LyrArc Article Gist
Bret Stephens talks with Shiite Imam Mohsen Quadivar, who was a student of Hossein-Ali Montazeri, and a seminarian at Qom, Iran. He now teaches at Duke. Kadivar is the author of a three part work of political philosophy titled "The Theories of the State in Shiite Jurisprudence," which questions Khomeini's idea of vilayat e-Faqih, or principle for a supreme leader with near dictatorial powers. Nothing in this principle he says is intuitively obvious or necessary for religion. It is he says not a part of Shiite general principles, and by near consensus of the Shiite Ulama, a minor jurisprudential hypothesis. He says there are two interpretations of Islam: the aggressive Islam of Ahamadinejad or the mercy Islam of Moussavi. Kadivar points out that 2 of Iran's 4 major seminaries have refused to endorse Ahmadinejad's victory. There is here a search and a struggle for the true soul of Islam that goes beyond Iran, to Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The U.S., India, Pakistan and the Middle Eastern nations are having to walk carefully through a period where a search and a struggle for this true soul is taking place. Alahu akbar now takes on a different meaning....

LyrArc Article Gist
The US view of the response by India to a terrorist attack in Phalgam, Kashmir, Indian Union territory with strikes on terrorist camps. J.D. Vance US vice president says- “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict.” “And we hope, frankly, that Pakistan to the extent that they’re responsible, cooperates with India to make sure that the terrorists sometimes operating in their territory are hunted down and dealt with.” Vance was forced to cut short his visit to India after visiting Jaipur, Rajasthan in India when the terrorists with a history of aid from Pakistan killed 31 tourists in Phalgam, Kashmir. A long history of terrorist or militia trained in Pakistan has led to  terrorist incidents all over the world for the last three decades including the Kashmir and Afghanistan conflicts, the last having drawn Russia and the US into long wars which depleted their resources and led to loss of many lives. Yet much of the media remains oblivious of this in the US and Europe, and how it has led to the rise of China using this period of conflict under Bush and Obama since 2000, and the access to US, EU technologies and assistance. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ column Russell Mead describes the Middle East as an opportunity when in reality it has done serious damage to the US and the European Union. With the shift to renewable energy and localized sources for natural gas and oil within EU and the US, the Middle East may no longer be relevant to the US and Europe. Afghanistan which has cost so much for the US and Europe in trillions of dollars that could have been invested in badly needed infrastructure is an extension of the Middle East. Iran is also part of the Middle East. These reserves of oil and gas in countries deeply imbedded with thinking and policy against modernization are more risk than opportunity for the US and European Union. The US and European Union need to look to bringing back manufacturing and renewing supply chains with India and Vietnam, the rest of South East Asia as an opportunity and shift mightily to renewables to fight climate change. This is the opportunity facing the US and the EU today. In a sense the chapter that started with the efforts of British oil companies in Iran in 1900 and Franklin Roosevelt's meeting with the Saudi King on an American ship during World War II is now coming to its closing and a new chapter has to be written on renewables and rebuilding US and EU strength in manufacturing in alliance with India and Vietnam, rest of South East Asia in what is called the Indo-Pacific.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How to build a global port network with less cash- China's state owned Cosco and it's European ports network is an example of savy buying during financial crises, and when companies in Europe and the US were keen to make sales of ports. China simply integrated it into a vast exports network, using containerized terminal expansion modernization to build its manufacturing for export model. This was an extension of its domestic network where it added new port infrastructure to newly built rail and road connections.  India today is learning from this example. By 2000 the Chinese global export model was entrenched. It was also the year when the junior Bush president extended the wars of Reagan/Bush in Iraq of the 1980's to Afghanistan. China had a clear road ahead to build state of the art infrastructure of ports, logistics and exports over the next 10-15 years without any defense costs.  Piraeus in Greece south of Athens, a port concession acquired in 2004 Antwerp in Belgium (Austrian Netherlands), a minority stake in a container port acquired in 2008. In 2013 with sale of Terminal Link ports in a 49% stake deal by CMA of France holding 51%, China has stakes in Zeerbrugge and Antwerp, Busan South Korea, and Le Havre, Montoir and Fos in France, Xiamen in China, Miami and Houston in US. Rotterdam, Netherlands- Cosco acquired in 20126 a 35% stake in Euromax Terminal in Rotterdam from Hong Kong's Hutchison's Holdings for $125 million. Valencia and Bilbao majority  51% stake for $270 million, when JP Morgan paid as much as $950 million to ACS of Spain for these ports after the 2009 crisis led to Spanish divestments. Today in TEU's shipping containers China sends goods to Europe 10 times what it takes in through Spanish ports. Hamburg-In May 2023 Germany's Scholz overruled Habeck to let sale of 24.9% of Hamburg port to COSCO go through ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's PML-N party wins 125 of 269 seats in Pakistan's parliament. The Tehreek-e-Insaf party of Imran Khan won 31 seats and the PML-N party of the current president Asif Zardari won 32 seats mostly in Sindh province. Independents won 31 seats and some of these independents are likely to support Sharif in forming a new government. Election turnout of 60% showed a large degree of enthusiasm in this election and hopes for economic revival in Pakistan. The focus of Sharif will be on improving the economy, tackling electricity shortages, and building infrastructure. Sharif promised to pursue peaceful relations with India and Afghanistan, and keep the focus on the economy. Sharif and his advisers are bringing a new deftness in the dealings