Whats the deal with Iraq?

Oil has little to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraq is the first example of the “Bush doctrine” being put into practice. The “Bush doctrine” has two central tenets: a strategy for pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups and a tolerance for states in the developing world as long as they adhere to certain rules. These concern the suppression of all terrorist activity on their territory, the transparency of banking and trade arrangements, and the disavowal of weapons of mass destruction.

This administration’s primary figureheads have spoken at length about America’s responsibilities in the world. The idea is that America will use its military and economic power to encourage “free and open societies” that will be “beacons of democracy”. This Pax Americana that is being proposed is certainly not a new concept. It is one that has been shared by empires throughout history, from that of Rome to Britain to even the Soviet Union. The rationale behind their imperialist expansion has been, that through their unique and desirable values they can educate and save the world while dominating it. It is also not new in American foreign policy. From Roosevelt to Kennedy to Reagan, America’s leaders have always had a vision of using America's pre-eminent power to effect global change for good. History however has a cautionary tale for states that strove to change the world. Like Icarus who flew too close to the sun their hubris has usually proven to be their undoing. Just as Pax Romana could not stop the decline of the Roman Empire, Pax Americana may prove to be the end of the American Dream.

The other problem is with the Bush Doctrine's rationale: that America, as the last man standing in the old superpower club, must be allowed to call the shots. This is an ambition that is in conflict with the internationalism of the UN and post-war policy for the past 50 years. Not to mention that it is an idea, not appreciated by most of humanity.
Many a talking-head has spoken of the “slippery slope” of “preventative wars” being justified by the presumed (italics my own) accumulation of guns and ammunition by a deranged paroled murderer whose communications and actions indicate that he is targeting you for a future attack. One must admit that Pax Americana is an excellent justification for preventing deranged murderers running amok. However one should also be prepared for the “slippery slope” of any state attacking any other under the pretext that the other is a deranged murderer.

This war is certainly not about Oil and is only incidentally about liberating the Iraqi people or establishing democracy. This war is to ensure that the United States will continue to be the dominant political, economic and military power in the world, for this century and the next to suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous.

Is Might Right? - thoughts from an Indian perspective

I am not sure what this, rather badly written, dénouement aims to achieve. “Is Might Right?”. The answer is a rather emphatic YES.

Might has been, is and always will be RIGHT. History has proven this time and time again, Napoleon lost at Waterloo because the Duke of Wellington had a larger cavalry, the Sepoys lost the first war of Independence because the British Army was better trained, the Allies won WWII not because they were fighting an evil empire but because they had more ships, more men, more guns and more aircraft. The Soviet Union lost the cold war because the US was economically, militarily and diplomatically more powerful.

Will India “be RIGHT” if it pursues a known terrorist into a country harboring it? YES if and ONLY if India is economically, militarily and diplomatically “mightier”.

“If we do to so will NATO, U.N, an the other world community will support – not with airbase and military but atleast morally – us..”. One has to be amused at the naiveté of the author. The world stands together with the US, and “morals” have nothing to do with it. The US is the world’s superpower, and as Colin Powell puts it “you’re either with us or against us”. Nobody (not even Saddam) wants to be against the US and that’s why you find Musharraf risking his neck to do Dubya’s bidding.

To the victor belongs all the spoils, alas India is not in a position to go into Pakistan and drag Dawood to an Indian court or send him on his way to meet his Maker. If she were to do so, the resulting international outcry would be disastrous. The US would step very very hard on our country.. why? Because the US (and therefore the rest of the world) needs Pakistan and has to keep it happy.

Nations like individuals are driven by self-interest. The American economy requires that a quick military victory be achieved and the perpetrators be brought to justice. This will make Americans happy, and consumer confidence will rise, asset (Stocks, bonds etc.) prices will soon follow. Americans (and those living in America, myself included) will again feel wealthy and go out and buy some more completely un-needed junk, and all will be well. The pre-condition to all this: the capture and trial of Osama Bin-Laden and the destruction of Al-Qaeda. Without access to Pakistani airspace and/or bases this becomes an exceedingly difficult task, the US needs Pakistan and at this point will do what it takes to keep it on its side.

In the long run, the Indian economy is a far more attractive partner for American industry; hence the US (and the rest of the world) will gravitate towards India. However no Indian should expect the Americans to come down hard on Pakistan for promoting terrorism, and killing 35000 Indians over the past 15 years. Americans don’t care. Its not their citizens dying, its not their troops freezing in the heights of Kargil. The sad truth is Indian lives are dear only to us. American lives are dear to the whole world because America is the strongest nation on the planet.

The only way we can do anything about it is by becoming stronger (economically, militarily and diplomatically) than our enemies. And as Indians we owe it to our country, our fellow countrymen and ourselves.