In response to Philips Stephens’s article “Obama to Europe: bon courage” in the Financial Times:

Obama, Putin, Wen Jiabao, Singh, Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron need to act now. The economic power centres of the world have shifted; this Anglo-Saxon viewpoint to solve the problems of the world is too blinkered.

Groupings such as RIC that brackets Russia, India and China, and BRICS that brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, besides the Group of 20, is a group of developed and emerging economies that came into prominence after the recent global downturn. “China and India are now helping to shape the world,” two ancient civilizations are emerging on the global stage and bringing the world greater prosperity, but at the same time there is a gap in mutual understanding. They all should help shape the world of tomorrow by putting their act together.

The world needs to learn from Roosevelt and Churchill. What are the lessons of their alliance for us today?

Prime Minister Winston Churchill began writing President Franklin Roosevelt when he was the Lord of Admiralty. In these letters Churchill urged Roosevelt to help the Allies in the war in Europe. These letters inspired Roosevelt and it was the beginning of a diplomatic relationship that helped defeat Hitler and the Axis powers. They loved hymns, history, the sea, tobacco, strong drink—and power. And like all friends, they were alternately ready to kill for or murder the other.

That no matter how difficult the problems between like-minded nations are, it is essential for nations to stick together against tyranny, whether it's a rogue nation or a terrorist group. One of the last sentences FDR ever wrote was this: "We must cultivate the science of human relationships." Arab uprisings are just at the commencement phase. Syrians have now joined the orgy of blood; Basher Al Assad has unleashed the unbridled power of state security on the protesters. Syrian uprising will follow similar contours like those of the Libyan dictator to initiate major crackdowns by the state security forces.

Geopolitics of the Middle East has now changed with diminishing of these strongmen since these uprisings; the importance of some of the areas as a result of 911 now needs to be reassessed. United States and the OECD need to appreciate that the fluidity of the Arabian Peninsula and Maghreb offers a bigger menace and could mean dire significant economic consequences and have far greater strategic importance than Iraq or Afghanistan.

I read this book from Jon Meacham, author of 'Franklin and Winston' and this is what Obama, Putin, Wen Jiabao’s Singh, Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron need to read now.

''I've always been fascinated by both Roosevelt and Churchill—by FDR's fight against polio, by his secret affair, his ability to manage complex forces, and his sheer will to lead us through the two defining crises of the world into which I was born: the Depression, which changed Americans' relationship with government, and World War II, which rescued freedom at its darkest hour. And Churchill-alcohol-dependent, slow-to-bloom, erratic-somehow, by the grace of God, was the perfect man for the most important moment of the twentieth century.''

Like today Roosevelt and Churchill saw that the world was becoming smaller and that what happened in distant places affected the lives and liberties of their own people. By explaining that new world clearly, by standing up to dictators when it would have been politically easier to cut deals and avoid hard choices, and by forging a friendship that helped save our way of life, the two men, amid cocktails, cigarettes, and endless hours of talk, from a tower in Marrakech to a stream at what would later be known as Camp David, delivered us from evil.

Political Friendship

Of course, it was unquestionably a political friendship; they were not childhood chums. Hitler brought them together, and Stalin drove them apart. ''But I think most friendships, even among ordinary people, are rather like that: they are created by certain circumstances-a school, a neighbourhood, a team, a journey, a foxhole—and some survive down the years and some do not.''

Today's world faces similar political challenges. Political instability of Iran is on the cards alongside eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia; this may be an era of realignment and expression of popular will in the Peninsula, Strait of Hormuz and Maghreb. All this will require policing and soft hand dealing with a carrot and stick approach. Western Europeans and United States cannot afford to employ, in such peacetime, multipronged uprisings through land deployments though ample US strategic assets are massed in Northern Kuwait to keep things under control in the Gulf. Comparisons to US in WWII are erroneous and out of context, these areas where all this is happening are not at the heart of Europe. When the heart of Europe was at war there was no issue of economic fallout, standards of living and world trade, it was an all out war of survival; the Battle of Britain was about survival of Britain as a nation and as such the level of preparedness and risks were different.

"In love, there is always one who kisses and one who turns the cheek." Churchill was needier, and was always kissing Roosevelt, seeking concrete help for his nation and personal reassurances about his place in FDR's affections, and FDR was cooler, more distant, something of a coy mistress. Statesmen can be cold and calculating and falsely cheerful, but they cannot turn off their emotions and affections any more than the rest of us can. Roosevelt and Churchill had so much in common and spent so much time together—113 days during the war—that they could not help but grow close.

Lend-Lease

Roosevelt proposed aid to Europe in what is known as the Lend-Lease Act. In this program America would supply financial and military aid to Great Britain and the Soviet Union. In return the U.S. would have a 99-year lease in places that could be deemed as a future threat. Congress approved this Act in March 1941. With Roosevelt's generosity and Churchill's determination to defeat Hitler the course of the War changed. After the Lend-Lease was in force, Churchill and Roosevelt met at different time to discuss the outcome of the war.

The visions of world peace were also discussed at these conferences. Inclusion of major players and major alliances was the hallmark in how the world faced the acutest challenge of the Second World War. Argentina Conference-August 1941, Casablanca Conference-January 1943, Cairo Conference, Teheran Conference-November and December 1943, First Quebec Conference-August 1943, The Second Quebec Conference August 1944, Yalta Conference-February 1945. (Chang Kai-shek felt he was being left out of the picture. So the two leaders met with the Chinese General to discuss the problems of the Axis powers in the Far East. The beginning of this conference had a shaky start. But Chang Kai-shek left satisfied because he had been promised aid in fighting against Imperial Japan. Joseph Stalin finally agreed to meet Churchill and Roosevelt in Tehran. Stalin was promised a cross channel invasion and Russians agreed to aid in the fight against Japan. The future of Poland's boundaries was debated at this time.

Middle Eastern Instability

Instability in the areas of the Middle East is a direct threat to prosperity and happiness of the western hemisphere; it is the threat to vital interests that define a response. Today the challenge is to maintain the current level of world trade, prosperity and allowing freedom to grow without affecting the oil supplies and mass murders by tin pot dictators like Gaddafi and Assad. These lands are minor fringes and principalities and can be handled with resource allocation and greater alliances that may need the revival of SEATO, CENTO kind of expanded relationships with NATO, though the players would have to be different. The direct benefactors of world prosperity, nations like China, India and Russians, have to see these beyond the myopic lenses of their self interest. Destabilisation of the oil-producing Libyans, Saudis and Straits will have repercussions on global trade and all nations would be affected. It is in the interest of the world that these revolutions should be helped with a vigilant conduct.

