PAKISTAN - THE MAIN SOURCE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS - NEEDS TO BE KICKED HARD TO COOPERATE MEANINGFULLY!

The recent terrorist attacks in Indian city of Mumbai has clearly brought out that Islamic terrorists not only find safe haven in Pakistan, they are also being trained and deployed by Pakistan's ISI. This has been put beyond any shade of doubt by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone captured terrorist in Mumbai.

This terrorist has written a three-page letter to the Pakistani High Commission, stating that as a citizen he was entitled to seek legal help from his own country to fight his case in Indian courts. The document finally settles the debate about the origins of Kasab and his fellow terrorists, and also establishes that the Mumbai attack was planned and launched from Pakistani soil.

US is rightly worried about threats to its own citizens from such attacks, Why? Because, these terrorist acts are supported and abetted by ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency. This is the same agency which helped, in concert with CIA, in creating and training Taleban to fight the Russians during their occupation of Afghanistan.

It is no secret that ISI has factions which still sympathises with Taleban, Al-Qaida and the Islamic terrorists. One of the main reasons why US and NATO forces have not been successful to that extent in Afghanistan, and there is resurgence of insurgency is because the Taleban supporting faction of ISI provides necessary intel and logistics to the adversaries of US/NATO forces.

The reason for American worry is that the pro-Taleban faction of ISI may be covertly supporting some Taleban operation to strike within US. There seems to be some warnings already to this effect. One may ask, why this faction of ISI would support such an act to take place in US? The answer is simple: As long as the Al-Qaida remains alive, ISI would continue to have some leverage with US. Musharraf used this leverage very effectively for his survival.

ISI virtually acts as an autonomous organisation reporting only to the Army chief of Pakistan. This agency is rarely in control of democratically elected Prime Minister or President of Pakistan. Former President Musharraf could control ISI by virtue of having the Army Chief's post at the same time.

Also, the continuance of Taleban and Al-Qaida assures unmitigated flow of funds for ISI, these funds are used by ISI bosses to amass their personal wealth and also to carry out it covert operations in various countries, including India. These covert operations are used by ISI bosses as bargaining cards vis-a-vis their political masters for furthering their own careers.

However, whenever Pakistan is asked to cooperate in actions meant to take out the Taleban/Al-Qaida, it enthusiastically responds but only through glib verbiage. But what happens on ground actually depends on what the controlling factions of ISI decide to do. Generally, the action on ground is just a sham to show to the American masters that Pakistan is cooperating.

Moreover, Pakistan is also the breeding ground of new terrorists - they are created in the hundreds of madrassahs operating in that country. These institutions are providing a steady supply of half-mad radical Muslims ready to die for any 'jihad'. They just need to be brainwashed as the captured terrorist in Mumbai calls it "I was misled, Lashkar's devils ensnared me." (Lashkar is a terrorist outfit supported by ISI).

These madrassahs produce jihadis with newer ideas to operate, the recent one being termed as 'asymmetric tactics'. This tactics was in evidence in the killing of 3 British soldiers in Afghanistan by a 13-year old suicide bomber.

If US, Britain and other west European powers want to be safe from potential Islamic terrorist attacks, they will need to kick the ISI real hard to make it kneel and cooperate in fighting Islamic terrorism. The kicking needs to be done literally using the booted foot, and in the form of most uninhibited tongue lashing through to turning the screws militarily and economically.

Pakistan cooperates best when it is kicked with hobnailed boots. History testifies to this. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his commander-in-chief Hari Singh Nalwa used this philosophy to subjugate and stamp out any potential opposition from the then areas of what constitutes today's Pakistan and Afghanistan (including the border areas between the two countries). It appears this truth has finally dawned on Bush administration but only too late.

As well, it seems President-elect Obama knows a bit of the history, that's why he did tough talking saying "we will stamp out any attempt to repeat Mumbai-like killings." May be he knows the Pakistanis better than the previous American presidents.

So, in summary if US and its western allies want to see an end to the Islamic terrorism in the world, they got to kick Pakistan in to submission and force it to cooperate in real sense in war against terror. But if US continues to allow itself to get fooled by sweet-worded assurances of Pakistani leadership and the ISI, there will be more American blood to be shed - whether in Afghanistan or on the US soil itself. One hopes this will not happen because US would have seen through by now the Pakistani sham and its habit of lying shamelessly.

