George Walker Bush: A Failed Legacy

How will you remember the out going 43rd president of the United States of America, George Walker Bush?

The days after 9/11 were a spine chilling reminder that America faces murderous enemies spanning the globe, and to his credit, it was President Bush who reassured and led his nation in a time of unimaginably harrowing grief. His leadership immediately following the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to building a worldwide coalition in the early fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, seemed to promise great things… but then promises are mere promises!

Those great things, however, never materialized. The Iraq war, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, near showdown with Iran, standoff with North Korea, handling of emergent Russia and a history of disregard for civil liberties and international law has virtually destroyed President Bush’s legacy in the short term, at least for the remainder of his lifetime. Not to forget, his lame duck role as the American Economy went into recession and thousands lost jobs and homes.

I still remember, it was hot and sultry in the newsroom and everyone’s eyes were glued to a TV set - New York’s iconic twin towers were conspicuous by their absence, amidst dirt and rubble, at ‘Ground Zero’ stood President George W. Bush addressing a shell shocked nation. “America today is on a bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. This nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.” A rescue worker, who couldn’t hear the President uttered: “I can't hear you!” What followed was unscripted rhetoric. President Bush remarked extemporaneously, "I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" [Transcript Source: White House (www.whitehouse.gov)] I immediately developed a sense of awe and respect for the patriarch whose paternalistic devotion to protect his people in the wake of 9/11 reigned supreme. But what followed was an unmitigated disaster for America.

If my memory serves me right, I think President Bush has the unique distinction of being the first president of the United States to include diverse underrepresented groups within the federal government, especially within his cabinet. He needs to be acknowledged for crossing partisan lines and continuing the Clintonian tradition. History will remember President Bush in part for appointing Condoleezza Rice (the first African-American National Security Advisory), Colin Powell (the first African-American Secretary of State), Elaine Chao (the first Asian-American Secretary of Labour), and Alberto Gonzales (the first Chicano Attorney General). Dr. Condoleezza Rice subsequently went on to become the Secretary of State (second African American, and the second woman - after Madeleine Albright) …

President Bush, despite having highly qualified and intellectual office-bearers at the Oval Office, has suffered a misplaced ideological handicap. He never came out of the influence of the Cold War Era (perhaps courtesy his father and Ronald Reagan, his hero) nor did he choose to acquaint himself with the larger reality that the American Way of Life is not the only way of life. He was lost in the world where free and unregulated Market Forces formed the only life support system and Capitalism was the will of God. Economic & Market Regulatory framework amounted to governmental control, therefore akin to Socialism – thus a taboo! Therefore, when the American Economy showed the first major signs of crisis, about two years ago with the housing/realty sector, some intervention was warranted. No not for President Bush! Run away corruption and greed has been raising its ugly head at Wall Street for now roughly three years. Corporate scandals (like Enron) abounded as did the greed of Oil companies to reap profits with the ethics of a grave robber. All this did not bode well for the corporate sector, the economy, and the American goodwill world wide.

What will be George W. Bush’s legacy? The answer seems sadly simple… the president who, on his farewell visit to Iraq, had to duck and negotiate flying shoes. The “President of War”! The President who misinformed and in all probability even lied to the world, as his administration conspired against Saddam Hussein. Bush mesmerized the American people with his highly imaginative and inaccurate tales of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein being flip sides of the same coin.

The 43rd President of the United States of America will also be remembered as the one who finally managed to alienate America’s closest European allies. Germany and France found themselves openly voicing their disenchantment with the “Bush Doctrine”. Ironically, after eight years of Bush rule - inclusive of five years of the “Bush Doctrine,” America landed up undermining the very foundation of the United Nations that it had helped create by unilaterally embarking on the Invasion of Iraq. Interestingly, the American Don Quixote while championing the cause of democracy pursued a typical authoritarian road map to Baghdad. In the process, the knight in tin armour sowed seeds of discontent and resentment even in quarters that were sympathetic to the American View of the World. It is under President Bush’s stewardship, the Pew Global Attitudes Project findings indicate, that the global opinion of the United States of America has taken a serious tumble.

