Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:

1) indian americans came after 1965 when gov. segregation was banned. though the west coast didn't have segregation like the south, there were anti-miscegenation laws which gave you the general idea of why china and japantowns grew up. for the chinese the ghetto was a protective wall against violence directed at them.

2) indian americans are more ethnically diverse than the early chinese and japanese were. the chinese were mostly cantonese. the japanese were obviousl japanese. so group mobilization is a higher hurdle when 1st gen communities aren't united by a common non-english language.

3) i would be curious as to seeing lower-48 residential segregation patterns. seems brownz do concentrate in particular areas, just like japanese and chinese (east and west coast + large midwestern cities). the fact that brownz started out such a highly educated professional community might have resulted in immediate residential dispersion and acculturation with white america in terms of being "the only brown in the room."

What is exactly the difference between a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican? Also why do fence straddlers like Bloomberg and Arnold choose to run as Republicans rather than as Democrats?

i can only hazard a guess that part of it must be about money : when it comes down to fiscal policies, perhaps this is what makes it easier, or more sensible, to go along with the party that wants to tax less.

This guy has my vote only because he described himself as 'a Reagan Republican' This is who I am. As much as admire the Sikhs I would not care much if he called himself Democrat.

Also why do fence straddlers like Bloomberg and Arnold choose to run as Republicans rather than as Democrats?

bloomberg isn't a fence saddler, his history is as a moderately liberal democrat. he switched to the repubs because he wouldn't have to deal with a primary fight (which he might have lost). arnold is a more traditionally moderate republican, and his focus has generally been upon fiscal conservatism. but again, there's no way he would have won the democratic primary as a right-wing democrat (he is probably no more conservative than many southern dems, and in fact more liberal on social issues) in california.

This is so exciting! Isn't Harry the first turban-wearing Sikh in office? (I could be wrong)

I don't know, Abhi. While Laurel Hollow is not uber-desi, I do think it helps that it's located near an area with such a huge number of desis. I wonder if his election is due, in part, to the fact that maybe folks do not feel threatened by an ethnic voting bloc in Laurel Hollow?
[I'm just thinking "aloud," this is definitely not based on any hard data]

Why is that Rajesh? Why do you dislike democrats so much? Tell me tell me.

Harry is such a cliched Americanization of his name. Why not HARVEY, if he must bastardize his name?

who ran without party affiliation in the village election but calls himself a Reagan Republican. “I believe in efficiency and cost-effectiveness…�

I remember the 80s. the age of the 4000 dollar or whatever toilet seats sold to the department of defense. REpublicans like to spend money and waste it too. Just in their preferred areas. Republicans like subsidies too. Just in their industries.

Harry is such a cliched Americanization of his name. Why not HARVEY, if he must bastardize his name?

Why not "Hairy?" :)

When I first moved to Fargo as part of my temperory work arrangement. The first q most people politely asked ofcourse was "So, how do you like Fargo?". TO which I sadly replied "I miss brown on the streets". Most sympathized, one surprisingly responded "well what did you expect in small-town America?!". Ofcourse, I agreed (not quite so readily though:).

With growing desis here (AND in office), in another decade - I bloody well expect to a desi-tipping-tractors in small town America!

who ran without party affiliation in the village election but calls himself a Reagan Republican

hmmm.... maybe NOW, after he's passed the "Reagan Republican" litmus test, he'll get a call from TMRWDITUS. ;)

Yaay for more pols of all races. I'm happy to see that desis are kinda going to both parties. Although I think that for a few more years, there will be more Republicans than Dems. Not because desis don't want to be dems, but dems don't want desis. You know what will be really sweet? Desis in parties other than these two. Like the green party, libertarians, reform party, ***king LaRouche's party, everything.

Democrats fiscal policy just doesn't work. Its the fiscal conservatives, and socially liberal who are the so called 'moderates' in each party. Party affiliation depends on where they would get through in the primaries. You will hardly see a non religious person who is fiscal liberal and socially conservative...and that segment of 'moderates' is really small.

Posterity, I did not dislike Democrats untill the the the advent of Jimmy Carter, since then it has gptten it has gotten worse because al the pro American Democrats inthe House of Representatives have retired one even campainged for Pres. Bush these were the 'Cold War arriors and patriots. Today's Democ-Rats are traitors and deeply anti-American.

Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians

So, disembedded (deracialized?) Indian Americans are being celebrated by Indian American politicians and on South Asian (American) blogs...

With growing desis here (AND in office), in another decade - I bloody well expect to a desi-tipping-tractors in small town America!

Not sure I understand what you mean.....as an aside desi tractors (i.e. Mahindra) are already in small town America, now we just need desis from the kraamam/pind to ride them

Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians

So, disembedded (deracialized?) Indian Americans are being celebrated by Indian American politicians and on South Asian (American) blogs...

ScarletGuju, just because a family has the means to move into the suburbs or outside doesn't mean the South Asian or rather the Indian-American population is "deracialized".

My understanding of the reason why Indian-Americans do not have a Chinatown or so, is the fact that since they entered the country in droves primarily as professionals, they did not need to set up shop in an ethnic enclave and they had the money to pick and choose where would be the best place to raise a family as well as building temples, gurudwaras, mosques, and other places of worship.

This is just an opinion, but I think Indian-Americans have held on to their culture more so than other Asians (and no this isn't based on scientific study so if someone knows of some research on this that contradicts me that is fine). now this may be b/c of so many factors, but being able to afford to live in a town where the best schools are and where it is safe does not obviously make Indian-Ams deracialized.

Posterity, I did not dislike Democrats untill the the the advent of Jimmy Carter, since then it has gptten it has gotten worse because al the pro American Democrats inthe House of Representatives have retired one even campainged for Pres. Bush these were the 'Cold War arriors and patriots. Today's Democ-Rats are traitors and deeply anti-American.

So Jimmy Carter is more anti American than the likes of Cheney???? Can you honestly say there has been a Democratic VP worse than Cheney or Agnew in recent decades? Cheney earned blood money through Halliburton and he has done nothing while Halliburton was stealing money by overbilling the country and indirectly stealing money that could have been better spent on the troops. This is your Republican types. He hasnt donated anything meaningful to the troops. A lot of these Repub warmongers seem to have a trend of avoiding serving. Meanwhile the likes of McGovern who actually served with honor get tarred as wishy washy anti American types.

The Dems are no angels. But it is hilarious when you paint one side as Anti American and the other side as pro American. Regardless of how one views Carter, he did try to improve America's image. So even if you think he is a failure, you cannot seriously claim his intentions were anti Americans. Meanwhile someone like Kissinger put himself above the country when it came to policy making.

Some part of me thinks that bobby jindal's star should burn as brightly as barack obama's.

that is, if race were a non-issue.

One reason that desis tend to go with Republicans is the conservative/family values flag that they wave. IMO. That's also the reason why Muslims have voted for Republicans in the past, based on a documentary I saw. Though seems like Republicans are the ones who have more sex scandals than Democrats.

He (Cheney) hasnt donated anything meaningful to the troops. A lot of these Repub warmongers seem to have a trend of avoiding serving.

Yup. As PF said many moons ago:

Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.

From what I heard, Bobby Jindal did nothing of any significance to help out during Katrina. Is that true? Not good for someone with the drive to become the next GOvernor of Louisiana.

That's also the reason why Muslims have voted for Republicans in the past, based on a documentary I saw.

Amit, which documentary are you referring to?

moreMirchi, the one by Salman Ahmad, the lead singer of Junoon, called It's My Country Too. IIRC, he mentions in that film somewhere that Muslims in the US have in general voted for Reps. I don't know if that's backed by statistics or not.

So, disembedded (deracialized?) Indian Americans are being celebrated by Indian American politicians and on South Asian (American) blogs...

ScarletGuju, where should I live to avoid becoming a "coconut" ? Can I evade caucasification as a grad student at OSU ? I caught myself thumbing through L.L. Bean catalogue and tying my sweater around my shoulders. Yesterday I listened to Prairie Home Companion in my car for 30 minutes before a co-ethnic pulled alongside and shook his head in disgust. Can I be helped? What does Marx chaachaa say ?

moreMirchi, the one by Salman Ahmad, the lead singer of Junoon, called It's My Country Too. IIRC, he mentions in that film somewhere that Muslims in the US have in general voted for Reps. I don't know if that's backed by statistics or not.

