America's Real War

[Joseph27]

America’s Real War

You enjoy a good job, a comfortable house with all the gadgets and accessories you would ever need.  It is no wonder that people often find it difficult to understand what the world outside their window really looks like.  Concerns centre on what school the children will attend – how to achieve the next promotion or at worst how you to get another job following your retrenchment.  You watch the news at night – read a paper or two and get a small amount of information that is packaged in order to make sure you watch the next instalment the following night.  News that isn’t too graphic – is extremely skewed in its content and with just enough sports to keep the viewer interested.  What lacks in this regard and what was shockingly discovered on September 11 is that there are people who live outside ‘our world’, as Robert Kaplan says there are “a large number of people on this planet, to whom the comfort and stability of a middle-class life is utterly unknown, [people who] find war and a barracks existence a step up rather than a step down”.

In Man's Fate, Andre Malraux wrote “Oh, what a relief to fight, to fight enemies who defend themselves, enemies who are awake”.  How apt that must seem to strategic planners now as they attempt to quell terrorist cells – finding and destroying adversaries for whom war is ‘not an ends but a means’.  For those of us who admonish war and the horrors inflicted as a result of ongoing fighting around the world, often do so from an aforementioned position of safety in middleclass existence; either holding to grandiose beliefs that things aren’t as bad as they actually are or simply ignoring them because there is little you can do to change them.  

Afghanistan, most especially the Taliban government gave the US a much-needed break in providing an actual adversary from whom CNN could give the world Tank and troop comparison figures.  A country run by a collection of humanities most tribal and primitive refuse, religious zealots who treated their people in such an appalling way that would gather sympathy to the war cause from most subscribers to CNN’s constant reporting.  Barely a month on – that government has capitulated and retreated to strong holds in the South and stories are streaming out of deserters, of tortures, and of massacres.  As George Bush Jr. rightly pointed out, now the real battle begins.

News reports painted the grim possibility of further massacres unless the Northern alliance could be restrained from taking the last pocket of Taliban resistance, mostly foreign fighters, in Konduz.  The question that now should be asked is what path the war on terrorism will take – because that news report reverts back to a way of thinking pre Sep 11.  What Afghanistan needs is a new government that will include every element of that society – however a ‘Fukuyamaian’ future seems far less likely than the pessimistic Kaplan alternative that is currently playing out.  We are no longer fighting adversaries with a face – what the Northern Alliance needs to do is to take Konduz and if everyone fighting to defend is killed then sobeit, less of a problem for the cleanup.

The real problem is not what happens to Afghanistan now – in the overall scheme of things that country is only a small example of the growing threat that the world of nation states will be replaced by ‘a jagged-glass pattern of city-states, shanty-states, nebulous and anarchic regionalisms’.  To say that September 11 changed the world is naïve at best – what it did rather was to show us that the world is not worried about 9 – 5, paying the mortgage and juggling 3 credit cards, it showed us that people exist outside our paradigm of modernity.  It was merely a wake up call – people used it to suggest that it was a call for America to change its foreign policy – but once again this is flawed – change it to what? Conceding to the neo-isolationist will not change the world it will just make it all the more fragile.  

Sep11 gave us a glimpse of the future – and it is not a healthy or bright future.  In light of the fact that almost 95% of the earth’s population growth is in the poorest areas of the globe, the question isn’t whether there will be instability and war but what kind of war and who will do the fighting.  Van Creveld, from Hebrew University argues that there will be a reversion to the types of wars that existed before nation states, a time when “political, social, economic, and religious motives were hopelessly entangled. Since this was an age when armies consisted of mercenaries, all were also attended by swarms of military entrepreneurs . . .. Many of them paid little but lip service to the organizations for whom they had contracted to fight. Instead, they robbed the countryside on their own behalf . . ..".