Roosevelt and Churchill story is a kind of love story. There was an early period of skepticism and courting from the invasion of Poland to Pearl Harbor; once America was in the war, Churchill and FDR spent two years in a grand pageant of personal intimacy and diplomacy. Then, beginning in the autumn of 1943, at Teheran, Stalin drove a wedge between them. The story of what happened at Teheran is riveting-games of teasing, sarcasm, and chilliness directed against Churchill, who at one point literally stormed from the dinner table. It's just amazing that such a thing could happen at the highest levels during the greatest war in history. But the personal matters to everyone, and Churchill was a very emotional man. And Roosevelt could be a very chilly one.

But there is no doubt their friendship helped win the war. Here's just one example: The victory at El Alamein, the crucial turning point in the early part of the conflict, was made possible in part because Roosevelt and Churchill were together at the White House in the summer of 1942 when news came of a British defeat in North Africa. Seeing Churchill's anguish, FDR asked, "What can we do to help?" and soon essential arms were on their way—which might not have happened if the two men had not enjoyed each other's company so much.

Future of the Muslim world

Today non radical Islamic nations like Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia alongside Turkey may offer some kind of stable forces and manpower to maintain peace in the region which is the heartland of Islam and oil. The world will soon need, in case of bigger uprisings in Iran and Gulf, allocation of peace keeping forces and those are the issues that Obama, Europe and NATO administration should be mulling over. Hejaz is the heart of Islam and the course of actions suggest that popular will may express itself by change of geography. Libyan experience has shown that these dictators will go to all ends to bomb and maim – here, in my opinion, a case of 'rapid deployment force' of a few divisions should be prepared and left over in Indian Ocean Diego Garcia for immediate deployment. Red Sea, Strait of Hormuz, Hijaz, Ras Tanura and Eastern provinces all are key points for continued prosperity of the West. These regions are going through their renaissance and need no bombs but more policing and help in transformation from despotic rule to democracy; alas none of the present leaders offer any coherent thinking, alternatives or exit strategies.

In my opinion a greater and bigger alliance of multinational low cost countries will provide the necessary answers. It is not about 1m $ a soldier alternative, the areas are far bigger and we need to find cheaper manpower to police and help the delivery of freedom in the Middle East. The expectant public of Middle East would be very happy if this can be brokered, and killing by the likes of Assad, Gaddafi and others be stopped.

"They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths. More than any other, they have killed Muslims."

Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression.

http://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-do-the-terrorists-justify-terror-by-citing-islam/

On Alqaeda- "Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

"The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind."

Alqaeda Fatwa urging Jihad promotes arbitrary carnage and aggravation of anger.

http://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-do-the-terrorists-justify-terror-by-citing-islam/

In 'How do the terrorists justify terror by citing Islam?' I cite -Quran 5:32 reiterates sanctity of human life: "if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."

Obama puts it in Alzhar slightly diffrently: '"The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind."

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22194-islamism
http://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-do-the-terrorists-justify-terror-by-citing-islam/

My comments on WSJ article by JAMES P. RUBIN: 'Why Obama Shook Chávez's Hand.' He campaigned on a new approach to diplomacy. 'By refusing to snub Hugo Chávez, Mr. Obama makes it harder for dictators and anti-American activists to demonize the U.S.''

I like Obama. In his trip to Europe, I followed him very closely. But I find him too nice and charming a person. He seems to think his election campaign still continues. He tends to reach out to be liked by the entire world. I have my doubts when people are liked by everyone. In rainbow coalitions, this is a must, but when you are dealing with ideological socialists like Chavez and Castro, or Bashir of Sudan or Ahmedinejad of Iran, one needs to be firm and purposeful, and that's where I disagree with the charm offensive. Diplomacy should not become a goal for recalcitrant nations, rather, engaging with diplomacy should be the goal. It's a good tool but when those who have shown disdain to civility are shown civility, they tend to become warlords and respectable in their own regions. Millions of Latin Americans viewed with begrudging respect the way Chavez was treated. After abusing America for years, he being respected and treated as an equal, accords him legitimacy. There is a certain amount of fallibility in the wisdom of masses. They respect those who can garner respect by intransigents and that's what Chavez achieved.

In this world of communication, body language and reaching out is far more effective than policy statements and behind-the-scene actions. Of course, allies like Colombia and others are alarmed as their positions become quite unsustainable. If intransigence is rewarded, then socialism or nationalization, the antithesis of capitalism gains currency. Incentive goes down the drain. There is no doubt that American success is based on incentive and productivity. Take that out of the equation and work on the Venezuelan model, no nation can progress. It's a clash of systems. Mr. Chavez stands for a system that he has married with one-upmanship of leaders like Ahmedinejad and Castro who are out to prove a point that they can stand up and be treated as first among equals.

Engaging in diplomacy by according legitimacy to 'thugs' may be counter productive. Let's see how this round is won by new diplomatic offensive. Chavez, Ahmedinejad and Castro cannot be appeased. Their foreign policy agenda runs contrary to the American dream. Iranian slogans are not based on some individual design but rather are divinely obsessed. According legitimacy to 'nuts' is not a commonsensical foreign strategy objective. They are not upset with America because they feel some minor injustice has been committed by the Bush doctrine, they are upset with the ideals that Americans stand for. Achievements in Iraq are no mean feat; a nation that was always bent to invade others is definitely rising as a stable nation.

To narrow the present deep-rooted historical and ideological schisms between nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan or nuclear proliferation efforts by Iran to Reagan doctrine and Bush policies is oversimplification of strategy. Ideological nations are not governed by short term ideological goals, rather, some like Iran are driven by Messianic intervention that would lead them to global triumph.

Nicety of personality does give a great photo opportunity but as Mr. Carter realized, it is not a tool for extracting advantage. The hostages were only released as Reagan took the oath. Gentlemanly conduct and niceties have rarely ever achieved policy objectives. Mr. Chamberlain learned this from harsh lessons of history, his premature announcement that peace has been won was dead in the water. Peace with Taliban who have a pan-Islamic vision of founding of a medieval state, and strategy of Iran to establish kingdom of God on earth a la Khomeini, are positions that are not resolved by handshakes and false rendezvous of diplomacy.

Diplomacy works very fine with a long stick and the ability to use it; in separation from 'show of strength,' it falters. George Kennan 'containment' and Reagan declaration of 'evil empire' well over 5 decades coalesced to deliver a lethal blow to an aging structure of USSR to crumble. It was their military defeat in Afghanistan that led to the final demise. These events that changed the course of history were results from strategy. Russia as a democracy today is not a gift of 'niceties' but a result of coherent stratagem. So was the fall of Hitler and emergence of Deng Xio Peng's free market in China. Winston Churchill, a 'great gentleman' was not known for his refinement, he was rather considered as a war monger. It was only after his prophecies came true that he was called for duty.

When everyone starts liking you, that is when trouble begins. A change is not easy to bring; it is loathed by many but in the long term, it brings peace that is obligatory. I am very skeptical of the charm offensive. Standing for something leads to hatred by many, standing for nothing is what is commonly known as playing for the galleries.

