Manmohan Professes India's Deep Love for Bush

"The people of India deeply love you", said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to President Bush on a recent visit to the White House.

The Prime Minister continued with the theme of affection and gratitude by adding, “In the last four and half years that I have been Prime Minister, I have been the recipient of your generosity, your affection, your friendship. It means a lot to me and to the people of India.”

Later, India's Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon explained: “I think, if you look at the public opinion polls, the ratings for President Bush are higher in India than in any other country. That is the factual basis.”

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll that Mr. Menon referred to shows that India tops the world in its admiration for President Bush who is deeply unpopular in the United States and most of the rest of the world. The survey found that 62% of Indians thought his second term as US president was positive for global security.

Another most recent PIPA poll conducted in 2008 shows that the one country with a majority expressing a positive view of Bush is Nigeria with 60 percent saying they have some or a lot of confidence. Indians also lean positive (45 to 34%). Interestingly, this year Chinese views have softened (41% positive, 45% negative)--with the number of those expressing positive views up 10 points since Pew's 2007 poll.

India has benefited from the Bush policies of closer economic and nuclear cooperation which led to India's rapid economic growth in recent years, and its acceptance as a legitimate member of the prestigious nuclear club, a distinction not bestowed on nuclear rival Pakistan. The US-led war on terror has also legitimized India's crackdown on Islamic and other insurgents and helped India regain influence in Afghanistan and South Asia. Bush's pressure on Musharraf was instrumental in reducing violence in Indian held Kashmir and India, a Musharraf policy that angered the Islamists who started targeting Pakistani civilians and military. Bush popularity is, therefore, based on concrete results India achieved from the support of the outgoing US president.

A grateful Prime Minister acknowledged Mr. Bush’s part in ending India’s nuclear isolation: “For 34 years, India has suffered from a nuclear apartheid. We have not been able to trade in nuclear material, nuclear reactions, and nuclear raw materials. And when this restrictive regime ends, I think a great deal of credit will go to President Bush. And, for this I am very grateful to you, Mr. President.”

President Bush's lame duck status was clearly on Dr. Singh's mind. Turning to Mr. Bush, Dr. Singh said with apparent sincerity: “So, Mr. President, this may be my last visit to you during your presidency, and let me say ‘Thank you very much’. The people of India deeply love you.”

The Americans clearly see India as a strategic partner and a counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia, Middle East and Africa. While the US has made the effort to cultivate close friendship with Indians, it is not clear how this partnership will unfold in terms of specific Indian policies to help the US.

Isolating Iran is one its goals where the US wants India's help. Energy-hungry India needs Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project to move forward. The US is clearly opposed to it. How will India respond to the US pressure? Alastair Scrutton, Reuters Chief Correspondent in Delhi, has addressed this in an analysis of the nuclear deal, saying those hoping that India will now fall into line with western policy will be disappointed.

Scrutton quotes Brahma Chellaney as saying that India will be reluctant to get sucked into U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.

“Now the (nuclear) deal has been sealed, India will have to mend ties with Iran,” Chellaney said. “For India’s strategy, to give up Iran would be a very difficult proposition … There is no way India can pursue an effective Afghan, Central Asian policy without Iran.”

I have a feeling that the I-P-I gas pipeline will be built with or without the US blessing. The reason is simple: Both India and Pakistan are energy-hungry and Iran is the closet source of abundant natural gas for South Asia. It is in their own best national interest to defy the U.S. on this particular issue. The only thing that is likely to delay it significantly is the deep distrust between India and Pakistan where U.S. can and must play a role regardless of the I-P-I project. It is in U.S.’s best interest to do so for its own economic and strategic interests in South Asia.

Michael Moore's Open Letter to God

This letter is not only relevant for what is happening this week with Hurricane Gustav coinciding with the Republican Convention in the US, but also because it offers lessons for the right wing demagogues in Pakistan and the Muslim world who engage in similar rhetoric as some fundamentalist Christian supporters of the US Republican Party. Islamic religious folks in particular blame the victims of natural disasters for their suffering on their "sinful " behavior and wish ill upon all those who oppose or even disagree with their extreme positions in supporting acts of widespread gratuitous violence and terror in the name of "jihad".
Here is Micheal Moore's letter:

An Open Letter to God, from Michael Moore

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

Dear God,

The other night, the Rev. James Dobson's ministry asked all believers to pray for a storm on Thursday night so that the Obama acceptance speech outdoors in Denver would have to be cancelled.