A future divided, with the Fukuyama's ‘Last Man’ fighting to maintain his grip on an increasingly polarized world inhabited by Hobbes's First Man, condemned to a life that is "poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.  As Homer Dixon’s analogy describe, we in the West are the limonene of advanced prosperous nations driving down the potholed road of modernity, with those outside contending with what we choose to ignore because of its unpalatableness.  This type of future can be seen in Afghanistan, however and somewhat more importantly can also be seen in India and Pakistan.  In the next 25 years India’s population will be over 1.4 billion whilst their economy will be based on a shrinking natural-resource base.  The Green Revolution often spoken about in the 1990’s was ‘achieved by overworking croplands and depleting its watershed’.  In effect the Indian government fed their people by borrowing against their children’s food sources.  

Pakistan’s role in the current campaign against Afghanistan has been crucial however it has also given us an insight into the future of the country.  Ironically the government once denounced by the West for being anti democratic is now keenly looked upon as a supporter.  However this paints a very short-term view – Pakistan was founded as a home for Muslims in the subcontinent though more subcontinental Muslims live outside Pakistan.  The country is "a collection of ethnic groups becoming increasingly violent in their dealings with each other.  It is not hard to envisage Pakistan ceasing as a nation state and becoming a collection of smaller rival ethnic enclaves".  

The real war for America has just begun – it isn’t a war against the Taliban as such but rather what the Taliban stands for – a war against tribalism, ignorance, violence, and rampant religious fanaticism.  America can choose to fight this war through a limited scope or they can chose to expand it.  How do you fight violence, ignorance, and religious zealotry?  

Any clues?  

[This message has been edited by Joseph27 (edited 29-11-2001).]

[rubber ducky]

Hey Joseph27, that was a well written reflection on the war and i agree with you. The atmosphere here in the US has changed drastically. Gone are the 90's era of self indulgence, but slowly and surely, a more outward and global outlook is starting to pervade America. Horrific as the events were on Sept 11, i think the country has benefitted from it some ways. i think the country is at a very important junction in its history. It can either choose to isolate itself more or jon the world community. It will be interesting to see how America chooses over the next few years.  

[Bruno]

I don't recall any war that didn't involve violence, ignorance and extremism. What's new here? And while the NY attacks were shocking, the war in Afghanistan has been a rather pedestrian affair. Notice any protests in Pakistan lately?

Bin Laden's real legacy is the West's realization that its Middle Eastern allies are unreliable. It is no coincidence that the price of oil is plunging, while the US's newfound friend, Russia, boosts production and warms up to NATO. The world is changing, but it ain't all bad.

[Joseph27]

One of the things I still think Sep11 did was to relegitimize violence.  Prior to this Pakistan was bordering on rouge nation status - China was number 1 adversary and any human rights abuse was always reported. Now America closes its eyes as China clamps down on dissidents - they actively seek Russian advice on how to more effectively hunt in Afghanistan.  It has changed America's foreign policy focus - it was once on democratising the world - now it seems to have shifted towards making it safe first.  A question of course is safe for who and from who?

[Bruno]

Violence never stopped being legitimate. See Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraqi patrols, Colombia.

What's changed is that the US has shuffled its priorities and allies. New players but still the same game.

And NY aside, the world has rarely been safer. The frequency of wars is at its lowest since the 1700s, as is the ratio of military expenditure to GDP and the percentage of people involved in conflict.

[WellYeah]

