AFTER DELTA FLIGHT 253 INCIDENT – IT IS TIME TO PULL UP SOCKS RATHER THAN REPUBLICANS’ DISGUSTING GAME OF POLITICAL NAME CALLING!!

Alas this world is imperfect, this grim reminder one gets from the stupid recriminations one can see or hear taking place between the Republicans and the Democrats over the failed bombing attempt aboard Delta/Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit from Amsterdam.

Instead of making useful contributions towards what needs to be done to protect the world from the radicals, like the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who tried to blow up the Delta flight, the Republicans have launched in to nonsensical tirades to make some political capital out of this incident. They are trying desperately and, albeit, clumsily to malign President Obama (and his administration).

However, much to the chagrin of the said intellectually stunted Republicans they are getting egg back on their faces as some American TV channels are immediately pointing out the appalling inaction/gaffes of Bush and folks of his administration which has brought US to this pass. But the increasingly frustrated moron Republicans suffer from selective amnesia when they try to throw dirt on their political opponents.

But then that’s one of the downsides of democracy in that the party out of power tries to cut its nose to spite its face without realizing how much harm it may be causing to the country in the process.

Adding to this nonsense these days are the oftentimes stupid/off-the-point discussions of some half informed anchors (of American TV channels) who seem to be steering the discussion according to their personal political inclinations (and their agendas). These schmuck anchors are indeed utterly disgusting!

Anyway, more important than the schmuck American politicians and/or TV anchors is path forward for the international community in the light of what happened on Flight 253. Following points seem to need urgent attention:

· As the Foreign Minister of Yemen mentioned, his country needs international help in fighting Al-Qaeda. US, EU need to provide Yemen the necessary wherewithal in this respect as early as possible.
· Al-Qaeda’s central planning cell most probably still operates from Af-Pak border and this cell may be coordinating its actions with its cells in other countries, e.g., Yemen. Therefore, pressure must be continued to disrupt the central cell, including kicking the Pakistani asses to continue their operations in Waziristan and other areas bordering Afghanistan.
· The wily double-faced Pakistanis must not be allowed to get distracted by the so-called request from the Taliban to get former cricketer Imran Khan to mediate. These are red herrings across the trail.
· The Saudis need to act on the sleeper cells in their country and in this regard they need to coordinate their actions with their western allies, especially, US and Yemen (if the Saudis don’t consider this below their dignity).
· Stricter check of people of certain religious/ethnic backgrounds got to be put in place without drum beating about it to the world. Flight manifests need to be scanned for such people before the flight leaves and anybody appearing suspicious should be subjected to secondary/tertiary checks.
· Former top calibre counter-terrorism personnel from countries, like, India, Israel, UK should be brought in to train the US, Canadian, western countries immigration personnel in scanning and screening techniques – both visual and otherwise. The western immigration personnel, especially, the Caucasian personnel have little knowledge about names, characteristics of these ethnic groups.
· The aforementioned experts will scrutinise and look for potential radical elements before he/she boards a flight.
· Of course, full body scanners, specially trained sniffer dogs (dogs who can sniff certain chemical substances, i.e., PETN) need to be brought in use at various airports ASAP.
· Last but not the least the intelligence agencies need to pull up their socks. In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the American and western intelligence agencies - in particular, the British - surely dropped the ball.

Flight 253 was definitely a wake up call to people who may be getting a bit complacent. Political bickering and crude attempts to make political capital (like the Republicans are trying to do) will not help. On the other hand, coordinated, concerted actions on the part of the international community can certainly help in fighting the scourge of religious radicalism. Let saner elements join hand in this ongoing battle of attrition!

WANNA MAKE QUICK BUCK? SLEEP WITH A CELEBRITY AND SELL YOUR STORY!!

The other day some one, who is passing through hard times owing to job loss, asked me if there was some quick mitigation possible. I asked that person, “Have you slept with any celebrity, like, Tiger Woods?” (I could pose such a question because of my cordial and friendly relations with that person.)

That person responded innocently, “No, I haven’t; moreover, I am a male and I am straight”!! When he continued to look at me askance, I explained to him the background as to why I asked him that seemingly frivolous question.

I gave him a low down on the current media interest in women who had allegedly slept with Tiger, and the reported attempts made by those women to encash their ‘stories’. He looked disgusted, and I nodded in silence conveying complete agreement.

What disgusted him and I was the fact these women – being labelled by media as mistresses of Tiger – slept with the top golfer on their own volition. And, now they were making frantic efforts to auction their stories to make a fast buck before the public interest waned. These women, at least most of them, clearly knew that they sleeping with a married man and that there was almost NIL possibility of any ‘real’ romance and ‘happily ever after’ scenario.

The point that jumped out and begged to be asked: Are these type of women not some kind of slimy, scheming, leeches who look for potential preys and get laid by celebrities to ‘lay’ a foundation for a potentially salacious story saleable at a later date should such an opportunity came by?

Does this not amount to ‘prostitorting’? Are they not some kind of dangerous celebrity poaching vultures looking for an opportunity for a ‘kill’?

Regular hookers, prostitutes or call-girls operate with their clients strictly on a contract basis – ‘you sleep with me, you pay for it in some form’. Simple! In these transactions NO mushiness is assumed from either party or any offered! There is no element of ‘affair’ in these trysts!

But in case of the trysts married celebrities have with their so-called mistresses, the sales pitch these so-called mistresses offer to their 'stories' is that they had an ‘affair’, a ‘fling’. By bringing in the ‘affair’ angle, they subtly try to differentiate themselves from the regular hooker or a prostitute. There is an attempt to bring in the element of ‘romance’.

But are these so called mistresses also not some sort of a slut, probably a diabolical slut? Were they not spreading their legs for some kind of gratification – be it having been piled on by a ‘celebrity’, or for some gift or some favour? Did they REALLY think the married celebrity was having an AFFAIR which had possibilities of ‘happily ever after’?

No way! The ‘mistress’ knew, that celebrity knew, that they both were having a good time on the side! And, for any one knows in the world, the ‘mistress’ probably had already been compensated too with favours, gifts, money, whatever, during their so-called ‘affair’! If they really thought there was some hope of a permanent relationship, then they were plain stupid, naïve!!

This is precisely what is disgusting – these celebrity poaching vultures bide their time for making a ‘kill’ with their story of an ‘affair’, and when the opportunity comes they encash their tales with all the spice of mushiness, romance, steamy conversations, how good that celebrity was in the bed and so on!

The media understandably tries to keep up the celebrity ‘affair’ frenzy, because it helps in selling their stuff, it becomes a talking point. The public quickly reaches for these stories and reads them with interest. (But the stupid public hardly bothers to read or comprehend how their politicians sold their souls to big lobbying firms, corporate entities for favours and blocked some legislation which would have brought some relief to the masses in general!!)

One is not trying to justify what Tiger did as a married man – as a single he could screw as many women as he wanted! But the point one is trying to make is that these so-called mistresses are worse than the regular hookers, or prostitutes or call-gals.

Does Nature, or do laws of karma bring some different (harsher) form of retribution for these women?

WHAT SHOULD UNITED STATES' AFGHANISTAN POLICY BE - PART I

Objective:
· To make sure Taliban and Al-Qaeda do not get control of Afghanistan and start their fiefdom all over again;
· To make sure there is a democratically elected govt in Afghanistan which is ally of US and West;
· To make sure Afghanistan stands on its own feet economically with out the poppy crop revenue;
· To make sure Taliban and Al-Qaeda base in Pakistan is dismantled;
· To make sure Pakistan does not play the double game w.r.t Taliban and Al-Qaeda with US;
· To eliminate as many Al-Qaeda and Taliban (especially the bad Taliban; better get rid of any Taliban) as possible;
· To establish a credible, dependable and functional western intel network in the region.

Sub set of objectives:
· To make sure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secured from falling in to radical elements’ hands;
· To make sure opium exports from Afghanistan is curtailed to as low volume as possible;
· Pakistan is weaned away from supporting and providing conducive environment for the Islamic radical elements.

Why above objectives are important to US, Western allies:
If Taliban get control of Afghanistan, they could potentially cause damage to western interests by:
· Providing safe refuge to AL- Qaeda to live and expand;
· Sub-contracting offshore attacks to AL- Qaeda;
· Trying to increase sphere of influence – first in the region and then beyond (in ME, South Asia, Asia Pacific);
· Destabilising nearby countries, like, Kyrgyzstan, who are supportive of US and West;
· Creating more and more training grounds for AL- Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pak and other places;
· Systematically trying to nibble more and more area of Pakistan with eventual aim to grab the whole country;
· Increasing opium smuggling to West in menacing proportions;
· Increasing its financial base to make it strong and secure.

Aspects that will be key to success of Af-Pak objectives:
· How far the west's so-called technological advancement can be successfully put in use by US/ISAF;
· How far Pakistan can be made supportive to US/NATO objectives;
· How far Karzai, war lords cooperate and support US/NATO objectives.

Other aspects key for success of Af-Pak objectives:

Military -
· AQ and Taliban need to be taken out;
· Pakistan’s (ISI’s) support to AL-QAEDA and especially to Taliban needs to be cut off totally;
· AL- Qaeda and Taliban’s numbers need to be assessed realistically – region-wise/area-wise

Political -
· Karzai needs to ensure better governance – less corruption, cronyism etc.;
· Karzai needs to put in place proper governance machinery in the whole country;
· The war lords need to be aligned with US/NATO objectives (and support democratically elected govt in Kabul).

