Old Wine, New Bottle...

I have never been a fan of Obama.
My status messages on Facebook during the US elections, a couple of months where I had expressed my concerns on Obama and his policies attracted a lot of attention, and of course angry criticism from friends.
I had often argued, with these people that Obama is too much of an idealist. He seems to to be far detached from reality. He is undoubtedly a great orator, but there's more it than making good speeches.
He started off by projecting that America under him will be different for the rest of the world. but he's falling into a trap that the United States has been falling into for the last 2-3 odd decades. Pakistan continues to blackmail and coax the United States in funding their nefarious and sinister activities.
Obama started off on a "moral" high-ground by wowing to shut down Guantamano Bay, or Gitmo as it is often called, where suspected 9/11 detainees and other hard-core Islamic terrorists had been held. If hard-core terrorists are to be released, isn't the United States shooting itself in the foot? It was also reported that a released Gitmo detainee found his way back to Pakistan, preaching militant Jihad.
Obama also proposed to shift these detainees to high security prisons within the United States which led to a virulent reaction within the country. Quite a few states refused to accept these detainees. There was nasty debate within the political system, between Dick Cheney on the Republican side and the democrats on the other.
And now, in an article titled "Palau to Take Chinese Guantánamo Detainees", The New York Times reports that a Pacific island archipelago nation, Palau has agreed to accept the Gitmo detainees. Who is going to guarantee the security of these prisons? Does Palau have the wherewithal to do that? What prevents al-Qaeda from getting these detainees freed? If that happens, who'll suffer?
The obvious answer is the United States.
Obama has long advocated transparency in methods adopted to deal with terror suspects. He declassified CIA documents but then turned around and refused release photographic evidence of abuse. So much for transparency, Obama has also been called President Flip-Flop by, again, The New York Times. Other examples of his flip-flop on gay rights, abortion, etc. have also been well documented.




Obama reached out to Iran, in a speech on Navroze. Obama reached out to the Muslim world in Cairo a few days ago. But he has to understand that symbolism of beginning speeches with Asalaam Waleikum and talking of his Muslim heritage is not good enough. He has to understand that well-researched speeches are not good enough. He has to understand Hot-Dog Diplomacy is not enough.
Obama needs to go high on substance. He needs to go high on action. He needs to separate the wheat from the chaff in Muslim world. he needs to know whom to back in the military world. Is he doing a great job by backing despots in Pakistan, Iraq, etc.?




North Korea tested a nuclear warhead a few days back. That was met by muted, whimper of reaction from the United States. Why? Wasn't Obama supposed to take a stand from a morally high ground? The answer is simple. A reaction against North Korea would have invited a swift and brutal reaction from the Chinese. Wasn't Obama scared of that?
Obama's weaknesses and abilities have been very well understood by the Americans in general. No wonder, the Wall Street Journal has been talking of Obama's plummeting popularity ratings, which is regarded as measure of the Administration's success.
As far as India is concerned, Obama is yet to find the true co-ordinates. By the time, he figures out what India is, a good 2-3 years of Administration would have gone by. By then, Obama would have lost considerable leverage in India.
Obama promised America, and the world, a whiff of fresh air, but sadly, what we've got is stale Old Wine in a New Bottle...

Shoes Are In Fashion!

Sometime back when Bush was hit by shoe during a press conference in Iraq, we thought it was a one off incident.

But this week, we had two shoe-throwing incidents at home, which shows that this is as viral a phenomena as globalisation.

So when Mr. Chidambaram had a shoe hurled at him, people couldn't wonder thinking which brand it was? A Reebok? An Addidas? Anti-globalisation activists must surely be happy - it was very own, home-grown, desi, Action shoe.

And the size, I wonder what that was. Bush was quick to observe that was a No. 10 shoe. But poor Chidambaram , unlike Bush, he barely showed any wit!!! Guess its because it has been ages since he's worn a shoe. He after all prefers chappals, with his lungis! He seems to be woefully out of touch with shoe sizes and brands.

Certainly, with elections just around the corner, there will be many shoe-hurling opportunities coming our way. Which means that this is boomtime for the shoe-making industry with a good domestic potential. And the export market is also huge - global hotspots like Iraq, Gaza, West Bank, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, etc. should be on the shoe-makers' radar screens for exports.

And with such a huge global market for low-cost shoe-makers in India, Mr. Chidambaram and his cabinet colleagues better announce an incentive package for shoe-makers and exporters. There will be many "anti" voices, many would petition the Election Commission that is violation of the election code of conduct.

But in this recession, which other industry has such a great potential?

That's why I say, shoes are back in fashion, as the new WMDs (I meant Weapons of Mass Defiance!!!). Thank Jarnail Singh for that!

Will Obama rise to the challenge?

Hail Obama! The new president has been elected!

Obama has laid out his priorities very clearly - cleanse America of all its ills.

He has been riding a strong wave of popularity. And popularity brings with it a huge amount of expectations. And when the expectations are the highest, chances of under-performance are the highest, because there is and there always will be a big gap between the perceived expectation and the actual expectation on the street. Will he match the actual expectations and deliver is the big question... This gap is biggest cause of declining popularity of most rulers.

Obama has not had any administrative experience so far. And for being the head of state of any country - be it the United States or the Republic of Vanuatu, prior administrative experience is an absolute plus and a certain desirable. Obama does not have that at all.

And in politics, entrenched affiliations give the necessary leverage to take decisions that may often be unpleasant. Does Obama have that clout? I doubt it...

To make up for his administrative and political deficit, Obama is planning to appoint Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. Hillary is a power-person in her own right. Will she ever accept Obama's authority? Won't she be tempted to create a power center of her own, undermining Obama's agenda?

And then measures to alleviate the economic pain may not be too pleasant for US conglomerates, which have entrenched lobbyists at the Capitol Hill. Won't these lobbies undermine his administrative actions?

And we can't ignore the most powerful industry of the United States - the war industry!!! Won't the armanent and defence industry oppose any move out of Iraq. Similarly, energy firms which have landed lucrative oil and gas contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan, will go all out to protect their turf.

Obama may be thinking right. But thinking and talking about the right thing and doing the right thing are two very different matters. And whether he would be able to maintain his popularity and survive as a successful President is the biggest doubt I have.

But for me, I will always miss Bush for his Bushisms and his unflinching support for the Indian nuclear deal. I doubt whether Obama could have pulled it off at all.

Would Mr. Obama perform? Let's answer this question, let's say, in an year's time...