Shock and Awe finally...

It was the shock and awe in Iraq the Generals had promised. Without even a sniff of a hint, the troops were left aghast, awed and shocked by what happened. Except in this case, the troops concerned were US marines and the event that left the in a state of awe and shock was the surprise visit of their Commander in Chief in friendly Baghdad!

CNN.com - 'It felt good,' GI says of Bush's visit - Nov. 27, 2003, and why not? Although not in the vein of Alexander the great leading his armies in the battlefield, President Bush's "ultimate road trip" as journalists put it, into "terror" infested Iraq is a welcome signal to troops that all is getting better, if not great, and may not necessarily bring a smile to Saddam's face - despite the remote possibility of swift retribution on his American nemesis...

Parrareling Air Force One's obvious security measures, one of which was to land in total cladestine darkness at the Baghdad International Airport, the fact that Iran conducted official meetings and even made a high level visit to the US-installed Iraqi Governing Council was done largely under the radar of the media. Predominantly Shiite Iran can be viewed from 2 perspectives - firstly, as a Muslim state (not Arab mind you, for they draw their ancestry from the Aryans, significantly or not the same origins claimed by Hitler's master race), Iran has ample reason to expand it's economic, political and religious ambitions. The unification of the 2 countries would create a formidable power not unlike the scenario painted by Tom Clancy in his novel Executive Orders.

If that is indeed the case, why bother with the Iraqi Governing Council? Despite the usual rhetoric from the pinnacle of Iranian politics, relations of any kind would only legitimize the "American puppet administration" and further strengthen the position of the American forces. Why bother to establish a relationship with the IGC if, as Ayatollah Ali Khameini was reported to say, the US was sinking deeper into the Iraqi quagmire (not unlike piling for construction works?). Which brings us to perspective no.2 - bridge building. A resurgent Sunni state with links to Hussein will lend little joy to the Iranians, given their 8 year conflict. Iraq today presents an opportunity for Iran to build bridges with the rest of the world, albeit in a more controlled environment. A possible thick slice of the US-controlled budget for rebuilding the country is the carrot being dangled at the end of the stick. The fact that Tehran is putting up little rhetorical resistence in the wake of possible UN sanctions for its treaty violations and may be hauled before the International Atomic Energy Agency, only stresses the importance of moving onto a more acceptable mainstream.

The question of whether a Muslim state would play into the hands of a sworn enemy (a.k.a. Uncle Sam) is best reflected by Jordan's late King Hussein who forewarned then Israeli Prime Minister Goldameir of Egypt and Syria's military intentions in what became the Yom Kippor War of 1973. If Iran is drawn onto a more moderate seat on the international table, it would level the political field in the region and consequently give the IGC breathing space to grow from strength to strenth.

Sure, this is designed to kick off George W Bush's election campaign, and coming at the heel of the administration describes as the reformation of Medicare, I would not discount that possibility. But the prospect of being shot down by enroute to Baghdad seems too reckless a move unless there is a bigger picture behind it all. Turkey with the troops sends a clear signal that the Administration is putting its best foot forward with friends from the most unlikely sources...

Holy month atrocities

Of late, I have taken a personal interest in the significance of fasting, especially during Ramaddan. The idea of foregoing our own needs in search for a higher purpose seemed valid - not to mention the physical benefits too. Yesterday's bombing in Istanbul however made me reconsider. During this Holy month of Ramaddan, the idea that a Muslim zealot is able to carry out such acts confounds me.

I started reading from Muslim.org and was amazed to read about Ramaddan and its real significance :

Purpose of fasting in Islam
To develop and strengthen our powers of self-control, so that we can resist wrongful desires and bad habits, and therefore “guard against evil” (extract no. 1). In fasting, by refraining from the natural human urges to satisfy one's appetite, we are exercising our ability of self-restraint, so that we can then apply it to our everyday life to bring about self-improvement.

To attain nearness and closeness to God so that He becomes a reality in our lives. As we bear the rigours of fasting purely for the sake of following a Divine commandment, knowing and feeling that He can see all our actions however secret, it intensifies the consciousness of God in our hearts, resulting in a higher spiritual experience (see extract no. 2).

To learn to refrain from usurping other's rights and belongings. In fasting we voluntarily give up even what is rightfully ours; how can then we think of taking what is not ours? (See extract no. 3)

Charity and generosity is especially urged during Ramadan. We learn to give, and not to take. The deprivation of fasting makes us sympathise with the suffering of others, and desirous of alleviating it; and it makes us remember the blessings of life which we normally take for granted.
Fasting in Islam does not just consist of refraining from eating and drinking, but from every kind of selfish desire and wrong-doing. The fast is not merely of the body, but essentially that of the spirit as well (see extract no. 4). The physical fast is a symbol and outward expression of the real, inner fast.

