LyrArc Article Gist
A poll done by the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit affiliated with the Republican party, of 3500 people across Pakistan found a couple of important things. The Republican Institute's goal is to promote democracy in the developing world. 1. Popularity of President Zardari at 9% and Nawas Sharif's at 55%. The US resumed contacts with Sharif, and Sharif is seen as able to bring the Islamic moderates to the American side. 2. Economic issues are what concerns Pakistanis most. Refugees are approaching the 1 million number according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. 3. 81% said the country was going in the wrong direction, Zardari was never elected and is incompetent and this could be the reason. But military is still unpopular, 77% want democratic rule, possibly with Sharif or some sort of combination of Sharif, lawyers movement, and Islamic moderates in charge. 4. From alow of 9% in January 2008, now 37% are willing to work with the USA against extremism. Could Obama's election and US support of Pakistan's effort to heal itself be apart of this change of heart? 5. 45% support fighting extremists in the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province. And 69% say having the Taliban and Al Quaeda operate in Pakistan is a serious problem. If these poll results accurately reflect shifting feeling in Pakistan, American help to help Pakistan pull itself up by its bootstraps economically and unify the country under a democratic administration of Islamic moderates and people from other areas like the lawyers movement, could work. It also improves the prospects of pulling out of Afghanistan after the situation improves, and setting up an administration that comprises Islamic moderates and tribal representatives that keeps out Al Quaeda, and works to rebuild Afghanistan after seemingly endless years of war. These efforts would require cooperation of Iran, India, Pakistan and the US, and assistance of countries like Turkey, in creating an atmosphere that promotes peaceful development in the entire region. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US Naval Blockade Day 10- US stock markets up 4.1% for 4 months, oil price $95 a barrel, prices at pump $4.02 down from $3.94 a month back. If all the US seeks out of an agreement is getting nuclear material out of Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of the Middle East based on 5 decades of war in the Middle East- Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and now Iraq/ Lebanon- this is to protect the people of the world from nuclear weapons, including China, India, Brazil, Russia, EU and other nations. This was the goal of Democratic administrations also, only the Republican approach is to err on the side of safe and take zero chances on future nuclear escalation while the Democratic administrations were based on trust, trust which is not a sure thing in the Middle East political and cultural environment. Some of DJT comments were bluster, but the basic position is the same- against nuclear proliferation for a safer planet. In this light the Naval Blockade only seeks not to block Iran's path to a prosperous economy and a bright future for its people. Iran's economy is affected in the same way that India's and China's, Africa's is affected, for upwards of 4 billion people compared to 100 million for Iran. Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Indonesia, among the poorest in the world, poorer by far than Iran. The economic impact on this part of the world is not part of Iranian perceptions. The economic impact on Gulf kingdoms an adversary of Iran is by comparison only a small fraction of the impact on the poorest countries. In this situation US is working to support the poorest segments of the Chinese people ( the part of China in the hinterland that is the one third not urbanized) and the Indian people through its cooperation and direct or indirect support. In this perspective the US economy stands as a steadfast support for US policy of fairness and respect for all nations since 1900- US is not one of the colonial powers such as Britain and France who created some of the artificial states Syria, Iraq, out of the remains of the collapsed Ottoman Empire in the interest of their Empires by 1921, and setup regimes in Iran for its oil, that are the source of today's problems and wars. No Empire of Britain and France promised Iran $28 billion as this Nation does today if Iran ships nuclear material out of Iran for a 100 percent shift to a peaceful Middle East that works for the modernization and industrial development of its economies in the interests of the people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Retired General James Mattis headed Central Command under the Obama administration. He is the new U.S. Defense Secretary. Mattis is critical but has said "there is no going back" on the Iran nuclear agreement. Mattis also has said any U.S. president regarding allies as "freeloaders" is nuts. This is different from Trump's campaign speeches, Yet the trait of Mattis in Afghanistan and Iraq duty is that of aggressively following the enemy, he has been called "Mad Dog,"  and the 66 year old officer brings deep battlefield experience, is highly regarded in the military ranks, and had friction with the Obama administration- traits for which he is well regarded by Trump.