This is a world going through explosion of information. In this world of ours, media needs great stories and we Peeping Toms of the world, yes 6 billion plus of us, are never tired of celebrity news. Incessant news has changed politicians into great performing artists on the stage.

The summits of the world have become like great opera shows. Younger leaderships have replaced the genre of older, dull and dreary leaderships of Chirac, Kohl and Bush. While on the Arab stage, old leaderships continue with their associated diatribes. G20/Nato and Doha Arab summit provided to me an interesting glance into the insecurities of what appears to be very self-assured men. These are interesting times for extravaganza watchers like us - from Mitterrand, Thatcher, Reagan and Gorbachev days, time has travelled forward to Sarkozy, Brown, Obama and Dmitry Medvedev. The quartet of power's average age has dropped by 20 years from 71 to 51. Younger leaders bring colourful spouses into the equation and this has changed the nature of the cocktail. Gaddafi brings colorful tent-like robes in otherwise male dominated colorless Arab summits.

These are Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers representing serious nations but, behind the scenes, some of them act immature, juvenile, and stubborn. Containing these jumbo egos under one roof is no small occupation! I sometimes agonize over how unpretentious Excel or Doha summit settings could even contain these bunch of megalomaniacs.

It was an eighth living wonder to watch so many egos contained precariously without the conference exploding, rather, it was astounding. G20 was not the only summit that was full of drama; more agonizing than watching the G-20 summit was keeping tabs on the Arab League's summit in Doha. King Abdullah was expected to demonstrate the kingdom's crucial role in global affairs; first, at the Arab summit in Doha, where he tried to block Iranian influence through Syrian and Palestinian proxies, then at the London G-20 meeting, where Saudi Arabia was asked to help boost the International Monetary Fund's reserves to help countries badly hit by the world economic crisis.

Why grownups act like kids is the purpose of this critique. Watching grownups at loggerheads with each other in Doha was the impression that the Arab world got. I studied the nature of the leaderships in the Arab summit and G-20. I followed the two events very ardently during the course of the week. As a researcher of international politics, it intrigues me into interpreting happenings around me. Sarkozy and Merkel's side circus, with Berlusconi's acrobatics, kept G20 participants thoroughly riveted. Man rarely ever grows up; once he achieves a toy he wants another one. Contentment and gratification is something that is always amiss. Human wiring keeps a man on the go; the flight is never ending until it abruptly ends. These men seem to have lost the battle with the peace within.

Character of individuals make and break a nation. For me, a great leader or a great head of a family can steer the family towards solace and peace whereas a distractive egomaniac can destroy generations. Mao, Stalin and Hitler all came from disturbed backgrounds, believed in their own instincts better than anyone else's, were not ready to accommodate and compromise - the results were millions of death and agony. We are fortunate to have egomaniacs limited to a small region, plus open information exposes these megalomanias to scrutiny as never before, there are no Dachas or Bavarian retreats to hide from the intense eyes of the media.

The political circus around 'we commoners' needs elucidation. New heights, greater glories, superior controls consume leaderships. The ones who are successful are those who discover that the peace within comes with self-effacing personality, candidness and modesty. Change of leadership provides working class people to reach new heights and they bring to the office inner peace and tranquillity. The tyrants and dictators continue with self- consuming passion bringing commotion and pandemonium. That was the key difference between Doha and G20.

Arab world is still struggling with a crisis of identity. They cannot come together, even on one forum, as Arabs. Mubarak's absence from the Arab League summit was due to "differences" between Qatar and Egypt on freedom accorded to Jazeera and Iranian-influenced Assad. Qatar, closer to Iran, walks a tight rope and that may be "sticking points in relations between Qatar and Egypt."

Egos are hurt easily and the damage is irreparable. Jordan's King Abdullah reportedly went home early because he was so upset he wasn't met by the Emir of Qatar at the airport. Indicted Sudan's al Bashir, who defied an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court in The Hague flew to Qatar unashamedly violating the arrest warrant. On the other side, Treasury Chancellor Alistair Darling received Obama in London, but there was no such issue over breach of etiquette. Egos consume the moral fibre of man like bonfire. The world needs a lot of praise and mutual encouragement - Mrs Obama called Maggie Darling( who received her), the wife of the Chancellor, a "true firebrand." She described Sarah Brown as a "phenomenal woman who has been charming and delightful."

There were no queens to chitchat about in Doha; the Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi is the drama queen of Arab summits. The maverick Libyan leader Gaddafi stole the show at the Arab summit, insulting Saudi King Abdullah and proclaiming himself the "king of kings of Africa" before storming out to visit a museum. "I tell you that after six years, it has been proven whose past is a pack of lies and who is facing death," he said, echoing similar remarks by King Abdullah at a 2003 Arab summit. Mr Gaddafi has a history of unpredictability at such gatherings. At an Arab summit in 1988, he wore a white glove on his right hand to avoid shaking "bloodstained hands", and the next year he blew smoke from a cigar into the face of the late king Fahd of Saudi Arabia. A meeting of more than 200 African kings and traditional rulers has bestowed the title "king of kings" on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi the "King of Kings," it appears, takes his role very seriously.

The "brother leader," as he likes to be addressed, stormed out of the summit after denouncing the Saudi king and declaring himself "the Dean of Arab rulers." A similar vein of individualism, albeit on a much smaller scale, was demonstrated by Sarkozy in London by coming last on two occasions.

Here in the G-20 summit, we had younger leaderships of Obama and Sarkozy with their incredibly gorgeous spouses. Great characters, dynamic, yet poles apart, in personality - One tall, humble and grounded, the other short, conceited, revamping his size by trying to climb higher. We have Brown whose leadership and interpersonal skills are questioned but his ability to deliver is never doubted.

Berlusconi and Merkel's own shows brought a flavour that is quite distinctive. Berlusconi the media Mogul really was taken over by the events. The Italian press has teased Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for startling the Queen by shouting out to Barack Obama after a group photo with the G20 leaders. Photographs of the G20 also showed Berlusconi popping up behind Mr Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and clapping his hands on their shoulders to smile for the cameras. Television footage showed Mr Berlusconi at the edge of the group calling out loudly "Mr Obama! It's Berlusconi". Il Giornale, reported his shouting to Mr Obama, but put a positive spin on it, saying the Italian premier had helped make a stiff occasion more relaxed.