Joseph27, As always your comments are well written and well thought out.  I would argue that there are loads of Americans that don't consider themselves to be slices of happy American US apple pie, but rather feel isolated, poor, left out, and very un patriotic.  The poor in America, as some very good scholarship has pointed out, oftentime looks, acts, and feels like tribal and ethnic minority groups in lots of other countries.  America is no Camelot.  It has been, and will be, quite possibly one of the most violent nations on earth.  And believe me, Americans find a lot more about to worry over than credit cards and money.  Also, US media and news are, picture by picture, the most violently graphic news programs in the West.  America is not sheltered from the World, it is simply a long way away from the reality of the world.  However, you are right, America is, or has been, largely uninterested.  I feel the US is on a precipice, either becoming increasing involved...not just the CIA and spec ops and embassies, but the whole nation, or there will be a mandate to let "the Arabs" do what they want, just don't get close to our shores or you're a goner.  Believe me, this sentiment is strong.  Getting bombed by bin Laden cuz we sell f16s to saudi Arabia?  Have two air force bases there?  Fine, take it Middle east, revert back to the 1880s tribal warfare systems, see if we care, we can open up Russian and domestic oil fields.."  Or so the thinking may go..

You are quite right about a major shift in conflict.  Gone are the days of "country against country" war.  Civil war and ethnic/religious/cultural war are the de facto realities moving forward.  Clearly, terrorists most often fight for a cause and a country, not just a country (Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, eastern Indonesia being some exceptions, to some extent)  Clearly, while terrorists are clearly murderous, there is no doubt as to why, say Osama, is opposed to the US.  US forces in Saudi Arabia, where Mhd. lived, and the US support of Isreali military (Isreal is the US largest nondomestic expense item, up to 20 billion a year, plus no taxes on Isreali goods and services).

IF the US was to completely bow out of the world stage, there is no other country more capable of creating an ultra secure state.  The US has the money, technology, and military to do so, along with extremelely favorable geography (ie Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, friendly Mexico and Canada)  

The real question then is, what then?  What would the world look like with a US foreign policy similar to the 1920s?  1) The UN and other countries would complain that we are not "doing enough" as opposed to "too much" now, 2) who would the Bin Ladens, etc, turn on then?  IF the US is not a target, can we assume greedy and evil men will retire?  Should we let Hussein take Kuwait?  Perfect a missile defense system, deploy all military to the Americas, and let Europe Africa and the East do what they will?

Right or wrong, the US believes that pluralist democracies tend to do a few things better than other governmenttal systems, like NOT wage international and internal wars, accept minorities, womens suffrage, etc etc.  In the absence of that, yes, the US has supported military regimes, under the US thumb, over communist and anarchist rule.  

The US tried to bring freedom tothe world, stability, peace, and non-Communism, since WWII.  Right or wrong, it tried.  At the end of the day, at least you must admit, the US tried.  The price, some would argue, might have been too high.  The fact is, if half of China, and half of the middle east was Russian, like most 70 and 80s scenarios pointed out was a possibility...the biggest detriment to the world was expensive oil.  Nuclear and or attritive warfare was always a last endgame.

I guess what I'm saying, we are all living in a post WWII world wherein the US has become the "New Rome" with its own ideals, and agendas.  What, however, are the alternatives?  Do nothing, let another Hitler rise...or rebuild Europe with the Marshall Plan.  Pull out of Europe, or halt Soviet aggression, there and all over?  The fact is, bin ladens and anti USers....the US presence can all be blamed on Joe Stalin.  The US began fighting a war that it thought was inevitable, a cold or hot war against the bitterest and most opposite of enemies, leninist communism.  

Since 1989, however, the US has not refocused our revamped its way of thinking.  In fact, as many scholars have pointed out, the last time American truly changed its foreign policy was Dec. 7, 1941.  The US is "still out there" after the fall of the USSR and still out there before and after Sep 11, its just a matter of degrees.  Sep 11, in my opinion, will prove to be far more important for other countries than for the US.  So, the US will have a far reaching involvement in world affairs (had that since spring of 1942) will have lots of security at home (so now we'll act like Europe in that regard, big deal, airports and internal security were a joke previously)

How Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Syria, Palestine, Isreal, Pakistan, India, and China resolve and move forward with warfare in its backyards will be far more critical than the US having bombers and marines deployed.  Some fringe "security" of the US is threatened, the US is not threatened.  The last time the US was truly threatened...WWII via Japan (but really just attacked, not threatened as in we were worried about annexation) Soviet aggression (cuban missile, Krushchev beating his shoe on the UNpodium saying "we will bury you, we will bury you") AND the War of 1812.