At least in 2000, major Muslim organizations like CAIR voted Repub, in large part due to the same socially conservative messages that appealed to Christian conservativesFrom this writeup

In the 2000 presidential race, Muslim activists attempted to do just that. A coalition of Muslim leaders representing some of the nation’s most influential groups, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), worked to deliver a bloc vote to former Texas governor, George W. Bush......... Some Muslim leaders also found the Republican Party’s platform on domestic issues dealing with abortion and school vouchers appealing.

... Muslims in the US have in general voted for Reps.

interesting. while i know that there have been core Muslim populations in the US that voted Republican, my sense was that the "general" tendency was to vote Democrat. does anyone have statistics?

also, i know this is SM is primarily a US site, but i do wish there was a Canadian counterpart somewhere, at least for this post and the way brown communities vote across the two countries. and also, up here we have lots of brown politicians. =)

Harvinder Anand, the new mayor of this Long Island village of multimillion-dollar homes, private beaches and yachtsmen, is, like many other residents, a successful business executive, a boater and a connoisseur of world travel.

But does he have the Long Island swagger?

louiecypher #27, well said, my fellow Lemurian!

Pravin, I agree with almost all of you what you said, except for:

A lot of these Repub warmongers seem to have a trend of avoiding serving.

This is a very poor reason to criticize their decision to go to war (which I completely disagree with). I do not at all think that a decision to go to war can only be made by an ex-soldier, but what it does require is an excellent understanding of geo-politics, history, military strategy, and political savvy. And these are all elements in which the current crop is lacking.

(Sorry, I always tend to be harsher on the "more reasonable" side of an argument, because I expect better from "my team" - I know that sounds patronizing, but I don't know a better way to put it :-)

The way I read that statement was that the Repubs are cowards (and not that they have no authority to declare a war) - they did their best to stay out of military service, but have no compunctions about sending others to war.

The way I read that statement was that the Repubs are cowards (and not that they have no authority to declare a war) - they did their best to stay out of military service, but have no compunctions about sending others to war.

Amit, yes, and I disagree with the ad hominem nature of that rebuttal.

What is with the Indian - American this, Indian - American that? I thought this site was a South - Asian this and South Asian that champion?

This guy has my vote only because he described himself as 'a Reagan Republican' This is who I am. As much as admire the Sikhs I would not care much if he called himself Democrat.

How many people, I wonder, were poor or involved in the arts (visual, performing), and found the Reagan years to be some sort of utopian existence, "when the conservatism was pure and F^cked over both the rural/urban poor as well as the arts community(who were obviously pinko commie dole-grubbers, working on behalf of the USSR to instill some appreciation of life beyond watching the Cosby show and getting your vegetables via Ketchup.)"

Rajesh,

For most wealthy junk-bond investors and corp raiders, the 80s were a really good time--if you don't believe me, watch American Psycho and see what kind of hijinks they would get up to--gold chains and Lamborghinis were plentiful and, thanks to Miami Vice, open-chested shirts and chest-hair were not as forbidden as they became in the 90s.

But for people living in BumF^ck USA (any rural location, take your pick)and those who made their living by teaching anything arts-related, these were the leanest, meanest, most miserable times of their life. I know, because I was both of those things: rural and the child of a single parent who unfortunately made her living as dance teacher--the "Islamofacists" of that decad

Bobby Jindal has done tireless work during Katrina for his constituency and has been praised for it. New Orleans is not his area. Dick Cheney made his decisions based on the same intelligence that Clinton got. Clinton said the same exact things about Iraq. It was faulty intelligence rather any machlivian plans to aid Halliburton that caused the 'misadventure' in Iraq. Saddam himself wanted others to believe that he had more than he had in order to deter Iran and other enemies.

I wonder if its possible for a bearded turbaned brown guy to get voted into office in a red state...

What is with the Indian - American this, Indian - American that? I thought this site was a South - Asian this and South Asian that champion?

I referred only to Indian American b/c I was commenting on someone's conclusion that since In-Ams don't have ethnic enclaves like Chinatowns than they are "deracialized". Louiecypher, that was such a great answer by the way.

In order to respond to that I wanted to refer to the specific demographics of In-Ams, that are not shared by Bangledeshi-Ams, Srilankan-Ams, etc.

deracialized

anyone that had to hide from gettin beaten after 9-11 isnt "deracilized"

A few points:

1) some people seem to forget that beginning from the middle of his second term, Reagan was one of the most unpopular presidents in history (you can look up polls on this)

2) it was also during the Reagan years that the United States became a net debtor (i.e. had persistent current account deficits; though one might legitimately argue about the exact contribution of his policies)

3) "small government" Reagan also dramatically increased the size of the federal government (though not the "left hand" of the government, i.e. social services etc.; compare this to Carter, who was far more fiscally conservative)

4)Let us not even go into his murderous policies in Central America (and other peerless foreign policy choices such as monetary support for the Apartheid regime, and South African mercenary forces, or frankly, death squads in other parts of Africa; again, there is not enough space to talk about Central America)

However:
1) one might argue about the extent to which Reagan personally was responsible for the policies, since his knowledge about most things (esp. those mentioned above) was next to nothing (one might consider the role of the reactionaries around him that comprised his cabinet)

Therefore this mindless mythologizing and Reagan hagiographies piss me off.

Therefore this mindless mythologizing and Reagan hagiographies piss me off

but...but...i read somewhere that reagen took off his shirt and single handedly arm wrestled the evil soviets to death...

2) it was also during the Reagan years that the United States became a net debtor (i.e. had persistent current account deficits; though one might legitimately argue about the exact contribution of his policies)

you could argue that deficits have been a net benefit for the US.

but...but...i read somewhere that reagen took off his shirt and single handedly arm wrestled the evil soviets to death...

as per Colbert, he punched a whole in the Berlin Wall causing it to fall.

Today's Democ-Rats are traitors and deeply anti-American.

And pray tell us what the heck is so darn American about the republicans today and not about the dems?

Cheers to Harvinder!

>>Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:

Apart from the reasons for this mentioned by Razib in comment #1, could fluency in English by desi immigrants be another factor?

M. Nam

And pray tell us what the heck is so darn American about the republicans today and not about the dems?

but...bush told me so, so it must be true...bush is one os "us". he wouldnt lie...

So, disembedded (deracialized?) Indian Americans are being celebrated by Indian American politicians and on South Asian (American) blogs...

One can be just as desi as when they arrived on these shores AND live amongst non-desis. I would argue that those who do this are better ambassadors for desidom, than those who find comfort in their own conclaves.

it was also during the Reagan years that the United States became a net debtor

Recently read a report that said that the net deficit reported is usually inflated because it does not take into account the fact that in the case of many US multinationals, the profits do indeed make their way back to the US and this is not reflected in deficit calculations.

Today's Democ-Rats are traitors and deeply anti-American.

And pray tell us what the heck is so darn American about the republicans today and not about the dems?

Ardy, please ignore such baseless rants.

Ardy, please ignore such baseless rants.

My bad!

Part of the reason that Indian American candidates do so well (politically) outside of ethnic enclaves is that many never embed themselves in one in the first place. This is in contrast to other Asians:

Except for maybe the Gujjus in Edison, NJ :-)

#47 ardy, you stole my words. I simplified a bit; I should also add that Reagan was no "free trader"; his various tariffs and quotas are legendary. The deficits, as Ardy points out were basically an artifact of the beginning of "off shoring". So I did not mean to imply that the deficits were due to "free" trade (Otherwise the Reagan administration would not have pushed for the Plaza Accord).

Muralimannered, Govt shoud not be funding the arts or pbs. I do not wath anti-American propaganda like American Psych or anything that Michael Moore puts out. I boggles my mind that supposedly intelligent young professionals can leftist anti-American DemocRats. This just goes to show that professional qualification does not equal commonsense much less intelligence.

The 1880's were America's second golden age after the 1950's because of Reagan. Jimmy Carter was withoud doubt the worse president in my lifetime. I do not support Bush because he is a leftist. Spending went up because Reagan had to work with a Democrat congress. The prsesident does not spend money Congress does. When Reagan asked for a war-ship or a carrier. the Congress authorised it with tons of pork attached. If Reagan wanted the ship he had no choice but to sign the bill.

When America's image is good to to the rest of the world that is when things are bad at home. When America is strong that is when the world hates us. The world will allways hate us, that is OK as long as they fear us. When you are king of the hill you have no friends.