LAST GASP REPUBLICAN DIVERSIONARY TACTIC WITH INCURSION IN SYRIA!

BBC website reported on Oct 26 "US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.
The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria. It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night.
The US says it is investigating. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq.
Syria has summoned the US and Iraqi envoys in Damascus to protest at the raid.
If confirmed, the raid would be the first known attack by US forces inside Syrian territory, says the BBC's Natalia Antelava."

In a separate article on same day BBC's Diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus writes "But its (US action's) timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus."

He further writes "Whatever the local military factors involved in this US operation, it would be unthinkable to imagine that an incursion into Syria would not require a policy decision at a high-level."

So, why did some one very high in Washington - either the President himself or the Defence Secretary - authorised this incursion? The answer is simple: it is a tactic to give McCain, who claims he knows more than Obama on security issues, to divert the election campaign focus from the perilous current economic crisis to security matters.

It is just a ploy to give McCain and the Republicans, who are badly trailing in opinion polls, some straw to clutch on to. Some political analysts had felt about 9-10 months back that US may resort to adventurism in Iran to ensure Republican victory in Nov this year. But somehow this option didn't seem to be feasible because of high cost attached to it and potential of dangerous politico-military fall out. An Israel led adventure also did not seem feasible because of continued political instability in Israel for the last few months and even now.

So, Iran being not an option to do some gun-boat diplomacy, the outgoing Republican administration looked at other 'cheap' options. And, they found Syria to be not only a 'cheap' option to strike but that any action vis-a-vis Syria could be relatively easily justified to the American people and the international community.

Republicans are staring down the barrel for a double whammy - loss in Presidential election, and Democrats getting the magic figure of 60 in Senate. With opinion polls showing precarious condition of Republicans on both the fronts, it is hard to assume that Bush administration will watch the situation idly and twiddle its thumb.

So, the outgoing administration seems to have decided to play the military card against Syria which is notorious in US as being anti-America. They probably reasoned to themselves that whacking Syria, even in a limited manner, would be a safe bet politically and may help the Republican cause in some way.

Some one may say that the above is a cynical view. But in all fairness it should be said that it is not a cynical commentary on this incident. It is not a biased view because one may ask: why did US wait all this long to carry out this incursion? After all, movement of insurgents and foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq has long been a bone of contention between Damascus and Washington.

There is, therefore, hardly any doubt about the political motive of the timing of this military raid. As the BBC Diplomatic correspondent noted further in his article 'this action of US is in marked contrast to European efforts to engage the Syrians.

With French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead, a number of European countries have sought to bring Syria in from the cold.'

Incursion in Syria is an attempt by the outgoing President and his cronies to administer 'CPR' to the sinking Republican poll campaign. It remains to be seen whether the US voters can discern this diversionary tactic and prefer to remain focused to more bread and butter issues.

Finally, it will not be surprising at all to see US military carrying out something sensational before Nov 4 to provide the vital dose of oxygen needed by McCain, and the Republican senate candidates for their political survival.

I AM SERIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT PROSPECTS OF GLOBAL RECESSION

The Bank of Canada cut the overnight lending rate by another 25 basis points on Oct 21. In his commentary the BoC Governor Mark Carney mentioned some very ominous things.

First, there is chance of global recession. Second, US is already in recession. Did you read correctly about US being in recession? I bet, you did! Third, he said that because of close trade ties between Canada and US, Canada will also be affected though it may just be able to avoid recession.

After reading Mr. Carney's remarks the thought that came to my mind was: Has Fed admitted that there was recession in US? I don't recall Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke having said that US had been taken over by the 'R' phenomenon.

May be Benrnanke is trying his best not to mention the 'R' word before Nov 4 US presidential election in order to avoid the massive embarrassment that will be caused to the Bush administration which in turn will hit McCain-Palin hard.

But Carney has nothing to fear, hence he could be more forthright in his assessment of US economy. Now the next question is, have we seen the worst yet? Or, there is more to come!

As far as Europe is concerned, no new bad news is emanating from there. Nor is any bad news coming out of Asia yet. That leaves US. It seems there is likelihood of some bad news emerging from US in coming weeks and months.

What does that bode for the world? Well, it is obvious that if the biggest consumer spending society, i.e. US, starts to clam up further it will mean less exports to US from Europe, China, and Canada. It will hurt Indian companies too to some extent.

