Delusions about a “New Kashmir”

August 15, 2019 at 1:18 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , ,

Last Thursday, 8 August 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to the nation justifying his government’s decision to end the ‘special status’ accorded to India’s only Muslim majority state, Jammu and Kashmir, and indeed to dismantle it as a state and make it into two Bantustans—Jammu & Kashmir with a legislature shorn of several important powers, especially with regard to law and order and land which will be controlled by the federal government; and Ladakh which would be ruled directly from New Delhi with no pretence of democratic accountability to its residents. In particular, the new regulations struck down a provision in the Indian Constitution—Article 35A—which restricted the purchase of land in Jammu & Kashmir to those whom its legislature classified as permanent residents. This provision, Prime Minister Modi said would lead to a new Kashmir, a naya Kashmir, which would become prosperous due to the possibilities open to investment: a reintegration with economic benefits

IMG 20190806 160022 800x521

These measures were widely popular in much of the rest of India—with people bursting crackers, a routine practice of celebration, vowing to buy land there, even leading to the creation of a whole sub-genre of songs: and, with some in Haryana and other states, known for female foeticide and infanticide, fantasying bringing “white” Kashmiri brides!

What signals do we convey when a lout speaks of now being able to pick a Kashmiri bride? This is clearly the talk of a victor and it’s an image that will abide unless Mr Modi or Mr Shah decide to sack the obnoxious boor. The triumphant breast-beating of Hindu majoritarianism is exactly what is not required, it will not only anger the Muslims of J&K but also infuriate Pakistan and its jehadis.

In an unmistakeable parallel with the “white man’s burden,” Nirupama Rao, a former Foreign Secretary, wrote that in the Times of India that Kashmir was economically 200 years behind the rest of India—a claim that is patently untrue!

Merlin 158961606 e339da8b eb35 41da aea5 3dedc9edd1d8 jumbo

On a variety of socio-economic indicators, Kashmir fares better than the average for India: Jammu & Kashmir’s infant mortality rate (children under the age of one) per 1000 is 23; for India as a whole it is 33; Life expectancy at birth is 73.5 in Jammu and Kashmir, 68.7 is the India average; the poverty rate is 10.4 in J&K but 21.9 is the India average; the sex ratio at birth is 917 in J&K and only 896 in all of India, to take just a few indicators. Yet, Rao claimed:

If one is asked what Kashmir needs most today, it is not the “azadi” that some young Kashmiris claim, but investment, modernisation, livelihoods, gender empowerment and development.

Most importantly, the views of the Kashmiris were never sought. But let us examine the proposition whether the new measures would in fact bring about prosperity. The claim is based on the proposition that the removal on restrictions on the purchase of land would lead to a spurt in investment in tourism and even movie-maklng. Contrary to popular belief, this was a law introduced in Kashmir by its Hindu maharaja in the 1927 to quell fears among Hindus in Kashmir that outsiders—Punjabis, Europeans, others—would buy land in the idyllic valley. It was not directed against the Muslims who were too oppressed to be a threat to the Hindus at that time, though since 1947 Muslims have also come to see the value of this law. Similar laws exist in a number of border states of the country—Himachal Pradesh, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh. Nagaland, Manipur, and Tripura. It is this law, as Pallavi Aiyer argued in the Hindu newspaper, that shielded the people of Kashmir from “demographic engineering like the large-scale Han migration into Tibet and Xinjiang.” Indeed, after the decision to downgrade Jammu & Kashmir to a Union Territory, the local leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) himself is on record saying that restrictions must be placed on outsiders buying land.

Restrictions on private individuals buying land in Kashmir, as a former state finance minister, Haseeb Drabu underlined in a television interview, did not prohibit corporations from taking land on extendable 90-year leases as the major hotel chains have done and the Birlas who set up a textile mill. Restrictions on land ownership also does not apply to the Indian government and its public sector undertakings which employ 1 million people in the country but only 21 in Kashmir. Border states depend heavily on the central government for investments, especially in infrastructure: and of that there has been precious little in Kashmir, Indeed, given the continued level of militancy, there is little reason to hope that these actions which have humiliated and outraged Kashmiris will lead to greater levels of investment.