The DemocRats are the domestic enemy, worse than AQ they are in a position to do the most damage and they do their best. We can't kill thim like AQ because they are protected. It is only because of the system of checks and balances with our three brances of government that pevents them from doing the most damage to America.

It is no co-incidence that the Officer Corps and most enlisted describe themselves as Republican. Today's Democrats hate the military and those of us in uniform are well aware of this.

Rajesh, dude, I respect your right to opine, but you would have to do better than issue slogans and assertions to count as indulging in an argument (all this is putting what you said very mildly; might even be the understatement of the week).

The DemocRats are the domestic enemy, worse than AQ they are in a position to do the most damage and they do their best. We can't kill thim like AQ because they are protected. It is only because of the system of checks and balances with our three brances of government that pevents them from doing the most damage to America.

This takes the cake; how do I say it, I hope your wait for your Fuhrer is never fulfilled.

dont feed the troll....

I meant to say I hope your wait never ends (man you are scary; I'm glad that the army also contains people like my brother)

Liberal fiscal policy of big government and high taxes does more damage to America, than isolated attacks. The same socialistic policies have almost destroyed Sweden with its 60 % tax rate. Swedes are emmigrating to Norway in record numbers. There is an article on the web called 'Death of Sweden' which gets into it a bit more....

I am neither a republican or a democrat...but a Libertarian. My belief is that organized religion and big government cause nothing but grief. Could it be that they both end up as a vehicle for a powergrab.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1234

The Republican-Democrat fight on SM is so pre-2007.
Somebody in the comments also tried to bring back that old Indian v. South Asian nonsense. That baby was killed and buried a while back.

It is no co-incidence that the Officer Corps and most enlisted describe themselves as Republican. Today's Democrats hate the military and those of us in uniform are well aware of this.

40% of the military votes for the Democrats.

40% if the military does not vote Democrat, only a few REMFS (rear echelon mother f#*%#@s).
Ditto: Vic

The Republican-Democrat fight on SM is so pre-2007.
Somebody in the comments also tried to bring back that old Indian v. South Asian nonsense. That baby was killed and buried a while back.

You sound like such an SM-snob; The thing is some of us haven't been reading SM very long. I would think anyways the Rep-Dem fight would be ongoing since politics is ongoing.

Rajesh and ACFD- Where do you get your data on the military?

Rajesh - When America's image is good to to the rest of the world that is when things are bad at home. When America is strong that is when the world hates us. The world will allways hate us, that is OK as long as they fear us. When you are king of the hill you have no friends.

The DemocRats are the domestic enemy, worse than AQ they are in a position to do the most damage and they do their best. We can't kill thim like AQ because they are protected. It is only because of the system of checks and balances with our three brances of government that pevents them from doing the most damage to America.

This hyper-aggressive logic you have has wreaked havoc on the US b/c it is the same logic that the US under Bush has produced. I've always felt this type of aggressive thinking is just cowardly...nobody who has to send their loved. You have a lot to learn from India's culture on civil disobedience and the MLK's civil rights movement. There is no machoism involved in these movements and they are much more powerful than stupid rhetorical aggression. I'll take McGovern's humanism anyday over the evil enemy speech...god when I think of what Reagan's dogmatic and McCarthyistic foreign policy did to so many parts of the world --- how many lives he destroyed it makes me sick how anyone can admire him.

You sound like such an SM-snob; The thing is some of us haven't been reading SM very long. I would think anyways the Rep-Dem fight would be ongoing since politics is ongoing.

I was kidding! I love dem-republican debates and look forward to more of those debates on SM as we get closer to the primary season.

Rajesh and ACFD- Where do you get your data on the military?

According to the 2004 exit poll by CNN, people who had served in the military voted 57% for Bush and 41% for Kerry.

40% if the military does not vote Democrat, only a few REMFS (rear echelon mother f#*%#@s).

Rajesh...are you ex-military ? What's driving this Manichaen outlook on Dems vs. Republicans (I ask as someone who has voted Republican before)? Do you as a former front line soldier (?)feel that you have been failed by the Dems? What exactly are you looking for, carte blanche on things like Haditha? No introspection on the rationale for the war ?

Reagan was a necessary president for the late period of the Cold War and I disagree with those who label him a McArthyite. Those were scary times, at least for most of humanity except ScarletGuju/LeftyProf, but due to that fear some pretty horrific stuff happened during his watch in Central & South America. I generally give the benefit of the doubt regarding good intentions to presidents during those times. But in the case of Bush Jr. we have someone presented with a whole list of legitimate targets in the war on terror but opts for Iraq for reasons unknown. Don't conflate Chomsky/Arundhati Roy with the antiwar Dems, they are NOT the same thing. The former view the US as the source of all evil in the world, Dems are merely suggesting that we be circumspect in the use of force which necessarily involves the loss of American and foreign civilian lives

Rajesh is probably the biggest idiot I have ever seen on this blog and it has nothing to do with him being Republican. My mom votes republican. I am normally independent(I support school vouchers, death penalty, less government including less bloated defense a concept Republicans do not know about). Though during this cycle I am going to be more of a Democrat only because the Republican party has failed spectacularly in administering the country in many areas.

People like Rajesh are dumb sheep that vote for leaders that pay lip service to them. To people like him, Cheney is probably a hero despite the fact that this guy avoided serving at every turn in his life. Most of these Iraq war architects have not served in the military. Not only that, they have not enoucraged any of their family members from serving which actually gives credence to the fact that they do not really care about the importance of service. McGovern was branded a wimp despite the fact that he served with honor unlike some of his republican counterparts. REpublicans were in charge of the senate and congress for most of the recent decade. Did your benefits go up by much????

Why did Republicans can the moderate REpublican from NJ if they were so concerned about the welfare of the military personnel? I forget his name, but he was one of the few Republicans who stood up for funding the troops better. WHy do Republicans like Halliburton so much. A company whose crookedness indirectly robs the troops of money that could be used for their welfare? And why are your freaking republicans getting into my personal business with this religious bullshit? Less government, my ass. Less government is only somethign they like when it suits them.

Oh those miltary adventures in South America? those were under Reagan. THe intentions to beat up the Soviets by proxy in Afghanistan were good, but like a kid playing with dynamite, Reagan and his people failed to consider long term consequences when they deal with powerful weapons(in this case, the Mujeheeden). Every action has consequences that are part of the same package. YOu cannot pick and choose the great things your leaders do and dismiss the negative consequences as trivial stuff. Reagan was not as dumb as DEmocrats liked to sneer, but he was not as freedom loving as his devotees make him out to be. He praised people like Marcos and Zia in more than the usual diplomatic terms.

Here is another thing I do not understand about military guys. Even those who did not support the IRaq invasion kept their mouths shut because of the chain of command. FIne. Fair enough. But when Clinton wanted to allow gays in the military, people like Powell all of a sudden did not respect that, and did a lot of things to make life tough for Clinton. Where was the chain of command then? Also ,when you are shitting next to another guy in open toilets, does it get any worse than that? Is it really that much more uncomfortable to hold be in the same trench as a gay guy with enemy bullets being fired past you? You can take all kinds of insults by your superiors in your boot camps, but serving next to a gay guy threatens your sense of security????

I appreciate the military, but I will not give a free pass to anything they do. That would be patronizing.

Reagan was a necessary president for the late period of the Cold War and I disagree with those who label him a McArthyite. Those were scary times, at least for most of humanity except ScarletGuju/LeftyProf, but due to that fear some pretty horrific stuff happened during his watch in Central & South America. I generally give the benefit of the doubt regarding good intentions to presidents during those times.

Sure, the cold war and threat of nuclear annihilation was scary stuff, but it is completely incomprehensible that you could give Reagan a pass on what he did internationally in Central and South America, and domestically on the economy and his policy towards gays etc. Not to mention that we are reaping the benefits of the grassroots conservative/evangelical program seeded in his time (by stalwarts such as Ed Meese) to infiltrate American politics and civil service.

louiecypher, I do appreciate the value of realpolitik, and I usually (grudgingly) see the point of view that justifies reprehensible actions by countries, despite my personal (admittedly naive) idealism. But what Reagan did in the 80s, and Kissinger in the 70s, is absolutely beyond the pale.

I was kidding! I love dem-republican debates and look forward to more of those debates on SM as we get closer to the primary season.