I see that You have answered Rev. Dobson's prayers -- except the storm You have sent to earth is not over Denver, but on its way to New Orleans! In fact, You have scheduled it to hit Louisiana at exactly the moment that George W. Bush is to deliver his speech at the Republican National Convention.

Now, heavenly Father, we all know You have a great sense of humor and impeccable timing. To send a hurricane on the third anniversary of the Katrina disaster AND right at the beginning of the Republican Convention was, at first blush, a stroke of divine irony. I don't blame You, I know You're angry that the Republicans tried to blame YOU for Katrina by calling it an "Act of God" -- when the truth was that the hurricane itself caused few casualties in New Orleans. Over a thousand people died because of the mistakes and neglect caused by humans, not You.

Some of us tried to help after Katrina hit, while Bush ate cake with McCain and twiddled his thumbs. I closed my office in New York and sent my entire staff down to New Orleans to help. I asked people on my website to contribute to the relief effort I organized -- and I ended up sending over two million dollars in donations, food, water, and supplies (collected from thousands of fans) to New Orleans while Bush's FEMA ice trucks were still driving around Maine three weeks later.

But this past Thursday night, the Washington Post reported that the Republicans had begun making plans to possibly postpone the convention. The AP had reported that there were no shelters set up in New Orleans for this storm, and that the levee repairs have not been adequate. In other words, as the great Ronald Reagan would say, "There you go again!"

So the last thing John McCain and the Republicans needed was to have a split-screen on TVs across America: one side with Bush and McCain partying in St. Paul, and on the other side of the screen, live footage of their Republican administration screwing up once again while New Orleans drowns.

So, yes, You have scared the Jesus, Mary and Joseph out of them, and more than a few million of your followers tip their hats to You.

But now it appears that You haven't been having just a little fun with Bush & Co. It appears that Hurricane Gustav is truly heading to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. We hear You, O Lord, loud and clear, just as we did when Rev. Falwell said You made 9/11 happen because of all those gays and abortions. We beseech You, O Merciful One, not to punish us again as Pat Robertson said You did by giving us Katrina because of America's "wholesale slaughter of unborn children." His sentiments were echoed by other Republicans in 2005.

So this is my plea to you: Don't do this to Louisiana again. The Republicans got your message. They are scrambling and doing the best they can to get planes, trains and buses to New Orleans so that everyone can get out. They haven't sent the entire Louisiana National Guard to Iraq this time -- they are already patrolling the city streets. And, in a nod to I don't know what, Bush's head of FEMA has named a man to help manage the federal government's response. His name is W. Michael Moore. I kid you not, heavenly Father. They have sent a man with both my name AND W's to help save the Gulf Coast.

So please God, let the storm die out at sea. It's done enough damage already. If you do this one favor for me, I promise not to invoke your name again. I'll leave that to the followers of Rev. Dobson and to those gathering this week in St. Paul.

Your faithful servant and former seminarian,

Michael Moore

Bush and Musharraf Share Lowest Approval Ratings

Beyond their commitment to fighting the "war on terror", George W. Bush and his former ally Pervez Musharraf have something else in common. Both of them share the dubious distinction of having the world's lowest approval ratings as leaders, according to a study released recently by the University of Maryland outside the US capital.

While George W. Bush's approval rating at home dipped to 30% and disapproval at 64%, respondents in two countries - Nigeria and India - gave Bush stronger positive than negative ratings. Thailand was about evenly divided. Nigeria gave Bush a 60-per-cent positive and 33-per-cent negative rating. India gave the US leader a 45-per-cent positive and 34-per- cent negative score.