Fasting is a spiritual practice to be found in all religions (see extracts no. 1 and 5). The great Founders of various faiths (Buddha, Moses, Jesus, etc.) practised quite rigorous fasting as a preliminary to attaining their first experience of spiritual enlightenment and communion with God. This kind of communion is indicated in extract no. 2.

The idea of Ramaddan as a matter of charity and generosity eludes me this time. That the bomb was set in a Muslim country and took among others Muslim lives, during a Muslim holy month, makes me wonder if all this is just a hypocritical rhetoric! Of course it is easy to argue that it's really just a few bad apples spoiling the harvest, but if they are really serious about upholding the truths of Islam, should not Muslims take a more prominent stance against terrorism instead of a back (stabbing) seat in all this?

Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately released a statement, following the second twin bombings in Turkey in the space of a week, that Islamic violence threatens the free world. The act giving him ample opportunity to state what seems to be the obvious. The article in Jerusalem Post went on to say that Turkey experts quickly warned that at greatest risk are states that make up the small bloc of moderate Arab/Islamic states, mentioning countries like Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and especially Turkey...

Whether Al-Qaeda continues to spawn new cells with greater ability or if this is just a heightened but unsustainable assailment of the West and "Western-minded Muslim deviants", remains to be seen. What this may do is to further factionalize the Faith and in the process lose the voice of mdern Islamic moderation. By isolating Russia and NATO, having already lost Saddam Hussein and with the likes of Gaddafi and Egypt neutralize, the ground for manouvering is slowly but surely tightening... and from the view point of the rest of the world, this is not an unattractive proposition at all.

Electoral affirmation needed to step out of the shadow?

Seriously altered stakes for Pak Lah (Part 2) (Malaysiakini.com) points to the fact that the forthcoming national and party elections hold the key for Abdullah Badawi to "gain true legitimacy in his own right" and overcome "factional brawling so intense that it could topple him sooner rather than later". This is not an opinion, it is a stated fact.

One can emphatize with the predicament he is in at the moment. Despite his amicable posture, there remains many who lurk in the shadowy corridors of power ready to pounce on the PM should the ballot go south. I wonder what is takes to govern this country while constantly looking over your shoulder? Like it or not, Abdullah's performance in the months, perhaps even now weeks, leading to the elections, may form the biggest argument for or against his stewardship at the helm of our government. This means addressing the relevance of mega projects, insisting and imposing transparency into the manner that government projects are awarded, while retaining the support of those power brokers within the party...

Mr Prime Minister, I do not envy your position. But as a loyal Malaysian, all I can say is do the right thing, and we will stand by you!

Abdullah to step out of the Shadow?

In today's Star, Pak Lah interestingly enough, reveals that "...the letter of award (for the project) has been given (to MMC-Gamuda) but we still have to negotiate the agreement."

Reading between the lines, it looks like the letter of award is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on. Recent controvesy relating to the funding of the project and SMAB's financial manouvering is acquiring the project would surely throw a sucker puch at our PM's pledge to get the government to clean up its act. True, PTP today looms as a testimony of SMAB's abilities, but to put multi-billion dollar Bakun and the double tracking projects into the same basket is risky to say the least and smells bad, especially from an unassociated distance...

Pak Lah has shown tremendous resolve to finally reach the pinacle of power. The question on everyone's mind is who is pulling the strings? By casting the slightest of doubts on the finality of Bakun now, Abdullah may be demonstrating the type of timing that eluded the likes of Musa Hitam and Anwar Ibrahim. To do this, he will have to go beyond spot checks and political stalling (how else would one categorize Bakun version 2.11?). He will have to prove the ability not only to fill the large shoes of our beloved Tun, but also the ability to lift that foot, shoes and all, and kick the parasites right out of the system. For many, this may seem like political suicide, but perhaps this is the only real way for Pak Lah to leave a memorable legacy.

For this, we sit and wait.

Blog Spam, Block Spam?

Extracted from AP

Three years ago, Adam Kalsey set up a weblog or blog to share his thoughts about online business and the digital revolution. Like countless other bloggers, he lets his readers post comments on his entries.

Recently, his site has been getting remarks like "Thanks for the information!" and "Sounds great!"

They're not from supporters, but from people -- or machines -- who leave names like "Generic Viagra," "Online Gambling" and "Free Poker" and links to unsavoury sites.

Spammers are flocking to new communications tools like moths to light, threatening to cripple these tools just as they are beginning to take off.