I'm sorry! I didn't realize you were joking :) - thanks for the link to CNN

during his watch in Central & South America.

I generally give the benefit of the doubt regarding good intentions to presidents during those times

People who lived in those places in those times--non-elite parents of my friends from Argentina and Chile--do not give the benefit of doubt. Neither did some Catholic priests from Ecuador.

Plus Reagan gave the famous line "I don't remember/I don't recall" which is being put to good use by Alberto & Rummy these days.

Lets not give undue importance to violent rantings. Here's some perspective from my favorite soldier, Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (USMC) :War is a Racket

During his 'watch'? That sounds so benign. Like he was baby-sitting.

Poor choice of words, I agree that he was behind these policies. Anyway, let's not rehash the entire Cold War in this thread.....way off topic

Indians tend to speak English when they arrive

Yes when they come to the United States. But this is not true when it comes to Canada. Two countries side by side, yet so different.

Don't conflate Chomsky/Arundhati Roy with the antiwar Dems, they are NOT the same thing. The former view the US as the source of all evil in the world, Dems are merely suggesting that we be circumspect in the use of force which necessarily involves the loss of American and foreign civilian lives

Damn. The entire spectrum of leftist thought summed up and dismissed in 14 words. Really, is it that simple?

Chomsky and Roy have developed complex, nuanced analyses that deal partially with the US's role in the history of imperialism in the context of class, as well as race, gender and other factors.

ScarletGuju and LeftyProf are not, by the way, Stalinists, and both find the Reagan administration's legacy and its current adherents scary as hell.

And all of those Democratic politicians who wanted us to be 'circumspect in the use of force' really ought to have voted against the war in the first place, which is what the 17 million of us who marched against the war on Feb. 15, 2003 were asking them to do.

Indians tend to speak English when they arrive

Yes when they come to the United States. But this is not true when it comes to Canada. Two countries side by side, yet so different.

Here is another thing I do not understand about military guys. Even those who did not support the IRaq invasion kept their mouths shut because of the chain of command. FIne. Fair enough. But when Clinton wanted to allow gays in the military, people like Powell all of a sudden did not respect that, and did a lot of things to make life tough for Clinton. Where was the chain of command then? Also ,when you are shitting next to another guy in open toilets, does it get any worse than that? Is it really that much more uncomfortable to hold be in the same trench as a gay guy with enemy bullets being fired past you? You can take all kinds of insults by your superiors in your boot camps, but serving next to a gay guy threatens your sense of security????

First off, this [Gays in uniform] has been debated on SM. Check the archives out. An Army JAG Officer also joined the discussion.

You are conflating mission/functional requirements (support a fight or not) with cultural desires. Many of you/public don't seem to understand how status quo the military is. EVERYTHING is to push one agenda - how to win. People have different opinions on that, but the military isn't so short on numbers that they feel its in their interest to have openly gay members. The numbers game suggests it's in their detriment. Yes, many gay 'translators' were kicked out, but that statistic is misleading. They aren't the only ones with dual language skills. Army SF (Green Berets), PSYOPS, Civil Affairs, Military Intelligence and others go to language schools as a part of their MOS requirements. Most forget that the military isn't 'kumbaya', it's job is to kill as an organization, not 'individuals'.

Also, a minority in the military disagreed with Iraq and Afghan policies (both were completely different models in warfare. One was unconventional with only 100 Special Forces,SEALS and CCTs leading a local army with AF support. The other was a massive exercise in conventional maneuver warfare.) The MAJORITY of military agrees that gays shouldn't be allowed openly. It differs with services, with USAF and USN being far more lax than the USMC or Army. Infantry isn't an easy place to be and the last place generals want to 'tweak'.

Now, to discussion of 'dissent' with Presidential policies:

1) Powell giving Clinton a hard time had to do with mission requirements and lack of confidence in the CINC, resulting from the Somalia "Black Hawk Down" incidient. If you've read Mark Bowden's book, he mentions how Aideed was almost finished, however, he was relieved at the reaction the American public had when they saw pictures of the Helicopter Crew being dragged through the streets. Clinton buckled under pressure, when the military, particularly Special Operations wanted to finish the job off. Clinton lost credibility. This 'backing down' also played into Islamist publicity pitch of the US lacking intestinal fortitude. Clinton policy since then depended on an over reliance of Air Force and Naval stand off fights (Bombs, Missles) and missions of kosovo which the US military wasn't all too happy to be involved in, since they felt if things got tough, Clinton wouldn't back them to finish a fight off (or handicap them). They felt the mission was too obscure and lacked clarity. Clinton policy also helped rapidly decay basic military infrastructure, for example, ammunition production. Not big ticket items, but bullets and grenades type things, which were considered obsolete. The public won't get to see it, but the 90s decay of basic military infrastructure hurt in several ways.

2) Bush is considered a straight shooter by military folks. They don't doubt his will or intentions, people definitely don't have much confidence in his strategic vision and ability to conduct warfare from political standpoint. He's kinda dumb, but at least he tried and backs military up. Clinton was smart but looked 'down' upon infantry types. One may not agree with Bush, but military folks do respect him somewhat and understand he's a limited guy.

In conclusion: Both Bush and Clinton are poor executors of warfare. First was cautious and pretty flippant towards the military (Hillary, from sources, was very anti-military type). Bush listened to the wrong strategists of how to execute warfare in Iraq and muddled organizational details which resulted in shitty execution. Generals who advised him are to blame also. Erik Shinseki stood up to the admininstration. He was pushed out and 'retired'.

In recent US history, IMO, FDR, Reagan, JFK, Bush Sr, and Eishenhower understood how to fight war on mulitple fronts (Political, diplomatic, economic, and military).

YMMV. But one thing across the board I have noticed in the United States is that considering how much we try to educate our selves, principals of warfare is a topic that isn't very well taught or dicussed (yet, its a huge part of human and American History). Unless one had an opportunity to get a formal military education, or read enough first person accounts and history, conflict theory is poorly discussed.

principals

AAAHHHHHH. I hate when I do this. PRINCIPLES.

In conclusion: Both Bush and Clinton are poor executors of warfare.

Even Karl Rove couldn't have come up with such a wonderful talking point! The spin is enchanting.

The public won't get to see it, but the 90s decay of basic military infrastructure hurt in several ways. He's kinda dumb, but at least he tried and backs military up.

I will refrain from discussing how Rumsfeld's one-track agenda of modernizing the military and having a small army hurt in a very direct, tangible, and quite long lasting way.

Even Karl Rove couldn't have come up with such a wonderful talking point! The spin is enchanting.

Glad to have helped.

I will refrain from discussing how Rumsfeld's one-track agenda of modernizing the military and having a small army hurt in a very direct, tangible, and quite long lasting way

Why refrain from it? I'm sure curious minds would like to know.

Um, why do people always bring a wrong up, to dicuss another wrong? I don't disagree at all that Rummy was too McNamara like. Our strategy in Afghanistan had strong support from him, but if you're going into a conventional fight, you don't take an unconventional toolbox to it. For Afghanistan, he brought a knife for the knife fight. For Iraq, the USG showed up with a Knife to a gun fight. Different tactics and strategies...if he wanted an unconventional fight in Iraq, he should have left Army SF to do their job and told the big army general types to shut up. But he let the Big Army guys loose, without the "Big" part of it. Frankly, I would have opted for an unconventional fight, with Army SF building local guriella armies.

It's been said a million times, but Paul Bremer disbanding the Iraq military was the biggest mistake anyone could have ever made. This goes into the organization details part - most in the US military DID NOT want that. But the dual chain of command with CPA and DOD meant that there wasn't a clear chain of command.

Like I said, Clinton and Bush presidencies are shitty examples of how to fight. Maybe if you had a Clinton/Bush hybrid, you'd see a president with more brains AND guts. We can all dream...

Um, why do people always bring a wrong up, to dicuss another wrong?

Fair point, but Clinton's vision would have been fine if we had not plunged headlong into a hopeless war with a boneheaded strategy.

Damn. The entire spectrum of leftist thought summed up and dismissed in 14 words. Really, is it that simple?

Sarah: Yes, pretty much. If I were to get tenure on the other hand I would definitely give the Left and navel lint more consideration

Fair point, but Clinton's vision would have been fine if we had not plunged headlong into a hopeless war with a boneheaded strategy.