with the Army, the Pakistan Taliban, saying he would call for a halting of drone strikes, limiting the role the U.S. plays in the region, both positions popular in Pakistan, separating differences with former president Musharraf from the institutional role of the military. Small business owners and large business support Sharif's efforts to tackle electricity shortages, with an estimated loss of $12 billion in idled factories alone. The long period of political conflicts between the military, the judiciary and the political parties have led to neglect of Pakistan's economy, as neighboring countries in Asia surged ahead. The realization that popular pressure for improving standards of living and the economic opportunities are both huge has led to an extraordinary election, and put Sharif at the centre of an important new beginning for Pakistan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Making some territorial concessions appears to be the only way for peace talks to succeed. For a long time there was insistence on territorial sovereignty of Ukraine by EU and NATO leaders. This appears to have prolonged the war- with needless loss of life on both sides, and costly damage to Ukraine infrastructure, a population that had to face additional winters and hardship in war ravaged areas. NATO's Stoltenberg from Norway, leaders of northern Nordic and Baltic countries, the UK, could take that position without having to face the hardship of the war. NATO had to be re-formed under a new name and new structure  following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with wariness about the possibility of centuries old since 1700 UK and Nordic historical adversarial relationship with Russia casting a shadow over that organization, and embroiling the US in conflicts not of its own choice or of wise leadership. This is the root cause of the Ukraine war. It would have been best to completely restructure NATO and give it a new name without Northern European nations leading it. Principles matter once soviet communism was no longer there NATO formed for its expansionism in 1950's had served it's purpose. Rasmussen from Denmark and Stoltenberg from Norway led the organization for the last decade and half from 2009-2014 and 2014 to 2025, with backing from Obama/Merkel for most of the period of the war in Ukraine. Also most of the period NATO expanded to Russian borders happened under Northern European leaders from Spain, Britain and Nordics (Solana, Robertson, Scheffer, Rasmussen and Stoltenberg) and the organization NATO getting the northern European slant based on historical adversarial relationship of Britain and Russia since 1700- for no other reason than the British wanting to protect its large Empire and commerce in India which in the 18th and 19th century included most of Asia. Under Robertson the UK Defense Secretary much of this transformation into turning NATO into something anti-Russian happened which was primarily because of British and Nordic perceptions of Russia as an adversary. Robertson added the following countries at the Prague Summit in 2002 to NATO- the Baltics, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Russia faced internal upheaval in those years and Yeltsin in resigned in 1999, Putin was elected in 2000. It is clear that Russia had suffered severe economic hardship in that period and Putin's first goal in 2002 was to stabilize the economy.  It could be said that this turning NATO over to UK and Nordics was a huge mistake considering that Russia was still the largest nuclear power after the US, and British policy was now determining US policy. And Britain's Robertson/NATO should not have involved itself in the Afghanistan war using Article 5, as the US could have handled this alone and limited that engagement. It got US involved in another conflict, conflict with Russia that was to come in Ukraine on the side of the Baltics and Ukraine, without US clearly understanding what the roots of that war was about and implied confrontation with Russia 20 years after the Prague Summit in 2002 under George Bush junior. The incompetence of Bush and Obama/Merkel laid the seeds of the Ukraine war in 2022 following Robertson, Rasmussen, Stoltenberg, small Nordic nations and Britain creating a conflict that did not need to happen, with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of Russian speaking fraternal peoples of both Russia and Ukraine. The Republican sentiment under DJT of the tragedy of such huge losses of young people, and desire to end this loss of life, can nowhere be seen in bellicose talk in northern European nations, that take the US for granted to fight their wars.  The wisdom of Washington, Lincoln and TR/FDR clearly caution in getting involved in European centuries old animosities. For the US it meant in practical terms that it could no longer carry out the Monroe Doctrine essential for peace and good governance in the western hemisphere as only a Russia desperate to make its views known about NATO would interfere in the western hemisphere against US assertion of the Monroe Doctrine with the US Navy. Instead drug trafficking gangs took over Latin American countries and created a flow of fentanyl and millions of people through migrant traffickers across the US southern border. As America has expressed its concern for loss of Russian and Ukrainian men in the war for the first time under DJT Russia has distanced itself from Venezuela, Mexico and Latin America. The loss of hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fentanyl is a shared tragedy with the loss of hundreds of thousands of young Russians and Ukrainians in the last decade. How reliable are Northern European countries when it comes to protecting the eastern seaboard of the US with the acquisition of Greenland? It is a policy pursued by presidents since the Alaska Acquisition from Russia. By Seward, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and DJT. Denmark the land where NATO secretary general Rasmussen was from followed by Stoltenberg from Norway  (for 15 of the years of the war in Ukraine 2010-2025) the US efforts to protect its eastern seaboard are rebuffed by both Denmark and Norway, and the US presented in a negative light as an imperialist power in the face of Danish East India Company's  colonial attitude since 1700 clearly imitating the colonial British East India company.  