In today’s world of economic inter-dependency, given the size and nature of the America-centric international trade and commerce, it is unlikely that many countries may go the whole hog in assuming rigid anti-American stances. But, I fear that America may have isolated itself in most international organisations, including the United Nations.

Denial of the Global Warming Phenomena, Somersaults on the Kyoto Agreement, keeping quiet on the China-Tibet issue, overlooking tin-pot dictators in Africa (and at times supporting them), skewed policies in dealing with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, wanton violation of the Geneva Convention at prisons like Abu Ghraib and detention centres like in Guantanamo Bay have done irreparable damage to America. And, all of that has happened under the watch of George W. Bush.

It was not long ago when President Bush stood on a naval aircraft carrier with a banner screaming “mission accomplished!” The invasion of Iraq was over, the war on terror won and democracy established in Iraq! Three years down the line body bags continue to arrive in America, with no end in sight. America today rides a tiger which it fears disembarking! The truth is that the moment American forces retreat from this quagmire; all rival factions will usher Iraq into a bloodbath. It seems, Iraq was definitely better off under Saddam!

On the other hand spasmodic efforts to engage Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan have failed to secure safety for America. Mr. Bush committed himself and his people to the Afghan War (and I am reminded of “Auckland's Folly” of 1838) without having deliberated on a viable alternative to Taliban for Afghanistan – like economic and social development. The President had rushed in where angels have feared to tread! Today, America faces graver security threats at the hands of terrorist than ever before.

President Bush went on to become highly unpopular within his own country, as well. The Patriot Act provided the federal government with the legal jurisdiction and political capital to access the personal information of its citizens. President Bush reversed some of the most basic of guaranteed civil liberties including Article IV of the Bill of Rights. The security agencies indulged in stereotypes and social profiling is carried out against a certain set of people irrespective of their nationality to the extent that it has become an abomination.

Many critics believe that Bush was a disaster; they have gone to the limit of attributing even the present global economic crash to his policies. According to them, President Bush will go down in history books for the following reasons:

• Abu Ghraib
• Alberto Gonzalez
• Blackwater
• Cheney shooting someone in the face
• Enron
• Faith Based Initiatives
• Falsified intelligence
• Firing of U.S. Attorneys
• Inflation
• Loss of Habeas Corpus
• Rising unemployment
• Scooter Libby
• September 11, 2001
• Sinking economy
• Sinking public opinion
• Soaring gas prices
• Suppression of climate science
• The Afghan War
• The Iraqi Quagmire
• The Katrina debacle
• The Patriot Act
• Torture
• Tyco
• Veto of stem cell bill
• Water Boarding
• Wire Tapping

To sum up I would like to quote Monti Narayan Datta’s dissertation work focusing on the consequences of anti-Americanism for the US national interest.

“The legacy of George W. Bush will be bleak. Here stands a man with essentially a good heart, and the right intentions—to help spread freedom and democracy around the globe. He has enjoyed the company of a brilliant cabinet in the Oval Office that has shared his ideological misadventures. Yet, the man has done more harm to the US national interest in the past five years than all other US presidents have over the past fifty-years combined... President Bush’s policies have garnered hatred around the world, particularly in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has sharply curtailed some of Americans’ basic civil liberties... tarring America’s image as a country of freedom and equality... America is far less safe today because of one, and only one man—George W. Bush.”

I do not absolve President Bush of his doings, but I am also convinced that President Bush served merely as a catalyst to polarise all Anti-American sentiment which had been simmering across the globe for a long-long time. Europe has been talking of the neo-imperialism of America long before even George Bush Senior had descended on the White House. Latin America always found itself at wrong end of the White House’s policies. Many dictators and unpopular governments, all across the globe, have survived by merely granting concessions to Multi-National Companies (to be read as the American Interest). Ever since the Balfour Declaration in 1918, the Arab World has felt cheated! The American policy in dealing with Israel has done little to restore trust or even assuage the frayed tempers in the Middle East. The West’s and the US’s long standing obsession with Islam as a threat perception has added fuel to fire.