I wonder if Theophillus can be considered a spammer :)

But I digress somewhat. As a Maxis user, I find to my absolute consternation that my mobile is "open season" as far as consumer hunting goes. At average of 4-5 SMS spams a week touting new services and parties to name a few, I wonder if the privacy rights people have something to say about this... to say nothing about the MCMC who can only sit and play with words as the problems mount from quality of service to telco sponsored spam!

Buy Viagra

Well one thing is for sure (Buy Viagra) - you won't find spam in my blog!

With love from PJ... Viagra - what's looking up? ;)

From McEgg to McJob

Merriam-Webster's ultimate slap in the face definition for a "low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement" is a slap to the folks at McDonald's (whose new tag line is ironically - I'm loving it! - yes, ignorance it seems is bliss...)

In a Malaysian sense, not exclusively mind you, we can probably use the term "government servant"...

The fast-food giant's chief executive, Jim Cantalupo, called the definition a "slap in the face" to the 12 million people who work in the restaurant industry, and demanded that Merriam-Webster dish up something more flattering. Well we could always call them "Ronalds"...

Glints from Theophillus

More than a fleeting glint really, but for those 3 odd people or so who partake of my blog, Theo is insightfully provocative with a wicked streak of humor - a guest blogger if you will. Read at your peril, weep as you wish, laugh out aloud... but then think some, and you may be pleasantly surprised!

FYI, we are still awaiting postings from our correspondent in Madrid... you know who you are :)

Bush's three lines

Following up from the article on Kennedy and Bush...

Imagine Dubya sitting down in the aftermath of the September 11 bombings, and pulling out his presidential notepad. He draws three parallel lines on the page, dividing it into four quarters.

On the left most quarter, he lists the Arab/ Muslim extremists, the likes of Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PLO and Fatah to name a few. In the second quarter, he lists moderate Arabs and Muslims, the likes of Mahathir, the house of Saud, Egypt etc. Quarter three is the French, the Germans, and mainly non-Americans. Finally quarter four is the United States of America, and its citizens.

Quarter 1 is dedicated to the destruction of everything and everyone that does not comply with its teaching. Today, its the Great Satan, the United States. Yesterday, the bogeyman was Israel. Many decades ago, it was Britain and France. Tomorrow, it will be the Quarter 3s, who "do not preach and practice the true form of Islam". Eventually, it will be the Chinese, the Hindus, and other kafirs. Finally, when a Talibanic state is achieved, it's their own women and men. These thrive on violence, and in spite of whatever they claim to stand for, only understand violence done in the name of god, to legitimize their claim to power. Bush's options are clear. Destroy them or be destroyed.

Quarter 2, are Muslim dominated countries, places where rulers do not necessarily live Islamically correct lives, but can always call on Islamic solidarity (not to say that such a term does connote its existence), and rally its masses against a convenient enemy (read Israel, US, everyone else who is not part of the brethren) to deflect attention away from its own problems. Apart from the occasional call to unity for their Palestinian kin, these are more likely to protect their own national interests as and when possible, even if it means sleeping with the Great Satan itself. Besides, most of these countries have subjugated peoples, who are easily controlled by the apparatus of the ruling class. Examples include the House of Saud, Pakistan, the former Iraq, Egypt etc. Bush's options again are clear. Continue to support friendly regimes, topple unfriendly ones and don't give two hoots about the rest.

Quarter 3 are the opportunists, biggest of who are the lafekakas and the fusens who see an opportunity to extend their sphere of influence, but yet conveniently forget that they have been hiding behind American military protection since the end of the second world war, allowing Uncle Sam to pick up the tab in blood and dollars for their defence while they mucked up their own economies. Again, Bush's options are stunningly clear. Don't give two hoots, but we'll 'remember' you in your time of need.

Finally, Quarter 4, the Americans, who in keeping with his options for Quarters 1, 2 and 3, will be safe, meeting the mandate of his presidential appointment, while also giving him another term.

To Bush, Q4 is all that matters, and destroying Q1 will most certainly bring the Q2s and Q3s into line, though as dubya says repeatedly...this indeed will be a long battle. I say, keep up the GREAT work Bush.

An interesting article from Stratfor

... so who's Dubya again?

The Cuban Missile Crisis: Parallels in History
Oct 20, 2003
Summary

The Cuban missile crisis under President John F. Kennedy holds some apt parallels to the challenges currently facing U.S. President George W. Bush.
Analysis
October always reminds us of the Cuban missile crisis. This is the 41st autumn since the defining moment that ended the first phase of the Cold War. In 2003, the memory of the missile crisis is, we believe, particularly apropos. Americans in general tend to think that everything the country is facing at a particular moment is unprecedented. Americans tend to think in extremes. Everything is either worse or better than ever before. Leaders are more corrupt, more perfect, more brilliant or more stupid than they have ever been. Americans lack nothing more than a sense of proportion. It is therefore interesting to look at what historian Barbara Tuchman called a distant mirror to compare the current situation with circumstances the United States faced in the past. This is not intended to either praise or condemn the current administration or the Kennedy administration. It is meant simply to gain some perspective on the current state of affairs.