It shows Northern European nations looking out for themselves not for the US, and embroiling the US in their wars at the cost of the entire western hemisphere being destabilized. The population of UK, Denmark and Norway, Baltics is far less than the Mumbai, Shanghai, Sao Paulo , Berlin and Tokyo regions. Should the views of a small population in northern Europe of 2% of the total determine the future of US, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and other parts of the world with 5 billion people the 98%, when issues of war and nuclear conflict, nuclear buildup, the western hemisphere destabilized with drug trafficking gangs running rampant in countries, divide the world in opposing blocs, when the wellbeing of most of the world's people in Asia and Latin America, Africa is at stake by establishing a essential degree of cooperation by all sides. The US under DJT has chosen a wise policy of cooperation over conflict -with China, with Russia, with all the major powers, and with smaller powers. Reading the wisdom contained in the writings of Washington, Lincoln, TR/FDR confirms it is clearly the wise choice. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Boskin, the elder president Bush's chairman of the Council of Economc Advisors was instrumental in setting up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Here he points to the dire need to open up trade between India and Pakistan. Trade today between the two countries is $2.7 billion. Under trade models Boskin says the trade could be 20 times larger, about $50 billion. This would increase benefits and wages in both countries and is badly needed and long overdue.

LyrArc Article Gist
The views being currently argued in meetings with the President about the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vice President Biden's view: Completely change the goal and strategy. Scale down the military presence. Change the goal from protecting the people from the Taliban- and note that reports on the ground suggest that the people are indifferent and see the Americans and the Taliban as equally bad, with the Americans as foreigners far worse, see Doris Kearns others- to accelerated training of the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. The focus of US interests would shift to Pakistan. Biden points to the disparity for every $1 spent in Pakistan $30 goes to Afghanistan, and the US real interests lie in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US would work with Pakistan to take out Al Quaeda in the border regions. And the proof is that this is working, as Al Quaeda figures have been taken out with Pakistan's help. Counterinsurgency would be replaced by counter terrorism so the US doesn't get bogged down in support of a failing government. The fraud in the recent elections and increasing isolation and loss of support for the Karzai government, supported by unofficial evidence from the ground, make this a serious option, especially as President Obama knows the Karzai government does not merit support and presents a losing proposition. The second view is that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- Ike Shelton of Missouri on the Armed Services Committee and Leslie Gelb (see links) share this view- who said in an interview on PBS, "Well Al Quaeda's no longer in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast Al Quaeda would be back in Afghanistan." The problem with this view is that the US has only a limited presence in a large mountainous country with the difficult terrain that Afghanistan has, and its not American ground troops that have done the damage in taking out Al Quaeda, its mostly high tech drones. WIth a wider engagement and expanded US ground troops in support of a failing government, that is alleged to have corrupt and narcoltics connections, the popular support would dwindle to the point that the extra troops would not be seen as protecting the population- because how do you protect a people who simply don't care or are suspicious of you? The solution requires some sort of settlement with the Taliban, which guarantees that it not serve as a haven for Al Quaeda. Progress with schools and modernization would have to be, at least in the short run, be given upon the basis of the U.S. coming to terms with what it can and cannot accomplish at an acceptable cost, and the idea of vital interests not lying in Afghanistan but Pakistan. The missing elements in this puzzle would help this strategy, bringing together key countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to assume greater joint responsibilities and abandon the entire postindependence. approach to relations. The third view is that presented by Bruce Reidel, who led the Obama administration's strategy review of Afghaistan and Pakistan earlier this year, and is based on pragmatic considerations and the unofficial information on the ground. Reidel puts it this way: "A counterinsurgency can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner, and thats in doubt now." And he goes on to say "part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that thay are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election." For a complete change in policy and focus Obama would have to admit that he now has different information, and he is willing to admit to have misread the situation during the first 6 months and during the campaign. That is a test of leadership, being able to change after looking at the reality of the situation and digesting it fully. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The India-Pakistan-Afghanistan issues are still framed in the old way in terms of communalism, cold war then and the war on terrorism now. These policies were a legacy of the colonial policies of an earlier empire designed to preserve foreign rule, with a policy of perpetuating divisions between communties on religious and other lines. Modernization, the spread of mass communications that makes possible the reduction of prejudice and division by assimilating different values and beliefs into acommon aspiration for progress and better living standards, and the spread of education, commerce, and technological progress, create the conditions that should put this behind us. Put behind us communalism, and the political and military structures of communal states. Pakistan needs to be transformed from a communal state with a military structure designed to preserve that state - resulting in conflicts with its neighbors- into a state that represents a community and a religion, but in all other ways seeks peaceful coexistence and economic integration