Economic -
· Karzai needs to ensure US and international monetary aid trickles down to poor and low middle class
· Democratically elected govt in Kabul needs to provide progress report on utilization of US and international monetary aid;
· Need to create alternative job opportunities (alternative to working on opium fields) and offer jobs to poor people.

Other -
· International sources of funds to AL- Qaeda and Taliban need to be cut off;
· Need to get Europe to commit more resources – troops and money.

WHAT SHOULD UNITED STATES' AFGHANISTAN POLICY BE - Part II

Actions needed to achieve aforesaid objectives:

With Pakistan -
· Adopt tough carrot and stick policy with Pakistani regime;
· Get Pakistan to live without being obsessed with India - provide Pakistan some non-harmful alternative reason to be proud of and be busy with;
· Keep continual pressure and vigilance on ISI – use carrot and stick with key people and buy their support/allegiance;
· Always double-check any so-called key intel, important tactical advice provided by Pak;
· DO NOT BLINDLY TRUST PAKISTAN;
· Seek intel from India and Israel and cross-check Pak’s intel always.

Military tactics -
· Adopt pincer-like movement in cutting off AL- Qaeda /Taliban and taking them out (Pakistan to push from South and US/ISAF pushes from North) in Southern Afghanistan;
· Adopt similar tactics in other areas of Afghanistan;
· Use advanced technology to detect IED’s from distance, intercept messages, locate enemy, blast underground network etc.;
· Use devastating air attacks where civilian casualties are not likely at all;
· Increase troop levels in regions/areas as required.
· Allow some Taliban to escape to China’s Uyghur region, Iran to create trouble there.

Economic -
· Karzai to make sure job opportunities are visibly available and achievable to poor;
· Karzai to make sure small business opportunities are available to masses;
· Keep providing monetary and other aid to Afghanistan.

Set time frame for Karzai -
· Keep pressure on Karzai to develop further Afghanistan’s own security and police base/network in a given time frame (3-5 years)
· Evaluate periodically Karzai’s performance against given KPI’s

Other -
· On a dual track approach explore if some Taliban are willing to join democratic process (but do not get obsessed with finding out good Taliban / bad Taliban);
· Take out/eliminate private fund providers to Taliban (most of them operate in Gulf and ME, some in Europe);
· Keep up an international media blitz that moderate Islamic elements are being courted and radical elements being eliminated;
· Keep an eye on China’s game in region;
· US/NATO to maintain an unified, aligned and integrated approach.
· Do not piss India off.

USA – WHAT A COUNTRY?! ANYONE CAN LAUNCH A TIRADE, HOWEVER NONSENSICAL, AGAINST THE PRESIDENT!! IS THIS A DEMOCRACY WORTH EMULATING?

What is currently happening in US media world, especially with respect to actions of one cable TV channel, is utterly flabbergasting! The anchors, talk show hosts of the TV channel in question have been highly strident in their criticism of President Obama from the time he assumed office. But of late in the context of proposed health care reform this channel is seen to have gone ballistic in their antagonism to Democrats and President Obama in particular.

Watching this TV channel the question that comes to the mind of any one who is rational and sane minded: Is this the type of democratic practice any country should aspire to have? Is this the ideal model of right to ‘free speech’? If an individual or corporate body or an organisation has enough money, can that individual or corporate body or an organisation launch a sustained campaign based on any nonsensical, stupid premise/argument against an individual – an individual who happens to be the President of USA?!

What is the limit to which right to free speech can be stretched in a democracy? In other democracies in the world – be they in Western world or in Asia or Latin America – the opposition parties are known to oppose any proposed change in policy by arranging public rallies. Opposition parties are also known to attack the government, the Prime Minister or minister(s) in and outside the Parliament (or Senate et al), but the verbal attacks are generally more based on reasoning – whether rational or flimsy – related to the policy in question (sometimes it gets physical too inside the lawmakers chamber).

But the main point to note is that the attacks and responses mostly take place between the government and the opposition – rarely an outside organization, and that too a media channel, is roped in that fight in such a blatant and brazen manner. In US at the moment the TV channel referred to at the beginning of the blog is carrying out a sustained campaign against the president by name, and all kinds of information (or disinformation) is being disseminated.

A random sampling of information (or disinformation) regarding President Obama thrown at public by the said American cable channel include following (this is by no means a exhaustive listing):

· Mischievously highlighting that Obama’s middle name is Hussein;
· He may not be born in USA, hence is not eligible to be president (as per US law);
· He is a socialist (sometimes he is branded as quasi-communist);
· Sometimes he has been compared to being a fascist;
· His proposed health care reform involves killing of elderly people…etc etc

This kind of sustained campaign against a Prime Minister or President through blatant and partisan use of TV channel, and worse, based on apparently irrational/whimsical arguments, is unheard of in any other democracy. Thank goodness, the people of the other democracies in the West and other parts of the world don’t get to see the aforesaid circus on a daily basis and in a detailed manner (for whatever reasons). If they did, they would have:

· Rolled in laughter listening to the whimsical/irrational points made by that channel;
· Wondered how intellectually challenged and mentally half grown people get to speak on TV on a regular basis;
· Developed a hateful opinion of American democracy;
· Added another reason to their list for disliking US, and strengthened their disdain for Americanism.

But potentially the worst implication could be that some folks in the other democracies might get ideas of how one could run the head of the government – prime minister or the president – down in the dirty game of politicking; how electronic media can be used (or misused) to manipulate public opinion to any extreme! This is indeed a frightening prospect.

The potentially catastrophic aspect of use (or misuse) of electronic media is that in a country of relatively large population (US population around 340 million) there are always people who are vulnerable and susceptible to manipulation – who could potentially get driven to extremes. In a large population this segment (of vulnerable people) can be fairly big.

And, when people belonging to this segment, even a handful, get driven to extremes they could potentially get morphed in to radical elements and create havoc in society. Fanatic religious radicalism is one such example of people driven to extremes though in this case the radicalism is fed and fomented through religious channels, again, through use of electronic means.

It will be interesting to see if and at what point the current ongoing character assassination – it will not be unfair to call it such – of the American leadership will stop. If it continues like this, in medium and long term future the socio-politico repercussions for the people of USA could be potentially highly toxic and dangerous. One hopes the saner elements in the US will pause to ponder on what is going on and stop the slide before a serious damage takes place to its polity!!

NEGLECT OF YOUNG CANADIAN UNDERGRADS GIVING RISE TO POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS SITUATION IN ALBERTA (AND CANADA)

The economic recession that engulfed the globe in mid-2008 has triggered a very disturbing situation in Canada, and Alberta in particular. There were massive job losses in Canada and Alberta not witnessed since 1980s and the people who were among the most severely hit were the young workers – in the age group of 18-26.

In Alberta the huge number of oilsands projects brought a fantastic economic upswing in the province from 2001-02 onwards. Fort McMurray, Calgary, and Edmonton were flush with jobs – with engineering jobs more concentrated in Calgary and Edmonton, and tradespersons’ jobs abounding in Fort McMurray. Hourly rates were going through the roof in the so-called ‘Middle East’ of North America, i.e., Fort Mc.

The burgeoning engineering companies in Alberta were offering jobs to fresh engineering undergrads to experienced alike at frenetic pace. The joke making round in 2005-06 was that if someone could spell ‘engineering’ that person was getting hired. There was a mad rush of immigrant engineers who claimed experience in oil, gas and other sectors.

But as the oilsands projects started to come to a grinding halt in 2008, massive lay offs ensued. And, bearing the brunt of this all were, among others, the young engineers. The saddest part is that these young engineers had cut their teeth in engineering in Canadian engineering schools. These young engineers who were aspiring to be the future torch bearers of Canadian expertise were given most shabby treatment by the oilsands related companies of Alberta.

During these trying times, most of the engineering companies and a number of operating companies of Alberta were and are found following dangerously short-sighted policy of relying on immigrant engineers, who have on paper more number of years of experience, to run their show.

A large chunk of these foreign educated Bachelor degree holders are pathetically ill equipped in terms of communication skills and Canadian outlook toward work culture and excellence in general. As well, most of the immigrant work force is relatively more aged.

Now, what is happening is that by not providing employment opportunities to the young Canadian engineers (EITs), the layer that would otherwise be ready to fill in the vacuum in the middle management level in the coming years when the baby boomers will be gone is not getting properly formed. These young undergrads not only bring the excellence of the Canadian engineering schools but also bring the mindset of Canadian work ethics and attitude right from the day one to their respective jobs.

The young men and women coming out of the various Canadian universities after completing their undergrad studies had formed the backbone of Canadian industrial resurgence in the late 20th century. These young men and women had brought with them the potential managerial skills so very vital to development and sustaining the edge in competition.

But that edge is getting severely blunted and lost especially in Alberta. Because, if the young engineers don’t get the experience they need in their formative years, out of the engineering schools, how will they develop the necessary oilsands and other oil and gas expertise which is fundamental to continuation of Canada’s reputation of delivering high quality output?!

Performance of a company and quality of work depends on the managerial competence of those entities. Canadian universities not only impart high quality education, they also provide a well rounded personality development, including solid grounding in soft skills, during the undergrad courses.

But if the young Canadian undergrads are not provided continued job opportunities how can they get groomed to be future managers of Canada? How will that competent layer be ready to fill the void created by the retiring baby boomers? A layer that is competent in communication skills and ingrained with Canadian work culture and values, a layer that is trained in Canadian excellence and trained to think like one! This situation is indeed potentially disastrous for Canada!!