LyrArc Article Gist
The problem of information providers is linked to the problem of the recipient of the information- the common man in America. For the common man in America these are distant places with strange cultures and manners of living, remote from his everyday existence in an industrialized country. Why should the common man in America care if a small fraction of GNP and a trained military with advanced equipment will be sufficient to deal with situations in remote places. A fast growing economy between 1950- 2000 could also absorb the costs of local conflicts. The reason the common man in America should care is that the economy is expected to grow slowly, so that poor information leading to poor decisions on allocating limited and declining resources for different local conflicts- a war in Iraq costing 1 trillion dollars, and a war in Afghanistan 1 trillion dollars- can compromise future economic security, investment in America and overall defense needs. Especially when money wasted with poor decisions cannot be retrieved or put back in the Treasury, and creates future problems....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....

LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the Obama administration's so-called "light footprint strategy" for the Middle East say it is more about keeping distance from problems in that region. This is a reaction to the extensive involvement of the U.S. in two wars in that region and intuitively makes sense, as well as being in line with American public opinion to focus on problems at home. The shift or pivot to Asia of president Obama also comes in that context. The problem with this approach is that this ignores the fact that most of the momentum and effort for the freedom struggles throughout the Middle East from Tunisia first, then Libya, Egypt, and now Syria, comes from within. The lead role is now being taken by France and Britain, with German public opinion also lined up in support. The U.S. in forfeiting its role as a facilitator with strategies such as "no-fly-zones" is losing the opportunity to gain the goodwill in the Middle East with cost that is negligible in comparison to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, and comes after the huge U.S. effort to remove one dictator in Iraq. A minor followup effort is all that is required from an administration that pushed for the "surge" in Afghanistan. When history is written the investment of the Obama administration in Afghanistan may show little results, if what is considered by the media and experts as an unpopular and undemocratic government of Karzai falls in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. There is little doubt in public opinion in the U.S. and worldwide that the movement for freedom and democracy in the Middle East and democratically elected governments will become a lasting facet of the new Middle East. It also provides huge opportunties for trade and investment as is shown by the gains made by Turkey in just 2 years. This is why the Obama adminstration policies in the Middle East show a lack of grasp of the facts showing the Middle East as opportunity more than threat for the next decade, especially in its overreaction to the Bush era policies. This happens as there is a demographic explosion of young people in the Middle East. An administration that was keen to sense the demographic changes in North America, has failed to grasp this fact and why the struggle in the Middle East flashes daily on television screens young people carrying on the struggle. A pivot to Asia means a pivot to the Far East more than Asia because India is part of the South Asian-Middle Eastern region, which presents another paradox because as China is slowing the entire South Asian-Middle Eastern region of Asia is where future growth is expected to accelerate in the next decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Opposition at the public level to the war in Afghanistan. A Washington D.C. rally.