with the rest of South Asia. A good example of this is Mexico with its own culture, language and religion (Spanish Catholicism), and Canada with its own bilingual French-English heritage and British political structures and allegiances, both arriving at an arrangement of peaceful coexistence and economic integration with the USA with its different political structures and culture and sporadic conflicts with Canada and Mexico. This has promoted the peaceful development of the North American region. The US involvement in the region can then be seen as a misguided effort that continued framing the region's differences in the old British way or in a cold war stereotyping, first with John Foster Dulles in the India-Pakistan conflicts, and then with Reagan in the Afghan anti-Soviet war. This has worked to exacerbate the conditions that led to slow progress in the drive for economic development, infrastructure building and modernization in all of South Asia. Just as in Europe, as in North America, the processes of economic development work best when a policy of inclusiveness and integration of different communities and people is followed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Two senior American military officers will now lead operations in Europe. Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli takes over US European Command, and becomes the Head of all Allied Forces in Europe as Supreme Commander Europe, including NATO Command. Lt. Gen. Bryan Fenton will lead the Special Forces Command. Cavoli speaks 3 languages Russian, Italian and French, and has served as a foreign area officer. He also served as Director of Russia in the Joint Staff, and has a masters degree in Russian and Eastern European Studies from Yale University. General Eishenhower had this kind of broad experience in the years after World War I that helped him hold the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe during the war with Nazi Germany. Lt. Gen Byran Fenton is from Seymour, Tennessee. He is currently based at Fort Bragg as head of Joint Operations Command. Both officers will have to be confirmed by Congress and will operate in a new situation with the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq now being replaced by conventional war in Europe and threats to Taiwan, the Indian border with China, and at the Korean peninsula. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Contrast the slow US vaccine export response with that of India, Russia, EU and China. Only in May 2021 after India's daily Covid cases were close to 400,000 a day did the US make a serious offer of vaccines to other countries in need of assistance. U.S. president Biden says that 80 million vaccine doses would be exported by the end of June 2021. The WSJ says citing Airfinity, a London research firm, as of May 10 more than 333 million doses of vaccine were produced by the US and only 3 million vaccine doses were exported. Contrast that with the European Union which has shipped 111 million doses overseas one third of its total production, Russia which has exported 27 million doses.  India has exported 66 million doses according to the Ministry of External Affairs website as of May 17, 2021. This includes 4 million doses to Brazil, 4 million to Nigeria. Within its own region Bangladesh received 10 million and Sri Lanka 1.2 million doses, Afghanistan 1 million. Mexico received about 1 million doses. In Africa the Democratic Republic of the Congo which has suffered from many epidemics including Ebola virus received 1.7 million doses, Nigeria 4 million doses, Kenya 1 million, Uganda 1 million. Of the 66 million about half of it is a direct grant assistance and Brazil, Mexico, Morocco received all vaccine as grant assistance, 70% of Bangladesh's is grant assistance. The list on the Ministry of External Affairs site of the Government of India shows 95 countries including many of the most struggling nations of Latin America and Africa, bringing hope to countries which are struggling to hold onto hope for a better life beyond the pandemic. Sending help overseas through vaccine supplies is suspended for the moment but will resume in July after India has pulled in all of its pharmaceutical manufacturing industry under a government guided effort to go all out. Never has so much help bringing much needed hope gone to so many countries of the world in the twentieth or twenty first century from a nation that is struggling to meet its own needs. The US in pursuing a US first policy of vaccinating all its citizens has not taken into account the need to bring this evolving vaccine technology into the hands of as many qualified pharmaceutical manufacturers as possible. This in a rapid response to expand manufacturing capabilities to meet world wide demand. The risks of not doing so were not taken on early- the very same way the virus spread in January to March of 2020 can be repeated as people travel around the world particularly for tourism, business family reasons. This risk takes on anew dimension of contagious mutations of the virus which are 50% more- the Indian variant being 50% more contagious by some estimates than the UK variant, which itself was estimated to be 50% more contagious than the original one.  The result a pandemic that stretches out indefinitely unless billions of doses are made in a short timetable to beat the timetable of Nature through the coronavirus. India is doing this for the first time with plans to produce billions of doses by engaging the whole of the Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in the effort in a rapid response so that July to December would see 1.2 billion people vaccinated. The US effort, the European effort is left to the individual effort of pharmaceutical makers in the US and Europe, not a government guided effort to engage the entire pharmaceutical industry of the US and Europe in a rapid response timetable of 2-6 months.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