With two countries approving of George W. Bush, he is doing slightly better than Musharraf's fan club of one - China, which gave him a 37-per-cent positive versus a 30-per-cent negative rating. Some of the leaders were at least admired at home - such as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China's Hu Jintao and Russia's Vladimir Putin. Gordon Brown did pretty well with a 48-per-cent positive, 46-per-cent negative rating in Britain, after a dozen yeas of Labor Party rule. France's Nicolas Sarkozy got a 54 per cent negative rating at home.

President Bush's popularity in Nigeria is quite understandable because he is the first ever US president to pursue policies and to provide substantial financial aid that have helped the entire continent of Africa. President and Mrs. Bush's Africa trip underscored the new approach to Africa Policy under the Bush administration, and built on a significant increase in the United States' commitment to African development.

India, the only other nation which approves of Bush, has benefited from his policies of closer economic and nuclear cooperation which led to India's rapid economic growth in recent years, and its acceptance as a legitimate member of the prestigious nuclear club, a distinction not bestowed on nuclear rival Pakistan. The US-led war on terror has also legitimized India's crackdown on Islamic and other insurgents and helped India regain influence in Afghanistan and South Asia. Bush's pressure on Musharraf was instrumental in reducing violence in Indian held Kashmir and India, a Musharraf policy that angered the Islamists who started targeting Pakistani civilians and military. Bush popularity is, therefore, based on concrete results India achieved from the support of the outgoing US president.

Regardless of whether Indians agree or not, two of the most important foreign relationships for India are with the US and Pakistan. With Musharraf already out of office and Bush to leave soon, Indians may well have to rethink their strategy vis-a-vis Pakistan and the United States. Delhi may have to be more conciliatory with Pakistan in its bilateral relations and with US in multi-lateral trade, environment and other negotiations to continue to be regarded as a reliable partner in Islamabad and Washington.

Pakistan Suspends Tribal Peace Talks

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has decided to suspend peace talks with tribes in north and south Waziristan. The apparent sticking point is the insistence by Pakistan, at the behest of the United States, that the tribal leaders agree to stop attacks on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal today, this move by Pakistan's new government could bolster ties between Islamabad and Washington as the Pentagon voices increasing concern that the Taliban and other al Qaeda-linked militant groups have used the peace talks, and accompanying cease-fire agreements, to intensify their military strikes inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan, consequently, will maintain its military presence in South Waziristan and continue to conduct offensive operations against militants throughout the tribal belt, unless they agree to the new terms set down by Mr. Gilani's government, according to officials familiar with the talks. This decision is likely to mean an end to the current ceasefire being observed by the militants and the military on the Pakistani side of the border. It raises the specter of the return of the suicide bombers to the streets of Pakistani cities.

The Bush administration and Mr. Gilani's government have intensified discussions over counterterrorism strategy in recent weeks. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen is in Islamabad for two days of talks with senior Pakistani military officers, including the army's chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani. Islamabad's new ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, has also met with senior Pentagon and State Department officials in recent days, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Gen. David Petraeus.

"These negotiations should remove a major impediment in U.S.-Pakistan relations," a senior Pakistani official reportedly told the Wall Street Journal.

The White House's National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday he couldn't comment on any continuing discussions between the U.S. and Pakistan on counterterrorism operations.

US Backs Musharraf as Rumors Swirl

In a show of support, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said U.S. President George W. Bush spoke with Mr. Musharraf Friday.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House said the conversation was a follow-up to Mr. Bush's recent meeting in Egypt with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. "The president reiterated the United States' strong support for Pakistan, and he indicated he looks forward to President Musharraf's continuing role in further strengthening U.S.-Pakistani relations," Ms. Perino said.

The rumors of President Musharraf's departure have gained strength last week with the following three reports in Pakistani media:

1. PPP Chairman Asif Zardari called Musharraf a "relic of the past" and called for his resignation.

2. Nawaz Sharif said that Pakistan’s ruling coalition had agreed to “expel” President Pervez Musharraf from power.

3. A late-night meeting between Musharraf and his successor as army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani, fueled speculation that Musharraf was being forced by the army to resign.