Three "Events" in the last 200 odd years.  pretty safe all around, I'd say.  Germany has had no less than 7 fundamental shifts in governance since then, the Brits one would they truly de-powered the monarchy and retrenched from global empirism prior to and after WWII, etc etc.  America is stable, has been, will be, all in all.  

The question is, do you really want the US to pull up all its tents?  

My "thesis" is that IF the US did just that, those same people and countries would be clamoring for US involvement right after the Northern India is attacked by a patchwork Muslim raid, right after Hussein annexes every damn gulf country, and right after the Sudan warlords spill over to even more surrounding countries.

Within ten years, technology and US and North & South American oil reserves will free the US from such a need on middle eastern oil, not withstanding a major technology breakthrough in solar and alternative fuel capacity and storage.  What then?  How then can the US justify any presence in the Gulf?  How can they now?  Is the US support of Isreal and fair market oil prices worth the World Trade Center?  

What will the US do if a "bin Laden" gets and uses a nuclear device, in the US? In London? In Jerusalem?  

While US involvement in the world is troubling at best, problematic at worst...what then are the alternatives??  Pull out, turn to a Japanese model, pull all troops, presence, and analysts out and only concentrate on national perimeter defense?

My guess is that barring a major religious and drastic withdrawal of fundamental religious extremism (bin Laden, KKK, (Tim McVeigh, they guy that blew up 440 plus US federal workers, mostly middle aged men, young mothers, and children, was a God loving anarchist that thought his country sold out to minorities and jews) then this trail of tears for the world has just begun, and those to suffer most, will be, as historically, women and children of poor nations and tribes.

Same song, same f**king dance.

[Super]

Joseph27, your conclusions on the future of Pakistan caught my attention. Have you ever lived in Pakistan? Have you ever been to Pakistan....better yet, do you know any Pakistani's??? Or do you usually regurgitate what you see on dodgy channels like CNN and the Fox News Networks to come to your conclusions?

My friend, I have lived in Pakistan for 15 years, through a nuclear test, a proxy war with India, the support of the Mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation, 8 years of military dictatorship, the mysterious death of the ruler, the arrival of democracy, then three failed democratic governments. Pakistan has 4 million refugees (more than the population of Singapore), 5 distinct ethnic groups.

Your insight into Pakistan is what the media has fed to you, and which you have digested like a hungry doomsday go-getter.  You mentioned in your post that Pakistan’s ethnic groups are getting  “increasingly” getting violent with each other….just how did you draw that conclusion? For over fifty years Pakistan has survived through all that I have mentioned above and more. Yes there have been small pockets of violence between ethnic groups, but not a vast increase since Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947 or even prior to that. The country has 141 million people living in it, violence comes part and parcel with that sort of population in a country the size of Pakistan. The cities are no more violent than the streets of L.A, New York or even London, and I have lived in all of those cities.  Bombs explode in Spain, in London and government Ministers in Switzerland get shot. It’s just that Pakistan has been thrust into the limelight which by your own admission given you your “insight” about the country, and allowed you to “envisage” the country breaking down to ethnic enclaves, even worse, ceasing to exist as a nation state. News flash, the country has already beaten you to your prediction by over a hundred years.  The country is divided into provinces which represents its ethnic population.