We know that George Walker Bush did not conjure up the “Clash of Civilisations” theory, he simply was not wedded to the idea of a “Dialogue among Civilizations” keeping in line with polices of many of his predecessors. Most of the Third World and the Developing Nations have been wary or “pissed off” with the American View of the World. President Bush did not create Osama bin Laden, Osama and his likes are outcome of a consistent viewpoint held by the American polity! Ironically, Bush tried to don the mantle of the Messiah of Peace between Israel and Palestine but failed miserably! When giants cast a shadow hope for shade!

America is definitely not a villain of the first order nor is all encompassing conclave of so-called anti-American sentiment innocent lambs. All that the 43rd President of the United States of America did was, rather tactlessly; bring the malady plaguing the world to the fore! He was, in part, reaping the fruits from the seeds that some of his predecessors had sown. Yet, he will be seen as a President who missed opportunities at every turn to make the country and the world a better, safer place. He will be remembered as the leader who diminished respect for America around the globe. And more than any President in American history, he divided people along religious and ideological lines to further his own agenda. Given the reason for the ongoing fight in Iraq, this last part is the saddest irony of all. He was simply a wrong man at a wrong place at a wrong time!

Mumbai 26/11 - Hostage Drama plays out on Electronic Media

It is has been over 42 hours since Indians have been struggling to come to terms with the new face of terrorism which descended on Mumbai with altered ‘rules of the game’. The wake of terror has left around 125 dead, over 300 injured and some 30 presumably held hostage.

Yes, the security lapses are evident, from the luxury hotel staff level to anti-terrorist forces right through counter-terrorist bodies & intelligence agencies. Yes, the Financial Capital of India, Mumbai, with a population of around 19 million coupled with a humungous figure that floats in and out each day as immigrant work force makes it a rather uphill task to enforce a security blanket or track potential threat perspectives with surety.

Yes, the security forces may have fumbled initially but to insinuate that they were a bunch of headless chickens running amok is wrong, biased, outright stupid and irresponsible as some of the international media tried hinting. The BBC World Services went to the extent of stating that the Indian Security Forces were adopting the same foolhardy approach that the Russians had taken during the Chechen separatist / terrorists’ October 2002 seizure of Moscow's Dubrovka Theater, where approximately seven hundred people were attending a performance. Russian Special Forces launched a rescue operation, but the opium-derived gas they used to disable the hostage-takers killed more than 120 hostages, as well as many of the terrorists. BBC London went the whole hog on how India has transformed from a strong emergent economy and a highly favoured foreign investment destination to a highly unsafe, terror and strife ridden country. According to initial reports from London, foreign investors are trying to withdraw their capital, lock stock and barrel. It seems that this illustrious institution of journalism forgot all about the global credit crunch, recession in Europe and the United States of America, not to mention China, India, Japan and the rest of the world. Interestingly, all of the major financial rating companies have attributed the decline in foreign investment in India to the global credit crunch and strongly feel that 26/11 – the Mumbai crisis will have a marginal effect in the long run. The foreign media seems to be much more concerned with the foreign tourists being targeted rather than the human tragedy which is unfolding. However, despite the initial reports of British and American passport holders being singled out, according to the reports filtering in, out of the 125 deaths so far, only six were that of foreign nationals while the death toll of security personnel lost has still not been released.

Paula Newton, an international security correspondent for CNN based in CNN's London bureau, came up with an equally ridiculous stance that the Indian Intelligence was as blind as a bat and had no idea how to react to situations like 26/11. She then embraced a didactic avatar educating the viewers about how the security forces should have conducted themselves and what precautions should have been taken by the Indian Security Agencies post-Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing that occurred on 20 September 2008. She made it seem that American Security Agencies knew that 9/11 would take place and they had prevented it. She spoke of how western security concerns are addressed by their respective countries. Ironically, the security agencies in the world’s most monitored city by all sorts of cameras failed to foil the 7 July 2005 London bombings (also called the 7/7 bombings).