Actually, I don't know what Clinton's vision would have been had be been President when 9/11 happened. I say this, because BEFORE 9/11, Bush was leaning towards an isolationist policy towards the middle east. He thought we had our hands in too many arguments where they didn't belong. It made sense since he wasn't know as an internationalist type anyway (and not as pro israeli either then)

Major events tend to change opinions.

My beef isn't with going to war (which many are against in a knee jerk fashion). It's the way we went in, not Afghanistan (because that was brilliant), or the inintial Iraq invasion (maneuver warfare), but the fact that once we got there, people, especially ADMINISTRATORS were holding their weenies bickering.

But I'll tell you what, General Petraeus (who wrote the Army's COIN manual), one of the 'outsider' type critics of the initial COIN effort,is the head honcho there now, may have some interesting testimony coming. Check out Michael Yon's website for a slice of what's happening in the insurgency. It's always refreshing to read indepedent sources. Yon's got a unique perspective - Afghanistan is far worse off, Iraq may actually be salvageable. One is counter to what the right wing has to say, another is counter to what the left has had to say.

Gujudude, Rahul

both of you guys seem to have come to peace with collateral damage. I'm curious as to how you two got to that point.

not Afghanistan (because that was brilliant)

brilliant? You've got to be kidding...

There were very good reasons for us to involved in Afghanistan and focus on that and work with the rest of the world.

That was something that Clinton was very good at --- even if you don't agree with the UN you still need to in this interconnected world, have to not only play politics with the rest of the world, but argue your point and get opinions from others - as can be seen in our disastrous Iraq policy. If we'd work thru int'l channels there would have been less likelihood that we would have jumped into this illegal war. Bush/Cheney had to jump into the Iraq war this way b/c of course any unbiased outlook into the war, which the UN community had, would have shown Bush/Cheney to be idiots and worst liars and exposed the illegality of it.

Anyways getting back to Afghanistan...I'm just so confused why you call this brilliant. If we had properly went to war there and focused our attention on that war, than I'm sure we'd have caught bin Laden. Weren't Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield disastrous in supplying the correct number of troops/forces and support for them when they were fighting in Tora Bora?

This is assuming that neither of you were born into a Spartan family.

once we got there, people, especially ADMINISTRATORS were holding their weenies bickering.

There was an incident where a Predator drone operator put his fist through a computer monitor in frustration while waiting for the administrators to get the legal clearance to take the shot. Symptomatic of the way the Afghanistan/Iraq war has been conducted.

Damn. The entire spectrum of leftist thought summed up and dismissed in 14 words. Really, is it that simple?

Sarah: Yes, pretty much.

When someone says something so final and authoritative and sweeping like that, I like to know who they are, what their agenda is (everyone has an agenda), why they say what they say, what their background is, how many hours have they pored over their books and data, and from where their 'ultimate' and 'solid' knowledge comes from. Too bad this is just an online discussion place where all that people show us are their creative handles, skill in rhetorical writing, attitudes, and quite often egos. Perhaps, all these are sometimes backed by true 'learning.' Whatever that may mean. Perhaps not.

That's why I will anyday take the words of someone who does get tenure Through a peer-review system, I should add. Or who writes books with their real names published on it and makes it easier for us to figure out who they are and why they say what they say.

If I were to get tenure on the other hand I would definitely give the Left and navel lint more consideration

That's why I will anyday take the words of someone who does get tenure Through a peer-review system, I should add

malathi,

good that you qualified your assertion--at my alma mater, an English prof with recommendations from his entire dept. and dept chair, was denied tenure through an extremely opaque final review. The board of directors met behind closed doors and decided that his 7 years spent at the university were not deserved of a step up the academic career track.

Even in apparently transparent processes, like at DePaul, there are outside forces (Alan Dershowitz), who are capable of steering a tenure process down denial alley (you are the weakest link, Norman Finklestein! Goodbye!)

Gujudude,
Nice to hear a different perspective from someone who is not frothing at the mouth like Rajesh. Yet I do not agree with one of your points - about Bush. You mention how Bush Jr is considered a straightshooter wth the military and make another reference to his "guts' when you talk about a clinton-bush hybrid. At least Clinton was upfront about his lack of desire to take part in a war or even join the military during his student days. How is Bush more of a straightshooter or gutsier? He and the Cheney types supported the Vietnam war and other wars, and make wars the centerpiece of their talking points, yet both avoided service(please, if you reply to this point, dont join in the usual spin about Bush's National Guard service being honorable.). THere is no evidence that either Cheney or Bush have donated any of their huge assets or income to servicemen as part of their charity efforts. There is no evidence that either man have tried to instill in their kids the desire to pursue military service at least as an option. (which is not to be confused with those who demand Bush's kids need to serve). So where is this respect for the military? All I see is wish fulfillment from a guy who wants to act macho like he is playing with his GI Joe action figures. There is no evidence that Bush has tried to get his party to pass legislation to focus on improved funding to troops back home in terms of healthcare or other benefits back home. He kept pressing for funding for the war and conflated it with funding the troops welfare.

BEFORE 9/11, Bush was leaning towards an isolationist policy towards the middle east.

Point taken regarding the difference between the protest by some military on the gay issue and the Iraq issue. I still am not convinced that the military is right on restricting the right of gays to serve, but I get your point on the analogies used. ANd I won't discuss it further I we have already veered offtopic.

A quick point about those criticizing Reagan about South America. Reagan's choice was between supporting dictator (possibly brutal and corrupt) or communism. This was during the cold war. The choice was between bad and 'very bad'...and similar to supporting Musharraf against Islamofascists.

Lets not forget when Reagan took over we had 15-16% inflation, 11-12% unemployment. He faced tremendous criticism for his economic policies, but they worked in the end. US was a laughing stock military under Jimmy carter...and I suppose we would have had nukes pointed right at us from central America if Jimmy had continued.

both of you guys seem to have come to peace with collateral damage. I'm curious as to how you two got to that point.

I am not at peace with collateral damage at all, don't know where I conveyed that impression. It is in fact one of the difficulties I have with any sort of modern war - how do you value some lives over others, and make some woolly headed evaluation of the greater good, especially when some military powers like the US have ridiculously asymmetric amounts of air power etc. which they can use to inflict damage without fear of directly losing lives in the bargain.

I like to know who they are, what their agenda is (everyone has an agenda), why they say what they say, what their background is, how many hours have they pored over their books and data, and from where their 'ultimate' and 'solid' knowledge comes from. Too bad this is just an online discussion place where all that people show us are their creative handles, skill in rhetorical writing, attitudes, and quite often egos. Perhaps, all these are sometimes backed by true 'learning.'

in a nutshell (while i don't think you meant it that way) you said why i have such deep unease with sociology and history, and by extension, many of the leftist ideologies (the rightwing nutjobs don't even make a pretense of thought, so i leave them aside for a moment). i am going to make blanket statements in the rest of the comment, but it is not what i think of everyone in these disciplines. the ones i respect personally (there are such people) imo are not representatives of the profession.

the opinions expressed by people in these academic disciplines are very important in molding public thought and hence they are probably far more important than any science in the short term. *but* peer review in these fields is little more verifying that the author says what is considered fashionable for the day.

it is, of course, difficult if not impossible to have a scientific opinion in most of these issues. that by itself is not an issue with me. my first problem arises when someone says or implies that "how many hours have they pored over their books" makes a difference---really, in most cases, these books have an agenda, and in most cases, no more scientific than the opinions on this thread. the worse part is when opinions are labeled "scholarly work" and made into ideologies, which of course wait for a stalin to be "put into use". i really wish sociologists and historians stopped thinking so highly of themselves and realized what "scholarly" in their discipline means---"skill in grammar and spelling".

that said, the domination of iraq was obviously a good idea for the US---iraq has maybe the biggest stores of oil. why isn't that enough? attacking a country for its resources is what has happened since the dawn of time, and it is what will continue to happen in one form or the other. really, the only problem people in the US have is that it wasn't executed properly---maybe an outright military adventure was not the best option.

brilliant? You've got to be kidding...

From a military standpoint, how the first year and half of the Afghan Campaign were conducted was spot on. Sure, Bin Laden got away, but meat and potatoes was to eradicate the base of operations where salafists came and practiced their craft. Catching Bin Laden doesn't stop AQ. His number 2 is running the show (and was always the more dangerous guy tracing his roots back to EIJ). Disrupting their ability to network/plan is as important as catching and killing them. Read Marc Sageman's Understanding Terrorist Networks.