But sadly, the incompetent and intellectually impoverished decision makers of the various engineering and operating companies are destroying the future of Alberta (and Canada) by not taking back the Canada educated engineering undergrads as soon as new job opportunities are coming up. The situations is getting further exacerbated by robot-like recruiters who cannot distinguish between ‘real’ talent and the ‘irrelevant’ talent which claims simply more number of years of experience on paper.

One hopes Alberta has not become totally devoid of sane and competent people, and that these people will realize the path of disaster the short-sighted blundering idiots are treading on. One hopes the companies in Alberta, especially the oilsands related, will refocus their attention on development of future layers of management based on home grown young undergrad talent by re-absorbing them in jobs.

If the handful sane elements in the provincial or federal Govt don’t intervene soon enough, the damage that will have been caused to future managerial competence of Alberta (and Canada) will be irreparable. Ruing at a later day will not undo the stupid actions of the present day. May God give the decision makers some modicum of intellectual sense!

TO SUCCEED IN AFGHANISTAN UNITED STATES WILL FIRST NEED TO UNDO ITS NEFARIOUS SOUTH ASIAN POLICIES OF THE 1990s

For the following major US and ISAF losses in one day in Afghanistan:
· Oct 2009: Eight US die in Taliban attack in Nuristan, eastern Afghanistan close to Pak border;
· Sept 2009: Six Italian soldiers die in suicide bomb in Kabul;
· Aug 2008: Ten French troops killed in ambush in Sarobi, east of Kabul;
· July 2008: Nine US soldiers die in militant siege in Wanar, bordering Nuristan and Wanar provinces;
· Nov 2007: Six US soldiers and three Afghan troops killed in ambush;
· July 2007: Six Canadian soldiers and Afghan interpreter die when vehicle hits IED in Kandahar province;
· May 2007: Five US, one UK, one Canadian soldier die in hostile attack on helicopter in Helmand province;
· June 2005: Sixteen US soldiers die in attack on helicopter in Konar province; and counting…..

if one had to point toward one major reason, then it would have to be the former President Bill Clinton. And, this is not being said because one is anti-Democrat or pro-Republican. Any impartial, objective analysis of US policies in South Asian region of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan would unequivocally bring out that in 1990s United States pursued a nefarious policy of ‘overlook what Pakistan (and Saudi) is doing in the region’.

Since the buck stops at the table of US President, therefore, the responsibility of policy of deliberate callous indifference towards the diabolical games played by Pakistan in ‘90s must be attributed to then US President – Clinton. Clinton’s era was one of the worst from US foreign policy perspective.

What happened on 9/11 was the direct consequence of Clinton administration's callous indifference alluded to above. President Bush went in to Afghanistan like a mad bull in rage. However, he continued to indulge Pakistani leadership and get fooled (most of the time knowingly) by Pakistani chicanery.

Either Bush was incapable or he was, like his Republican predecessors, more anti-Indian; whatever it was he could not unravel the rogue Pakistan was (and is). Like a fool he continued to play in the hands of the Pakistanis. Result? US and ISAF continued to bleed in Afghanistan.

But Bush's Afghanistan strategy was more of a band aid because he had not fathomed the Clinton-era mistakes nor he had the inclination to do so either. He had no clue of what would be the best strategy or what it should be predicated on! He was too bogged down in Iraq, and he and his advisers were too incapable of figuring out anything sensible beyond Iraq.

Going back to Clinton - regardless of whatever the so-called biographers of Bill Clinton may say or write about the characteristics of the former President, one thing is for sure – Clinton had a pathological aversion (or shall we say, inability) to taking major decisions, especially, related to military geo-politics. Clinton exhibited classic ostrich-like behaviour when it came to dealing with potential or real armed conflict issues.

Clinton liked to be an ‘escapist’ (probably he still does) and under the self-created illusion that everything is fine devilishly revelled in procrastination and avoidance. In case of South Asian region he deliberately overlooked what was going on in the region. Following were some of the notable situations:
· Pakistan was aiding Taliban to overrun Afghanistan so as to control that area indirectly;
· Saudi Arabia was promoting radical Islam (Wahabism) by pumping money in that region (and elsewhere in the moderate Islamic communities);
· Pakistan was fostering terrorism in Kashmir and countless innocent Indians were dying;
· Pakistan, through its nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, was not only developing its own nuclear capability but also transferring the deadly technology to North Korea, Iran and others;
· Pakistan was channelling US military and civilian aid to further its own military build up;
· Pakistan’s Shia politicians were colluding with Iran to help expand its influence in the region.

It will be disastrous to assume that CIA did not know about the above and much more and was not keeping the President and his advisers informed (if CIA indeed failed to notice and/or track the above, then God bless the US!). But President Clinton chose to overlook all this. Why? Possibly because apart from being an incorrigible ‘escapist’ that he was, he thought that there was NO potential direct (or may even indirect) impact on an American due to whatever Pakistan or Saudi Arabia was doing!! He thought “oh why bother, things are happening thousands of miles away from US shores”.

But this psychopathic philanderer probably forgot what the geniuses of political science have said from ancient times – be it Chanakya or Sun Tzu – to the modern times that to maintain political and military influence one needs to anticipate far ahead what can happen in the coming times. Sun Tzu mentions at one place in his book (The Art of War): ...A leader must be “serene and inscrutable" and capable of comprehending "unfathomable plans".

But then that’s the price a country pays for electing someone whose dick reigns rather than the cerebral competencies. If history is impartial and someday people reflect on past presidents of US, there will be a general consensus that Clinton’s era was a disaster in terms of statesmanship and foreign policy; Clinton failed miserably in its task of protecting US by failing to anticipate and act proactively where it was required.
[Sidebar comment: The so-called economic prosperity seen during Clinton presidency was a result of previous policies already put in place, he was just lucky to reap the fruits]

One may ask, why bring in all the past, Clinton and all, in today’s discussion on Afghanistan strategy? Again, the answer is simple: if you don’t analyze what might have been the cause for a given current situation, how do you assess and arrive at the best option! And, mind you, the top US general in the region Gen Stanley McChrystal is asking for a "dramatically different" strategy to ensure success there.

So, how do you arrive at a "dramatically different" strategy if you don’t know what went wrong in the first place; if you don’t know what has been going on for all these years in the region? What are the areas that need to be fixed to achieve success of the mission? If President Obama and his advisers want to arrive at the ‘best’ option, they will have to look at the past with an open and impartial mind, analyze with the mind set of nobody is a ‘holy cow’, explode old shibboleths, and then come to the conclusion on the best path forward.

Taliban can be defeated. And by the way, President Obama keeps harping on the word Al-Qaeda without mentioning Taliban in his speeches. One hopes he knows that ‘real’ enemy of US and ISAF are the Taliban, Al-Qaeda are just riding piggy back to synergize and cause maximum damage. Anyway, back to Afghanistan: US and the international community can defeat the Islamic radical monsters – created to a large extent by the aid and abetment of Pakistan and Saudis – but it would need a sustained campaign.

How should that campaign be run, that will be the subject of next blog.

IS AMERICAN POLITICKING ANY DIFFERENT FROM SO-CALLED CORRUPT ASIAN DEMOCRACIES?

It is fascinating to watch how the health-care reform debate in US has degenerated in to dirty politicking. The way the so-called right fringe interest groups seem to be able to mobilize support of the Republican politicians makes one wonder whether the American politicians are any way different in overall behaviour vis-à-vis their counterparts in Asian democracies, say, India, Philippines or Indonesia.

President Obama is trying to bring about health-care reform which the right-wing people are opposing tooth and nail. President Obama presented his case to the Congress in his address. The way he explained, his plan sounded rational. He was also at pains to mention that health-care plan his administration wants to go forward with includes ideas from both sides of the aisle.

However, the Republicans remained unimpressive. During Obama’s speech one Republican congressman even tried to heckle by shouting “You lie”. Of course, that was loutish third rate conduct very reminiscent of how many legislators in some of the Asian democracies behave.

But more than the outlandish behaviour of a Republican congressman, the more striking thing is the energy and ease with which the interest groups have been mobilizing Republican legislators’ support in opposing Obama’s health care reform plan.

One may wonder, is the Obama plan really that bad causing the Republicans to baulk at it? Or, is it just the ideological difference that is prompting the rightists to oppose the proposed reform for the heck of it? Or, is there something else that is causing the Republican politicians to rally behind the interest groups?

A quick review of supposedly neutral print and TV media suggests that the interest groups opposing the health care reform in US are being mostly funded by – former Republican politicians, some corporate entities (who fear they potentially stand to lose due to the proposed reform) or right-wing organizations funded by various corporate bodies.

Surely, it just can’t be that Obama’s proposed reform is catastrophic as the right-wing folks would like the people to believe. So, if the proposed reform has some merit, why are the Republican politicians of the current Congress opposing it instead of contributing to it to make it better and more potent? And, President Obama has made it clear that he is willing to consider any good suggestion from the Republicans.

Well, the answer is simple: the said Republican politicians are being ‘incentivised’ by big fat corporate entities that are fearful that the proposed reform will hit at their profit making potential. One may ask at this point, does that mean the American politicians are also purchasable like their counterparts in Asian democracies? Again, the answer is: YES, of course; a lot of them are indeed purchasable! And, this is something not new, it has been happening for decades.

So, how does it happen in US then? Why does the world not get to hear about money related scandals in Washington? Well, the big corporate entities mostly engage lobbyists who act as the conduits for the ‘incentivisation’ of the politicians – whether through huge donations or through skilfully crafted pecuniary benefits that are not easily detectable or which can not be labelled as bribe.