LyrArc Article Gist
Over 50% of Israelis support Iran war, only 30% oppose. As Israelis see it Iran under religious clerics is the only real threat to Israel in 2025 because of Iran's policy of proxies for attacking Israel in Lebanon and in Gaza, and because of it's development of nuclear weapons and openly threatening Israel. The US involvement in Iranian politics dates from the Dulles and Eisenhower era with the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. Working with British intelligence and for British oil interests, US oil interests, the US made a serious mistake as seen from today's perspective. The moral is British or French colonial policy stay from it America- George Washington himself would advise. Israel is paying the price and is asked to correct what was done by the British in Iran since 1850's- to bring back a peaceful democracy with the kind of struggles even Greece experienced. The unelected wholly unrepresentative government of the Shah who was put in the place of a democratically elected government was a serious mistake. The British and French colonialism and oil interests of Britain plus American oil companies have led to US getting on the wrong side of the Vietnamese people in the war in Vietnam against the French that ended at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. It had repercussions in the Vietnam war under Kennedy and Johnson. This has happened in the case of Iran where the US has gained so little and lost so much in lives and resources sunk in the ensuing was in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yemen. The European Union suffered from the huge migrant flow from Syria with splits in its ranks. The distractions of these 30 years through Reagan and Rumsfeld who supported Hussein in Iraq against Iran in a balancing act is now foolishness, of elder Bush as he diverted attention to a long desert war in Kuwait, of Bush and then Obama in Afghanistan, who wasted enormous resources and impoverished the American people. Leaving legacy wars for Trump and Biden to handle. After Vietnam another failed chapter of Iran in the US for the American people by incompetent leaders who were taken in by French and British colonial and oil interests in wrong directions.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For what a ruble buys in Russia , 2.7 times what a dollar buys in the US, Russia gets alot of bang out of its defense budget of $149 billion, about $401 billion (Purchasing power) compared to US $997 billion. Add to this Russia is now a war economy in the war with Ukraine and concentrates its forces in one theatre not four as the US spread out over Indo-Pacific, Europe and Middle East and Korean peninsula. This is the reason behind most of DJT's actions reflecting realities in defense. Shut down the Middle East theatre which is also what the American people want by moving everything in the direction of economic progress, turning down the revolutionary and sectarian ideologies that roiled Egypt of Suez, Iraq and Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 60's and dragged the world into costly insane wars. And do this with the consensus of Russia, China and India. Wind down the war in Europe- accept the Russians as a Northern European power with a settlement of the Ukraine conflict, and let Germany lead Europe's defense. Manage the relationship in the Indo-Pacific with India and South and Southwest Asian investments in economic infrastructure that will offset China's rapid growth of the last three decades by incentivizing South Asia and South western Asia parts of which were called the Middle East by the Britons and now can be rengaged in the South /Southwest Asian group of nations led by the US. This is the policy for the next 25 years to 2050 that a Russia, Germany, US, China, India consensus sees as a constructive future for the people of the world.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman describes the difficult life of U.S. air force personnel after visiting air bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. He talks to the pilot of a F-22 stealth fighter operating missions in Syria, a C-130 woman pilot from the Minnesota Air National Guard flying into Baghdad, a Luteran chaplain at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and other air force men operating Reaper missions by remote control from the U.S. He sees the stress, the courage and the effort to give their best in the defense of American interests in the Middle East, and reflects on the need for similar spirit in the U.S. capital. For some years Americans had forgotten about the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and this was felt by armed forces personnel as forgetting the sacrifices that were made in the long wars.  The vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal, and the spread of terrorism as a consequence of the withdrawal, has again led to the American public having a better understanding of the importance of these missions and the courage and service of the Air Force personnel.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Because of anti Bush and anti american feeling every crank politicain or simply gangs fighting turf wars and even bandits or thieves can call themselves Taliban. Also the Wahabist religion of militants is not the religion in the Sind and Punjab 2 main provinces of Pakistan. And some of these areas like the Northwest frontier province and the areas bordering Afghanistan like Afghanistan itself have an independent streak and don't take well to any foreigner be it the Russians, the Pakistanis (Punjabis and Sindhis) and to the Americans or going back to the colonial era the British. Its convenient and a easy label for a lazy media that hasnt done its homework, and for politicians who lack the education and disposition to do their own homework or a cultural barrier that makes this difficult to call all this one label Taliban, or some other label, but its dangerous as the manner of dealing with this may be quite different given a correct understanding of whats happening. When turned over to the American people living in a modern world or to modern world Europeans for response to these labels there is only the gut instinct of them versus us the core feeling of something different and alien which is hostile. As this writer points out the Pakistani people themselves by and large are simply like people everywhere, may just be looking for better lives like the rest of us, and are not keen on the militants though they may carry anti Bush feelings. And the Pakistani people resentment for the USA not because of some innate or inherent hostility but because they feel left out of the modern world and its benefits of development like infrastructure, hospitals and basic services, just like most of the developing countries, which have alternated between hostility and friendship towards the USA, just as the USA has alternated between truly benevolent policy towards the developing world and policy thats more in tune to a prior colonial period of its partners in Europe like the British and the French. And in this sense the Pakistani people desire for economic progress may not be automatically construed as expressed through the politicians as they are corrupt and selfserving. Its a complex state of affairs sure but its not made easier but made more complicated by lazy man's labels without understanding the situation on the ground first hand and doing one's homework. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Atul Gawande in the New Yorker shows how doctors in McAllen, Texas prescribe half the tests that doctors in other comunities in Texas do. Frank cites the effectiveness of the salaried model used by the Mayo Clinic. This battle has been postponed for another day the current halth care reform bill. But crucially the failure to tackle this program and have the country shoulder another deficit burden for healthcare leaves the country with a serious liability of overspending, with guns and butter if the Afghnistan war adds up another big bill to the Iraq war bill.