I'm just so confused why you call this brilliant. If we had properly went to war there and focused our attention on that war, than I'm sure we'd have caught bin Laden. Weren't Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield disastrous in supplying the correct number of troops/forces and support for them when they were fighting in Tora Bora?

That wasn't a strategic error, it was a tactical one. US Marines were on standby ready to deploy as a 'blocking' force. The decision was made to use the local Afghan Army who knew the terrain better (and give Afghans the chance to get to Mullah Omar/Bin Laden, their enemies and men who had Ahmed Shah Massoud assasinated right before 9-11). Tora Bora happened in 2001, not during the Iraq campaign. Taliban leadership managed to escape the Afghans who weren't as efficent as advertised or hoped. Two years into Afghanistan, once the mission was taken out of purely SOCOM hands, shit started to deteriorate. I know an Officer who's part of the NATO force there and says pretty much the Aussies, Kiwis, Brits, Canadians, and Americans are holding the fort. Rest of the guys from NATO aren't all that productive.

When I say Afghanistan was brilliant, it was from how the war was conducted from a strategic standpoint. I don't think many understand the difference between strategy and tactics. The strategy was solid and pretty groundbreaking from several aspects.

With teams of Special operations, with Army Special Forces leading the way, the Taliban was routed from power within months with a very small, but highly trained, American force. Special Forces are force mutipliers and their primary mission is to raise and lead local fighters of the land they're in. They sat with warlords and tribes, drank tea, ate from the same plates they did, traveled the way they did, and when the fights broke out, they fought with them. SF also train locals who use 'spray and pray' techniques to refine their skills. Etc.

Again, Afghanistan was fought unconventionally and executed as such, well, before administrators screwed that one up too. The focus among the American public, congress, media, etc. is "Direct Action" ie - raids and killing terrorists. But there is so much more to unconventional warfare. Hell, I've barely scratched the surface in my own understanding of that subject matter from reading whatever sources I can get my hands on.

Afghanistan wasn't about troops, it's about the politial resources devoted to it. The center of gravity has shifted away from Afghanistan now. It's Pakistan. As my other comments here suggest - that is far more complicanted of an issue to deal with now.

A quick point about those criticizing Reagan about South America. Reagan's choice was between supporting dictator (possibly brutal and corrupt) or communism.

So? All communist regimes are not the same and it works differently in different cultures with different histories. The so-called "communists" were often (depending on which country) the majority of people, often working-class, who'd been exploited forever to maintain the lifestyle of a few.

This sort of thinking on communism is just what Reagan painted and it was so wrong and inaccurate.

that said, the domination of iraq was obviously a good idea for the US---iraq has maybe the biggest stores of oil. why isn't that enough? attacking a country for its resources is what has happened since the dawn of time, and it is what will continue to happen in one form or the other. really, the only problem people in the US have is that it wasn't executed properly---maybe an outright military adventure was not the best option.

There's also the fact that only a tiny group of people benefits from this war. It's meant death and devastation for Iraqis, as well as for American soldiers and their families. It's great for Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, et al though.

I really recommend Kathy Kelly's Other Lands Have Dreams, by the way, if you want a look at the other side of the US's great idea.

Chomsky and Roy have developed complex, nuanced analyses that deal partially with the US's role in the history of imperialism in the context of class, as well as race, gender and other factors.

sarah, I was with you till you used the words Roy and nuanced in the same sentence without an intervening not. I personally think that the shrillheads like Roy, Moore et. al. do the cause a disservice because their exaggerations, fact mangling, and me-first attitude detracts from the very real and genuine substance they are defending.

I have a lot of questions and things to add, I can't right now and thanks for giving your viewpoint. But about this

Tora Bora happened in 2001, not during the Iraq campaign

I know that...actually Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/and crew were very much involved in starting the Iraq invasion...they were sharpening their knives for Iraq right when little bush got into office.

ouiecypher, I do appreciate the value of realpolitik, and I usually (grudgingly) see the point of view that justifies reprehensible actions by countries, despite my personal (admittedly naive) idealism

#65

guess i was extrapolating from this statement a bit too much--I took it to mean that you are okay with strategic-resources grabs (a portion of the Iraq War motivation) and the collateral damage that they invariably entail.

good to know you're not from the Steven Seagal School of Foreign Policy--i would have to say I developed somewhat of a man crush after reading your many humorous comments on other posts (oh dear! low-brow! head for the personal blog hills!)

bytewords,

You just took my comment (out of context) to serve some personal agenda of your own.
I do not share your sweeping opinions (which you did warn me you were going to make) on history and soicology. Neither do I have such a generalized demeaning outlook on 'scholarly work', 'books' or 'ideologies' of any nature.

@93 sarah:

my point is that as far as the us govt is concerned, republican or democrat or independent, it really doesn't matter who dies and who doesn't. it is easy to fault bush, but if you think about it, there is nothing spectacularly surprising or different from what has always happened. why do people think military adventurism is over? because europe said so? and because america says so?

it doesn't matter if you and me feel sorry for "collateral damage" (it is unbelievable no one even considers that term offensive). these things are here to stay, it is better to be realistic.

even if you don't agree with the UN you still need to in this interconnected world, have to not only play politics with the rest of the world, but argue your point and get opinions from others

PS if ever you run for Pres, you have my vote. If only more people in Washington believed the same. Darn neocons.

these things are here to stay, it is better to be realistic.

Ahh yes, the world-weary realist resigns us all to mute acceptance of genocide, rape, torture and all manner of such injustices--we puny peons cannot do a thing about it, so we must treat geopolitics much like we treat the weather.

I wish commenters would research the history of the nation-state a bit more before stating, like a bizzaro-land Hobsbawm, that, "these things were here, are here and will always be here--just like apple pie, the 2nd amendment and personal income taxes."

wtf??

How is Bush more of a straightshooter or gutsier? He and the Cheney types supported the Vietnam war and other wars, and make wars the centerpiece of their talking points, yet both avoided service(please, if you reply to this point, dont join in the usual spin about Bush's National Guard service being honorable.). THere is no evidence that either Cheney or Bush have donated any of their huge assets or income to servicemen as part of their charity efforts. There is no evidence that either man have tried to instill in their kids the desire to pursue military service at least as an option. (which is not to be confused with those who demand Bush's kids need to serve). So where is this respect for the military? All I see is wish fulfillment from a guy who wants to act macho like he is playing with his GI Joe action figures. There is no evidence that Bush has tried to get his party to pass legislation to focus on improved funding to troops back home in terms of healthcare or other benefits back home. He kept pressing for funding for the war and conflated it with funding the troops welfare.

Dude, you've thrown up so many rhetorical questions I don't even know where to start. Look, I'm telling you how he's preceived among military folks. If you've got a problem with that, take it to them. I've worked in and around them (not one myself) for the last 4 years. Bush, at the end of the day, despite his faults is seen as one the guys. Clinton came off as a jackass to military guys. If you don't like Bush, that's ok, but there are valid reasons why he's significantly more popular among military types. Also, when 9-11 happened, the attitude did change. Military guys went into 'war' mindset, which means loyalty to the CINC and Bush didn't shit on them.

Clinton was never trusted after Somalia. Mil guys thought he was a snake and a guy who would sell them out. By the way, CONGRESS is the one that funds everything. Congress is the power center. PORK amounting to billions could fund all the wars AND government programs. The VA/military healthare has been an issue far longer than Bush's tenure. Both Repubs and Dems have been negligent there. Republicans and Democrats in Congress disgust me. Both simply do charades of supporting the military, war, or troops. I don't think any give diddly squat - it's about out to get re-elected.

Gujudude, Rahul

both of you guys seem to have come to peace with collateral damage. I'm curious as to how you two got to that point.

As long as war has existed, so has civilian death. It's blunt, but that is the truth. Honestly, if you want to avoid civilian death, you don't fight. There isn't a way around that in any fight, anywhere in the world. Despite all the negative publicity heaped on the United States, who else has invested SO MUCH money and technology into precision devices? But the more precise you get, people become sensitized to it as the standard, not expection to the case.