President Musharraf has dismissed the rumors, declaring that he continued to have good relations with the institution he used to lead before quitting as army chief last year. An army spokesman also contradicted the report.

But many political analysts say it is becoming increasingly difficult for Musharraf to hang on to power. "He has no power base left. The army is at the very least neutral, if not against him," said Shafqat Mahmood, a former federal minister. Mr. Mahmood, recognized by the media as an "independent analyst", appears to be part of the dis-information campaign by Nawaz league.

While Zardari is holding his cards to his chest, the Nawaz League, their "civil society" surrogates, and their media cheerleaders are spinning a rumor mill about President Musharraf's departure that is driving down the business/investor confidence and the Pakistani economy and stock market with it. Not only is the Pakistani economy in danger of imminent collapse, but Zardari and the PPP are almost certain to be the next target of the "civil society" and its uncivil campaign that has been characterized by violence on the streets from its inception in Islamabad and Lahore. By continuing with their agenda of ensuring chaos, the Sharif brothers are attempting to overturn the verdict of the people and deny the PPP its chance to govern Pakistan peacefully as the single largest party.

If the Pakistani economy does "melt down" (as Zardari put it) as a result of the politics of confrontation, the biggest losers will be the average Pakistanis whose modest expectations of "roti, bijli and paani" will remain unfulfilled. Long term damage to democracy in Pakistan is also likely if people are permanently disillusioned with democratic institutions as a means of solving their basic problems.

Sources: Wall Street Journal
Geo TV
Press Trust of India

Is the McClellan Iraq War Disclosure a Surprise?

The former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has come under blistering attacks from the Bush surrogates and the media for his memoirs implicating Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the media in the Iraq war deception. McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

McClellan writes in the new book that President Bush "veered terribly off course" and "rushed" to an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Regarding the media complicity, McClellan writes, "And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it… the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding."

While the Bush team and the media are expressing utter surprise and shock at these revelations, the fact is that other former Bush officials have said similar things after their departure, though not as explicitly as McClellan has.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS, after the release of his tell-all book in 2004. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap." The implication in O'Neill's remark is that the Iraq war decision was made well before any of the "facts" such as Saddam's WMD were invented to support it.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003.

In terms of media complicity, the term "embedded journalists" was invented during the Iraq war. The deceptive selling of Iraq war was exemplified by the WMD reporting by Judith Miller for the New York Times. She was eventually let go by NY Times after her reputation was completely tarnished for her false WMD reports and involvement in the Valerie Plame affair. Earlier, Judith Miller was accepted in media circles to be an expert in weapons of mass destruction as well as on Islam, despite her lack of a science background and her inability to speak Arabic. When she initially joined the Times staff, Miller’s beat was the banking and securities industry.

It is clear that both the Bush supporters and the media are faking a surprise here at McClellan's "revelations". Too many of them were participants in the conspiracy to invade Iraq. What the Americans need now is to be alert to the coming deception to invade Iran or Pakistan or some other country in the last days of the trigger-happy Bush-Cheney administration. Such an invasion would create another huge mess for the next president who'd already be saddled with massive deficits generated by what Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz calls "The Three Trillion Dollar War".

Bush Embraces The Pope

President George W. Bush took the unprecedented step of personally going to a USAF airbase to receive Pope Benedict XVI upon his arrival in the United States yesterday. This is a highly symbolic and extra-ordinary gesture toward the pontiff, a polarizing figure who has drawn strong support and admiration from the conservatives in the West and widespread criticism in the Islamic world.

It should be recalled that, in 2006, this pope quoted Byzantine Emperor Manual II Paleologos as saying "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The choice of this quote by the pontiff came in a speech at a German university exploring the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith. Later, as the worldwide Muslim outrage mounted,a Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope's comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam.

It is in this context that the Muslims around the world watch this embrace of the pope by a "born again" and "evangelical" US President who once described the US war on terror as a "crusade", invasion of Afghanistan as "Operation Infinite Justice" and uses religious terms such as "evil" and "axis of evil" in desecribing those who oppose the United States in the Middle East. As Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, recently said in an interview, "The rhetoric in Washington is absolutely pernicious--rhetoric that views the outside world as evil. Our foreign policy is trying to convert people to nirvana--that is, our way--or beating them up, humiliating and punishing them."