As for ceasing to exist as a nation state, I have never felt that way, ever. As a nation Pakistan has been through a lot, having hostile neighbors, and failed governments. What the west and the media needs to understand that it is too soon for democracy to work in Pakistan. Sure democracy has a place in the country, but for now and I would say another 5 to 10 years of military rule would be ideal. The military is strong and uncorrupted and not politicized. The people definitely have the will. Pakistani’s are very moderate Muslims, and the people you see demonstrating in the media are truly a very isolated and intolerant group, which are probably 3% to 4 % of the population. I have seen and experienced nationhood and patriotism in Pakistan like nowhere else in the world. The warmth, the hospitality and sheer love for their country is too strong for anything to cause it to “cease” to exist.
And after Pakistan achieved its nuclear power status, its all the more ludicrous that the West would ever allow Pakistan to fail or fall, simply because they don’t want the weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

Pakistan’s role in this crisis has been priceless. Pakistan was discarded after all it sacrificed for “democracy” to win and communism to lose. It took in a flood of refugees at the risk of its own internal security. It has provided the US with vital information on the region, hunted down and handed over terrorists to incompetent US law enforcement agencies, liased with China on its behalf. Now again, at the risk of sidelining itself within the Muslim world, it supports the US openly. It is allowing the one country that had deserted it with humongous problems after the Soviet withdrawal, a country that enforced sanctions against it, to use its airfields, airspace and to send its troops across. Sure Pakistan has wisened up and is asking for financial aid in return, because as the saying goes…once bitten twice shy. US lawmakers and politicians would be shooting themselves in the leg if they fail to see a loyal ally and friend in Pakistan.

[This message has been edited by Super (edited 28-11-2001).]

[Joseph27]

First and foremost – I don’t have a television set – so watching CNN is somewhat difficult though whenever I’m in a hotel I do scan the all channels.  Yes I know Pakistani’s – and what I write is as you say usually regurgitated – from research that either I myself or some others have done and from talking with different people who I consider to be authorities.  Oh and I did do a paper on Pakistan as part of some postgraduate studies a few years back.    
As for the statement made in that particular instance – it is indeed a quote and I am quite happy to admit that it isn’t mine – it comes from Robert Kaplan – a journalist who has spent a lot of time in and around Pakistan – a journalist whose work I enjoy reading – although it is very negative.  I only know Pakistan from the outside – I don’t know it as intimately as you do and I happy to get your feedback and expand my own knowledge.  
I have read quite a bit about Pakistan’s future – different academics predicting its demise – and here we are not talking in the next 5 or so years but longer term. In reality both India and Pakistan are in precarious positions ecologically – and people love dooms day stuff so they feed off it.  Frankly unless humanity discovers some pretty ingenious technology – the environment will be one of Pakistan’s biggest threats.  
From India’s perspective – Pakistan should never have been created and some better diplomatic work from the British in 46/47 would have changed things considerably (not the least of which would be a combined Pakistani/Indian cricket team – a scary thought for an Australian supporter). The reality is that now Pakistan does exist and for the next several years needs strong leadership.  I would most definitely agree with you on the issue of the government. Strong leadership is needed now – America’s democracy at all cost has thankfully abated for now.  (One benefit of once again having republicans in the Whitehouse)
Thank you for your feedback – though I think it sometimes unwise to dismiss people’s comments as being so naïve

[Bruno]

Actually Joseph, I think he was fair to call you naive. You made statements as if you were speaking with authority. When you weren't. It now seems that you've downgraded the risk to Pakistan to some ambiguous ecological threat.

There's no harm in raising issues, but if you want to make grand claims, and sprinkle your prose with quotes from certain luminaries as if you are intimate with their arguments, then you should be prepared for a strong rebuttal. Which you got.

[Joseph27]

Bruno - in fact I wrote a piece to get some feed back for other research I am doing.  And the ecological threat is indeed a dire one especially for Pakistan and India.

I will admit to being somewhat naive in different areas - the fact that i have spent most of my life studying and travelling hasnt helped me achieve a thorough understanding of everything.  The comments made in the original thread were based on some research I have done and the arguments cited are based on the works of a number of different people whose work I happen to have spent a considerable amount of time investigating.

Oh and thank you for being so arrogent as to assume I am simply quoting some vague academics whose work i read on the back of a cerial box without the slightest understanding of their arguments.