Al Jazeera had its own take! Mahan Abedin, an insurgency analyst, deliberated on the “sheer inequality of life in India” theory. Al Jazeera is confident that India has highly fractured, bitter and acrimonious inter-communal relations between the Muslims and the Hindus as the order of the day. Terrorism in India should be seen in this light and be regarded as home grown. Abedin stated that even people who commit heinous acts of violence occasionally make a valid point. I do concede that indeed by showing genuine concern for the plight of the millions of people who are at risk of death from poverty and by honouring the sanctity of the lives of the most destitute, we have the best chance of defeating the ideologies of hate. However, it is pertinent to point out that this alleged hatred is confined to the ultra-rightwing thinkers of both side of the divide only. India would have not emerged as a major economy if a state of peaceful coexistence and profit making had not existed.

Here I would like to point out that it is highly probable that there is a ‘foreign sectarian conspiracy’ that seeks to punish India for having sided with two major western powers in its so-called war against terror. This foreign hand has tapped on the ultra-rightwing minorities. But the Indian Terrorist/Separatist Movement (and mind you I refer to all ultra-right wing Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Nagas) has never ever targeted the western populace. It has at most indulged in planting bombs, low or high intensity, but never sent trained warriors to undertake ‘urbanised terror-war games’. Unfortunately, the appearance of the Grand Old Butcher of the Western Indian State of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, on the national media with his blame game did validate Al Jazeera’s claim.

The very fact that India’s war on terror, and I use the term with some reservation and it is not in the same way that Bush uses it, is summoning up resources from various federal and state authorities, also came under fire from many an international news agencies. All three major and respected broadcasting agencies used disparaging terms like ‘confused’, ‘uncoordinated’, and ‘aimlessness of the effort’. I am yet to come across any security operation conducted by any security agency anywhere in the world having invited the media as its silent partner. The media has always been used by everyone as a vehicle of their intent only. Yet it is the duty of the media to work as a watchdog of society to deliver authenticated facts and not indulge in rumour mongering. Maybe, in retrospect, the Indian authorities should have had regular press-briefings to feed the media with controlled information that could circulate in the public domain. When the press briefings did happen they were definitely uncoordinated, ill prepared and the authorities seemed to present unfriendly officers before the press. These officers were members of the actual tactical teams that had gone in. Further, these officers had not been briefed, by their superiors with public relations experience, about how much to speak or what to speak.

It was natural for all international media to turn to the Indian broadcast institutions for information. It turned out to be a case of the ‘blind leading the blind’. NDTV, one of India’s major news channel’s coverage looked immature charged with passion, devoid of any real authentic facts, pathetic use of clichés, and highly ungrammatical usage of English. We heard pidgin statements like “terrorists full of guns”, “eighth round of gunshots”, “forces will encounter here”, “two terrorist are encountered here”, “this is where fresh blood fell”, “they first come by sea” etc.

The first 12 hours were reported with the enthusiasm of an election coverage mated with readings of a cricket score card. Reporters, it is obvious were fresh and had no idea how to report an incident like what was unfolding in Mumbai. One excited young lady reported with spasmodic gestures, “These are fresh blood stains, this is exactly where somebody was killed.” Another, journalist was seen beaming with pride that she was at an undisclosable location to witness “the end game” unfold… a refrain that she is still using after a lapse of 40 hours of the hostage drama. Another journalist, obviously impressed by the phrase, adapted a new construct of ‘final push’. Then there was another journalist who could only utter “there is utter confusion here” repeatedly, as the camera kept rocking and swaying only to reveal security forces calmly lining up some hundred metres away. We also heard the refrain of “mother ship”, “delicate stage of end game”, “war zone”, “this is India’s 9/11”, “Mumbai 9/11”. And we had a barrage of questions at the press conference, with classics like “What is the condition of the dead bodies?” “What is the condition of the explosives?” and “How did the holed up terrorists defend themselves?”