There is a quid pro quo involved in this ‘incentivisation’ game – the politician supports or opposes, as the case may be, to protect some corporate entities’ interest and in return that politician gets some ‘compensation’. The inscrutable and complicated way in which the corporate entities ‘buy’ favours from American politicians is itself a topic justifying some course in a university to understand the whole ramification of it.

The corporate bodies have on their payrolls brilliant financial and law experts who camouflage the ‘incentives’ in such a way that they appear innocuous and generally remain undetectable unless somebody goes after it specifically, say, a special prosecutor. There lies the main difference in the manner American politicians are ‘purchased’ or made ‘amenable’ and politicians in some of the Asian democracies are ‘purchased’ or made ‘amenable’.

In a democracy like India, politicians are quite often ‘purchased’ brazenly, unabashedly through bribes in hard cash, or in kind like giving out a prime real estate or an expensive vehicle. Favours like giving a job to a politician’s relative is considered minor and don’t cut much ice these days.

Now, back to US: The way there has been a sustained campaign against Obama’s proposed health care reform – be it through ad campaigns (some of which apparently are conveying utter falsehoods) or mobilizing hecklers at town hall meetings, or getting thousands of people in Washington on 12th Sept – is surely indicative of one thing: some corporate bodies feel their bottom line profit is going to be hit.

So, just as the corporate bodies in Asian democracies engage in devious ways, by using politicians as pawns, to scuttle government policies they perceive to be harmful to their commercial interest similarly one finds some American companies doing the same thing in this health care brouhaha.

In this context one may feel curious to ask, what the so-called dirt-sniffing media do in US with regard to ‘incentivisation’ of politicians? Do they not expose the wheeling and dealing activities? After all, the American media have created an image in the world as if they are the only people in this profession on this planet who bring out ‘dirt’ with regard to politicians!

Anecdotal data seem to suggest there is some kind of unwritten understanding in American media world that they will try not to ferret out any political scandal in Washington which has its roots in ‘incentivisation’. There are some exceptions though to this but they are few and far between. The American media more readily goes after scandals in Washington which involve some politician sleeping with a woman other than one’s wife.

So, this is a brief snap shot of how a lot of American politicians are manipulated by corporate bodies for sake of protecting their business interests. It is just that American media for decades have been successful in projecting an image to the world as if the American politicians are the paragon of virtues and moral uprightness.

Besides, on the world stage the American politicians follow an aggressive image projection helped by powerful American media to beat their drums worldwide. And, in that din any question about skeletons in their cupboards gets blown away! Didn’t some one say that nexus between a politician and powerful media makes a ready made script for an award winning movie?!!

ALBERTA OILSANDS AND ENGINEERING COMPANIES NEGLECTING THE LAID OFF CANADA EDUCATED JUNIOR ENGINEERS

“Job losses surprise Tories”, screamed a headline from a Calgary’s newspaper on 8th August 2009. The news went on to state that since the economic downturn struck in October 2008, Alberta's jobless rate has climbed month after month, nearly doubling to 7.2 per cent in July 2009 (highest since June 1996) with the evaporation of 75,600 positions.

In Edmonton, the unemployment rate was 7.0 per cent in July, compared with 6.5 per cent in June. Calgary's rate increased to 6.9 per cent from 6.6 per cent. The figures are based on three-month moving averages. Meanwhile, the number of people failing to make payments on their debt jumped more in Calgary than any other Canadian city, according to Equifax Canada.

First, due to the incompetence and blunders of oilsands companies the Canada educated young engineers suffered when the projects got shelved, and then due to the combined effect of incompetence of recruiters and myopic view of employer companies, the aforementioned junior engineers are getting a raw deal.

Someone not familiar with Canada and in particular Alberta would wonder why this calamity befell Albertans. For them and others, here is a quick recap: During 2006-07, a number of oilsands companies launched highly ambitious plans for development of the vast hydrocarbon resource – called oilsands – that abounds Alberta.

It must be said that except Imperial Oil the top management of these oilsands companies made investment decisions in a stupid manner without doing commonsensical due diligence regarding risks to their long term investment plans. Like a bum high on pot, these numbskulls thought in their fool’s paradise that oil prices will remain high and their projects will have attractive IRR’s.

Due to the mega projects arising out of financially foolish decisions of these various oilsands corporations, the engineering companies in Alberta filled positions with people like crazy – a lot of these positions were filled by new immigrants who came in droves to join the gold rush.

However, in mid-2008 came the cataclysmic downturn stemming from greed filled devious financial products sold in US. The disaster that started in US caused a global meltdown which, among other things, brought a precipitous fall of oil prices from >US$120 to less than US$40.

This dealt a huge blow to the not well thought out ambitious oilsands projects alluded to above. Except Imperial Oil's projects, other projects started to get shut down or moth balled one after another from late 2008. Consequently, the engineering companies in Alberta started laying off people in hundreds.

In this massive layoffs the young engineers who did their undergraduate degree from Canadian universities are the worst affected. However, as the oilsands companies – small to big – reconciled to reality in Q2/Q3 2009 and started to develop new projects in slow and cautious manner, some laid off engineers started to get job offers.

But the job offers are very few and far between for engineers having 2-3 years experience in oilsands projects. These bright Canadian universities educated engineers are getting shunned by the myopic, dim witted and foolish attitude of both engineering and oilsands companies.

The aforesaid companies want engineers with 5-7 years or more oilsands’ experience. Since there is this racket in Alberta and Canada of hiring of people through recruitment companies, the young, dynamic Canada educated engineers are getting filtered out at the hand of the robotic recruiters.

These twits are just looking at numbers (of experience) rather than the core competency of the candidates who may have relatively less experience. The important aspect that is getting overlooked is that these young engineers cut their teeth in oilsands rather than drifting from some other oil and gas experience and that too from other countries.

Moreover, because of their Canadian engineering education these junior engineers have an edge over the so-called 5-10 years experienced jokers coming from outside Canada a large number of whom can’t even speak English properly.

Most of the recruiters don’t have necessary competence to discern whether a so-called 5-6 years experienced engineer, who may have done his Bachelors from some other country’s very pedestrian level university, has got necessary oilsands experience, or, is s/he bluffing her/his way through by camouflaging their experience under the façade of years of experience.

The poor young engineers who started their career in oilsands after completing their undergraduate course from Canadian schools are getting edged out at the very screening level at the hands of lousy recruiters, and second-rate interviewers of employer companies.

The question is: who will crack the whip to instil some sense in the minds of the employer companies to provide employment opportunities to the bright, Canada educated young engineers rather than opting for some foreign educated clown who has neither the communication skills nor the familiarity with the Canadian way.

It is so disgusting and painful to see the young, bright, capable (but less in so-called years of experience) Canada educated engineers suffering, for no fault of theirs, due to callousness, inadequacy, incapability of people charged with hiring processes. Probably only God’s intervention can bring some relief to these struggling young folks! Amen!

US PURSUING ITS AF-PAK POLICY CLEVERLY – GETS INDIA TO YIELD TO PAKISTAN

The recent joint statement issued by India and Pakistan, following the meeting between the Prime Ministers of the two nations on the sidelines of NAM Summit at Sharm El-Sheikh seems to indicate that the bickering greedy loser Indians have once again been humbled by the shrewd Pakistanis.

The joint statement sees some departures in both Indian and Pakistani positions in that there is no reference to Jammu and Kashmir in the statement but both countries have agreed to discuss outstanding issues.

There is nothing in non-mention of Kashmir for the Indians to gloat about because Pakistan got a significant victory by getting to include a reference to threats in Balochistan which is an oblique reference to allegations by Pakistan of Indian involvement in the region. This reference on Balochistan will prove very disadvantageous for the Indians in the overall diplomatic duel between the two countries.

Within days of the joint statement K-word got mentioned. As Pakistan wanted, Kashmir was mentioned in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement on reaching India. The fact of the matter is that to make its Af-Pak policy more effective, the US is playing all the necessary political games. And, in this process they are getting the ‘pawns’ to do what they want them to do to suit their tactical moves. From US’s point of view this totally makes sense.

As part of all encompassing diplomatic push there was a statement from Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J Crowley who said "The meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh and the statement between the Indian leader and the Pakistani leader in terms of cooperation on terrorism (is) vitally important to stability in the region."

But what the common Indian must be thinking is: what did or will India get in return from US by playing ball with it in making Pakistan happy. It is important to note that Pakistan wants to extract some pound of flesh as quid pro quo for acting militarily against the Taliban – Pakistan wants US to pressure India to yield on Kashmir issue permanently.

US wanted to throw some crumbs in Pakistan’s way and they got the Indian suckers to drop their pants to the Pakistanis. US would think that this will help them in pushing the rogue Pakistanis further in their (Pak’s) overt military action against the Taliban. May be it will, may be not, because the schmuck Pakistanis have proven time and again shrewder than the Americans in the Af-Pak geo-political theatre.

If US thought that they can get the Pakistanis to completely crush the Taliban in NWFP and FAP, they would be foolishly mistaken. Pakistan will NEVER EVER destroy the chess piece that gives them THE leverage vis-à-vis USA. When the other day in an interview with CNN correspondent the former ISI chief of Pakistan said that they (Pakistan) can mediate between US and Mullah Omar, it was immediately clear that the rogue Pakistanis had another important card up their sleeve.

Pakistanis know that without their support the US and the ISAF can achieve nothing in Afghanistan and this IS their biggest trump card. And, US with all their vaunted intelligence network and military might will not able to make any friggin’ damage to the Taliban network unless their schmuck bootlicking poodle Pakistan provides necessary support.

