Posts Tagged ‘Bush’

Indian leaders meet White westerners and turn to putty! By Ghulam Muhammed

September 30, 2008


Tuesday, September 30, 2008


Indian leaders meet White westerners and turn to putty!


What an irony! India that has never signed the Non Proliferation Treaty appears to demand in so many words that Iran should stick to its obligations under the NPT. And that too, when there is clear unequivocal assertion by Iran that it has no program to develop a nuclear device. It is understandable, that Israel and its supporters in the West, in general and French President Sarkozy in particular, who is himself Jewish, has Israel’s ‘national interest’ always at heart, should be pressing our Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, to rise up to the occasion of signing deals in France for the purchase of civilian nuclear plants, and say a word in favour of that ‘beleaguered’ nation of Israel, that has neatly tucked up a few if not hundreds of nuclear devices of its own in its secret armory. But it seems to be a weakness of our leaders that once they are meeting the western white leaders, they completely lose their composure.


Only last week, PM Manmohan Singh was so full of himself, that he found it nothing off when he addressed President George Bush in White House and said, ‘India loves you’. For a lame duck US President, whose own people have forsaken him and who is loathed around the world, as per a Pew survey, our Prime Minister’s poetic overshoot, was most jarring to Indians back home.  Just like the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who became so effusive while meeting Sarah Palin, the Republican Party nominee for Vice-Presidential slot, a mother of 5, as to be virtually flirting with her on camera; our own Prime Minister lost all his self-respect and dignity and could have gone on his knees to thank Bush for receiving him in the Oval Office? (Granted Oval Office has some magic that could even overpower a nubile Monica to perform unthinkables. But our PM has his years behind him to help fortify his composure and do proud to our country.)


One is reminded of the sorry plight of an earlier Indian minister, Lal Krishna Advani, who as per the protocol, was not eligible to meet President Bush, but in the interest of his own country, George W. Bush was very ‘generous’ in granting him an audience.


That honour so shook Advani, that once President Bush had to throw his arm around Advani’s shoulder and Advani instantly promised to send Indian troops to fight on the side of US forces in that illegal invasion of a friendly country of Iraq, that supplied oil to India on heavily subsidized rate all through the years that Saddam was ruling. Advani had to eat his words when back home Indian people roared against any such misadventure and the people came out right at the end of it all.


One is at loss to figure out how India would fare in the hands of such putty personalities, who stalk high when at home, but turn gooey when confronting a white westerner. The inroad that Israel is making, especially as supplier of defence material, is most worrisome when it is matched with the Army’s recent stand on more pay. How this interaction between a foreign supplier and our putty soldiers, if any, will fold out, should be watched with keen caution, lest our army goes the way of the Pakistan army, under such ‘friendly’ camaraderie.


In this regard, it will be not amiss to remember Indira Gandhi, who carried the full weight and glory of India on her shoulders, when she met foreign leaders. Another example of hard nut performance by any Indian abroad could not ignore our Commerce Minister Kamalnath’s brave and courageous move to stand firm for the country’s interest and defy all the pressures of the western powers by calling off the whole world trade Doha round of negotiations.



Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai


Comments posted on The New York Times article: Wall Street Casualities

September 16, 2008

Comments posted on The New York Times article: Wall Street Casualities:


Tuesday, September 16, 2008 

Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.


September 16th, 2008 8:45 pm


The people pay, one way or other. Though it appeared outrageous that public funds in the US, (should be squandered)  to rescue private corporate from going under, the downside of leaving them to their devices, is worse and people will pay both ways. President Bush had wasted billions ‘saving’ Iraq. He should not have shirked in saving some of the most influential financial institutions that in the longer term, would avert a traumatic recessionary cycle and save millions of people not only in the US, but all over in this interconnected world. Bush has got bad advice and he lost his nerve in his last days. A true leader would have stood his ground. He is no Roosevelt or Reagan. There is still time for him to move fast and save the world economy.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

— Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai, India


Posting on Pipes article: The enemy has a name

June 20, 2008


Posting on Pipes article: The enemy has a name.


Dr. Pipe could be trying to pinpoint the enemy, Islamism, but would be missing the wood for the trees.


Radicals are acting like an army committed to protect the civilians, the moderates.


Both have their roles cut out. And still both are part of one society.


When the chips are down, Muslim world unites at different levels with remarkable speed and unity of mind and purpose. The more Muslim world is subjected to stress and trauma, the more it reacts out of a sense of self-preservation.


Bush’s war on terror was more of an imperialist campaign to conquer the world that remained to be conquered. So there was no reason to restrict its focus to one face. For Bush, the enemy has many faces. Under the circumstance, Dr. Pipes’ analysis is reduced to a narrow self-serving proposition.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai



The Enemy Has a Name

by Daniel Pipes

Jerusalem Post

June 19, 2008


If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the “global war on terror,” the “long war,” the “global struggle against violent extremism,” or even the “global struggle for security and progress.”


This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing “an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms.” In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, “the defeat of the global terror network” – whatever that undefined network might be.


“Defeating terrorism” has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.


But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that “We actually misnamed the war on terror.” Instead, he called the war a “struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.”


A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as “a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam.” Soon after, Bush himself used the terms “Islamic radicalism,” “militant Jihadism,” and “Islamo-fascism.” But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.


By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about “the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East.” That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as “death cult,” “cult-like,” “sectarian cult,” and “violent cultists.”


In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari’a).


Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.


First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.


Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.


The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism’s depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.


To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.


In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy’s objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.