However, once the initial rush of adrenaline subsided and the senior journalists descended on the scene, NDTV tried going slow on the rumour mill and projecting unconfirmed reports and conjectures as facts. Unfortunately, by then the damage had been done. International media was quoting them as Indian commentators calling the situation as fluid and highly confusing. This picture may be attributed to the fact that most Indian broadcast journalists claimed access to well placed, authoritative and informed sources and what they were narrating as facts. NDTV’s attempt to portray the human angle to this hostage drama is commendable, especially when facts are hard to come by.

On a lighter note, I couldn’t help noticing, during the early hours of the hostage drama, that when one foreign media chose to interview some Mumbai radio jockey by the name of Ms. Malini, as a witness, her accent transformed from a typical Indian to a highly affected and anglicised and nasal English…

To finally conclude, I feel that the counter-terrorist operations are being conducted in a highly professional and coordinated manner. But, the flow of information from secured governmental domain to public domain is conspicuous by its absence. The ire of the public especially those were directly affected, who had their kith and kin and loved ones unaccounted for is understandable. Here it is commendable that the dissemination of information expected from governmental agencies is actually being done by the media, no matter how sketchy at times. This is an important aspect of the outcome of this scenario which hopefully the government will review seriously. After an ordeal of 40 hours, hanging about in the hope of some news, nay any news of the ones trapped inside; unfortunately the only lists to come out were for the consumption of the foreign consulates in Mumbai. This preferential treatment speaks ill of the attitude of the governmental institutions for their own citizens. The government will have plenty to think about in the future about how to coordinate activities of various counter-insurgency, counter-terrorist, intelligence agencies and how they should work in tandem and in a coordinated fashion. Who will coordinate all these dime a dozen federal and state bodies, further how should these bodies be administered without getting caught in a quagmire of red-tapism? Maybe, the government will also want to work out its logistics as well… there are questions that come to fore… why did it take such a long time to deploy the NSG? Why were the NSG units bundled in to public buses to be ferried across the city and not deployed with the help of choppers? Are the anti-terrorist security agencies not well equipped to fight the changing face of war on terror with a change in the rules of the game? Why were no remote controlled devices used to survey the interiors of the hotel before committing the commandos to the hostile situation?

The broadcast media in the country should take a long and hard look at how they covered this situation. I feel most of the failures stemmed from the news desks and it was the editorial and research teams at the studio end which mucked up! The senior correspondents and editors could have guided reporters from falling into the trap of generalisations and sensationalisations and not project their own confusions on to the scene/scenario that was being covered. It is time that the Indian media pressurises the governmental agencies to hold regular press briefings (like the ones held in the United States and in England) through a single platform especially when multi-governmental agencies are involved. Finally, the reporters, senior and junior alike, should acquire some sort of proficiency in the language that they want to use when broadcasting. Plus these broadcast agencies and institutions should develop a style book which they can follow when in the field!

A Giant Step For Mankind!

Audacity of Hope

The world’s largest democracy has spoken and the President Elect, Mr. Barack Hussain Obama, shall be inaugurated on January 20th, 2009. The American people, for the 44th commander-in-chief, have elected an Afro-American to the White House. The World went into frenzy… The Social Desirability Bias (aka Bradley Effect) factor was dismissed as the feverish imagination of the deprived. The media went into a spin that how history had been made in God blessed land of Equality, Opportunity, Hope, and The bastion of Free World. Indeed, Obama himself was proclaiming that ‘this can only happen in America’. Senator McCain in his concession speech referred to the President Elect having lived ‘an all American Dream’.

The world is convinced that this could have only happened in the United States of America while the American media tom tom-ed the historic event vindicating the stance that a member of the 13% minority which served as slaves and shoeshine, butlers at best, could be elected to the highest office by the people only in the land of the Custodians of all Free World Values and how race played a small role at the hustings’08. In fact, the British Broadcasting Corporation has cheekily hinted that the Great Britain, eternal ally and life-long buddy of the United States of America, is not ready for its black chief executive.