EidMubarak1jpg

And the state is seething with resentment: Kashmir has been under a communications lockdown for 10 days—no Internet connections (meaning also no credit or debit card transactions), no mobile phones or landlines, no cable TV and most newspapers closed—with a tight curfew. By some estimates, there is one military or paramilitary personnel per 10 persons in the Kashmir Valley! Political leaders in the state who had cooperated with the Indian government have been imprisoned and having been humiliated, they cannot now accept the terms imposed on them. The state police force, which had been on the frontlines of the war against militancy, have been disarmed. There is now no local interlocutor for the Indian government

As Mohamad Junaid wrote:

In the last 30 years, more than 80,000 Kashmiris have been killed, an unremitting military occupation has wantonly destroyed thousands of other lives, and there is an entire generation of people who gave everything to resist it. They will not go silently into the night.

Without regard for its people,

Kashmir as an idea gets reduced to space. Place, memory and people are erased in one stroke. Kashmir merely becomes a territory. We treat it as property, as a turf that belongs to India. The style of politics becomes a set of diktats and politics becomes a continuation of security by any other means. Kashmir as a conversation of democracy ceases. Kashmiris become aliens, stonepelters, terrorists, who need to be disciplined. We forget a state and a people where women and children are waiting for normalcy for decades. There is little sense of concern or care for them.

108281801 mediaitem108281800

It becomes in short, India’s West Bank: a place for settlers to move in armed convoys and occupy another people’s land (and Google searches for “land rates” and “plots of land” in Kashmir spiked soon after its special status was revoked). Kashmiris will be turned into Palestinians—“aliens, stone pelters, terrorist, who need to be disciplned.”The Modi-Shah plan to “integrate” Kashmir looks perilously close to Jared Kushner’s plan for investment with independence in the West Bank!

Darkness at Noon: Kashmir and the Unraveling of Indian Democracy

August 8, 2019 at 2:33 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , ,

Fresh from winning a huge mandate from the largest electoral exercise in history, the Narendra Modi government has just hammered the largest nail in the coffin of Indian democracy. Flooding the state of Jammu and Kashmir with over 35,000 additional troopsdetaining its political leaders, severing landlines and internet and mobile phone connections, and imposing a state-wide curfew, the Indian Home Minister, Amit Shah, moved to end the state’s special constitutional status, and demoted its status from that of a state to the lesser-status of a union territory while bifurcating it as well. While the removal of Kashmir’s special constitutional status has dominated the headlines, it is the state’s demotion that is the more consequential.

HT front page 1564990710

Article 370 of the Indian constitution had granted Jammu and Kashmir exemptions from the Indian Constitution and laws passed by the Indian Parliament except in the matters of defense, foreign affairs, and communications unless the state’s constituent assembly consented to these laws and constitutional provisions. Alone among the states of the country, Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution and flag. This was the codification of the terms under which the state entered the Indian Union in October 1947 when it was faced with an invasion of tribesmen led by Pakistani officers. The Instrument of Accession, which has the status of a treaty between two sovereign states, had stipulated that provisions of the future constitution of India be applicable to the state only after these provisions had been accepted by the state’s own Constituent Assembly. In effect, this largely meant that the state had special autonomy not granted to other states especially that while the national Parliament “had exclusive powers to make laws pertaining to States, on all matters not in the State and Concurrent Lists, the residuary power rested with the State legislature in the case of J&K.” Such special status is not exceptional to India—Hong Kong and Macau, for instance, have a special status in China. In India too, other states like Nagaland also enjoy constitutional protection from the application of laws passed by Parliament in regards to their social and religious practices and to the administration of their civil and criminal jurisdiction as well as to the ownership of land by non-Nagas. This of course did not arouse the ire of the BJP as the Nagas were not Muslim!