If there's one thing that British tabloids disdain more than the French, it's the Germans. Sarkozy and Merkel promised to "speak with one voice" at the meeting, and most of what they said together Wednesday threw cold water on President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's call for bigger fiscal stimulus packages. "Seldom has such a sour performance been put on by visiting dignitaries," the Express said. "Instead of uniting with other world leaders, they poured out their bile toward the 'Anglo-Saxon' economic model. They dream of making Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels the world's predominant financial centres." Sarkozy threatened to walk out of the Group of 20 summit in London unless participants agreed to his proposals to radically reform global financial regulation and what he termed "Anglo-Saxon" business practices. He said tax havens should be more transparent and accountable, adding, "we want lists of financial centres that do not cooperate ... and to draw the consequences of that." The Times of London reported on Friday that the French President Nicolas Sarkozy's work to regulate tax havens is duplicity when he has helped clients open accounts in Switzerland, one such haven. The allegations focus on Sarkozy's work as a commercial lawyer in the 1980s and 1990s, a time when seeking tax shelters was common.

One cannot even quantify the amount of goodwill and progress that is made in such summits if the leadership is resolute in unraveling the myriads of problems we as humankind face. His acceptance of America sometimes as an arrogant nation will disarm those who take cheap shots at America. This is not in any way equivalent to Jimmy Carter 'malaise.' By accepting responsibility for disregard of others on foreign soil helps the favourable image of a benevolent nation. Anyway, what is humility all about? The minute you think you got it, you lost it. Winning confidence is an art and it can only come through compromise and accepting responsibility. America today is regaining that acceptance, most likely people across the pond are insulated with what the world thinks of them, perhaps in this inter-connected world we need to care more about subtleties of others.

Take for example Russia's Dmitry Medvedev, a protégé of Putin who was frank and clear. I wish Putin would be there as a Prime Minister, after all, it is he who holds all the dejure powers. Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade." He said that the US president "can listen." "I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good," he said, adding: "Today it's a totally different situation (compared to Bush)... This suits me quite well." Obama and Medvedev launched a high point quest to cut their nuclear arsenals, hoping to annul the nastiest hunch in the previous foes' ties since the end of the Cold War.

This is quite substantive, if we consider that thousands of nuclear-tipped missile are still live and the need of the hour is to avoid any Sagan-hypothesized global self-destructive war. The need to disarm as soon as possible is urgent. The side meetings afford the backdrop for such huge steps.

Summits are a great stage and all summits become greater by the presence of a showman. We need a showman and the world today is lucky that showmanship is not in short supply. JFK, Ronald Reagan's absence is rarely felt. The G20 summit in London aimed at fixing the battered world economy. It did go a long way. Brown with all his monotony was talented to put this package collectively, that made IMF relevant once again. A cool trillion for IMF to help the world economy takes this summit to the level of a "doers" summit, not a meeting that was consumed by limousines and grandstanding alone.

The demonstrative nature of a leadership thaws a lot of ice. With all the acrobatics to gain larger than size attention, leaders were overenthusiastic in their praise for each other. Obama said that he's personally grateful for Sarkozy's friendship, and called the French leader courageous. In reference to D-Day, Sarkozy says France and the United States belong in the same family and says France must never forget what the U.S. has done for it. (On June 6, 1944, a 5,000-vessel armada landed at Normandy and unleashed some 156,000 soldiers, mostly Americans, British and Canadians, in a massive assault known as D-Day). Sarkozy was also determined to "speak the truth," Sarkozy said that Guantanamo "was not in keeping with U.S. values."

Education helps trim egos a lot. People with low self-esteem generally have the instinctive and inherent build up of false egos that leave a clear-cut imprint on a mind that is destructive over a period of time. Megalomaniacs tend to miss the smooth function; they get caught in a self-destructive streak. Sarkozy has said that having been abandoned by his father shaped much of who he is today. As a young boy and teenager, he felt inferior in relation to his wealthier classmates. He suffered from insecurities (his physical shortness of 1.65 m, 5 feet 5 inches, or his family's lack of money, at least relatively to their 17th Arrondissement or Neuilly neighbours), and is said to have harboured a considerable amount of resentment against his absent father. "What made me who I am now is the sum of all the humiliations suffered during childhood", he said later. Michelle said it differently in London: "If you want to know the reason why I am standing here, it's because of education."

Life is about real people and this is what Michelle Obama showed many Islington schools girls in London; it is about education and not the backgrounds they come from. America's First Lady appeared at times overwhelmed by the reaction to her visit to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in Islington, north London.

She said coming from council housing or private estates is not a problem, where she is today is because of the education. There were screams, high-fives and tears. Michelle Obama thrilled a North London school in a visit during which she told children to bear in mind, "Being smart is cooler than anything in the world." The question is what you want to make of yourself and, for that, what counts the most is that you don't need to press a point, get out of the way and concentrate on real things in life. The big picture is important. Humility counts a lot in the making of great people. Modesty, fortitude and determination though contrasting patterns are intrinsic virtues. After all, our basic instincts are contradictory in nature, it is our brain that puts so much of contradiction into a productive set of operations. This is a talent we as humankind need to expand. There is a fine line between self-destruction and self-building; it is defined by a capacity to master contradictions.

Obama met young Europeans in a Hall in Strasbourg, France. A young lady asked that her concern was children all over the world that live in poverty, under human rights violations. They have hunger. They have no education and other problems. So what is Obama's strategy to solve this problem? He answered that there is not a direct correlation between poverty and violence and conflict and terrorism, "but I can tell you that if children have no education whatsoever, if young men are standing idle each and every day and feel completely detached and completely removed from the modern world, they are more likely, they are more susceptible to ideologies that appeal to violence and destruction." A day before, his wife told young London girls from diverse backgrounds that "If you want to know the reason why I am standing here, it's because of education."

On a lighter side, the summit turned to well designed clothes of Michelle. In London G-20 did not become a beauty pageant but with the entry of Carla Bruni in Strasbourg, the emphasis shifted on cuts and cleavages. Who "wore it better," when it came to the hotly anticipated fashion smack-down of two of the world's most stylish women: France's Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and America's first lady Michelle Obama? Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy had their first fashion face-off.

If the French are involved, how can gastronomy be left behind? Jamie Oliver's attempts to impress G20 world leaders in London were no match for the might of French cuisine, the "most exceptional in the world", according to the French chef who will cook lunch for Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama. Emile Jung, who runs the celebrated Michelin two-starred restaurant, Le Crocodile, in Strasbourg, France, gave a theatrical pause before admitting to knowing arguably Britain's best-loved chef.

"The British cook? Ah yes, I've heard of him."

The essence of good living is beauty, food and drink. All this was in ample supply; add on the serious issues of nuclear disarmament, revival of the global economy and eradication of extremism that were all on the list of the summiteers, we had 72 hours of serious thinking on the future of our new generations. When was the last time the world saw such global issues tackled all in one by a dynamic quartet? I think superstars are people who can bring a change. Obama and Co seem likely to be ready; he has the will and the courage.