Let us understand that this race to the White House was ugly and highly polarised on the issues of black and white, as it was on anti-Muslim, anti-Socialism and anti-liberalism. The statistics are astounding! The Bible Belt of America and WASPs, voted over-whelmingly for John Sidney McCain III, 72 year old Senator from Arizona, and the white presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Exit polls indicate that at a national level a mere 43% of whites rallied behind Barack Obama. The truth is that this figure looks slightly respectable because 54% of the white youth (aged 18-29 years), constituting 12% of the electorate, stood rock solid behind Obama. Nearly 95% of the Afro-American populace, comprising less than 13% of the electorate voted on colour lines. In fact, a meagre 41% votes were polled from the Whites aged 30 years and above. They constitute 53% of the electorate. Latinos, Asians, and Others - who constitute 8%, 2% and 3% respectively of the total electorate size, rallied with 66%, 61%, and 65% votes. A quick ground reality check reveals that despite high electoral votes bagged by the President Elect, Obama secured 52% of the popular vote!

Looking back it seems that the nation cast its lot with the coloured son of a black-Muslim father from Kenya. But, it is note worthy that at no time during the over 21 months of tough campaigning did Obama once refer to himself as a black candidate. He presented himself as a saner alternative to the Republican policies. However, all opponents of Mr. Obama, right from the incumbent Hilary Diane Rodham Clinton, 61 year old junior Senator from New York, the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001, to Senator John McCain and Sarah Louise Heath Palin, the 44 year old governor of Alaska and McCain’s sometime Roman Catholic sometime Pentecostal but conservative "Bible-believing Christian" and largely an ignorant “hockey-mom” with “lipstick” running mate constantly fanned conspiracy theories. Obama a “secret Muslim” issue, ‘latent terrorist’ issue, Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, Controversy surrounding Obama & Reverend Rick Warren (pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County and author of the mega-seller The Purpose-Driven Life), Invasion of Pakistan Controversy, negotiation with Al Qaeda & Iran controversy, “Spread the Wealth” Socialist controversy, ABC’s “Obama Dropped Flag Pin in War Statement” controversy, Iraq War Controversy, The Barack Obama Stock Controversy, Rashid Khalidi controversy, “Palling around with terrorists” controversy and Obama & 1960s radical William Ayers controversy. In one controversy, ‘they’ even tried to fix his birth certificate. Then there was The Jesse Jackson versus Barack Obama Controversy much to the delight of anti-Obama mainstream media. In fact, the list seems endless.

Obama was nearly held to ransom by the magical teardrop from Hilary, as he was by Joe the Plumber and the incendiary remarks of his former pastor. Attacks on Obama were never subtle; rather they were blatant and vicious. A satirical New Yorker magazine cover flaunted the Democratic presidential candidate dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist.

Interestingly, no one questioned the sanity and ability of Sarah Palin, the potential commander-in-chief, in case the septuagenarian with a history of skin cancer kicked the bucket in the White House. The media as well as the people chose to overlook footage posted on YouTube showing Republican running mate, who sees a resurgent Red Russia from her window, indulging in witchcraft.

I think, white democrat Americans who voted for Obama voted not for a black candidate, as several panellist and invitees seemed to suggest in one of the BBC sponsored debates in the Middle East, to make history but for a candidate who came across as mature, stable & reliable and incidentally happened to be a black intellectual entity with poise and grace. Yes, they did vote because Obama represented a window of Hope, of Positive Possibilities to reclaim the nation from the quagmire that the outgoing President seemed to have left America in. These are the voters, who represent the changing face of young and dynamic America, the intelligentsia, who need all their wits and unity to pull America through troubled times. In them I see a hope of the United States of America emerging as a world leader once again and hopefully also address issues of the Planet in Peril.