And as for the rebuttal - I enjoyed it because it gave me a new perspective - and if someone raises a thread attacking Australia I too will post a strong rebuttal -it is indeed commendable that he did.

[Super]

Joseph27, glad to know you did one post graduate paper on Pakistan. I did my entire post graduate degree on that entire region. Kaplan is notoriously biased, whose object was to sell his story. As for the academics, history has shown that most of what academics predict does not materialize, and the stuff they miss out is usually what ends up happening. Which is why they will forever remain academics in their cramped offices; publishing a paper a year or risk losing their grants. Whereas if you talk to an informed person in the World Bank, the ADB, the State Department, or people who actually are in the field(not journalists), or those who have their fingers on the pulse of issues
like John Simpson(a rare breed of journalist), you will find that these people see Pakistan full of potential long term and short term. I would seriously suggest that you went through more informed sources, and that your conclusions be your own, and not a regurgitation in support of what someone else has said. If that region truly interests you, go there and see it for yourself. I could read a dozen papers on Columbia, read a few books on that country, see it at war with the cocaine warlords, but at the end of the day, I can only pass a judgement or make a statement of substance if I have been there, and lived amongst the people.
Did you know that Pakistan has one of the worlds best recycling systems. This recycling system has been in place for over 35 years, way before people even knew that things could be recycled. Everything in Pakistan is recycled, paper, glass, tins etc. etc. thousands of jobs are reliant on a very active and thriving recycling industry.
Just what type of ecological disaster are you referring to?? Pollution?? L.A. has more pollution (even with its recent dropped levels) than Karachi, which is Pakistans largest city.
New Dehli has a problem...yes, but that doesn't mean any of the Pakistani cities are that polluted. Pakistan is much less polluted than many more countries...don't see you predicting their precarious situation, or their eventual ecological demise. I can't even think of one man made disaster ever occuring in Pakistan, whereas worldwide there have been massive disaters, Bhopal in India, Chernobyl, Alaskan oil spill...need I go on....Please enlighten me with what ecological catastrophe will cause the end of this nation that you are so hell bent on dooming to oblivion?? If its a paper written by Kaplan, I can think of better ways of using that paper. Since you seem to enjoy ending entire nations based on what your experts have to say, digest this doomsday picture: the U.S. is the worlds biggest polluter, was, is and will be the source of global catastrophe thanks to the failure of the Kyoto summit. Now isn't that a sweeping uninformed mind boggling prediction?
Obviously India opposed the separation of their country in 1947. But they massacred and treated muslims like second class citizens while the British ruled, the muslims couldnt risk being a part of a country that would always have a hindu majority. Indian nationhood relies on secularism, and if there is a country you need to be worried about, its India. With its internal calls for independence from its ethnic groups. Kashmiri's are calling for independence due to the brutality of the Indian forces, Assam is calling for independence, the Sikhs still want an independent homeland (remember the Golden temple revolt?) Believe me, if one of these states win independence, more will follow. Which is why India has been attempting to beat down calls for independence in Kashmir so deperately. It has more soldiers in Kashmir than the entire number of Pakistan Armed Forces. That should be a good indication of their desperation. And needless to say, the spin the Indians put on the whole Kashmir issue successfully distracts average Indians from their governments failure to deliver what they promise....and even more ironically, they use it as a tool for unifying their country against freedom fighters....shocking to see that they were freedom fighters themselves only 50 years ago.
   
Today most of the influential world bodies are planning how to make a success story out of Pakistan and show casing it to the rest of the world (now deemed vital for the region). And I am sorry, but I cannot ignore such NAIVE comments from such an uninformed source. Although, you are entitled to what you want to believe, and I absolutely respect that.