Kashmir human shield by Suhail Bhat cr4

Indeed, over the years, Kashmir’s special status has steadily been eroded by Presidential Orders. In 1954, with the concurrence of its government and constituent assembly, most of the provisions of the Indian Constitution were extended to the state. At that time, a reactionary article limiting the ability to buy land to permanent residents of the state and mandating that the children of Kashmiri women marrying non-permanent residents lose their rights, was inserted into the Indian Constitution as Article 35A (the Kashmir High Court struck down the provision that women marrying outsiders  lose their permanent residency rights in 2002). Subsequently, over 40 such Presidential Orders were issued further hollowing out the special status of the state. The Indian Government even arrogated to itself the power to change the state’s constitution—changing the position of the governor from one elected by its legislature to a nominee of the president—a power not granted to it by Article 370. Ironically, it is this very change that has allowed the Modi government to abolish the state’s special status: as the state legislature is dissolved it claimed that the governor—a nominee of the Modi government—represents the state government and that he has concurred with the extension of all the provisions of the Indian constitution and laws to the state, thus avoiding the need for a constitutional amendment!

Pellets 640 535x472

Nevertheless, Kashmir’s special status has long been a bugbear for the rest of India and the fact that Kashmiris can freely buy land in most of the country (except parts of the Northeast where similar laws regarding land ownership by outsiders apply) has rankled middle classes in the rest of India. No matter that for 10 of the last 45 years, Kashmir has been under direct rule by New Delhi, no matter that elections in Kashmir were regularly rigged, that its independence leader, Sheikh Abdullah was broken by years of imprisonment, no matter that in practice the special status meant that it enjoyed such dubious

benefits such as ‘human shields’, ‘half-widows’, pellet blindings, fake encounters like Pathribal and Machhil, torture and disappearances

the abolition of its special status is widely popular in the rest of India.

70544951 cms

However, the stripping of Kashmir’s special status—hollowed out in practice though it may be—is an emotional issue for the people of the state. They woke up on August 6, 2019 in a place that was not only without its special status but was not even a state! As a union territory, the powers of the legislative body were substantially reduced: from having its elected head of state, Sadr-e-Riyasat, to a governor appointed by New Delhi, it now had only a Lt. Governor. Unlike states, union territories are administered directly by the Indian central government and even though the new union territory of Jammu and Kashmir has a legislature, its powers are significantly curtailed especially with regard to law and order and to land; the new union territory of Ladakh does not even have a legislature and would be directly administered by unelected bureaucrats.

J k no more special art 370 goes 2019 08 06

Never before in the history of India has a state been demoted to a union territory and this fundamentally calls into question the federal character of the Indian polity. It is this erosion of their democratic rights that led to the imposition of the type of

measures one normally associates with a police state – the stealthy introduction of major constitutional changes, the lack of adequate time for debate, the late night arrest of mainstream political leaders in Kashmir, the prohibition of public gatherings, the shutdown of internet services and even landlines – adds the sort of odour one normally associates with coups. The message is clear: there will be no room in Kashmir for free politics of the kind every integral part of India takes for granted.

The arrest of political leaders who had been willing to cooperate with India, the shut down of the internet for the 53rd time this year, the imposition of curfew and the severance of all communication links within the state and between the state and the rest of India—even one-way forms of communications like cable TV—all point to the unpopularity of the moves in Kashmir. If democracy means anything, it means the consent of the governed, No matter how popular the Modi government’s elimination of Kashmir’s special status and its bifurcation into two union territories may be in the rest of India—except the Northeast where there are fears that they could be the next—it could only mean more disruption in Kashmir. Politicians who had been willing to cooperate with India can no longer do so as they would lose even the little credibility they had. It inevitably strengthens the hand of the hardlners. In these conditions if outsiders are allowed to buy land in Kashmir, security forces would have to protect them like the Israelis who settle in the West Bank.

A swing of about 2.5 million residents would shift Jammu and Kashmir from majority-Muslim to majority-Hindu. In a nation of 1.3 billion, that’s not such a stretch. The BJP forcefully advocates for in-migration of Hindus to the state. Officially, this applies only to those who fled Kashmir in the violence of the 1990s, but there is now no legal barrier to a full-bore program of government-sponsored in-migration. Such a move would solidify the BJP’s Hindu-nationalist agenda of redefining India not as a multireligious secular state, but as a Hindu rastra in which 200 million Muslims are tolerated only so long as they remain on good behavior.

Never before has India been as much an occupying power as now—and it is the right of the occupied to resist their subjugation!