Obama has brought some graciousness to the 'collective leadership' of the world with a touch of class. The haughty, stuck-up nature of 'old leadership' has visibly changed. Diplomacy and understatement has been replaced by unswerving self-discovery. It is difficult to self-censure, more so when you are the strongest man on the face of the earth; to win the hearts of rank and file, a little humility goes a long way. These guys look quite grounded. It is not only the age, sometimes it is also the background and aura of self-confidence. To break the mold like Gandhi or Mandela, you need to think outside the box. Iconoclasts are not made, they are born. And we are seeing the birth of one.

No comparison is meant here, as it is too early in the game. Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mandela are a celebrity's celebrity. There are times when celebrities happen to be in awe of some leaders. Once in a while collective conscience of humanity spews a leader that the noblest of celebrities is awestruck with. Uniqueness is an exceptional gift. Sometimes one can see green offshoots of leadership blossoming well before they are fully ripe. This summit provided the world the unique opportunity of seeing an unprecedented spectacle of an Afro-American leading the world as the strongest man on the world stage. The noteworthy thing was he was not carried away; his feet remain firmly planted on the ground.

All this bears very well for the world. Welcome to the new world of Michelle and Carla Bruni alongside! The old world of Gaddafis and Abdullahs are fortunately dying and swept over. Change or wither is the new call...

Comical sovereign protocol …. Obama's probably swept them all away with their warmth and spontaneity.

What a great day we Londoners had. Every top restaurant had a minimum of 50 VVIPS. Santini had Berlusconi and Amaya hosted Manmohan, I was surprised that with his recent cardiovascular bypass how Mr. Singh could go for cloying, creamy ten courses of the finest Indian cuisine in London.

Saudis entourage that came with their seven Jumbos descended on Harrods as if it not going to be another tomorrow. For me it was not Santini or Amaya that caught my attention where I was visiting wholly by chance, for me the two pictures that stole the spirit of the summit were the Obamas first meeting with the royalties. The photos mirror contrasts of warmth and humility.

Their affection and humbleness won many a hearts here. These pictures can be interpreted in a different way, yet I thought they were great reflection of leaders who representing their nation went far beyond the call of duty.

Michelle Obama dared pat Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, but the US first lady has made such an impact that she was spared the media savaging that has gone with previous breaches of royal protocol.

The pair met at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday. The British monarch put her arm around the waist of President's Barack Obama's wife. The much taller first lady responded by putting an arm around the queen.

On the rare occasions that the breach has happened in the past, British newspapers poured scorn, fury and accusations of disrespect on the perpetrators. (AFP)

Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was dubbed the republican "Lizard of Oz" after he put his arm around the queen in 1992. French President Jacques Chirac nearly came in for the same treatment when he nearly touched the queen in 2004.

A picture of Wednesday's incident made the front page of The Times and was featured in other media. But the focus was on the obvious warmth between the two women which highlighted the way the Obamas have charmed the country on this first presidential visit.

"Protocol seems to be dispensed with when the Obamas come to town," said The Times.

Bowing (also called stooping) is the act of lowering the torso and head as a social gesture in direction to another person or symbol. It is most prominent in Oriental cultures but it is also typical of nobility and aristocracy in many countries and distinctively in Europe.

Sometimes the gesture may be limited to lowering the head. It is especially prominent in China, Korea, India, and Japan where it may be executed standing or kneeling.

President Obama curtsy to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Was it appropriate for a President of free nation to bow a King? Bowing to other human beings is frowned upon in Muslim cultures as all human beings are considered equal and bowing is only supposed to be done to God in Islam. As a puritan Wahabbi how King Abdullah did accept it?

Obama had one chance to break into the' Big oil of Texas and Big oil of Saudi' relationship sealed by Bandar- Bush special equation. He won the 'House of Saud' exactly the way he won key counties in Ohio and Florida. Well done, he did it for his nation.

The trends of voting are heavily in favour of Obama in US Presidential elections if the world is allowed to vote. Interesting note, Afghanistan, Iran lean 90/10 predominantly toward Obama, Iraq and Pakistan are favouring Obama but with a 60/40 margin.

Iqbal Latif & Zachary Latif

With friends like Mullah's at the helm, Iran needs no enemy: The art of making enemies is perfected by radical regimes within crescent of Islam. Contemporary pragmatism by North Koreans is sadly missing, Kaddafi change of hearts and Musharraf accommodation are two examples of coexistence and cooperation over self destruction. With present governance bent on confrontation Iranian people don't need enemies. Following is a critic on the plunder of the history of the Great Iran and the destruction of its heritage by the mullahcracy, caricature of homage to Ahmedinejad who have single handed transformed 'soft gloves' of Obama with none through his fickle notion of protecting sovereignty through erratic policies of self- ruin. Iranian nation faces economic ruin and destruction through idiocy.

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us. Obama says that global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us." Obama said.

Obama's groundbreaking foreign policy tour, almost as a "president-elect", is part of his reinvention and reimagining his foreign policy positions. His former pastor must be flailing in outrage, much like Rev. Jesse Jackson did recently. Obama being a member of the liberal left must display his foreign policy credentials.

In some ways he has to adopt the policies of McCain to an even greater extent than McCain has to. The history of the world attests that soft liberal cannot deliver peace; only hard liners can deliver peace. Menachem Begin and Vajpayee of the far right parties in Israel and India were the only ones who could deliver the unpalatable but much needed peace with Egypt and Pakistan. The chameleon-like change of colours has begun because as Obama and electoral strategists have long known that Obama needs to carry the swing Midwestern states to have a shot of the presidency.

Obama has a triple foreign policy plank; Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Iran's continual refusal to engage with the IAEA impels Obama to shift from his preferred mode of diplomacy to a far more outright aggressive stance as evident in his statements in Paris and Jerusalem. To provoke this change in a noted and celebrated dove like Obama to hawk could only be the doing of a thoughtless, immature and negligent regime oblivious to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.

It is a prerequisite for any contemporary social order to endure that it has to find a way that coalesces the trinity, which is: respect of law, importance of science and logic and religion.

These conditions do not exist in theologically infested societies within Iran & Saudi Arabia; the present cores of the Islamic world. Naturally, their theological constitutions rarely help to discover advancement and optimism. The issues of terrorism and barbarism arisen in the present day and age have shaken the limbs of humanity. It is however commendable that, despite insinuation and indirect intervention, Iran has not been responsible for the kind of global terrorism that finds its roots coming from extremist elements within Alasir/Yemini and Wahabbi roots of Saudi Arabia.

Iran remains far too sophisticated for that. Suicide bombing is based on taking of life of innocent in the name of virtue and stopping of vice; these are aggressive Wahabi values. Shi'ite self-immolation and self-flagellation is so deeply embedded within the Iranian psyche that the concept of suicide bombing is far too alien. The Shi'ite tradition venerates martyrs who die; not those who murder.

But to see the violations in terms of human rights abuses originating from Iran is heartbreaking; particularly, a nation ingrained with the utterances of Cyrus the Great, who 2500 years ago said, "…he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it…" and declared that he would not force any person to change his religion or faith.