World War I was the first major worldwide war since the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, and World War II was fought after World War I's punitive reparations exacted from Germany led to the Nazis. US General Pershing did not want to see the French negotiate the settlement, preferring the war to continue till the destruction of the German Empire's war machine rebuilt by the Nazis. Mistakes were made in Europe for which millions of Americans gave their lives to liberate Europe. Russians and Americans see themselves as part of western civilization. On this point there is no difference, none, it is only who is the more important and whose view of the world is right. Asian civilization including China and India see the benefits of western civilization, of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution and embrace it wholeheartedly and wish it had come sooner on of their own volition and intent. Other than the Korean and Vietnam wars fought in their origins against the Japanese and the French colonialism and Empires, the wars of the Middle East since the end of colonialism stand out. In Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen the only other major wars since the 1970's there are religious and ethnic wars that are of no interest to the people of three continents Europe, Americas, and East and South Asia, for whom the spread of nuclear weapons to the Gulf region brings nothing but dangerous developments for their peoples and for the peace of the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
During the election campaign Obama talked about sending at least 2 more combat brigades to Afghanistan. The Defense Department is already planning to send 20,000 additional troops in response to a request of General David McKiernan, top commander in Afghanistan,including 4 combat brigades and an aviation brigade with helicopters, increasing the American troop levels to 58,000, with an additional 30,000 NATO troops already there from other countries. The timeline for this is 12-18 months but with the escalating insurgent attacks in Afghanistan this will probably be done more quickly. Obama and some Democrats talked about Afghanistan as somehow being the good war and he vowed to defeat the Taliban and militants in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is a different place and most military experts are suggesting that a good strategy will be needed, for example winning over the tribals and some of the militants, and not trying to win militarily. However with the deteriorating situation there the only way to win over tribals and militants may be to get the situation to where the NATO and US forces are in a strong situation. The two big handicaps in this are first history, where the terrain and rural distribution of the people make it difficult to exercize any control over the vast region of mountains and deserts. So throughout history no one has controlled this region and there is no history of centralized government, with different tribes controlling their regions. The other is the problem created by the corruption and lack of any popular support for the Karzai government, which is made worse by the involvement of its officials in the opium trade with opium growing booming in the southern part of Afghanistan. How does the US and NATO create an effective Afghan army and police under a state that does not enjoy any popular support. And yet the strategy that Gates. Petraeus and McKiernan are pursuing involves preparing the Afghan army and police for the task of controlling the vast mountainous region against a rural insurgency that knows its way in the mountains enjoys rural support because of the independent spirit of the Afghan people who find it easy to see the NATO forces as white foreigners in their country. The Afghan army is small for such a vast mountainous region, only 70,000 in a nation of 32 million people, and the police forces of 80,000 mostly corrupt and ineffectual. The present plan is to build the Afgan army to 134,000 still small for such a large region. The other problems stem from the Pushtun population in Pakistan that supports the rural insurgency in Afghanistan and the support of tribal people in the border areas of Pakistan. The picture tells the story, a small number of NATO soldiers in a remote ridge in Afghanistan. And the problems actually are across the whole of the far northern region of what was once British India, of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the Pakistan government is quite fragile, having an army that operates as a power center of its own with little accountability to the central government. And years of war during the previous military government of Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq, in which Zia with the support of the Reagan administration supported another rural insurgency in Afghanistan that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, and the subsequent sponsorship of the Taliban movement by the Pakistan military in Afghanistan, has created a situation in Pakistan where militants now operate freely and with impunity in Pakistan itself, disregarding both the Pakistan military and the Pakistan elected government's power structures....

LyrArc Article Gist
Karzai a new man, the Karzai government which Gates has called a "crime syndicate" changing its face in an astonishing aboutface. Pakistan ending its obsession with India, with no change on either side Pakistan or India for a joint focus on economic development in South Asia, and no deep transformation of America's role in South Asia. The things Friedman wishes for so that the Obama presidency does not in his words sink in Afghanistan are asking for things that just don't happen with some sort of troop surge.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Pakistan army and its anti India mindset is at the root of the problem Pakistan faces. The army has factions that support the Taliban. Its intelligence agency, the ISI, helped create the Taliban as a way to get strategic depth (as they called it) in Afghanistan, for it sees as a necessary perpetual conflict with India. And the failure in Pakistan, the crisis of Pakistan, lies in the failure of elected politicians, the failure of the army, to provide responsible government and peaceful relations with India and with Afghanistan. By pursuing a Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and a anti-foreigner agenda for Afghanistan, Pakistan has ended up undermining its own government, institutions, and sovereignty over tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province. The US by getting involved in the Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and the anti-foreigner agenda during the Cold War, by supplying weapons and aid for this to successive Pakistani military governments, now finds itself as the foreigner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistan army's anti-foreigner agenda, now that the Americans are the foreigners, is not something