A Fog of Myths About North Korea

April 29, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Posted in Arms Control, Capitalism, Human Rights, International Relations, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Political Economy, World Politics | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rarely has the manufacturing of consent in the mainstream media been as thorough as it has been in the case of North Korea. It is the original ‘hermit kingdom,’ isolated from the outside world by a dynasty of communist dictators–a ‘socialism in one family’–and irrational to the extent of threatening Washington with a nuclear Armageddon. This reigning consensus is so widespread that there has been little challenge to it in the major news outlets of the world and yet, a moment’s reflection suggests that there are many flaws in this narrative.

 

In the first instance, in a rare piece of insight into North Korea, a former Western intelligence officer who writes under the pseudonym of James Church has argued that since isolationism is a two-way street, the rest of the world is even more ignorant about North Korea than Pyongyang is about the wider world. After all, North Korean officials can monitor radio and television broadcasts, plug into the Internet, and analyse books and magazines from the outside world. They know what people outside their borders are thinking and doing. But people outside North Korea have little insight into what goes on in the country and are metaphorically reduced to examining the entrails of sacrificial animals to divine Pyongyang’s intentions.

 

Hence, Church writes, “We…have developed a fog of myths about them as a substitute for knowledge.  These myths, handed down from administration to administration, are comforting in their long familiar ring, but make it difficult for us to avoid walking in circles. The North Koreans move nimbly through this fog” like small boats deftly weaving in and out between lumbering vessels.

NorthKoreanDiplomacy

Rather than nuclear weapons, Church argues, North Korea’s greatest strength is the capacity to behave badly: by carefully choosing the right time, it knows its actions will force big powers to pay close attention even though they may grind their teeth. What it fears most is being swept aside in big power politics, so by playing its weak hand cleverly, it seeks dialogue with the United States, a process that was derailed when former president George W. Bush labelled it part of an “axis of evil.”

 KeefeM20101126

Recent concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear program stemmed from an underground nuclear test on February 12, 2013—its third in seven years. In response, the United States and its allies pressed the UN Security Council to add new sanctions on the country: enhanced scrutiny over shipments and air cargo, a ban on the sale of luxury goods, expanded restrictions on a range of institutions and senior officials. China, notably, signed on to these sanctions and did not veto them.

 

If China is dragging its feet on the issue of North Korea, it is also because Beijing has a stake in the survival of the Kim Jong-eun regime. The collapse of North Korea could bring a stream of refugees to China which already has 2 million ethnic Koreans and threaten the stability of the border region. Moreover, since a unified Korea is likely to be led by Seoul, it raises the possibility of US forces on China’s border with Korea. A unified Korea with some 70 million people would also become a formidable economic competitor and transform the dynamics of the regional economy as Timothy Beardson writes in the Financial Times.

 N Korea Lower Tech Threat

When President Barack Obama acknowledges that North Korea does not have a single deployable nuclear warhead, and according to SIPRI, the five permanent members of the Security Council—all declared nuclear powers—had approximately 19,265 as of January 1, 2012, this response to Pyongyang’s third nuclear test seems disproportionate. This is all the more so since North Korea has withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the other states outside the NPT—India, Israel, and Pakistan—are not treated in the same way as Pyongyang. As Jonathan Steele writes in the Guardian, “If it is offensive for North Korea to talk of launching a nuclear strike against the United States (a threat that is empty because the country has no system to deliver the few nuclear weapons it has), how is it less offensive for the US to warn Iran that it will be bombed if it fails to stop its nuclear research?”

 

In response, statements in the official newspaper of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), Rodong Simun, on March 6, 2013 declared that if the US continues to threaten it with nuclear weapons, Pyongyang now had the ability to turn Seoul and Washington into “a sea of fire.” North Korea also repudiated the 1953 Korean War ceasefire and cut the Red Cross hotline though lines between military and aviation authorities across the 38th parallel remain open.

 

Notably, till the middle of March, its foreign office maintained that it will abandon its nuclear weapons program if the United States removes its nuclear threats and abandons its hostile posture.

 NewImage

In reply, as Peter Hayes and Roger Cavazos of San Francisco’s Nautilus Institute note, on March 25 the United States flew B-52 Stratofortress stealth bombers over South Korea in military exercises that stimulated a nuclear attack on North Korea. Not only did these military exercises stir deep memories in North Korea where air raids killed an estimated 20 per cent of the population during the Korean War but the B-52 flights at the same time demonstrated China’s inability to affect US mobilization. The United States also bolstered its anti-missile batteries in Alaska and the West Coast.