In very ancient times, it was Iran that taught humanity the interweavements of Law with Science and Religion. Zarathushtra, the first Prophet, raised human awareness of the inviolability of religion. He devised into twenty-one Nasks or Holy Books, one third of which were works on Law, one-third Science, and one-third pure Religion.

Iran can be rightly termed as the cradle of civilization and of being a "Lawgiver"; it has a rich tradition of culture and diversity of thinking. As a region, Iran has given law to the world; laws of the Medes and Persians acquired wide-ranging prominence. Iranian history has a very close relationship to near the beginning when humanity started living as a civilised society. The first Iranian rulers were lawgivers. Contrast it to today and one sees the 21st century Iran under clergy as the biggest violator of human rights. Its post-revolution decline from bastion and cradle of civilization to the lowest rung of civilized nation's ladder is scandalous and disgusting.

Iran's contributions to codified law, so as to dispense justice, are poignant, evidenced by the extensive corpus of pre-Islamic texts on religious and scientific laws. The ancestors of the Persians, the ancient Zoroastrians, covered texts from the laws applying to soldiers to those on the cultivation of soil. It is perhaps the tragedy that a few 'deranged ideologically motivated' leaders have wasted the chronologically deep-seated traditions of Iran in less than three decades, the richness of thousands of years trampled in few years. To live in peace without coercion is an indispensable human right; terror campaigns violate the sacred trust of 'live and let others live' that has been evolved over millenniums. Law started in Iran in the beginnings of human history; however, this rich inheritance has been wretchedly shattered by the in-attendance clerical tyranny in Tehran.

Although it is generally considered that the most ancient code of laws is understood by Western scholars to be the code of Hammurabi, an ancient king of Babylonia, who ruled about 2100 B.C. Babylonia, the first dignitaries to have rendered extraordinary service in framing and codifying laws was Prince Uruvakhshaya, the brother of the eternal idol Krsaspa (Garshasp) and the son of King Thrita, the vicar of medicine. They were the direct ancestry of Yima, the dazzling antediluvian monarch. This unquestionably demonstrates insistence of early Iranian rulers to codify law and provide justice to their subjects.

The other code known to civilisation popularly is the 'Justinian code' Roman law that was promulgated by Justinian, the contemporary of Khosrow, the Great of Persia who was more popularly known as Anoshervan. The influences of Anoshervan on edicts of Justinian code are extraordinarily evident. It is obvious however that the more ancient cradle civilizations of Iran, China, India and Egypt should have had earlier systems of law.

Seeing a rich traditional country like Iran deviating to these low levels of turpitude of governance is incredible.

The lack of respect for human life, in Iran in particular, and the collective flippant attitude of the world of 'political Islam' towards mass human rights abuses in general, stems from sacrificing longstanding universal truths like ''strings that have connected the 'necklace of mankind' together, the strength of these 'ties' that connects our global village together lies in the potency of the weakest link. These longstanding universal truths of respect for life and availability of justice are codified as a part of broad-spectrum civility in our genes. What has recently happened post revolutions is that some have discovered the weakest spot in the string that holds the global village necklace.

Rediscovery of 'political Islam' in Shiite and Sunni worlds has led to the redefinition of our human social contract evolved over thousands of years through a process of survival of the best idea. The legacy of thousands of years' human richness has been sacrificed on the altar of holy interpretations of how we should administer our life; unfortunately these interpretations are led by the likes of Khomeini and Mullah Omar.

Ideologically provoked 'terrorism' has plunged a dagger into the heart of our social contract, that of basic respect of human life. It provides, through its ill-founded medieval judgment and jurisprudence, the 'right to kill innocents' without hearing.

The heart and mind of every terrorist has become the 'temple of justice', with so many elevated to dispense summary justice as they please the 'high priests' with a 5 kg dynamite belt strapped around their waist, out to avenge and settle scores with those who do not believe in their vision of Dark Age living.

The suicide judges have rewritten the rules of engagement prevalent amongst combatants; the 'holy repugnance' of taking one's own life has been redefined as the revenge of the weak. With new ideological jurisprudence in practice, we are living in a two-tiered world of justice, one where justice demands evidence before someone is convicted, the other, where convictions are handed by 21st century's new inquisitors, those who are quick to dispense justice and are able to craft and interpret the worst of atrocities in the name of 'moral equivalence and ideological justifications.' 'Jihadi and ideological instincts' are regrettably in dissent with the contract of basic respect for life that works in concert with rich traditional and cultural diversity of our society.

Human beings have overcome a lot of this adversity in the past and our combined human heritage is strong enough to accept this new challenge. The holy inquisitions of the present age, like the inquisitions of the past, are bound to fail. We as human beings have shown that conscientiousness time and again.

The choice for the regime is obvious; a confrontation course will end catastrophically for Iranian people and the world. In a reversal of characters paradoxically playing hard diplomacy with soft Jimmy Carter got Khomeini stick with hard-line Reagan in the office for 8 years, here by continued inflexibility an acquiescent Obama has already change his tone to a hard line more close to Bush policies. Is this what Iran and Iranians deserve? Converting sympathisers ready to negotiate to foes, this art is only perfected by the 'manic mullahcracy' of Iran.

Ahmadinejad has post 911 choices like Musharraf. The later had very similar options to Omar, Saddam and Nasrullah. Going by their same stubborn politics, he could have helped wipe Pakistan (as it is today) from the world map. The politics of shock and awe is ruthless. Post 911, Indians across the border would have been satisfied at the prospect of a militarily defeated Pakistan. Such a situation would have neutralised the nuclear threat that Pakistan imposes. If Yugoslavia could balkanize, what would have saved Pakistan from thousands of daisy-cutters? India is a nation that would have heartily joined the new powers to balkanize portions of Pakistan into a conglomerate of weak states under Indian hegemony.

Going by what this troika of failed leaders of radical Islam did, and seeing what happened to their countries after their foolish decisions, Musharraf did a great job in saving Pakistan from total annihilation post 911. At this cross road today Ahmedinejad can continue obstinacy which may be popular will of radicals, but in the process he will let Iranians at large pay a huge prize. Musharraf strategy of cohabitation with west is a dilemma and a two edged sword for an Islamic country, you do you are damned, and you don't, you are dammed. Giving devils the due, them taking pages from Musharraf book his marginalisation as result of short term memory of people who have forgotten 'pragmatism' that led to saving Pakistan's neck the price of confrontation for Iranian Supreme leader Ali Khamene'i may be a politically rewarding prospect. His puppet Ahmedinejad will play the flute precribed by clergy people, they well realize that 'murg bey ameriks fire passions along with backwardness and disconnect with the world of finance and technology. Leaderships need to know that great leaders are made up by number of unpopular decisions, getting bombed and option of temporary closure of Strait of Hormuz is dim-witted. It is better not to give a chance to western contractors to rebuild bombed infrastructure, it is far better that those sums may continue to be used as subsidies and benefit of Iranian public albeit to quell popular uprising.