Well, to do some ego massage of the ever obliging stupid Indians, Hillary Clinton has visited India first but this visit is just a window dressing. The main substantive portion of the Af-Pak policy will be further pushed by Richard Holbrooke visiting India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Brussels in the week of July 20.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is facing disquiet within his own political party, while the opposition parties in Parliament are tearing him to pieces for the perceived ‘disastrous’ joint statement issued at Sharm El-Sheikh. Singh’s foreign minister S.M. Krishna does not seem to have much clue about how foreign policy games are played. He seems to have merely gone by the strategy paper prepared his Foreign Secretary.

It will be interesting to see how the Af-Pak policy of US pans out in the near and longer term. Hopefully, USA will not be lulled in to believing that Pakistan is cooperating sincerely just because of their military action in Swat valley. Pakistanis can never be trusted - even sons don't believe their fathers - that's Pak history. One hopes US will keep the pressure on the rogue Pakistanis to achieve ultimate success against the Al Qaida and the Taliban.

DUMB SCHMUCK REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT WING MEDIA WANT UNITED STATES AND OBAMA TO SCREW UP IRAN POLICY

Iran is at the threshold of a momentous change. Presently a tussle is going on in that country which could turn out to be decisive in the modern history of Iran. In this tussle on one side are psychopathic Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his master Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and on the other side are defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and his supporters.

The intellectually challenged Republicans, who neither had any idea of what art of diplomacy is nor have any idea now, want President Obama to jump in the Iranian fray. The saying ‘a fool’s bolt is soon shot’ couldn’t be more true in case of these numb-skull Republicans who think that the whole world is their fiefdom and the US can be a gun-toting policeman who can walk in to any country and meddle in its internal affairs.

But the right wing media who may be deeply intellectually impoverished are not so impoverished or idiot not to know the consequences of blatant interference in any other country’s internal affairs. Still they would like President Obama to commit a gaffe and make a mess of Iran issue.

There is another saying ‘to cut one’s nose to spite one’s face’ – this saying seems applicable to the attempts the scheming schmuck right wing media is making to build a hype on their channels that US should overtly step in to Iranian affair right away. They know that it would be a folly to do so, but then who cares of national interest when personal grudges reign supreme.

One could see the above mentioned nefarious strategy on a well known global news channel the other day. The anchor, who has clearly not yet been able to stomach Democrats ascendancy at Capitol Hill and White House, tried his best to put words in the mouth of an expert on Iran to extract some statement, like, US should overtly interfere in Iran’s affairs. The said anchor looked clearly disappointed when the expert didn’t fall for the bait.

President Obama knows the dirty tricks of these people who place personal defeats – political or idealogical – above the interest of the country. Obama has handled the Iran issue very astutely so far. However, he needs to be on guard against any knee-jerk action to counter the Republican pressure which is being purveyed by the likes of the television anchor mentioned in the foregoing.

A sidebar comment: No wonder Obama made the aforesaid tv anchor butt of his joke at RTCA gathering held in June. This anchor, who seems to have come up to this level in life more by stroke of luck and literally sucking up to right benefactors rather than his genius, probably thinks he can sustain at that level by licking the boots of his patrons, never mind even if they are downright rogues and/or stupid in regard to their approach to what is basically good for US and what is not.

Anyway, it is heartening to see that the current president of US has treaded on the Iran affairs very appropriately. Overt meddling may not be called for at this stage; in fact, the western world, supported by Israel, could provide all the help and succour the Mousavi supporters need in disseminating the information from Iran to the outside world – be it pictures, recordings, written material, whatever.

The world needs to provide all and every help to the Iranians who want freedom from repression of the clerics who are insanely living in the medieval ages and are given to savage like behaviour and temperament. Every modern gadgetry and means that can provide some assistance towards realizing the aspirations of those Iranians must be made available by the western world.

Right now concerted covert operations duly supported by measured overt diplomatic game must be the order of the day. That being said, there also needs to be a readiness in terms of gun boat diplomacy, just in case. The US military is stretched in terms of ground forces, but the naval and air force wherewithal should be adequate to put the irrational savage clerics on the defensive. US must rally its allies to support the cause of the democracy loving citizens of Iran.

The Iranian society is now polarized between saner and fanatical elements. Now is the time to drive the wedge harder to let the saner elements win. But in the process of accomplishing this, the US and its allies should avoid falling in the trap being attempted to be set by the disgraced, vanquished and self-seeking political opponents (and their lackeys) of Obama and the Democrats.

If the western world can play its cards properly, surely the Iranian society could be freed from the tyrannical and repressive elements of that country. Quite often a cool and methodical approach works better than shoot-from-the hip approach. The modern world is not the Wild West of 19th century United States – it is now an internet and satellite driven world of the mentally sharp and balanced!!

ALBERTA VICTIM OF CANADA’S VOTE BANK POLITICS; AND, UNEMPLOYED SUFFERING DUE TO DELAYS IN EI DISPENSATION

Amidst all the recent brouhaha related to auto industry’s near closure situation in Ontario province, the plight of huge unemployed work force of Alberta has got submerged and forgotten. No doubt thousands of workers were axed by GM, Chrysler and Ford and potentially many more may have been affected indirectly, but the fact remains that Alberta also saw massive lay offs from Q4 2008 till Q2 2009 – it is still going on.

The precipitous fall of crude prices led to cancellation of many oil sands projects. Coupled with this, falling prices of natural gas caused big cut down in new wells to be drilled. This dealt a double whammy to the Albertans and resulted in job losses not seen in decades. As well, there have been thousands of bankruptcies in the province which was riding wave of prosperity until a year ago.

But the unfortunate part is that while auto sector workers have got all the attention from the Federal government in terms of bail out funds and other help, no body has bothered to look at the plight of the massive number of laid off workers of Alberta. A substantial portion of people were laid off from the engineering companies and these people have no other job options because there are hardly any oil and gas projects elsewhere in Canada.

The Federal government seems to be keener in looking after the Ontario workers because the number of Parliament ridings is far more in that province than Alberta. Obviously, the vote bank politics is prompting the government attitude rather than the compassion or humane side of things. The Alberta workers have been left to fend for themselves with very little government support coming forth.

To make matters worse, the EI support to the laid off workers has been very slow to come. There doesn’t seem adequate staff to cope with the deluge of EI applications in Alberta. EI support cheques should start arriving within couple of months of having got laid off, but reports suggest longer waiting period for the laid off workers.

People in the other part of the world may have a perception that in Canada things happen in a non-partisan, fair and equitable manner but in reality that seems to be more of hogwash, complete rubbish. Hypocrisy rules the roost in Ottawa it would appear, securing vote bases for future parliamentary elections seems to be more important than the predicament of the suffering folks of provinces which do not send MP’s in droves.

Shameless self-seeking schmuck politicians do not exist in the developing countries only, they are present in Canada too; the difference may be only in terms of façade or polish that is maintained in this North American country.

One wonders when the conditions would turn around in Alberta, and the thousands of hapless engineers, skilled workers, and other laid off work force would get employment and lead a reasonably un-stressful life. It seems only God can provide some succour to the suffering and the dejected. The question is: when would He decide to shower His Grace!

PRESIDENT OBAMAS FIRST 100 DAYS; AND, DISTURBING SITUATION IN PAKISTAN

PRESIDENT OBAMA COMPLETES 100 DAYS

It had to be someone with massive fortitude, patience and commonsense to confront the issues that enveloped US and the world when the 44th president of US took office. Fortunately, for the world and the US, Barack Obama came to the White House in Jan 2009. He has so far done an outstanding job; if one had to give him a grade, he should be given an A.

President Obama has shown statesmanship, leadership and unifying qualities during first 100 days of his presidency - at both global and national levels. It is shocking to see that certain sections of American society, namely, the ultra-rightists, the conservatives have chosen to be guided by their disgustingly irrational dogma rather than their saner and normal mental faculties.

One wonders how a certain section of TV media in US – Fox News – can get away with the vitriol and divisiveness their media personalities seem to purvey on the channel. Moreover, these apparently mentally atrophied personalities seem to abet, preach and fuel the irrational and psychopathically motivated views alluded to above.

The above cited channel also did not cover the President Obama’s news conference marking completion of his first 100 days in office. Commonsense dictates that the presidential presser was important to the people of US because their President was supposed to be stating his views on various issues of paramount concern to American people.

However, somehow the American people put up quietly with such pathologically malefic behaviour – there is hardly any public outcry, shaming, condemnation, boycott of such systematic campaign which is dangerous for the country. Probably this partly explains the systemic rot that has set in the American society. Probably it also explains why certain white collared diabolical crooks seem to be getting emboldened to design uniquely effective swindling techniques and making fast buck with it.

One hopes President Obama will not get de-motivated by such psychopathic lunatics, and instead will continue to lead US and the world in the right direction. May God bless him and his family!
====================================================
PAKISTAN’S DANGEROUS SHENANIGANS

One of the issues that the US President is grappling with is the Afghan-Pak conundrum. Pakistan is right now in the midst of a mind-boggling game of one-upmanship being played between the mentally unstable but power hungry and corrupt Zardari and the Pakistan Army.

It is simply beyond commonsensical comprehension as to why only a small number of Pakistani troops have been sent to Buner area to deal with the Taleban even though Pakistan has a reasonably big army equipped with armaments obtained through begging, borrowing from US and China. Obviously, some very insidious game is being played.

