted that, historically, ‘scorched earth’ campaigns and other strictly military approaches had failed. More ‘indirect political approaches,’ however, had succeeded.

Aziz said that current pacification policies, such as the use of unmanned US drones, had increased radicalization not just in FATA but across all of Pakistan.

Aziz offered a range of solutions: Strong US rhetoric should be tempered, while better trust should be promoted between the American and Pakistani militaries. Tight border controls should be introduced. Counterinsurgency methods should be better implemented. Pakistani institutions should be strengthened.

And as for the drones, Aziz acknowledged their effectiveness and value. He championed their continued use -- though under a Pakistani flag.

Source: Dawn.com

Related Links:

Is Pakistan America's Biggest Problem?

India and Balochistan

Obama's New Regional Strategy

Webchat On Obama's New Regional Strategy

Obama's Afghan Exit Strategy

Obama's Interview with CBS 60 Minutes

Obama's New Regional Strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

US Escalating Covert War in Pakistan?

Can India "Do a Lebanon in Pakistan?

20th Anniversary of Soviet Defeat in Afghanistan

Taming the ISI: Implications for Pakistan’s Stability and the War on Terrorism

Growing Insurgency in Swat

Afghan War and Collapse of the Soviet Union

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

FATA Faceoff Fears

FATA Raid Charades

Obama's Technology Policy and Priorities

Technology will likely get significant attention by President-elect Barack H. Obama, in spite of the more urgent issues of two wars, a sputtering economy and ballooning US national debt. While there will be the usual rush by various special interest groups in the high tech world to try and influence US technology policy to favor their particular sectors or products, it is important for the new administration to see each technology in the broader context of national challenges such as government transparency, climate change, energy independence, delivering cost-effective healthcare broadly, improving education, encouraging innovation and overcoming major national economic challenges.

Obama understands the difference that online networking technology made in raising record amount of $700m for his campaign, and energizing the young people to get involved as campaign organizers, workers and voters. It can be expected that Obama will continue to promote and use the online media to reach out to the American people and inspire them to bring real change in America. Obama campaign has talked about appointing a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to oversee US technology policy investments in the incoming Obama administration. The CTO’s mandate would be different from the Cybersecurity czar appointed under the Bush Administration. Bush’s czar helped defend against cyber threats. Obama’s CTO, by contrast, would ensure government officials hold open meetings, broadcast live webcasts of those meetings, and use blogging software, wikis and open comments to communicate policies with Americans, according to the plan. Such broad use of online media by the US government will benefit Silicon Valley high-tech businesses and encourage the use of technology by state and local governments in the US and other parts of the world. It'll also keep a lot of young people, who were energized by Obama, engaged in discussion and help solve major national issues. "Obama understood the intersection of demographics and technology and promised engagement and interaction," Don Tapscott, best-selling author and researcher, said in an interview recently. "But if he now says to young people, 'Thanks, now go passive for four years until my re-election,' there will be outrage. It will make the reaction of the 1960s generation look like kid stuff." The technology exists for Mr. Obama to improve government transparency and pursue the online relationships with his under-thirty supporters. However, Mr. Obama will have to make sure that people he surrounds himself with in the White House can take advantage of it.

Matt Marshall of Venture Beat has published details of Obama’s new technology policy and plans, which cover everything from providing new subsidies for internet broadband access to increased permanent visas for immigrants needed by the high-tech industry.

The president-elect has often talked about energy policy and dealing with its impact on climate change as a priority. He wants to create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Transformation in the way people and businesses use technology could reduce annual man-made global emissions by 15 per cent by 2020 and deliver energy efficiency savings to global businesses of over $ 800 billion, according to a new report published by independent non-profit The Climate Group and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI). The choice of the CTO by Obama must reflect this priority. In addition to the CTO, the Obama administration should seriously consider appointing Nobel laureate Al Gore as a high-profile and high-powered ambassador to inspire and lead a global green revolution.

During his campaign, Obama has displayed protectionist tendencies in response to the middle class concerns for well-paying jobs being moved to countries such as India. In his speech to the Democratic National Convention, Obama pledged to halt tax sops to companies that ship jobs overseas. If Obama sticks to this promise, it will mean trouble ahead for India's IT industry. India's software and services exports stood at about $40 billion during the financial year 2008, a growth of 29%, with US as its largest market. Can Obama really curb outsourcing? It seems unlikely.

As the emerging economies in Brazil, Russia, India, China and the rest of the world try and emulate the US pattern of production and consumption, it is clear that this development model will not be sustainable for long. What is needed is a fundamental change in how we produce, market, distribute and consume various products and services. An accelerated change away from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is absolutely urgent. Such a fundamental change in architecture of our industrialized society will require a significant focus and commitment of human intellectual capital by the US.

Changing the economic incentives and transforming the industrial architecture will not be easy. The powerful lobbies of auto, steel, industrial equipment, farmers, financial services and information technology industries will likely resist any major changes that affect how they do business. Each of them will use their power and influence in Washington to get a larger share of funds in terms of tax credits or corporate welfare for themselves, at the expense of dealing with the larger national challenges. If Obama can inspire and lead such an effort to change how people produce, consume and live, the rewards are potentially very large in terms of creating millions of new jobs, enabling a healthier environment, persuading and supporting the emerging economies to limit carbon emissions, and saving the earth and the human race from total destruction.