I write this with a very heavy heart, a ground is being lost through which some cooperation could be achieved in post Bush emerging scenario. The lesson for Iranian leaderships from obstinacy of Saddam's Iraq and Omar Afghanistan is that they should avoid 'shock and awe' at all cost, a confrontation course will put Iran to path of self destruction, it is no fun to be 'bombed by daisy cutters' in name of dim witted sovereignty and than rebuilt plants and bridges at astronomical cost.

Only a nation caught in turpitude of clumsy supremacy can alter a course of cooperation into self obliteration. It is sad to see a great nation mired into turpitude of governance. I like to recollect from past what a great nation Iran is and how these mullahs are destroying the very fabric of this great nation's history and culture. Will Iranian Diaspora around the world stand and say 'enough is enough' we don't deserve our nation to be bombed in name of uranium enrichment which can only give Iran more trouble than accord any safety. 5000 years old cradle of civilisation need no nukes they have given culture, poetry and history to the nomads of the world, their cultural supremacy and humanism emanating from their country should suffice, that is the best sovereignty message of love and oneness, and Iran has never been short on that from Rumi, Hafiz Saadi and Abdul Baha ,it is the rich heritage and history that have helped Iranian culture reigned supreme. Let's not kill the dream.

2003-4
Kerry: Bush 'made America less safe' - John Kerry outlined his plan to improve national security on Thursday, saying President Bush has "made America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world."

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told an audience in Seattle that the Bush administration has
"undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership" by using force before diplomacy was exhausted.

Kerry said that the Bush administration ignored the lesson of former President Theodore Roosevelt, who said that America should "walk softly and carry a big stick."

2008-9

While Obama rung up 30-point margins over Clinton, Republican John McCain swept the Potomac primaries with narrower wins over Mike Huckabee, a reminder that the Republican base remains unsettled over the prospect of the party's presumptive nominee.Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

"But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.'The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus."

—Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007

Why Obama will be proven wrong on Iraq.

For that, I revisit this article written in 2003 in wake of 'Kerry's peacemaking challenge' to Bush. In 2008 for posterity's sake, as 'Obama' race gains momentum, I see that 'benefits' of war on terror still remain far, distant and unclear to the new prospective 'Democratic' nominee/s.

The shift of the theatre of war from '1 Liberty Plaza' to the hinterlands of Iraq and Afghanistan (where it belonged) is the huge collateral benefit of the relentless war on terrorists. These terrorists, instead of bringing WTC down, are now turning guns to 'tear' their own; this is the implosion of the terrorists' apparatus (containment as George Kennan would have put it, if USSR could implode why not OBL apparatus? And it has!).

Since BB's murder, the terrorists' actions of bombing their own has resulted in a big drop in OBL support within the nest of terrorist land in the lawless lands of the North of Pakistan. The war on terror has resulted in containment that has led to implosion within their own ranks. Can this unrealized, unseen benefit be 'priced or calculated' in terms of peace the West has gained? What is the price of an innocent life saved from the hands of savages?

The biggest benefit of this huge war is that their inability to act with freedom in the West has structurally weakened the entire organizations. For them, 'to be in the news' means killing their own; this has led to belated but welcome realization within the 'lands of Islam' that blood of innocents cannot be shed. Millions of 'infidel lives' would not have resulted into this new realism. The oft-repeated 'historical cost of Iraqi war' ignores the benefits of thousands of lives saved from the fangs of terrorist organizations.

Who will tell Obama that 'peace and tranquility' of a nation cannot be measured in $ terms. 'Full accounting of those costs and consequences will rather be known to history' as a turning point, in context of this ideological battle with demagogues. Has anyone calculated the cost of defeating Fascism? Ladenism is one such scourge and menace mankind faces. No cost to eradicate it is big enough.For 48% of American youths who think the majority population of India is Muslim, or are unaware that it is a secular nation, the benefits of the war on terror are lost. If this is the answer to the kind of global challenges we face today, then it is unfortunate.

One should ask what would have been the consequences if Saddam was still at the centre of the oil-rich and hotspot region? Another war with Iran or his other neighbours? 3 million lives were lost in the 1980 Iraq-Iran war; tens of thousands have lost their lives in suicide bombings. In comparison to these losses, imagine how many more have now been saved. The benefits cannot be measured. Suppose the 911 plot had been foiled, could anyone have derived the possible cost of human loss or dollar loss of that? How many such plots have been aborted due to affirmative actions against terrorists or how many trillions of dollars have been saved?

The world economy is growing at an average rate of 2.4% per annum; a billion consumers have been added in last decade alone. India, China, Russia and Brazil have become an integral part of the global economy scene; oil and commodity prices are up because of the demand. This is the part of hidden benefits from the global war on terror that escapes many. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, their armies are going after these terrorists and attacking sleeper cells, all have partaken in this exercise vigilantly. The US has 100,000 soldiers out there, but what about the other 750,000 soldiers from Islamic countries that have emerged as a result – fighting towards the same cause. Mr. Obama, it's nice to sell pretty slogans or talk about the $ costs of Iraq and Afghanistan wars to a few people in New York who are clueless or rank low on the ladder of cultural literacy. Take a good hard look at the trillions of dollars and the numbers of lives saved instead.

'Waiting for Allah' was in support of policies that have resulted in containment of vandals, as Republican John McCain faces new challenges form the liberal left. I reiterate my position expressed in 'Waiting for Allah' in 2003.

Waiting for Allah

The Iranian 12/4/03

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033464/posts

Defeatism in the Islamic World has become a currency and self-inflicted pain has become pleasure

November 28, 2003
The Iranian

''Bush's war has been the greatest thing that ever happened to Al-Qaeda. If Bush were making progress in the war on terror, we wouldn't be seeing vastly more Al-Qaeda attacks now than we saw before the Iraq war'' -- From a friend's post

Conspiracy theories, as in stories in 1001 Arabian Nights, abound in the 21st century. The wearied argument from the Arab street stresses that because of the new crusade by the Bush administration, there is a new holy war! These mushrooming sleeper-cells and wide spread convoluted sympathies on the fringes of the Islamic world exist because they need to heap the reasons of their failures on someone else. In the recent century it happens to be the US; in the last century it was colonialism.

Islam today is faced with new questions that need to be answered by the main body politic of Islam, not Bush; that is how Muslim blood became the collateral damage in the jihad against infidels. For when guns are turned on one's own as a result of an inability to face the West, it has led to the failure of Al-Qaeda sympathizers and their implosion within their own confines, the fallout of which is now affecting Muslims at large.