The Cuban missile crisis started in a series of intelligence blunders that began under one administration and continued into the next. U.S. intelligence under Dwight Eisenhower misunderstood the nature of Fidel Castro's insurgency and miscalculated the likelihood of his victory. Eisenhower responded by initiating a covert war against Castro that suffered from Eisenhower's desire that it not only work, but that the war be completely deniable.

The result was the Bay of Pigs plan, which had little chance of working in the first place and no chance of working once U.S. President John F. Kennedy tinkered with it. The entire plan was based on a misreading of the mood of the Cuban people. It was based on the assumption that Cubans would welcome an invasion and that, in addition, they would be in a position to rise up against Castro. Whatever the true reason for the failure of the Cubans to rise, U.S. intelligence was wrong: There was no rising.

Intelligence under Kennedy also miscalculated the Soviet Union's intentions toward Cuba. That was an intelligence failure, but it was also a failure on Kennedy's part to appreciate how Soviet leaders viewed him. Kennedy came to power in part over his persistent claim that the Soviets were ahead of the United States in strategic nuclear capability -- what was called the missile gap. In fact, the strategic balance heavily favored the United States, and Kennedy knew it. He hammered the issue because it was a strong plank in his electoral platform.

From Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's point of view, however, the victory of a man who did not seem to grasp the realities of the nuclear balance opened up interesting possibilities. Khrushchev's meeting with Kennedy in Vienna left him with the conclusion that Kennedy was inexperienced, poorly informed and timid. The Bay of Pigs fiasco simply confirmed to Khrushchev that Kennedy was out of his league. Indeed, years of hagiography notwithstanding, Kennedy had little grasp of the international reality when he took office or in the following year.

Khrushchev understood what he thought Kennedy did not, which was that the United States, with missiles in Germany and Turkey and a large intercontinental bomber fleet, could devastate the Soviet Union. The Soviets, on the other hand, could hardly touch the United States. Khrushchev's decision to put missiles into Cuba was a desperate attempt to rectify the balance of power. He assumed, based on Kennedy's abysmal performance to date, that U.S. intelligence might miss the missiles until after they were operational and that, even if they were detected, Kennedy would not have the nerve to take decisive action.

Three things led to the Cuban missile crisis:

1. Consistently poor U.S. intelligence.

2. A prior administration that failed to react to the threat in a timely fashion and in essence passed on the Cuban problem to its successor.

3. A new administration whose president struck his adversaries -- and allies -- as a deer frozen in the headlights.

We will allow our readers to draw the obvious parallels to the current situation.

In spite of these defects, Kennedy recognized that the Soviet move represented a fundamental challenge to U.S. security. He understood that it was much preferable, from the U.S. point of view, for American nuclear weapons to be menacing the Soviet Union rather than have Soviet missiles threatening the United States. While ethically shaky -- if we assume that the basis of ethics is equal treatment -- the view was practically sound for an American president. Thus, in spite of global criticism that he was threatening nuclear war, Kennedy understood that geopolitically he had no choice.

It is interesting to recall that Kennedy -- caught between those who wanted an invasion of Cuba and those who wanted to take no action that might trigger a nuclear war -- chose a compromise path in which the United States announced its commitment through a quarantine policy, without unleashing an invasion. It is also interesting to note that there was a tremendous global uproar over Kennedy's actions. Many allied governments, while publicly supportive, were privately appalled by what they saw as an overreaction. Crowds in European cities -- not to mention the communist world -- demonstrated against U.S. aggression and portrayed Kennedy as a simplistic cowboy, irresponsibly playing with the lives of millions.

Khrushchev's perception was quite different. Realizing that he had miscalculated, he sought a line of retreat. Khrushchev realized too late that however unsophisticated Kennedy might have appeared in Vienna and Berlin and during the Cuban missile crisis, there was no escaping the physical threat that Soviet missiles in Cuba posed to the United States. The physical danger to the United States, more than any other factor, focused Kennedy's mind. Kennedy knew that there was room for error on everything but the physical security of the country. He understood that, geopolitics aside, Khrushchev had crossed a threshold when he introduced the threat, and crossing that threshold changed the entire equation. That Europeans thought him a cowboy was immaterial once the direct security of the United States was at stake.