Do I like it? No. Would I like continual investment in better tech. and tactics? Absolutely. Is it unavoidable? unfortunately not in war. The day we have sharks with lazers mounted killing people is the day civilian death goes to zero.

big props to my moneyed homie.....loyal to the turban till the end......all sikhs, here, there, long hair, not, ride with you son.....when i get my phantom next year i will always rock my turban, especially where it will draw notice.........just gearing up for india day; didn't even know it existed till two weeks ago.....i hope the ladies come out in force.....oh yeah, what happened to my homie vikram's turban? saw him at the airport, was going to ask him, but the a-hole departure low-life wouldn't let me bud the line.

You just took my comment (out of context)

that is what i said in the first line of my comment as well. the reason for the comment was because of the unease i have when people call up "scholarly" work to explain their world-view.

I do not share your sweeping opinions (which you did warn me you were going to make) on history and soicology.

no, i didn't ask you not to make sweeping opinions. what is ask is not to think that there is much other than opinions---sweeping or not---in sociology and history.

Neither do I have such a generalized demeaning outlook on 'scholarly work', 'books' or 'ideologies' of any nature.

this we will probably disagree on for a long time. i will listen if you care to convince me otherwise. people usually say that i am to blame for holding this opinion, so far no one has any argument to the contrary---either in the form of something i can read to change my mind, or in the form of a non trivial example where an opinion held by sociology has an empirical and rigorous (scientific, not volume) basis.

I know that...actually Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/and crew were very much involved in starting the Iraq invasion...they were sharpening their knives for Iraq right when little bush got into office

Sigh. How does that imply Afghanistan wasn't good strategy in the first two years? Actually, it was to the miliary benefit that top leadership didn't micromanage too much.

Bush/Cheney didn't sit in the white house and place troops on a map at their whim - it's planned out by generals. Letting Afghans seal off the mountain passes preventing Taliban to escape was a tactical error. It had nothing to do with availability of troops. US Marines (a friend of my was a Recon Marine who's served in both Iraq and Afghanistan) were in the area on standby, READY. Generals made a call, it didn't work.

I really have difficulty understanding how everyone expects perfect, bloodless, and mathematically predictable wars. It's dynamic, an ebb/flow, sometimes two steps back, on forward, etc. One can lose a few fights/battles, wars are a cumalitive results of them. Had Lincoln buckled to pressures of making peace with the South (before a few battles were won around re-election time, boosting his popularity), you'd never seen the United States of today.

All communist regimes are not the same and it works differently in different cultures with different histories. The so-called "communists" were often (depending on which country) the majority of people, often working-class, who'd been exploited forever to maintain the lifestyle of a fe

Actually all communist movements start when a few privileged exploit the working class. The idea sounds good on paper. What happens after its implemented is where the concern is. There are no checks and balances. The power is in hands of a few and its absolute. Productivity goes down and the states look to USSR for bailout and trade. Further lets not pooh pooh the possibility of threat of nuclear missiles aimed at the US from the American continent.

Ahh yes, the world-weary realist resigns us all to mute acceptance of genocide, rape, torture and all manner of such injustices--we puny peons cannot do a thing about it, so we must treat geopolitics much like we treat the weather.

no point in being sarcastic when you could do nothing about it as well. if you are doing something, all power to you. if you are just holding up save darfur signs, you are no better than me.

there is some sense in being "world-weary" as you put it. we were arguing about whether saddam has wmd or not. maybe if you were world weary as me, you could have picked the right fight with your administration.

and something constructive from puny peons: the us will not lift a finger to stop anything in darfur unless (i) the mid east problem is resolved or (ii) the oil in sudan/china's interest in the oil/the pr fallout of censuring china becomes important.

for your save darfur sign, you might want to focus on china arming the conflict. people don't care if there is a genocide elsewhere, they just want to feel superior.

it doesn't matter if you and me feel sorry for "collateral damage" (it is unbelievable no one even considers that term offensive). these things are here to stay, it is better to be realistic.

A lot of people consider that term offensive, as they should.

I just can't get behind this fatalism. We're powerless as individuals, perhaps, but what about mass movements? They've happened in this country before and they'll happen again, and as a citizen of the country that inflicts such horror on other populations, I do everything I can to try to build the antiwar movement. If we all sit around posting on the internet about how nothing can be done, that's exactly what will happen.

And some Iraq war veterans and active-duty soldiers share that opinion...

there is some sense in being "world-weary" as you put it. we were arguing about whether saddam has wmd or not. maybe if you were world weary as me, you could have picked the right fight with your administration

assume a bit much, bytewords? I pick no fight with anyone, until and unless they get in the way of my family's, friend's or my own ambitions/projects. I also heap scorn on symbolic actions, like protests, as they USUALLY accomplish nothing but providing conservative blogs with "unhinged moonbat" imagery for propaganda.

If your jaded perspective is so superior, and causes you to pick all the 'right' fights with the current administration, maybe you'd be kind enough to stop voicing your admittedly useless opinions on this blog?

And remember as you type your aggrieved response to a perceived "ad hominem" attack that it was you who stated, "no point in being sarcastic when you could do nothing about it as well. if you are doing something, all power to you. if you are just holding up save darfur signs, you are no better than me."

I just can't get behind this fatalism. We're powerless as individuals, perhaps, but what about mass movements?

The point of the fatalism is to pick the correct arguments to garner support.

causes causes you to pick all the 'right' fights with the current administration, maybe you'd be kind enough to stop voicing your admittedly useless opinions on this blog?

it does determine my vote in india. i have voted in every local election since 18 as long as i was there, and every national one. the US administration doesn't have to listen to my useless opinions, but the ones back home do. and in local elections, it is probably going to make a difference as well. no wonder india is so far behind, eh?

And some Iraq war veterans and active-duty soldiers share that opinion...

Not that there aren't veterans against the war, but the organization you've linked to is heavily represented by Rear Echelon types, or guys who were punished for disciplinary actions, or many who had other gripes.

Jesse Macbeth was a Army Ranger Poser, who IVAW didn't even pick up on, despite his flagrant tall tales. To their credit, he was tossed from membership, but due dilligence of whether the guy was for real would have been easy for those who were well versed in Army protocol, particularly Army Rangers.

Much of the anti-war veteran crowd is made up of support, National Guard, Reservist population. Front line infantry tend to have less morale issues and higher staffing levels. The shortfalls in recruiting show infantry isn't where they're hurting, its the support type folks (transport, logistics).

gujudude,

the Beuchamp episode will trump Jessie M's. It's going to mushroom.

good to know you're not from the Steven Seagal School of Foreign Policy--i would have to say I developed somewhat of a man crush after reading your many humorous comments on other posts (oh dear! low-brow! head for the personal blog hills!)

muralimannered, my fellow Lemurian atheist, for you, I will gladly buy dinners for many dates, defrizz my hair, eat a protein-rich diet, and highlight my black-as-midnight-on-a-moonless-night complexion, without a moment's hesitation.

But there is one thing I will not stand for. Do not beat up my main man.

the Beuchamp episode will trump Jessie M's. It's going to mushroom.

Oh God, that one seriously stinks. To the media's credit, once he came out and couldn't back the information up, he's been taken to task, even by the more liberal types.

People tend to forget that every organization has its 10% shitbirds.

GujuDude and Vic, Again you answer the dimwitted masses for me. You guys are the most informed and enlighted, not just about military matters, but geopolitics and American political history on this blog.

Yes Jimmy Carter the worse president in my lifetime wrecked the economy and weakened our military. Under Jimmy the Soviets read the signals and saw weakness. They (Soviets) expanded to the island of Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Surinam, Angola, Mozambiqe and Afghanistan. Reagan sent them into retreat and ended the Cold War. His first term was spent the wreckage left by Jimmy Carter.

Any data or CNN (Clinton news network) is skewered. I got my information from a poll done by Thomas Ricks who wrote the book "Making The Corps" about the Marine corps as compared to the Army and the military's relationship with the civillian society.

This is the sort of book that Morris Janowitz or another military sociologist would write. The book is on the recommended reading list for the Marines. Thomas Ricks is a liberal and was anti military reporter at the Pentagon untill he was ordered to go to Somalia and follow the Marines.

What he saw changed his life and his views as well as inspire him to write the book. "Making The Corps" caused quite a stir when it came out. "The Wall Street Journal" featured portions of the book in five parts. I also believe his numbers that 90% of the military described themselves as Republican because I have served in different units at different locations as well as overseas. Yes we troops do discuss politics as it affects us.