The blood orgies of Al-Qaeda have opened a lot of unopened eyes; the questions that were missed post 911 (as most of the blood was those of 'infidels') are now being asked, such as why and what for? When Western blood is spilled, there is a gleeful silence; when Western interests are hurt, there is a universal sense of accomplishment in fringe Islamic communities. This perverse pleasure taken in the miseries of the West is not what Islam preaches as its very message is peace and creation of the abode.

Wasted excess of squabble against US imperialism cannot be more exemplified by the life of a fringe youth within the Islamic world. He, who wakes up with a Proctor & Gamble mouthwash, a breakfast of Kellogg's frosted wheats, wears Gap jeans, works on a Cisco-Intel-Microsoft based technology to connect to the internet whilst sipping Starbucks coffee lashes out at American way of life. The envy towards America, for its accomplishment through hard won freedoms, is nothing more than passive-aggressive aggression egged on by the sense of abject failure and underachievement of the leadership that failed them.

A madrassa product can not be compared to an Oxbridge grad and this is the result of centuries of accumulated failure where 'innovation of thought' was denounced by Imam Al-Ghazali as heresy. Khuldoon, Sina, Ibn Ishaq, Khayyam, Biruni or Farabi you name it, for one or other reasons were declared heretics or were condemned as revisionaries by the clergy of the time, the efforts to arrest Islamic free thought in the cocoon of time have been always triumphant as clergy took the front seat in championship of Islam.

The silent majority spirit has always been trampled by determination and 'insight' of clergy to keep the masses in check, the inability to move with times and be a part of change left Islamic world directionless. The concept of pre-destination, and born with the will of Allah, overtook struggle for betterment. Clerical leadership has been the cause of decay. Had it not been for the foresight of leaders like Sir Syed, the South Asian region would be as backward as those north in Asia. It is not an accident that Afghanistan does not have institutions like King Edward Medical College or the rail and canal systems.

The continuous battles to refuse supremacy and struggle for false sovereignty have resulted into a country that has limbless thousands and still unable to connect to the world. Connect tribalism with a virulent form of extremist ideology and an explosive combination will lead to a self destruction of the societies. Al-Qaeda today is in on the forefront to achieve this 'failure' of a society like Afghanistan for places that are connecting to the world. Turkey is the target since it represents the ability of Islam to co-exist with democracy and freedom.

Palestinians feel aggrieved by Israeli aggression but their leadership has failed them during the course of this century by aligning themselves with losers. The issue of Palestine would not have risen had the Ottomans not aligned itself with the Germans in the First World War. The break up of the Ottoman Empire was the result of realignments within the world and the mufti Al Hussieni went to Hitler in World War II to produce Muslim recruits for the German army. Why should Islam become aligned with losers? Why can't we have the vision to connect with the winners? The Palestinian issue is at the core of the Islamic world but defeatism has become a currency and self-inflicted pain has become pleasure.

The war against the civilized world was hatched by the loonies of the world when the icon of 'Democrats' was busy having flings in the sacred office of the White House. After the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, appeasers fired misguided missiles on Sudanese factories and mud rubble in Afghanistan but no consistent policy was followed. The hornets' nest was considered to be far too sensitive. These vandals on the doors need men with resolve; the left with its self serving agenda does not have what it takes to face the criminals. The call of global jihad against the US and her citizens was carried out by the likes of Osama bin Laden under an administration that never took it seriously.

If taking the battle from US streets to far flung areas of the world is not a success what is? These extremists are and will be in constant hibernation. The challenge is to deny them sanctuaries in hinterlands of terror production factories that existed under Global Jihad Inc under the tutelage of countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others. Even Iran's recent cooperation with the IAEA represents how the threat of big sticks works across the board so comprehensively. Iran is ready today to open up its facilities of enrichment and that is one other success of areas that are benefiting from global containment of terror regimes.

Thanks to the US, freedom of action that allows us to speak and differ, is now a new coinage in the Arab world, which is of historic magnitude. The very reason that an Iraqi can call Bush a 'usurper' is a success in the war on terror. The war on terror is freedom from the shackles of primitiveness, and that is the big picture post 911 strategy. I see it not as neoconism or a new crusade, but action for the collective good of the world, freeing Islam from people who want to hijack it in the name of blood orgies. From Bali to Istanbul the fight remains a single-minded resolve to free our world from influence of cave man who want to rob our freedoms.

The challenge is to bring the Arab world out from the cave age and from the cradle of conspiracy theories. Muslims must take a giant step to incorporate a free press where 'expression of dissent' is guaranteed in an era of new self-determination. The Bush Administration sees this and hence its ability to convert the most hardened on its side.

The likes of Musharraf, Prince Abdullah and Erdogan are ex-hardliners within the context of Islamic freedom movements. However they are now the staunchest of US allies. The US needed the pivotal countries of the Muslim world to carry its fight to the enemy. How strange that the left in the US is unable to appreciate the alliance of the most unwilling that this administration has been able to sew. If this is not a diplomatic success -- carrying a big stick and dangling big carrots -- what is?

The fight against Al-Qaeda is helping the cause of freedom in two ways. One is that the cancer is clear and presents itself as a defined target that can be confronted. Every suicide bomber leaves a trail that closes doors for 100 other possible bombers. Turks in Istanbul or Saudis in Jeddah blowing themselves up are not in retaliation to US actions but as a result of the inability of Al-Qaeda to destroy Western homes.

In a last ditch attempt, they are now on the path of self-destruction. The streets that had gleefully expressed smiling adulations to the suicide bombers in Israel today find how horrendous these bombers can be. Saudis who complained that Israel should take no action against Palestinians, even if they keep blowing the Israelis with these bombs, are now on a crack down. They have realized that this ferocious beast is out to take anyone who opposes their brand of medievalism.

The Bush Doctrine has set a whole region free from the chains of the past. Yes, there will be upheaval and it will be a mounting task to face but the street in Arab lands fails to see why Muslims are killing Muslims in a vendetta that is directed against the West. The concept of collateral damages of Islamic blood is now too difficult to handle for appeasers and naysayers in our part of the world.

The reasoning that all this would have passed if no action was been taken is the biggest fallacy. There is, and was, no sympathy towards Western philosophy, according to the extremists. Islam promised its one billion faithful the rule of the world, and what they have discovered is that they are at the bottom most wrung of the ladder as a result of their own failure. The rage of impotence combined with blind craving to manage the human race through the 'will of Allah' is what propels hatred within the fringe elements.

It is dreams of rediscovering the history of Islam's golden age and the re-conquest of the world, like old Spain, that propels many lunatics to impose the 'will of Allah' on the unwilling. This is not about terror, rather this is about imposing a way of life through a 'regime of terror'. Appeasement only makes their work easier.

Throwing a gauntlet like Bush did makes it harder but it takes a very big man to do it. History has put this burden on a Texan who looked quite ordinary -- and for the left even stupid -- but he has taken this burden better than many a Sagittarius!