[Bruno]

I think you've over-extended yourself, Super. Pakistan is a mess. If they're good at recycling, it's because resources are so scarce. And these are scarce because the country is ridden with corruption. Wasn't it Mrs. Bhutto's husband who was known as Mr. 10%. And while it's true that the ADB and others are trying to turn Pakistan around, they're working with a country that has foreign debt of $37 billion and a record of defaults on that debt. Is it any surprise that Pakistan has one of highest rates of emigration in the world.

Also unfortunate for your argument is that Muslims in India are wealthier than Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Muslims have held cabinet posts there and India's richest man, Azim Hasham Premji of the tech firm Wipro, is a Muslim. Pakistan would do well to provide the same opportunities to its own people.

As for the vaunted John Simpson, isn't he the same man that strode into Kabul recently declaring he and the BBC had `liberated' the city; even though other journalists had been there for up to a week already?

[Super]

Bruno, Pakistan is good at recycling because it provides an income to many people. Natural resources wise, Pakistan has adequate resources. And resources had absolutely nothing to do with the string of corrupt governments the country had the misfortune of having. Yes, Asif Zardari, Benazir's husband was known as Mr.10%. Also true in your post was that Pakistan is somewhat facing a sort of brain drain with its brightest leaving for greener pastures. I have had or have no intention of painting a rosy picture in my rebuttals, rather, attempting to get the facts across. I forsee Pakistan playing a major role in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, and have recently submitted a paper to the US State department on that very subject. A lot of the cement, engineering, and basic infrastructral needs will have to come from somewhere, and Pakistan will be in the thick of providing some expertise in many sectors. This is not going to help Pakistan get out of the mess its in, however, it would help revive its economy, along side debt rescheduling, oil exploration in the Baluchistan province (oil companies have confirmed oil reserves in Baluchistan), and finally foreign aid. Another promising sign is that Pakistan has slashed its military budget and investing in education.

As for Indian muslims, yes, I am aware of the cabinet posts, I am also aware that some of their top military brass in Kashmir are muslims. The wealth and success of muslims in India is a great thing, and no where in my rebuttal have I said or implied otherwise. However since you have brought this up, in the mid nineties hindu fundamentalists tore down the 300 year old Babri mosque and killed scores of muslims. And all this happened in Bombay. But granted the situation prior to and during 1947 was totally different from what it is today. Indian muslims are intelligent people who are patriots and do not wish to see their country fall apart. But you will never ever see a muslim President or Prime Minister, simply because they are not in majority and the because the hindu fundamentalists would never allow that to happen.

Finally John Simpson. Yes, he did carried away. But his style of reporting is unique, getting to talk to the locals, literally getting a feel of the mood on the streets. I find his views unbiased, educated and flirtatiously subjective.

I appreciate your moderator type approach during this discussion. Honestly, my views are biased, and yes I do get carried away, however, I have a unique relationship with that country and there should be no doubt that I love it.  

[Bruno]

``Two of India's presidents have been Muslims; a Muslim woman sits on India's supreme court. The architect of India's missile program, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, is a Muslim.''

I got this from the NY Times. Can't vounch for credibility, but probably true.

Still, you're right of course about the anti-Muslim antipathy that resulted in the destruction of the mosques. The country isn't perfect but I think it's making a fair stab at a tolerant future.

The future for Pakistan is also looking better. Musharraf has played a crafty hand during the war. In return, he's received $600 million in aid from the US, and almost a billion from the ADB this year.

Real challenge however is to reform the economy. He needs to improve tax collection, cut spending and reduce borrowing. The previous leaders were too busy enriching themselves to do so. Maybe Musharraf is made of sterner stuff.

[Fat Baz]

Super

As a working Joe I always get a good laugh when someone dismisses academics and then referes to the knowledge and experience of the solid citizens in The World Bank or the State Department.

If you've ever worked with any of these people you would know they are as clueless as any academic, probably worse since most have no real experience but haven't really studied extensively either.

Still, I thought, maybe this post grad wunderkind does have something to add, I've just read your toughts on recycling and I sadly must conclude that you do not.

Sorry.

FB