The drop in consumer spending in US will trigger a vicious downward spiral in various economies which may eventually lead to global recession alluded to by BoC Governor. If not recession, there is certainly a danger of stagnation enveloping the globe.

So, to counter the possibility of looming global recession/stagnation the US needs to take some more bold steps. And, they have to act quickly. But if the Bush administration postpones those measures till the presidential election in order to prevent further potential damage to the Republican ticket, it might exacerbate the situation seriously.

Liquidity crunch situation has got to be tackled on war footing by US. The European countries have already been proactive in this regard and they are not fighting shy of taking any measures they think necessary.

Let us hope better sense will prevail and the US government and the Congress will act quickly to bring in next set of measures to deal with financial crisis that is threatening to devour the US economy and consequently cause a serious damage to global economic order.

The outgoing US President has 3 more months to show some leadership and effect some good to his country. But if he chickens out at this crucial stage, he will go down in the history as that Captain who chose to take the life raft and run away rather than try to save his ship from capsizing.

Texans are not known to chicken out. One hopes Dubyah will not allow the Texan image to be brought in to disrepute!

"McCAIN EQUATES OBAMA WITH SOCIALISTS" - WHAT A FOOLISH STRATEGY!

One of the cable news reported that after grouping Obama with socialist European leaders in his weekly radio address on Saturday morning, at a rally later in the day McCain accused his opponent’s campaign of waging an “attack” on "Joe, the Plumber" and small businesses across America.

How confused McCain is! What is he trying to convey to his audience? How is Obama a 'socialist'? And, by the way, is any debate on socialism or capitalism relevant at this point in time when US is facing the worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression?

First, the day President Bush's administration decided to buy stakes in top 9 profit making Banks of US (Citi Group, Bank of America etc), it marked the end of so-called free market reign in US. Because, the buying of stakes in the banks is indeed partial nationalization of the said banks.

The above move of US administration came after the European nations of G-7 group had already implemented that strategy starting with Britain. In reality all these European nations have also partially nationalized their banks. But are these industrialised G-7 nations crying about socialism having entered their systems? No, they are not.

If partial nationalization smacks of socialism, then surely Mr. Bush has converted in to a 'socialist'! Mind you, he is an avowed Republican.

So, what is the sense in raking up 'socialist' word in the current context? Gordon Brown of Britain, Angela Merkel of Germany, Silvio Berlesconi of Italy, these leaders are not perturbed, even remotely, about 'socialism' supposedly creeping in. Because, socialism is not creeping in - either in Europe or US.

Then, what is McCain's plank of logic when he is using the 'socialist' word in an attempt to scare people away from Obama. And, therefore, where in God's name will there be any logic in trying to connect Obama with any past or present socialist leader of Europe? What will be its relevance? (Is there any socialist leader in Europe at present?)

This then begs the question: Does McCain know what is he talking about? The 72 year Senator doesn't seem to have any idea of how UK, and the G-7 European countries are trying to tackle the present economic crisis. How pathetic! This again goes to show the hopeless shallowness of McCain's knowledge about foreign affairs - an area in which he touts his 'deep' knowledge.

Now, the 'Joe, the Plumber' issue. By now every American knows that Joe is neither a plumber nor his annual income is more than $100,000. So, to cite Joe-the-Plumber case to build any argument regarding Obama's proposed tax strategy is utterly meaningless.

Moreover, how many small businesses make more than $250,000? Ans: Less than 1-2% of all small businesses. Therefore, Obama's proposal to tax people earning more than $250,000 is surely not going to impact the small businesses segment. Hence, it is clear that Mr. McCain has got it wrong here as well.

So, what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that the middle-class segment of USA is not going to be taxed more under Obama's tax plan. On the contrary the American voters need to remember is that Obama proposes to provide monetary help to the middle class segment.

So, how is Obama a socialist? And, how does his tax plan even remotely seem to sneak in socialism? Btw, is it a crime to provide relief to that segment of society which is in dire need of help, namely, the middle-class?

In all the Presidential debates not once did McCain mention the word 'middle-class'. He seems to be totally averse to providing help to this largest segment of American society. And he claims that he going to do good for the people at large, how sickening is that!!

One hopes the US voters will see through the charade of this Republican candidate and provide him a befitting reply by planting a footprint on his posterior on Nov 4.