 

Should it then surprise us that the North Korean ruling party’s Central Committee Plenum meeting set a ‘new strategic line’ of simultaneously pursuing the path of economic construction and “building nuclear armed forces”? It also announced that it would resume uranium enrichment at the Yongbyon reactor plant that had been moth-balled in October 2007 as a part of the denuclearization process.

 

Nevertheless, the WPK’s Central Committee Plenum ended by also declaring that “As a responsible nuclear weapons state, the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] will make positive efforts to prevent the nuclear proliferation, ensure peace and security in Asia and the rest of the world and realize the denuclearization of the world.”

 

In a state born of guerrilla struggle, leadership requires as Hayes and Cavazos suggest, endless battles and if Kim’s leadership itself is not under threat, he needs to embellish his own credentials. Hence, his belligerence is intended as a professor of Sociology at Seoul National University also suggests, as a manoeuvre to outflank the military while preparing the ground to initiate a more pragmatic economic policy. Thus amid the rattling of nuclear sabres, Kim has appointed as his premier, Pak Pong-ju a pragmatic economist who had been forced out of office in 2007 by the military, reportedly because he followed Chinese suggestions on economic reforms too closely.

 North Korea does not have enough resources to build its economy and to maintain the world’s third largest conventional armed force. Unlike China when it started its reform process in the late 1970s, Pyongyang does not have a huge reserve labor force in agriculture. Its economy is sustained only by extensive food and oil imports from China. To successfully pursue economic growth, a nuclear deterrent will enable Kim to divert labor from his conventional military and hence the ‘new strategic line’ announced by the WPK’s Central Committee Plenum—to simultaneously work at both economic construction and ‘building nuclear armed forces.’

However, by promising not to export nuclear weapons or material, Kim signals that he has no intention of crossing red lines. Indeed, during the recent visit to North Korea by US basketball star Denis Rodman, Kim asked him to tell President Obama to phone him. The American president pointedly refused to accept this invitation in an interview with George Stephanopoulos.

Rodman north korea cartoon mckee 270x176

Again, in an unusual move, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hyon Hak-bong addressed the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) and asserted that North Korea’s only interest was its legitimate self-defence. While North Korean ambassadors have attended meetings of fraternal associations in the past, it has usually been to accept messages of appreciation or praise—not usually to make statements. What better way to signal Pyongyang’s intentions to negotiate than for its ambassador to make a statement in a European capital?

All US Secretary of State, John Kerry, would offer in return was an offer to talk if North Korea offered unspecified concessions to show its good faith. Faced with US and South Korean intransigence, North Korea effectively closed the Kaesŏng Indusrial Park—a special industrial region—where 123 South Korean companies had been employing 53,000 North Korean workers and directly paying Pyongyang $90 million in wages every year. Significantly, while this is a serious loss to the Kim regime, it is also a non-military response to what the regime sees as persistent US provocation.

While the military was suspicious of Kaesŏng, viewing it as a Trojan horse, the regime’s decision to close it (perhaps temporarily) may indicate that it is trying to show that it is willing to bear a significant cost to send a message that it is serious in its stance.

This should be seen in the light of the fact that the government has turned a blind eye to the growth of a market activities in the country which, Andrei Lankov, a Russian specialist on Korea estimates provides 75 per cent of the income of the people outside the military and the upper echelons of the party. Frequent travel to China and the availability of DVDs about South Korea have opened their eyes to new possibilities offered by consumerism.

This makes it all the more important for the regime to compel its adversaries to change their policies, to secure a peace agreement, to denuclearize the peninsula, and to get reparations from the Japanese who colonized the country from 1895 to 1945. This has been the aim of the regime for 60 years but has assumed a new urgency. A peace treaty is a sign that Pyongyang needs to show that the United States and its friends that grotesquely masquerade as “the international community” accepts it as a legitimate state.