Fortunately, for the first time the US administration is adopting the right way of dealing with Pakistanis. It is also very important that US keeps a close vigil on the nuclear assets of Pakistan and takes all steps necessary to ensure these weapons do not fall in to the hands of Taleban.

If necessary, US military may have to take control of the vital military installations which store the nuclear weapons. For this to be successful, back up support from Canadian, Indian (and possibly Israeli) forces would be essential; hopefully, necessary coordination has been carried out and proper actionable plan has been put in place.

US and its allies have to bring all the intelligence they can bring to the table to make sure they have figured out what games Pakistan’s ISI is playing and whether there are some other forces, like, China and Saudi Arabia acting from behind the scenes.

One also hopes that US has figured out a scenario in which Pakistan’s current geographical entity may have to be allowed to be fragmented in to at least two pieces. One autonomous strip consisting of the NWFP, the pro-Taleban regions, and the other consisting of Punjab, Sindh and Multan. In such a scenario, the strip consisting of NWFP, Swat, Dir etc can be systematically squeezed from north and bottom.

At any rate, Pak-Afghan scene needs close monitoring and quick action as and when needed. When and how much help Pakistan needs to be given should be decided by Obama administration based on verified ground realities instead of sentimental pronouncements emanating from some US congressperson – not least of someone as naïve and incompetent as John Kerry.

CANADA AND INDIA NEED TO TAKE ON LEADING ROLE TO GUIDE THE G-20 TOWARDS A BETTER ECONOMIC FUTURE!!

G-20 Leaders gathering in London on 02 April represent 85% of the world's economy. At this meeting:

· The G-20 nations want to reach agreement on more co-ordinated action to revive the world economy, both through more interest rate cuts and more spending by governments to bring economies out of recession;
· Most of the G-20 countries will push for an action plan to prevent a future crisis by strengthening the international regulation of banks and other financial institutions;
· The Group also hopes to agree on a blueprint for future reform, including changes to the international organisations charged with regulating the world economy, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to give a greater clout to poorer countries.

USA is on board with interest rate cuts and more spending by governments, but it is not articulating its views very clearly on reform of international financial architecture. And, on regulation of financial institutions, the US, if anything, is reluctant to appear to be strong proponent of stricter regulatory measures. US’s view on this issue has been at best muffled and confusing.

A report from the G20 working group on regulation has been reportedly leaked to the financial website breakingviews.com. Key recommendations include the strengthening of capital requirements, greater transparency, and more International Monetary Fund (IMF) oversight of systemic risks. It is said that the recommendations closely follow proposed reform of the UK's regulation.

This is where the problem is: A country which has itself made a mess of its economic management is trying to propose changes. The country is question is America’s lackey – Britain. Britain’s banks are in pathetic condition, the top ones needed the government to dole them out of trouble. Britain’s housing mortgage almost mimicked the disastrous American model.

Despite all this the wily schmuck British are trying to pre-empt other countries by drafting some document and throwing it out there. The Brits, whose international stature these days depends on the crumbs thrown their way by their patrons in Washington, generally try to propose something that pleases their American masters.

In case of the current economic mess the countries that have the legitimate credentials to offer changes regarding economic world order, regulation of financial systems are essentially two – Canada and India. The reasons are almost obvious to anybody who is non-partisan, unprejudiced and has some idea of international financial system.

Among the G-7 countries Canada’s banking system is the least affected by current economic turmoil. The financial regulatory framework in Canada seems to have acquitted itself fairly well. The Bank of Canada is presiding over the overall Canadian financial institutions in a reasonably competent manner – its Governor Mike Carney taking necessary steps to provide CPR to the Canadian economy. He also seems to be clued to the stimulus measures being rolled out by the Harper government.

Among developing economies, India has the best credentials, from various standpoints, to offer a suitable blueprint on regulatory framework as well as new economic world order. First, India has the 5th highest GDP (based on PPP) in the world (after US, China, Japan & Germany). India’s central bank has been implementing and managing necessary regulatory framework for the financial institutions in India in a very successful and effective manner for years.

When Asia Pacific countries reeled under currency meltdown in the 90’s, India remained unscathed simply because India’s central bank already had in place effective tools and regulatory structure to prevent any such disaster. India’s economy is predicated on one of the most sensible models – an economy which is around 60% based on internal consumption and rest on export. The Indian economic honchos have displayed a far greater sense of foresight and understanding than their peers in US, Germany, Britain, Japan and other G-20 countries.

USA has no moral or ethical standing to pontificate about new economic world order (including IMF, World Bank) and/or regulatory framework for financial institutions. The current economic global crisis has been engendered by diabolical mutilation of ethical dealings unleashed by the shameless greedy SOB’s of American financial institutions.

These shameless rogues of the US financial system seem incorrigible – they have the audacity to thumb their noses to present administration. The American public and the President et al were dealt with a resounding slap when the AIG executives pocketed bonuses in the excess of $200 Million – and horror of horrors, this amount coming out of government alms! Who knows what stratagems the other US banks and financial institutions are planning to bilk away huge bonus packets for themselves?

Of the other G-7 nations, Germany also seems to be floundering. Therefore, it is also not in the best position to lead any initiative for the required change. China doesn’t make a good candidate for being a leader of change because China’s regulatory framework is not backed by the checks and balances that a democratic country like India has. Brazil is still learning the ropes, and so are the other developing countries of the G-20 club.

In recent G-20 conclaves USA has been urging focus mainly on stimulus, and kind of downplaying need for expeditious action on changes in economic world order and regulation. It is a sad commentary of American intellectual level. A country which boasts of a string of Nobel Laureates in Economics is right now struggling to stay afloat and get back on track!

American budget deficits are turning cavernous by the week; Treasury Secretary Geithner is under pressure. He received implicit support though from his President in March but it will not be easy for him to grapple and subdue the gargantuan economic mess that engulfs the US. Moreover, the highly partisan skulduggery at the Capitol Hill tends to significantly weaken any policy initiative emanating from the White House.

So, in summary the G-20 meeting in April will be best served if Canada and India are given more leeway and opportunity to shape the economic framework of the future. If the US is allowed by the G-18 to ride roughshod over the sensible policy directions, and if their lackeys – the bootlicking schmuck Brits – get a freehand in drafting the policy directions, then God bless the world!

It is time the 18 countries of the G-20 club told the US and its poodle (Britain) to move over to the sidelines and let the more knowledgeable practitioners to fashion the economic future of the world. However, the US and Britain may offer meaningful suggestions, if they can. But if they resorted to dog-in-the-manger policy it will do no good to the current crisis, and it is the US which stands to lose maximum if the world economy goes in a deeper hole rather than come out it. President Obama and Gordon Brown would do well to lend their ears more rather than their tongues!

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S AFGHANISTAN POLICY AND THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT - ISI

In his first primetime press conference on 09 Feb when US President Obama didn’t mention the word ‘Taliban’ while responding to a question on his administration’s Afghanistan policy, it was clear something was cooking. The omission of the word ‘Taliban’ came as a bit of a surprise because till this presser whenever President Obama spoke about threats to US from Afghan-Pakistan area, he always mentioned Al-Qaeda and Taliban in the same breath.

Be that as it may, it is now clear that US does not wish to look at Taliban through one coloured lens – US wishes to distinguish between ‘good’ Taliban and ‘bad’ Taliban. Ostensibly, the motivation for this thinking comes from supposed success in Iraq where some Sunni elements hostile towards US apparently switched sides and started working with the coalition forces in fighting insurgency.

Clearly, US is trying to devise a strategy for Afghanistan which will prevent it from getting bogged down in that area in Vietnam-like manner. Hopefully, lessons learned from Vietnam are apparently being applied to make sure that US doesn’t have to leave Afghan theatre with a bloody nose, mutilated prestige and negative gain on the ledger.

Extending the logic of success in Iraq to Afghanistan is conceptually tenable. But what about translating that in to reality? Are the scenarios identical? What are the additional challenges? Surely, US strategists must have carried out necessary SWOT and other analyses – one hopes they did so! Incidentally, one had hoped that US had done necessary home work about post-Saddam scenario in Iraq also but sadly that proved to be so hopelessly untrue!

Anyway, it seems that US thinks that Taliban being a Sunni outfit will be amenable more or less in the same way as the Iraqi Sunni elements turned out to be. As well, the American policy makers are hoping that there will be support from Pakistan in making the new policy initiative successful. It seems that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is also in favour of this vector of new US Afghan policy.

But here is the fly in the ointment – Pakistan – and this could be potentially serious. Why? Because, Pakistan (through ISI) was a co-sponsor of Taliban when Soviets had occupied Afghanistan. But after the Soviets withdrew from that region, Pakistan (through ISI) continued to keep Taliban alive because it served them in more than one way.

By keeping Taliban alive and active, Pakistan’s dangerously shrewd and mean SOB's in politics and in ISI could continue to have foothold in Afghanistan, devilishly prise out American aid, keep fingering India, and last but not the least hold on to their positions of power.

Just to provide brief historical context, Pakistan’s former dictators Zial-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf were America’s darlings because they were so good in licking the boots of their American masters and also convincing them that US interests in the region are safe with them (Zia or Musharraf). Taliban was a good pawn in this political chess game Pakistan played for last so many years vis-à-vis US.

Washington probably understood how the mean schmuck Pakistanis (including ISI) were pulling wool over US eyes but the Americans chose to ignore (if they didn’t understand the Pakistani game, then God bless them!). Anyway, after 9/11 things changed, albeit very slowly, in Washington. During his second term President Bush started realising there was more benefit in cooperating with India (e.g. civil nuclear cooperation).