LyrArc Article Gist
When asked what projects they wanted to see in Helmand province, ordinary Afghans said they wanted the repair of the main sluice gates that lead to the irrigation canals off the Helmand River. These were built with American aid in the 1950's, and its been 30 years since anyone did any work on that canal. See the link to India and irrigation, only 50% of the land is estimated by experts to be irrigated in India. WIthout irrigation, as the uncertain monsoon rains this year showed, India's agricultural heartland in the Punjab and Haryana would collapse. When other Afghans were asked they mentioned security, they did not want to see the Americans in tents, but in some sort of permanent presence. BUt considering the vast and undeveloped landscape of Afghanistan, one sees several differences from Iraq's insurgent dominated priovince near Baghdad. It has mountainous terrain, with no electricity, no roads, no water, totally desolate in most parts of Helmand and other provinces, and it is a vast country with illiterate people tired of war. Would America's 40,000 troops be enough, or would you need more and more. If McChrystal's strategy shown here is to occupy civilan areas and fight the Taliban, and the Taliban with the help of Pakistan's ISI dissident elements are getting more and more sophisticated with roadside bombs, there will be growing casualties. The Americans could hold their own if there was no outpouring of support because of unpopularity of the Afghan government, but throw that into the equation- something McChrystal has not thought through according to Dexter Filkins of the NYT- and things get muddied. And from his training as a Special Operations commander this is a problem McChrystal is not as well prepared to understand or tackle. Consider the implications if Afghanistan is not Iraq- where Shiites and Aytollah Sistani their spiritual leader formed a core of support that the US always had on its side once it supported a democratically elected government- and no core of support here in Afghanistan except an unpopular government. McChrystal may also not have factored in a key factor of the "allergy" of Afghans to foreign boots on the ground. With a largely illiterate police recruits and army recruits, would the idea of transferring the job become delayed and the American boots end up in an untenable position? See the link to Commander Adams and Khost province, where Adams points out its all about visible evidence of progress. For his 250 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne this meant delivering on roads built in Khost province, and a spring water system for 12,000 villagers. Here Filkins starts with Afghan villagers asking for the repair of the canal leading to the Helmand river which has not been repaired since the 1950's. McChrystal could only say "it takes time." But the US has been in Afghistan for 8 years and as commader Adams says only fighting "one year wars." The other point Adams says is that an effort in Afghanistan only works by befriending the tribes, because its the tribes who will see that IED's are reported and any insurgents in the area are reported, and only they have the capabilities to do it, which no number of American troops can do. These are serious questions that need answers. See the groups for- Commander Adams, and for Dexter Filkins (the article on McChrystal's Long War), which touch on similiar development issues....