that even the army or the civilian governments can control. The only thing the army knows, and its raison-de-etre, is the protection of the state of Pakistan and an antiIndian, Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda. After 60 years of doing this since its founding the Pakistan army knows no other way. Failure to do what it is doing would remove it from its critical role as the most important institution in Pakistan, and relegate its officers and the army to a smaller role, with smaller committments of resources, a smaller army, and the loss of its privileged role in Pakistani society. This is the answer to Holbrooke's question to Pakistani businessmen, and civilian leaders, in Lahore recently, what is the crisis of Pakistan? And these businessmen and civilian leaders also touched on the army's role. For America as it sees the need to build a new economic partnership with Asia that would help revive economic growth, there is the need for deep soul searching. The Pakistan military sucks up resources that are so badly needed elsewhere, for the kind of construction the Obama administration sees for America, of roads, bridges, schools, new energy infrastructure. How can what is good and planned for America not be whats good for South Asia, for India, Pakistan, SriLanka and the entire region? The resources that are sucked up by the Pakistan military and its actions to foster aconflict atmosphere merely adds to the way resources are sucked for the military in India, when they are badly needed for development, economic growth, and the same kind of infrastructure building and education that the Obama administration plans for the US. Without correcting this flaw in its policies in South Asia the Obama administration cannot create a partnership with Asian countries that could play a critical role in America's own economic growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
A UN Report shows that opium poopy cultivation is growing in Afghanistan and an enormous crop close to last year's record harvest is expected this year. 90% of the world's opium is grown in Afghanistan but it gets so little media attention compared to daily reports of injuries in the war such as on CBC for Canadian soldiers in the war zones and in other reports in American media. Of this about 52% of Afghan opium is grown in Helmand province which is largely controlled by the Taliban who finance their war with tax revenues from the opium farmers. The UN report also shows that most of the increased cultivation is happening in the south and west of the country worst hit by the insurgents. Areas where there is poor security or where there is not much help with seeds irrigation and other help for farming, are the ones that are mostly engaged in increased opium cultivation and areas where there is security and help with seeds and irrigation are the ones that don't cultivate opium. Looking at this state of affairs one would think that Western Europe and the USA which the UN report says must brace themselves for huge influx of this stuff, would rather than families and schools dealing with the problem at home in very difficult circumstances with high teenage use, would find it easier to finance seeds, fertilizer and irrigation and building of infrastructure in the country. However this shift to other farming would be possible if there is security and this requires a new policy in South Asia which reverses decades of policy that aggravated tensions in the region by not having a clear unambiguous direction of supporting peaceful economic development in the region which includes Pakistan and India and Afghanistan and Iran. Policy changed somewhat but a definite steering moving decisively in that direction needed to take place as first British policy in the pre1947 era and then American and British policy in the post 1947 period supported increased tensions in the area. Afghanistan thus ceased to exist as a country devoted to its own economic development but a place where the western powers engaged the soviet union, and then a place where Pakistan's military's policy of strategic depth against India led to the creation and support of the Taliban. By reversing this policy decisively and with direction as clear as daylight the western countries would instead of fighting these insurgents have Indians and Pakistanis work together alongside western country economic experts and agricultural experts to bring the infrastructure, electricity, irrigation, seeds, and fertilizer to these farmers across the whole of Afghanistan. Security would be mainly the responsibility of Indians, Pakistanis and Afghanis, and local leaders and people from the villages as westerners are easy targets of hostile action in a country used to fighting foreigners especially Europeans. That this may ventually happen but is slow to happen today can be attributed to how slow the process of sensible change is, how most people accept the way things are, which itself is a result of earlier policies which are themselves a result of still earlier policies. Thus pre-1947 British policy for Hindu and Muslim areas, is followed by America's Dulles policies turning India and Pakistan into aspects of the Cold War, followed by Reagan policy turning Afghanistan into aspects of the Cold War in reaction to Brezhnev's soviet policy in Kabuli affairs as a tit for tat, and this followed by the Bush policy reacting to the emergence of Saudi discontented volunteers in the Reagan supported Afghan war after Bin Laden's 9/11 attack in New York City. In the background a series of Indian leaders and Pakistan military leaders gave up any sensible steering in the direction of economic development by falling into the Cold war between 2 western factions or into a religious Hindu-Muslim strife war legacy from the earlier periods. What it means is that its hard in the human world we live in to to do anything but react, or be caught in a trap of thinking just the way we have been taught to think, or have accepted things as they are without thinking, with its resultant misery and ignorance and for south asia entrenched poverty. Its only with some grace and the right conditions and after a great deal of suffering which is true for Afghanistan war ruined countryside, Pakistan's poor economic conditions, and India's huge number of poor and economically depressed majority of the population and true also for westerners facing failed policy and failure of vision as economic conditions deteriorate at home....