In order to win India’s confidence US started to acknowledge, more in private though, the dangers posed by ISI's support to Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Slowly, US started to acknowledge in public also the areas where Musharraf had to do more with regard to Pakistan's support to Taliban and Islamic insurgents than his usual theatricals.

But the 26/11 Mumbai attack completely changed everything. This attack reinforced the fact that Pakistan was indeed the epicentre of Islamic terrorism, and was playing double game with US with regard to Taliban and even Al-Qaeda. The reported killing of American intelligence operatives, and the Jews in the Mumbai attack forced the Americans to take serious note of Pakistan’s dubious role in the whole game.

Consequently, the Americans are infuriated, rightly so, and they want to get down to the bottom of the sinister plot. So are the Israelis, and given their unfettered clout in Washington they are kicking their American counterparts to punish the perpetrators. Both US and Israelis know the diabolical role of ISI in all this.

US probably is aware that Pakistan hates President Karzai and Pakistan will do everything possible to destabilise him. Taliban is one of the instruments Pakistan uses to play its dirty game against Karzai and anybody and everybody who support Karzai – including the American troops and ISAF. Pakistan plays this sinister game through ISI. No wonder American troops and ISAF are finding their task in containing Taliban getting difficult by the day.

Ultimately, Americans are now realising that it is about time they wielded the hobnailed boot with Pakistan and some how brought a stop to ISI’s support to Taliban. US knows (so does Canada and other constituents of ISAF) that unless ISI is disciplined and Pakistan stops providing safe haven to Taliban and Al-Qaeda elements in FAR and NWFP, chances of gaining any upper hand against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is next to impossible.

US Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, eventually couldn’t be more candid about ISI. In an interview with PBS broadcast recently he said that (Pakistan Army Chief and de-facto boss of ISI) Kayani "certainly is aware of the concerns that I have with respect to his intelligence agency, ISI".

"They (ISI) have been very attached to many of these extremist organizations," Mullen said warning that "in the long run, they have got to completely cut ties with those in order to really move in the right direction". Kayani, he said, had appointed in Lt Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha, "one of his best guys", as the new director of ISI. "I'm encouraged with his views and I'm encouraged with how he sees the problem." But "it's going to take some time to get at it inside ISI".

So, in summary, the new US Afghan policy of engaging with ‘good’ Taliban may not bear any fruit whatsoever unless and until the chief actor of the dangerous Islamic insurgency game – Pakistan and ISI – is properly corralled and contained. US should learn from history (their strategists have a bad habit of not reading history) that elements in modern day Pakistan and the Afghan-Pak border areas could be contained only through sledge hammer policy (refer to early 20th century Sikh ruler Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his general Hari Singh Nalwa’s tactics in the region).

One hopes President Obama and his advisors will learn from history and move forward carefully with force (and some carrots) without getting fooled by Pakistani chicanery. Only if they can do so, they will be able to minimise losses to American troops and ISAF and at the same time achieve their objective of containing Islamic insurgency threat to USA and other western countries. And while doing so for God’s sake US should not get blindsided and/or misguided by agenda-driven advice from the wily British. USA has for so long been deceived and misguided by British advice on South Asian matters. It is time US used its own brain while developing strategies for the Afghan-Pakistan theatre.

DOES AMERICAN FREE MARKET CONCEPT MEAN PROFIT BY HOOK OR CROOK, AND NO RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE WORK FORCE?

Through this blog I want to raise a conceptual discussion amongst economists of all stripes as to how the markets should run or be made to run. Why can this world not have an economic model which is more inclusive of the frailties of human nature? The motive for this conceptual discussion came from reading Berkshire Hathaway Inc’s annual report of 2008, and an article on Bloomberg.

Warrant Buffet is one of the richest persons on this planet, and his perspective on money matters has always been very insightful. His narrative in Berkshire’s annual report is always a treat for its readers – its report for 2008 was no exception. But then, what has Oracle of Omaha’s document got to do with the heading of this blog? Plead read on, you will see the connection.

Let me quote Buffet from page 11 of the report which deals with home mortgages: “At that time (Y2008?, italics added), much of the industry employed sales practices that were atrocious. Writing about the period somewhat later, I described it as involving 'borrowers who shouldn’t have borrowed being financed by lenders who shouldn’t have lent'”.

He further states on same page: “To begin with, the need for meaningful down payments was frequently ignored. Sometimes fakery was involved……..The resulting mortgages were usually packaged (“securitized”) and sold by Wall Street firms to unsuspecting investors. This chain of folly had to end badly, and it did.”

Wait! What the hell was going on in the United States – lenders happily making out loans that borrowers couldn’t repay out of their incomes?! And, Wall Street selling mortgages to unsuspecting investors?! Is this what free market is supposed to be – that any organisation can do anything to rack up huge profits, at least in the short-term, and the top executives can fill their pockets with millions of ill-gotten bonuses?

Is free market concept supposed to have no oversight on the diabolical and self-serving CEOs who may be going berserk in the market tearing down ethics and honesty to shreds? Is this what economist Milton Friedman’s concept of free markets was or is? Is Friedman feeling happy in his grave watching what unbridled greed of human nature has done to the world?

Did it never occur to the ‘great’ Friedman that free market concept should also bequeath on the top executives (of organisations which deal with tonnes of money) some kind of responsibility towards the millions of people working in hundreds of thousands of organisations which could directly or indirectly get potentially exposed to risks and losses due to the shenanigans of the people who run the said (financial) organisations?!!

Today millions and millions of people have lost jobs because of an imploding market around the globe caused by the shameless, villainous ‘confidence tricksters’ of United States (and some of their ilk in Europe) who funnelled hundreds of billions of dollars in a housing bubble. Do these immoral wicked rotten executives of the mortgage lending companies and the various banks realise the pain, the tears and the suffering of the millions – the shattered dreams, disrupted future, lost opportunities of those hapless people?

Why did the policy makers in US in different periods of 1900s not pay heed to the sane concept of another top economist – James Tobin? It seems Tobin’s experience of the depression as a teenager in the 1930s gave him a lifelong loathing of unemployment.

The Bloomberg article, referred to above, writes: “As a young professor I did a paper where I analyzed the optimal unemployment rate,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, who knew Tobin at Yale. “Tobin went livid over the idea. To him the optimal unemployment rate was zero.”

The article mentions at another place: “Like Keynes, Tobin was an advocate for the role of government in maintaining full employment, said James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas in Austin. The current economic and financial crisis has validated that philosophy, said Galbraith, a former Tobin student and the son of the late John Kenneth Galbraith, who was a friend of Tobin.”

“It’s clear that the position that the federal government has a responsibility for the level of employment, for the economy, has prevailed,” Galbraith said. “The position that the Fed can walk away from the level of employment has completely collapsed….”

My question is: why couldn’t Friedman’s and Tobin’s ideas be married and a governing economic model more inclusive of the frailties of human nature be developed and implemented – in US and other economies? Has the current economic crisis not demonstrated that any economic model ignoring the role of frailties of human nature is incomplete and flawed, if I may?

The issue is not whether Friedman is great or Tobin is greater. The issue is there got to be a economic model that is practical in nature, and not one which is predicated on idealistic premises – idealistic premises, like, humans will always act responsibly, humans will never succumb to greed, self-aggrandisement etc.

Tobin (Nobel Prize winner in 1981) in an essay written for the Nobel committee mentioned, “The miserable failures of capitalist economies in the Great Depression were root causes of worldwide social and political disasters.” Economics “offered the hope, as it still does, that improved understanding could better the lot of mankind.”

Tobin’s friend and colleague William Brainard says, “He (Tobin) believed financial markets could serve a valuable service in diversifying risk and moving capital in efficient ways.” “But he was not someone who believed the market always got it right and that private incentives were always aligned with the public good.”

Almost a clairvoyant, Tobin seems to be now in hindsight. But what he said and believed in appears to be more prescriptive and applicable for the ways we humans behave. We must keep in mind that this world is still not made up of people like Mr. Spock of Star Trek who was paragon of logical mind.

After this massive economic bloodletting can we now decide to mend our thinking and redefine the way the markets ought to run so that people don't lose jobs again at such a massive scale? Or, will we again relapse in complacency once we are out of this horrible downturn?

Mistakes teach us to learn from it so that we don’t repeat them. Ideology of any political party or of an individual should not be allowed to cloud the objectivity of human thinking. The greater good of the society is supreme and should be so. Let the political leaders of the present realise this and lay the foundation for the future.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRIME MINISTER HARPER EMERGE MORE STATESMAN-LIKE THAN ANYTHING ELSE!

President Obama’s first foreign foray took him to Canada. The 19 Feb visit was short in terms of hours, but it was long on ‘conceptual’ substantiveness – and both sides accomplished whatever was planned to be covered during the visit. At the end of the talks the President of United State and Prime Minister of Canada looked more like statesmen than politicians.

The significant part of President Obama’s visit was the half hour one-on-one chat between the two leaders. This tête-à-tête was supposed to be of 10 minutes but the fact that it got extended signifies that the two leaders hit it off well and found a lot of common ground. Both agreed to use each other’s first name in subsequent conversations – that says a lot about establishment of mutual respect and rapport.

People’s general perception is that Harper was previous US president George W’s buddy, but people in the know say that Canadian PM was actually never comfortable in Dubya’s company. It doesn’t seem improbable given that one (Bush) was from a rich background, and a former president’s son and the other comes from middle class. Clearly, there is more common between Obama and Harper.