LyrArc Article Gist
Tom Brokaw is perplexed by the absence of the war in Afghanistan as a campaign issue in 2010 US elections. Especially because the war is in its 9th year, has caused 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and cost over $1 trillion dollars. He reasons that this is because the vast majority of Americans can opt out of fighting the war on the ground. The all volunteer service draws from 1% of the population, with the majority from working class or middle class backgrounds. This has an unintended effect in making the costs of the war less visible, when actually it is taking a toll in other ways. The US is short of funds to build much needed infrastructure or update infrastructure. States and local governments are laying off teachers because of budget shortfalls, and the national budget deficit makes less money available for solving pressing problems in carbon emissions, energy, and infrastructure. Only recently New Jersey Governor Christie put on hold a new tunnel into New York City because of a lack funds. Pressing infrastructure issues elsewhere will be postponed in this manner. And the outlook for the next 20 years, according to Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, is not going to be better with slower growth at an average of 1.5%, leaving less money for the kinds of projects that defined America from the Erie canal to interstate highways. Brokaw says, the country would benefit from an effort to discuss what happens next, in the continued expenditure of blood and treasure. A discussion of what happens next in this effort to deal with Islamic rage....

LyrArc Article Gist
Ford. will still make $8 billion to $11 billion this year even after losses of $3 billion in electric cars. By 2026 Ford says it will earn 8 to 9 percentage points in profit from EV's. Ford is basically investing in the EV industry now for the long run. It is also part of the effort to move away from fossil fuels. Government incentives and subsidies will help companies and buyers of vehicles make the transition to EV's to fight climate change.  Companies that have not invested in EV's such as Toyota risk falling behind in EV's at a time when climate change is a major priority for buyers and governments around the world. Toyota is moving to a new CEO who can better take up the challenge of EV's. Under the previous CEO Mr. Toyoda Toyota clung to a mistaken belief that hybrid cars were all that is needed to reduce use of fossil fuels. German, Chinese and US manufacturers are taking the lead in EV's and Japan has fallen behind.  WSJ has never favored government subsidies and is critical for this reason. Yet it is clear that in some situations such as fighting climate change, building infrastructure, and redesigning the supply chain, government has to take the lead. Eisenhower in the 1950's with a government led effort helped build the national highway system, the first in the world. Biden is making a similar effort on multiple fronts. The redesign of the supply chain comes after private industry without proper direction from the government over concentrated manufacturing in China with Japan as a supplier into China. Presidents Bush and Obama wasted time and resources better devoted to national priorities at home on wars in remote places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. President Biden wrapped up the war in Afghanistan and completely disengaged from an area that is of no constructive interest to America. Resources are now concentrated in the right way on real national priorities from manufacturing at home to fighting climate change, fighting the cost of living crisis and building better infrastructure for workers and families. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russia has 600 billion dollars in reserves and with oil prices above $100, with the Ukraine conflict lifting oil prices for Russian oil exports, there is little that the US and Europe have done to prepare for this situation. The Merkel years were essentially wasted in building a trade based relationship on cheap Russian gas supplies, and the wasted resources under Bush and Obama in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only distracted the US from the major issues relating to China and Europe that it now faces. 

The need is for a new overall structure to be built- for social structure supporting all aspects of infrastructure, and stronger supply chains with local manufacturing. And international structures that include India and other nations of Asia and Latin America, Africa, that would be a framework for the future- a broader framework for peaceful relations.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. and Britain, has edited a collection of essays in a new book titled- Pakistan: Beyond the "Crisis State." It tries to form a new construct to move the debate on Pakistan into a future in which Pakistan can exist as a "normal country" free of a paranoia about India that affects its outlook, and free from the military connections that have shifted the focus from development that a friendly neighborly coexistence with India would provide. Intriguing essays include one by Saadat Hasa Manto who goes back to 1951, when the Cold War was at its peak and the U.S. formed a relationship with Pakistan based on military assistance, with only small fraction of aid going into development programs. Syed Rifaat Hussain, professor of strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad puts it directly: Pakistan needs to become a normal state and the only way to to do this is for the rivalry and obsession with India to be resolved and put behind it. As it now stands the U.S., India and Pakistan all stand to gain tremendously in such an outcome- the U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan and the Taliban because at its core the Taliban issue goes back to the Pakistan rivalry with India, Pakistan and India because it puts the focus on development, infrastructure building, and economic gains....