Kennedy's actions were seen as extreme and disproportionate to the threat. He struck many in the world as reckless and incautious. Countries worldwide pointed at the nuclear threat the United States posed to the Soviet Union and argued that the Soviets were simply balancing things. Kennedy didn't want the threat to be balanced. He wanted the Soviets to remain at risk and the Americans to be safe. As he famously said in connection to other matters, "Life is unfair." It wasn't great philosophy, but it made sense to Americans.

The United States threatened overwhelming force but actually used very little. In the end, Kennedy negotiated a settlement with Khrushchev and then lied about it. In a private deal with the Soviets, the United States agreed to exchange its missiles in Turkey for the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kennedy's rationale for this was sound. The missiles were obsolete. However, he also understood that -- given his record of weakness in foreign affairs -- he needed to appear to win even if he only tied. Therefore, holding open the possibility of invasion and even nuclear war as the threat, he extracted a concession from the Soviets that made the withdrawal of the Turkish missiles a secret part of the agreement, which would be void if it were publicly revealed.

In other words, Kennedy lied about the letter and nature of the agreement. He lied explicitly when he asserted that there had been no quid pro quo over the missiles. He then lied in spirit when he made it appear that the Soviets had capitulated in the face of his resolute courage. In fact, there had been a quid pro quo and -- though the United States certainly came out ahead in the immediate deal -- Washington had to give up its own missiles and guarantee that it would not support attempts to overthrow Castro. The United States stopped the missiles. The Soviets secured Cuban communism.

It is interesting to see these parallels:

1. Both Kennedy and current U.S. President George W. Bush were widely perceived as inexperienced in foreign affairs. Their foes perceived them both as bunglers.

2. Both focused intensely on anything that physically threatened the United States.

3. The rest of the world regarded both presidents as overreacting and as cowboys, risking world security on minor provocation.

4. Both were casual with the truth when it suited the national -- or their political -- interests.

It is not clear how much deeper these parallels run.

Kennedy's missile crisis ended in a temporary stalemate. It also triggered a massive Soviet commitment to increase its strategic nuclear capabilities and led to the construction of a massive ICBM force able to threaten the United States from within the Soviet Union. By the end of the decade, the Soviets achieved the strategic nuclear parity they had sought in Cuba. In that sense, Kennedy simply bought a few years -- which was not trivial, but not decisive.

However, Kennedy's next decision -- to increase the U.S. commitment to Vietnam while supporting the overthrow of the Diem government -- proved disastrous. Some claim that Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. Perhaps, but we note two facts. No withdrawal took place while he was alive and, more important, it was Kennedy's foreign policy team (including Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy) who engineered the Vietnam War under Lyndon Baines Johnson. Kennedy could have fired them all and built a new team, but we suspect he also would have retained them and followed their advice. They were the winning team in Cuba, after all.

At the decisive moment, Kennedy set the stage for the decline in the second phase of the Cold War. Cuba represented a push. It was a punctuation mark, not a definitive solution to anything. On the contrary, it was an intermediate peak to which the United States would not return until the end of the Cold War. Bush has not yet had his Cuban missile crisis. He has not yet been able to maneuver the war to its decisive moment. He is facing an adversary that is committed to avoiding any decisive moment. However, the danger that a Cuban missile crisis poses is that of an illusory solution.

All of that is intended to be thoughtful and deep. The point of this essay is simpler however. Americans tend to think of each moment as extraordinarily unique and the present leaders as particularly incompetent. Those who opposed President Bill Clinton thought he was particularly venal, and those who oppose Bush think him uniquely incompetent. It is useful to look back on moments like the Cuban missile crisis, which we tend to see through the prism of time as a particular moment of U.S. courage and decisiveness. Like the current circumstance, it was a moment born of failure, ineptitude and dishonesty, and it ultimately gave rise to the things it was intended to prevent. The president that presided over the crisis is revered today. There are few who were alive in September 1962 who would have thought that Kennedy would be remembered for his strategic acumen. And there are many historians who still wonder what the shouting was about.

Bush's critics should take note of this. And Bush should remember that the kind of victory he gains -- if he gains one at all -- is as important as the victory itself.

It's a Treat!

On Halloween night my uncle took his 4 year old son out for trick or treating. As Andre had never done it before his father explained to the little boy to ring the door bell and when someone answers you say "Trick or Treat" and they will give you a sweet and you say "Thank you". At the first house nobody answered the door and he was disappointed. At the second house Andre got his treat. As they walked away he said with glee, "It works Dada, it really works". He was extremely excited - from then on they were at a speed of warp 2.

- news from Canada (private blog)