Here is a Nov 2007 video clip of Obama's speech on technology at Googleplex in Mountain View, CA:



Here's another November 2007 video clip of Obama talking about technology, Pakistan, Middle East, Africa, war and peace and other matters:

Obama's Point Man on South Asia

Lately, Senator Barack H. Obama has been taking a tough, even hostile stance toward Pakistan. He is threatening to send US ground troops into FATA if there is "actionable intelligence" to end "terrorists' safe haven" inside Pakistan. His opponent, Senator John McCain has said Obama "doesn't understand" the situation in FATA and chided him for being naive and "talking loudly" about Pakistan. Many Obama supporters dismiss Obama's tough talk as merely designed to assert his commander-in-chief credentials to appease his critics.

Is Obama's tough talk just an act? Or is it based on considered advice from the experts of the liberal think tanks to whom Democrats generally outsource policy? While there is a small chance that Obama does not really mean what he says, it is also a fact that foreign policy experts such as Bruce Reidel are advising Obama on South Asia policy.

Riedel says that there will be a renewed focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan under an Obama presidency. “Obama is determined to put a lot more resources into the war in Afghanistan — and it’s overlapped into Pakistan — than either a McCain presidency would or the Bush administration did.” He adds that Obama sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as “the central front of the war against al Qaeda and the war against extremism.” Translation: The war in Afghanistan will escalate and expand into Pakistan.

Who is Bruce Reidel? What are his credentials? How does he view US role and policy in South Asia? Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution. He served with the Central Intelligence Agency for 29 years and retired in 2006. Riedel served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95). His areas of expertise include counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf security and India and Pakistan.

Riedel says Obama will take a tougher line with Pakistan, and make military aid conditional upon Pakistan’s performance in combating the Taliban and al Qaeda. But he disagrees with the view, prevalent in Pakistan, that Obama dislikes that country. Instead, he says that Obama is a strong critic of the “Musharraf-centric Pakistan policy” pursued by the Bush Administration. He believes that Obama is likely to be supportive of the present PPP-led government, unless it were to engage the Taliban, a move which would prove extremely unpopular in the United States.

On India policy, Reidel says, “The Democrats are much more likely to want to revisit the nuclear proliferation implications [of the nuclear deal]". He adds, "That would complicate the relationship with New Delhi.”

“There’s talk of a strategic partnership with India. The Obama campaign buys into that,” says Riedel. “As president, he will place the same priority on India as Bush did, and Clinton did before him.”

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention, Obama pledged to halt tax sops to companies that ship jobs overseas. If Obama sticks to this promise, it will mean trouble ahead for India's IT industry. India's software and services exports stood at about $40 billion during the financial year 2008, a growth of 29%, with US as its largest market. Can Obama really curb outsourcing? It seems unlikely.

In an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Riedel's candidate Obama seemed to agree with the narrative of the Indian lobby when he accused Pakistan of "preparing for war with India".

“If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Mr. Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year.

In a recent article, Riedel wrote that “fear of India is the driving force” behind Pakistan's pursuit of relationships with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism". He added, “The conflict with India affects all aspects of Pakistan's worldview and its self-image.”

"Coming to grips with Pakistan's obsession with India and Kashmir is critical to killing the monster," and the "time may be ripe in 2009 to move," Riedel writes, hinting at the likely policy of the new administration that is likely to be in office next year.

Answering a question about Pakistan and the war on terror at a meeting of Council on Foreign Relation, Riedel said, "Pakistan is an extremely dangerous and unstable country. We need to tread carefully. We need to get the Pakistanis to see this as their war. And that's going to require some major new initiatives on the American side. Commando raids and Predator strikes are not a long term solution to this problem".

If history is any guide, it can be fairly safely predicted that the a Democratic administration will pursue a punitive policy toward Pakistan while tilting heavily toward India, much more so than the Bush administration. Given the caution sounded by Bruce Reidel about Pakistan, the hope is that better sense will prevail in the potential Obama administration on policy toward Pakistan. However, if "President" Obama does follow through on his tough talk on Pakistan, there will be an expanded regional war involving Afghanistan and Pakistan leading to massive destabilization of the entire region and extremely dangerous consequence for the world.

Here is a comprehensive video on the origins and the positions of various parties involved in the Kashmir dispute presented by Pakistani Peace Activist Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy:



Related Links:

Reidel Interview at Council on Foreign Relations

Sunil Adam on Obama's Kashmir Policy

Who is Bruce Reidel?

Obama on Renewing American Leadership

RAND Report: US Strategy In Muslim World Counterproductive

The RAND Corporation, a highly respected non-profit policy research institute in the United States, says in its latest report on the ongoing War on Terror: "Large-scale U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world is at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible."

“Violent extremism in the Muslim world is the gravest national security threat the United States faces,” said David C. Gompert, the report's lead author and a senior fellow at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Because this threat is likely to persist and could grow, it is important to understand the United States is currently not capable of adequately addressing the challenge.”

The study finds that when infected by religious extremism, local insurgencies become more violent, resistant to settlement, difficult to defeat and likely to spread. The jihadist appeal to local insurgents is the message that their faith and homelands are under attack by the West and they should join the larger cause of defending Islam. This makes U.S. military intervention not only costly, but risky.

While the recent military surge has improved security in much of Iraq, “it would be a profound mistake to conclude from it that all the United States needs is more military force to defeat Islamist insurgencies,” Gompert said. “One need only contemplate the precarious condition of Pakistan to realize the limitations of U.S. military power and the peril of relying upon it.”

The report recommends that the United States should shift its priorities and funding to improve civil governance, build local security forces, and exploit information — capabilities that have been lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan."

It is good to see that the US policy think tanks and researchers are finally beginning to recognize the follies of US policies. Let us hope that the current and incoming US administrations pay heed to what these researchers are finding and make dramatic policy changes before it is too late. I am hopeful that the world leaders can still pull us back from the brink and avoid catastrophic consequences of the Bush-Cheney policies of the last seven years.