 

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Intolerable US Arrogance

May 22, 2012 at 10:31 am | Posted in Arms Control, Human Rights, International Relations | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By what arrogance does NATO invite a head of state to a meeting and then have the head of state of the host nation refuse the visiting dignitary a one-on-one meeting even as his rival is granted an audience and then expect the snubbed leader to obsequiously accede to all demands even as drone aircraft murders the leader’s citizens and even troops with impunity? Yet, this is what President Barack Obama did to Pakistan’s Asif Ali Zardari who was summoned to the NATO conclave in Chicago at the very last minute. When it became apparent that a mere invitation was not going to make him cave in, he was refused a meeting with the US President who nevertheless met with the Zardari’s rival, the Afghan president Hamid Karzai thus humiliating Zardari. When aides scrambled to get the two presidents to “accidentally bump” into each other at the meeting, Obama pointedly told a press conference that that was their only exchange.

560031 332481960159098 149855755088387 807808 1883848976 n

Last November, a strike by a US drone aircraft killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. The United States has refused to apologize for the murders even though it has acknowledged that its drone aircraft was responsible for the deaths. Consider the situation. The US needs Pakistan as an ally–granted that it is a cantankerous and difficult one. Surely, the best way to further alienate its citizens is to indiscriminately kill them by drone planes controlled from bases deep inside the US. The victims have little warning of their impending death–and the controllers of the planes do not put themselves in harm’s way at all. This is blood sport for them without risk–and when innocent civilians or Pakistani soldiers, the very ones the US depends on to stop al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, are killed, President Obama refuses to apologize!

Given rising anger in Pakistan, the government shut down two key supply routes for the NATO troops in Afghanistan, forcing the North Atlantic alliance to use more circuitous routes through Central Asia and Russia. Again, snubbing President Zardari, the US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, lauded the help and support of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan–pointedly ignoring Pakistan. It is true that Pakistan has demanded a 20-times hike of the transit fee for trucks–for $250 to $5000. But this could have been negotiated if an apology was forthcoming.

Believe me

Without the supply routes from Pakistan, the withdrawal of equipment brought into Afghanistan for more than a decade will be immensely complicated and the chances of lethal weaponry falling into the hands of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other militant groups increases geometrically. It would be another nail in the coffin of the US-NATO failure in Afghanistan. After more than 10 years of war, it is unlikely that the Karzai government will survive even for the three years the Soviet supported regime survived before being toppled–and it was toppled not because the insurgents’ military successes but because Moscow stopped deliveries of arms, fuel, and other supplies. As Juan Garriges writes for the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, the likelihood of a civil war after NATO leaves is steadily increasing.

As Jonathan Steele writes in the Guardian, unlike the Soviets, NATO is not negotiating with the Taliban but is pursuing a garrison strategy that is virtually guaranteed to fail:

Increasing numbers of Afghan troops will sit in bases and go out on patrols instead of US and British ones, but this is nothing more than “Nato with an Afghan face”. Locals see these Afghan troops as occupiers just like the US and British. Less than 4% of the Afghan National Army are southern Pashtuns. Most are Tajiks and Uzbeks who speak a different language and don’t know the area. But if you recruit more southerners in a hurry, you just feed the Taliban’s latest tactic: join the Afghan army and police, get trained by the Americans and British, then shoot them in the camp or mess hall.

In these conditions, to continue to snub Zardari and refuse to apologize for the killing of the soldiers–perhaps for domestic electoral purposes as Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, will certainly exploit it–is almost to ensure that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) will increase its interference in Afghanistan especially since there is little love lost between the Karzai administration and the Pakistani military and political establishment.

Davis bomb

Finally, in NATO’s haste to cover its failure there is nary a word on the condition of Afghan women–sure to regress to the state they were in at the time of the 2001 invasion! The US-led invasion may have temporarily ousted the Taliban from Kabul and eventually killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, but it has also devastated Afghanistan, killed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Afghans and thousands of Pakistanis, further destabilized Pakistan, fuelled the spread of al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists to Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, and east Africa, and expended trillions of dollars when the world-economy is mired in a crisis like no other since the Great Depression, and to the loss of thousands of American lives as well. Constitutional liberties have been suspended and torture has been reintroduced as a matter of state policy. The man who campaigned to change all this has done nothing at all!

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.