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump outlines a plan for Afghanistan that increases the U.S. troop presence from about 8500 with an addition of 4000 more troops and advisors, in addition to a counter terrorism force. To war weary public in the U.S. he says: "I share your frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money- and most importantly, lives- trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations." About his criticism of the war when president Obama was in office as a huge costly waste of resources Trump said: My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like to follow my instincts... I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk at the Oval Office." After resisting the advice of his own advisers Trump decided to fire Bannon who had supported use of American private security contractors for the war in Afghanistan, and used parts of the media to question national security advisor McMaster's views on this. Gen. Mattis, completed a strategy review that showed the mistake of creating a vacuum would repeat the situation of Iraq where president Obama withdrew forces in 2011, leading to a sequence of negative events- with Russia, Iran and Islamic State moving into the vacuum, making American intervention in the war necessary, increase in terrorist incidents worldwide, and a flood of refugees into Europe. Ironically clearing the path for an outsider's bid for the White House, with Brexit in which refugee fears and uncontrolled immigration played a part, and the news of terrorism and the war in Syria-Iraq creating a sense of insecurity. A key difference in the Trump approach with Obama's approach is that "conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables will guide our actions from now on," in line with Trump's criticism of Obama's approach. The military in the U.S. has long maintained that the best approach would have been to insist on U.S. presence in negotiations with the Iraqi government under the sectarian prime minister Nouri Maliki. Gen. Mattis was head of Central Command under the Obama administration and must have pushed the view of the military to president Obama to no avail. Failure to do so led to the growth of Shiite militias and the alienation of Sunnis in Mosul, leading to the fall of Mosul to Islamic State thus creating the current crisis. Gen. Mattis and Lt. Gen McMaster are intimately aware of the problem and must have convinced Trump that this is what really happened, that a repeat would waste the sacrifices of American soldiers in the twin wars. Trump gave this as his reason when he said in his televised speech to the nation- essentially a criticism of Bush that he expanded the conflict too quickly, and Obama exiting too quickly to create a void. Trump call his policy "principled realism."  The roots of the crisis are in the India-Pakistan conflict. Like the conflict in South East Asia the conflict in South Asia extending from Iran to India and Pakistan, may take a generation to overcome. A rapprochement between India and Pakistan, beginning with trade and economic relations, is not only in America's interest, it also provides the basis for a realistic American withdrawal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russia invades Ukraine on multiple fronts, across Belarus, across its western border with Ukraine, on the pre dawn hours of February 24, 2022. Russian foreign minister Lavrov says "tense and detailed discussions" with US and NATO are still taking place. In talks with the US, president Putin of Russia had demanded that Ukraine commit to not joining NATO. The US insisted that this was upto Ukraine and that the territorial integrity of Ukraine had to be respected. Interventions by Macron of France and other leaders failed to bring the two sides closer. The US and Europe with a reluctant Germany looked at sanctions as a deterrent. This proved to be wrong. Mr. Putin has a passionate view of Ukraine and Kviv's historical role in the formation of the Russian state, evident in his televised address only 48 hours before the actual invasion. Ukraine has shifted between Poland and the Baltic states, Germany on one side and Russia on the other in its thousand year old history. The shift away from Bolsheviks and Communists under the Soviet Union after 1990 changed the relationship of Ukraine with its neighbors once again as Ukraine became closer to Poland and the Baltics, and Germany. Germany remains reluctant to revert to the relationship with Russia that led to 2 World Wars. During the leadership of Willy Brandt and successive German SPD leaders, as well as with Konrad Adenauer and CDU leaders, the goal was to build a good relationship with Russia. Merkel of the CDU went as far as accepting dependence on Russia for 40% of its gas supplies, after shifted out of nuclear energy and supporting a new Nordstream undersea pipeline for gas supplies.  The early reaction on DW.com and German television was one of shock as no one really expected that this would lead to a full scale invasion. Scholz of the SPD the new chancellor in 2022 was not active in forging anew consensus allowing NATO's Stoltenberg who is a former Norwegian prime minister 2005-2013 to frame the response of Europe. Norway's role in European security was marginal for most of the twentieth century. Other events had detracted from bringing active German and American participation in coming up with a framework of dialogue to address concerns of both sides and still build a common ground for peace- Afghanistan, the pandemic in its third year, China's deteriorating one sided trade relationship with America that hurt American workers and manufacturing. As a result China and Germany were essentially absent in building the framework for peace. Afghanistan hasty withdrawal made it harder for president Biden to come up with new approaches to build a common framework. President Macron made some faltering efforts on the fringes even as president Putin focused on the US response and its intentions with NATO on European soil, and declared that it was directly US Russia negotiations that needed to work. With this the whole framework of relations since the presidency of Reagan and the relations with Russia and China come to a close. And a new framework needs to be constructed that draws in India already or soon to be the most populous nation in the world, in an effort to build an enduring new framework. The voices of Eastern Europe need to be heard, yet balanced with the voices from India, China, Germany, Russia, and other countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa that are affected by world events. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the US gets serious about defeating the Taliban and Al Quaeda militants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's border areas in Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier Province, and as Pakistan's army and government are at loggerheads and are also each in its own way unable or unwilling to take action against these militants operating out of or near the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it appears that the situation will result in the US having to make some tough decisions including going ahead anyway regardless of agreement with Pakistan. At the same time Defense Secretary Gates is saying that he wnats to see the Afghan army numbers to be doubled from the present 65,000 to be able to spread out across the country and not just be stuck in the urban areas. Any success the US and NATO see in Afghanistan would stem from some of these tough decisions including some tough decisions of a different nature that deal with Afghan government provincial officials tacit involvement in the opium growing areas. Like Iraq this will be a tough one for the US and the Europeans to sort out and make take a lot of patience and effort and some disappointments on the road before serious and lasting results that do not compromise basic American and European goals and intentions. With these goals and intentions the American and the Europeans seek to leave behind a peaceful modernizing state keeping its own faith and traditions with tolerance for others, at the same time that it respects women and economic development and modern education in science and technology that would make this development possible. And these goals would have to be applied as the vital test for the whole region Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and for the basis of all policy towards the region, foreign policy, economc policy, development policy and regional issue policy like that of Kashmir. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Hessler was a teacher in Sichuan province of China before living in Tibet and writing this article for The Atlantic.  It gives some insights into both the thinking of Chinese people and Tibetan people and the changes happening around them. Inevitably changes would have come to Tibet from outside or without China's takeover of Tibet in 1950, would have come in some other form, as it has in neighboring Nepal, Afghanistan, says Hessler, without some of the loss of some of the positive aspects of culture and of Buddhism.  Even in India feudal system of zamindars prevailed in villages into the late British period and the early Nehru period but has gradually disappeared over time, so that change has potential over time to happen, and comes inevitably.  Here he shows- the immigrants from Sichuan province, over 120 million people in the province, and part of a floating population of migrant workers in China, looking for jobs or economic opportunity, and some taking up life at the high Himalayan altitudes for 2-3 years or even 8 year terms. The belief Hessler says among Sichuan immigrants that high altitude was bad for the lungs over long periods and shortened life. The lack of women with a disproportionate number of men making the journey to start a new life in Tibet, the hardships, the enterprising nature of Sichuan immigrants in the shops and retail that Tibetans lacked the enterprising skills to do, the difficulties living with two cultures side by side, the lack of any incentive to learn the local language. The feelings of Tibetan people that they are somehow losing their culture and identity. The sense among immigrants that this is not their first choice of place but somehow would have to do till they go back and find someone to marry during brief trips back home to Sichuan. There is something timeless about this essay, as changes unfold, no one unambiguous trend, a more complex situation.  China's sense that the west has violated its sovereignty under the British and foreign powers in the nineteenth century. The feeling that somehow Tibet is part of this sense of China regaining what it had lost to the foreign powers. Without the realization that Tibet has served as a gift of nature, a given mountainous buffer that helped two Asian civilizations prosper in the Ganges and Yangtse river valleys, thousands of miles apart. And both having the similar experience with the British and foreign powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and both recovering modernizing at the same pace.    The sense China has, says Hessler, that it is about China's sovereignty following a Qing dynasty entry into Lhasa in 1792, even though the Qing saw Tibet as a buffer state running its own affairs separating it from the British Empire on the other side of the Himalayas. Very little contact between China and Tibet for centuries simply because using yaks and mules it would take several months from northern China to Tibet crossing mountain ranges at 15,000 feet. The British saw this as a buffer state in the same way as happened also with the Mughals in the 15th to 18th century, and the Empires between the 11th and 15th century in India.  Because opium was shipped from Bengal under British colonial rule causing great poverty in India against the will of the Indian people, the same sense of violation of sovereignty existed in exactly the same way in the perception of foreign powers in India, so that the notion of violation of one's self respect being shared was serving no useful purpose in this context between China and India.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This opinion piece in DW.com says India's prime minister should not isolate prime minister Sharif of Pakistan, as he had no part in the escalation of tensions in Kashmir. Foreign and military affairs are now run by the Pakistan Army, and isolating Sharif only entrenches the Army it says, which has kept up tensions similar to the situation in 1999 with the Kargil crisis when the Pakistan Army initiated a conflict in Kargil region. At that time Indian premier Vajpayee and Pakistan premier Sharif were improving relations. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Episode 121 of Mann Ki Baat by PM Modi of India on April 27, 2025 covers a range of subjects from the economic advancement of Kashmir region and the efforts to disrupt this economic progress, to the fight for freedom at Champaran and the role played by Rajendra Prasad. It looks at the British rule in India forcing farmers in Bihar to destroy their land's productivity by planting indigo to meet British traders demands. This was leading to farmers and their families starving for lack of food till Mohandas Gandhi took up the struggle to help farmers with the first test of Satyagraha struggle.Modi describes the months of April as a period of independence struggles from the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre by the British in the Punjab, and the Dandi March from the sea to protest British Salt Tax. Modi describes the efforts to aid Myanmar in earthquake relief, and vaccine aid to Nepal and Afghanistan. He talks about India's scientific mission to Moon, Mars and its 106th launch of space satellite flights. He describes how science is attracting the nation's youth and its imagination as even in Chhatisgarh science centers are attracting young people. This gives a good sign about the future for modernization of the biggest nation in the world. ...