Many conservatives of all shades in the US and the West see this "war on terror" as a "clash of civilizations" between Christianity and Islam. They assert this "war on terror" is of the same or greater scale and potential duration as the Cold War that preceded it. And they expect the current Pope to play the same role that his predecessor did by siding with the United States and Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. While the challenge from groups such as Al-Qaeda is serious, it is nowhere close to the existential crisis during the cold war with the nuclear arsenals of US and Soviet Union on a hair trigger. The rhetoric emanating out of the West has the potential of pushing the world toward a catastrophic war, an "Armageddon" that the lunatic fringe on the right is hoping for.

Bush's Lessons In Secularism, Human Rights, Free Media

As George W. Bush makes his faith-based appointments, buys news media, blocks anti-torture legislation at home and spies on telephone conversations, the US continues the policy of supporting secularism, democracy, human rights and media freedom in the Islamic world. The following is an interesting story, a little dated but still very relevant in 2008:

Column By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 19, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Iraq News Agency) - A delegation of Iraqi judges and journalists abruptly left the U.S. today, cutting short its visit to study the workings of American democracy. A delegation spokesman said the Iraqis were "bewildered" by some of the behavior of the Bush administration and felt it was best to limit their exposure to the U.S. system at this time, when Iraq is taking its first baby steps toward democracy.

The lead Iraqi delegate, Muhammad Mithaqi, a noted secular Sunni judge who had recently survived an assassination attempt by Islamist radicals, said that he was stunned when he heard President Bush telling Republicans that one reason they should support Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court was because of "her religion." She is described as a devout evangelical Christian.

Mithaqi said that after two years of being lectured to by U.S. diplomats in Baghdad about the need to separate "mosque from state" in the new Iraq, he was also floored to read that the former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, now a law school dean, said on the radio show of the conservative James Dobson that Miers deserved support because she was "a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country."

"Now let me get this straight," Judge Mithaqi said. "You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court justice because she is an evangelical Christian.

"How would you feel if you picked up your newspapers next week and read that the president of Iraq justified the appointment of an Iraqi Supreme Court justice by telling Iraqis: 'Don't pay attention to his lack of legal expertise. Pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosque.' Is that the Iraq you sent your sons to build and to die for? I don't think so. We can't have our people exposed to such talk."

A fellow delegation member, Abdul Wahab al-Unfi, a Shiite lawyer who walks with a limp today as a result of torture in a Saddam prison, said he did not want to spend another day in Washington after listening to the Bush team defend its right to use torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfi said he was heartened by the fact that the Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban U.S. torture of military prisoners. But he said he was depressed by reports that the White House might veto the bill because of that amendment, which would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of P.O.W.'s.

"I survived eight years of torture under Saddam," Unfi said. "Virtually every extended family in Iraq has someone who was tortured or killed in a Baathist prison. Yet, already, more than 100 prisoners of war have died in U.S. custody. How is that possible from the greatest democracy in the world? There must be no place for torture in the future Iraq. We are going home now because I don't want our delegation corrupted by all this American right-to-torture talk."

Finally, the delegation member Sahaf al-Sahafi, editor of one of Iraq's new newspapers, said he wanted to go home after watching a televised videoconference last Thursday between soldiers in Iraq and President Bush. The soldiers, 10 Americans and an Iraqi, were coached by a Pentagon aide on how to respond to Mr. Bush.

"I had nightmares watching this," Sahafi said. "It was right from the Saddam playbook. I was particularly upset to hear the Iraqi sergeant major, Akeel Shakir Nasser, tell Mr. Bush: 'Thank you very much for everything. I like you.' It was exactly the kind of staged encounter that Saddam used to have with his troops."

Sahafi said he was also floored to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, declare that a Bush administration contract that paid Armstrong Williams, a supposedly independent commentator, to promote Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind policy constituted illegal propaganda - an attempt by the government to buy good press.