Now, to the substantiveness. Some folks were looking for so-called ‘substantive’ pronouncements after the talks between the two leaders, and were probably disappointed. But the fact of the matter is that this visit was basically for following reasons:
· Get to know each other;
· Get first hand idea of each other’s perception on issues, like, recession, energy, trade (including protectionism), Afghanistan;
· Lay the foundation for further build up on issues of mutual interest

On all the above counts the visit was a success. The press conference after the talks gave a clear indication of ‘conceptual’ substantiveness. The most important being the agreement on a ‘clean energy dialogue’. President Obama exhibited a very realistic position on the so-called clean energy. He comprehends the GHG issues in a practical perspective whether related to coal based power plants in US, or the oilsands industry of Canada.

His assertion that there was no silver bullet to solve the energy needs of the world was a clear indication that he realises that there was no point in getting carried away by the environmental predictions of doom, instead what is important is to figure out a course of action on global warming which encompasses all the major players, including, China and India.

Obviously, there will have to be follow up from both sides on this conceptual agreement. The scope of this conceptual agreement can potentially expand to include Mexico since President Obama appeared keen to formulate a pan-North American initiative on clean energy.

PM Harper did a good job of mentioning how could Canada tighten its own environmental regulatory laws and compete when its neighbour to the south had no tight regulatory framework, and then went on to praise Obama for now showing leadership on the issue. Harper very cleverly passed on the onus of non-regulation to Bush.

The environmental activists in Canada who seem to be intellectually one-dimensional don’t even know the difference between the amount of GHG emitted from US coal based units and GHG emitted from oilsands units in Canada. These intellectually under-developed two-legged creatures only know how to badmouth oilsands and make a spectacle of themselves by going up on a bridge to hang a poster.

The other conceptual understanding related to the border issue. Harper’s pitch on Canada’s perception of North American security threats was clearly aimed at the American media. At the same time he made it clear that US-Canada border should be managed in such a manner that it should not hinder cross-border trade.

On the issue of trade, whereas President Obama made an observation about environmental and labour clauses should be part of main body of NAFTA, PM Harper made his views known in no uncertain terms that Canada hopes that US will adhere to all the international trade agreements. Harper was clearly alluding towards the ‘Buy American’ clause purportedly included in the USD787 billion US economic stimulus package. So, the two sides got a clear understanding of each other’s position.

The discussion on recession focussed more on how to synergise efforts on both sides of the border to maximise the impact of the stimulus packages implemented in the respective countries. There was, again, a conceptual agreement to coordinate efforts on auto sector. President Obama made it clear that US will keep Canada in the loop on the policy decisions made regarding the big three auto makers.

On Afghanistan, again, there was a conceptual understanding on both sides. Obama didn’t press Canada to extend its troop presence beyond 2011; however, the two sides felt that Afghanistan needs more than simply military solution. The corollary to it is that Canada may be requested to look in to the possibility of contributing in non-military way before and after 2011.

All in all, the working visit of the US President accomplished all that was envisaged by both sides. As well, President Obama made sure to demonstrate his good preparation for this visit by stopping at a market place to buy beaver tail and Canadian cookies for his daughters. Unlike other dignitaries he also took out a crisp Cdn$20 bill to pay for the items he bought. The shopkeeper, however, showed his good gesture by refusing to accept the payment.

President Obama’s parting remark at the press conference was “I would like to come back to Canada”, and after a pregnant pause added, “when it warms up”. One hopes he wasn’t alluding to ‘warming up’ on the part of Canadian leadership. One would hope that PM Harper was warm enough in his conversations with Obama. Harper’s demeanour didn’t seem to suggest anything otherwise. Or, did we fail to notice something that was cleverly hidden under the smiles of the two leaders?!!

PRESIDENT OBAMA, YOUR CANADA VISIT SHOULD LEAVE BEHIND HOPE FOR BOTH CANADA, AND USA!!

Mr. President,

Canada is eagerly awaiting your visit on 19 Feb. Canadians are thankful that on your first international trip you have chosen Canada. The visit is short – for only about 6 hours – but it is coming at a time when the world is facing the worst economic downturn since the 1930’s.

As you should know by now, US is Canada’s largest trading partner. Canada is also the number one crude oil supplier to US in terms of million barrels per day. You may probably have been told that this crude oil comes from both conventional and unconventional sources – the unconventional source being oilsands, the second largest source of crude oil after Saudi Arabia.

Lumber, beef, engineering goods, agricultural products, and so on – whole host of stuff is exported from Canada to US. In short, Canada’s economy is heavily inter-twined with that of US. Not only trade, these two countries have strategic defence cooperation too – NORAD being a prime example.

Canada is hurting now because the consumers in US are in trouble, not spending as before. The whole world is hurting – Japan reporting their worst trade figures on 16 Feb mainly because their exports have fallen off the cliff. China’s exports too are down. Why? Because the largest consumer society in the world, i.e., US is in recession. By the way, this is not the opportune time to debate whether such huge consumerism is good or bad.

Be that as it may, the question that is paramount in the minds of the Canadians is: what is going to be the outcome of US President’s visit? Will he reassure the Canadians that there will be no protectionism in US policies? Will he reassure Canada that cooperation between the two countries will continue to thrive in oil and gas sector? Is this visit going to reinforce the message that Canada is a trusted, dependable ally and that both countries will continue to cooperate and expand their relationship in an environment of friendship, goodwill and trust.

Mr. President, there may be some issues where the countries may have different perspectives but they are not so divergent so as to impinge on any issue of bilateral nature. Canadians know you are a champion of environment protection and alternative sources of energy is a topic which is close to your heart. But Canadians too are aware of the challenges of global warming, and they are already doing their part to mitigate the situation.

And, this environment thing brings one to the main point. Mr. President, the crux of the matter is that Canadians are hoping that your concern for environment will not become a stumbling block in the area of cooperation in crude supplies to US from Canada, and this specifically relates to oilsands. You may have been briefed about concerns of environmentalists regarding oilsands. One hopes you have been briefed about the measures too that Alberta province has already put in place to meet those concerns.

Mr. President, it needs to be mentioned (you may be already aware though) that scientists till date don’t know the real factors that cause global warming – what they know, however, is that GHG is one of the contributing factor. The scientists also know that GHG contributes to less than 10% of entire global warming phenomenon (but they don’t mention it in the same breath as the catastrophic consequences they narrate almost like a horror story).

The point is, therefore, why oilsands should be singled out and made a whipping boy for all the supposed global warming dangers this world is allegedly facing when the global warming phenomenon itself is not understood fully by the scientific community? Just sensationalising an issue, or creating scare in the minds of people doesn’t help.

A substance in itself is not good or bad, it all depends how it is turned in to a useful thing by humans. Uranium ore in itself is not so dangerous or useful, it all depends how it is processed – whether to turn it in to a nuclear device of destruction or source of energy. Similarly, if oilsands is processed properly and its related environmental aspects are handled adequately, surely then it shouldn’t be a cause of worry to human race, should it?!

Mr. President, you said the other day during your prime time news conference that you want US to be less dependent on ‘foreign oil’ – from Middle East. Canada can contribute significantly towards this objective of US. And no body should carry any feeling of guilt if Canada’s vast oil source helps US, because oilsands is not going to do anything to exacerbate global warming.

Moreover, Mr. President, you are a very sensible and pragmatic person. You are not afraid of embracing the reality. For example, during your recent prime time presser you mentioned a figure of 4.0 million (jobs created or saved) but in later speeches you mentioned a moderated figure of 3.5 million (jobs created or saved). One hopes similar pragmatism will be evident in the matter of cooperation between US and Canada in oil and gas sector.

Crude oil supply from Canada took up a large chunk of this epistle because this could be one of the touchy subjects for discussion between you and Mr. Harper. Thankfully, the other potential sticking point about protectionism has already been addressed suitably in the recent meeting of G-7 finance ministers in Rome. So, hopefully, there should not be any reason for concern from Canada’s side. However, you may like to reinforce the Rome message when you are in Ottawa.

So, as you can see there is cooperation and cooperation only that pervades the relationship between these two great countries. There is hardly any issue that could potentially bring in any stressful moments during the talks – even the arctic sovereignty issue is a matter where the countries have more to gain by forming allied front rather than taking separate lines of action.

The issue of how to save the big three auto makers in both US and Canada may make both sides a bit uncomfortable but given necessary maturity and understanding on both sides this issue will hopefully not bring any sourness between the two leaders.

In the past there have been many instances of sour relationship between the leaders of US and Canada. In one of the worst instances it is said that US President Johnson got so incensed when then Canandian Prime Minister Pearson (while visiting US) called for American withdrawal from Vietnam that Johnson is said to have pinned Pearson to the wall by holding his collars and yelled “You have pissed on my rug”!

One hopes nothing of that sort will happen between you and Mr. Harper. On the contrary PM Harper may like to brush up his knowledge about Chicago White Sox, and you may like to get some briefing on maple syrup as well as on what to say when a Canadian greets saying “Howdy”!

Mr. President, this is the time when the respective leaders need to be source of hope to millions, and not be a harbinger of any impending bad news, least of which should be anything to do with disagreements between them. This is not a good time for nitpicking.

If the Canadians saw you and Mr. Harper standing shoulder to shoulder (metaphorically speaking) at this hour of extremely challenging times, and telling the media how the two countries have agreed to cooperate and expand ties further in all fields including oil and gas, it will bring cheer to millions of Canadians and they will thank you, Mr. President, for the same. And, you know very well that any expanded cooperation will do more good than harm to an average American.

Did we ask for too much?

Sincerely.