"Saddam bought and paid journalists all over the Arab world," Sahafi said. "It makes me sick to see even a drop of that in America."

By coincidence, the Iraqi delegates departed Washington just as the Bush aide Karen Hughes returned from the Middle East. Her trip was aimed at improving America's image among Muslims by giving them a more accurate view of America and President Bush. She said, "The more they know about us, the more they will like us."

(Yes, all of this is a fake news story. I just wish that it weren't so true.)

The "High Confidence" National Intelligence Estimate on Iran

High Confidence
The latest US national intelligence estimate says that Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that it is currently not pursuing such a program. This report validates what the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranian Government have both been saying for sometime as the Bush administration has been ratcheting up its hostile rhetoric against Iran, and talking up the "dangers Iran poses to the world". What caught my attention in this report was how the NIE characterized its conclusions regarding Iran as "high confidence". After a report like this, one would expect the neo-cons would re-think the folly of their ways and accept this conclusion. Instead, President Bush, Sen Lieberman, the neo-cons and their supporters such as the Wall Street Journal have started spinning the report in various ways. The spin ranges from claiming " the need for continued US and international pressure on Iran" to outright rejection of the NIE as inaccurate or naive. Among others, Michael Ledeen asserts, since "you can't prove a negative", the NIE must be wrong. Frank Gaffney goes on to say that, since no one "outside a small circle in Iran has certain knowledge about the state of nuclear weapons program", therefore "we had better be prepared to use military force". In other words, the facts do not matter when it comes to their personal animosity toward Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil".

International Isolation
The initial response from the Bush administration indicates that they will continue their efforts to build international support for sanctions and even military action against Iran. Russia and China have already expressed their opposition and the EU members are clearly rethinking their future course of action. I think any arm-twisting by the US at this point would be counterproductive and could lead to international isolation of the US rather than Iran. No country, even the US, can afford to be isolated in this day and age.

Iranian Reaction
In terms of what will happen next,a lot would depend on how the Iranians choose to behave after the NIE report. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a way of engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, making even his friends and neighbors feel uncomfortable and insecure. Iranian President's statements about "wiping Israel off the face of the earth" not only contravene the UN charter but also invite hostility of the world. He would be well-advised to try and build confidence in his neighborhood with conciliatory gestures toward all of his neighbors and the broader Middle East. Such a policy would serve the Iranian people well and save the US and the world from another disastrous misadventure by the United States.

The Future
There seems to be almost universal agreement in the US and the rest of the world that the Bush foriegn policy has been short-sighted and counterproductive. The excessive use of the military power has been disastrous for the US and its relations with most of the rest of the world. As the US goes into the 2008 general elections, there are hopes that the end of the Bush era would bring greater emphasis on the use of diplomacy and soft power by the US. However, one can not take this for granted. The foreign policy statements by the front-runners of both parties do not seem to be particularly reassuring. Let's hope better sense will prevail once the elections are over and the reality of governing sets in for the new leader of the free world.

Pakistan: What's Next?

Over the last few weeks, the US government has been making various statements about the political situation in Pakistan. There's a lot of talk about "tough messages" and "restoring democracy" in Pakistan. However, I believe Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf have both been severely damaged by the open and repeated statements of support by the Bush administration. In my humble opinion, this is likely to backfire just like it did in Palestine when US threw its support behind Mahmood Abbas. Average Pakistanis may not be the most well-informed and educated people but they can see this US intervention for what it is: An overt attempt to install US favorites in power. If relatively free and fair elections are held as planned in Jan 08, I see a hung parliament at best with PPP/MQM in Sind, PML(N) and PML(Q) in Punjab and MMA in NWFP/Baluchistan as the winners. The overt US support may, in fact, enhance the popularity of the parties not seen to be supported by the US and increase their strength in Parliament. Given this scenario, no one can take for granted the post of the prime minister with this set up. Gen Musharraf can still influence the outcome in his favor if he plays his cards right even in the face of free and fair elections. The one big unknown is the extent of US influence in Pakistani military if the US decides to dump Musharraf. If the US gets Pakistani military brass to overthrow Musharraf, then all bets are off.