"Much of the anti-war veteran crowd is made up of support, National Guard, Reservist population." Yes these are not the professionals and most are REMFS.

This is changing now since the War in Iraq and Afghanistan most of the Guard and Reserve have done at least one tour there and some have requested to go regular. I know a girl serving in Iraq, as a Medic. She completed her tour of Iraq and did wonderful work there with civillians, not just medical but with schools, rebuilding, kids and training and equiping Iraqi police. After she was demobilized and returned home she quit her civillian job as a California Highway Patrollman and joined the regular Army requesting to be sent back to Iraq. They sent her to Afghanistan instead. Stories like these are typical of the guys I have met who came back injured but want to go back.

I know that...actually Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/and crew were very much involved in starting the Iraq invasion...they were sharpening their knives for Iraq right when little bush got into office

Sigh. How does that imply Afghanistan wasn't good strategy in the first two years? Actually, it was to the miliary benefit that top leadership didn't micromanage too much.

So all that means they weren't total fuckups. That is like saying a guy who hits a great hit in a baseball game, but runs badly after he rounds second base to get inexcusably out at 3rd base. I don't know how one can say Bush has been good to the military when you look at the civilians like Feith, Wolfowitz have not been held accountable for their fuckups which have put more stress on the troops. ANd whenever a general would speak out against the war, Bush's surrogates would badmouth them in the press. Geez, I guess Bush likes military folk only when it suits him. I am not saying CLinton was that great. But his selling point for his Presidency wasn't that he was going to be a great war president.

I work with VA software. And my bosses were depressed when republicans lost the senate. GUess what, it made no difference after all that who really was in power. The question is not who is better for the military because both parties have not been perfect. THe only thing Republicans are better at is rhetoric and funding the big defense companies. Their whole talking point is better defense, so when they fail, they get taken to task more. As far as the common troops, I ahve not seen any trends where REpublicans make more of an effort to make troops lives better compared to Democrats.

Look, I'm telling you how he's preceived among military folks. If you've got a problem with that, take it to them.

but there are valid reasons why he's significantly more popular among military types.

Rajesh:

I appreciate the support on my points, thank you. However, I will take exception to calling people here dimwitted. We're guests here, as such it is my belief that we can debate back and forth, however it's a bit disrespectful when we're calling other guests names. Plus, far more people read than comment. I'm sure you'd agree, we don't shit on others doorsteps :), else homeowners would serve us an SOS, or Shit on a Shingle!

I am not thrilled with the DEmocrats either. In sticking with the theme of the thread, I know a few Indians in the DEmocratic Party and their lifestyle and attitude is hypocritcal. THey act like they are part of this more compassionate political group when in reality they seem more concerned with racking up that great internship so their parents can brag that their kids worked with Gore or Clinton on something. I know one person who actually put one of her older relatives in India(he was in teh freedom movement) as someone who inspired her to enter public service but in reality she was just a brat who was bratty with most people from India. And Arundhati Roy. What a joke. She demonizes the U.S. but doesn't go after dictators and other repressive regimes from her neighborhood to the same extent. And Communist Party in India. What a joke. A lot of them profess loyalty to China over India, demonize the U.S. , but then brag about their kids going to the U.S. and making fortunes.

But there is one thing I will not stand for. Do not beat up my main man

Yeah well, here's what Dolph Lundgren said on his blog to an alleged post from fatboy Seagal:

Date: April 2006
Name: Steven Seagal

Question:

Dear Dolph,
I see you got yourself your own little website. Interesting. Seems like
you have much time on your hands nowadays after I beat you in the 1994
Sexy Olympics. Maybe your fitness career will be successful, doubt it. Not
as successful as my amazing singing career, its doing wonders in Swahilia.
You were amazing in Rocky, its too bad they didnt choose me to fight you,
that would have been even more amazing! Please do ntake offense if I am
better than you. I will see you around, maybe in the dojo or maybe at a
bar. Gotta love those bar fights, see you dolph.

DL: Good luck with your weight-loss program, Steven! Doubt it'll work ....
link

My money is on Dolph beating up steatopygic Seagal. Whether you stand for it or not.

Pravin:

I'm bringing forward a point of view. Qualitatively, I don't think much of any politician when it comes to the military. I'm saying the troops in general though trust Bush far more than Clinton. When leaders lose confidence of their troops, it's hard to earn it back. Clinton didn't do much to get it back (military downsizing was at its peak during his years). You are also not taking the 9-11 effect into play. It is an emotional connection one has with the CINC during war. The mindset changes.

I've had discussions with Special Operations folks, and they said the same thing - First two years of Afghanistan was so different, strategically new, that it scared people. Including people in the military and government. There is a big split in the conventional warfare folks. An Army General was quoted telling SF folks that they've had their fun, but they'll (Army) never let them have so much fun again. Big army was embarrased by the peformance of a handful of special operations folks.

In short, Bush, Rumsfeld, Big Army folks were so slow to catch on how dynamic Afghanistan was, that they couldn't meddle with it and let operational level folks do their jobs.

Beyond that, I don't know how much to tell you. Afghanistan was succeeding despite Bush and company. But it could have lasted only so long. I honestly don't see ANY presidential candidate that's even CLOSE to understanding warfare from a Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, John Boyd type perspective. I'd be happy if these guys understood maybe a few percent of what those guys did. FDR, as documented in 33 Strategies of War, was pretty crafty. But such talent cannot be replicated. Hell, JFK was on the phone keeping Eisenhower updated during the Cuban Missle crisis.

Some solid reading on conflict theory: Art of War, Book of Five Rings, General Giaps book, Mao's writing on insurgencies, Stephen Colls Ghost Wars, Human factor Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies, 33 Strategies of War (has a bunch of editorial typos, but the message is the same), On War, books on John Boyd and the OODA loop, Understanding Terrorist Networks, etc.

GujuDude Point taken . I over-stepped by boundaries is the heated discussion. I apologise to everyone for the name calling.

GujuDude, Vic, Have you guys ever been military ? Is it that you are just interested in military affairs, geo-politics and history ? From your postings all I see is facts from two well informed individuals. It makes me curious about your backgrounds. Do you work for a think tank or some defense agency or The Rand Corp?

Vikram (119): Yeah well, here's what Dolph Lundgren said on his blog

Dolph Lundgren has a blog. Dolph "I'm not as good as Arnold or even Jean-Claude" Lundgren! It's official: The Internet is shit.

While I do not share some of your viewpoints, I find your responses a lot more informative and interesting that the stuff I see on the typical conservative blog. It at least gives me a better understanding of the other POV.

Addressed to GujuDude

It's kind of crazy to write something insignificant at midnight, half asleep, and then come back to a blog the next midnight and find all sorts of comments flying around about yourself--not just about politics but personal ones. Disagree, but why such sarcasm and personalism?

Dolph Lundgren has a blog. Dolph "I'm not as good as Arnold or even Jean-Claude" Lundgren! It's official:

Dolph can hold his own against them quite easily and not just physically...

Dolph Lundgren attended the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. He received a master's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, in 1982, and the next year was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to MIT. Lundgren has a second-degree black belt in karate and is aiming for his third-degree black belt.He was European Heavyweight Karate Champion in 1980-81. Australian Heavyweight Karate Champion in 1982.Speaks three languages: Swedish, English and some German. link

Arnie is barely articulate and well, Van Damme has that tumor on his forehead.. 'nuff said.

The Internet is shit.

Sounds like something the Queen of England recently said

To take it way back to the questions on Muslim voter trends way back in the 20s:

interesting. while i know that there have been core Muslim populations in the US that voted Republican, my sense was that the "general" tendency was to vote Democrat. does anyone have statistics?

Here are the latest stats from CAIR. I think with this sort of stuff it's generally hard to get reliable data, but I think the broad trends/analysis are fairly accurate:

Democratic or independent: There is no clear majority in party membership: 42% said they consider themselves members of the Democratic Party; 17% said they are Republican; 28% said they do not belong to any party

Also: "Muslim Voters Turn Away from Bush, Survey Finds" (SFChronicle, 30 June 2004)

Rajesh: I'm a DOD civilian employee who works for the Dept of Navy and USMC. Most of my co-workers are retired/former military with service across the generations, from a recent retiree who actually fought in Hue in Vietnam, cold war era military folks, to recent Iraq veterans. They aren't the stereotypical gun ho type as portrayed in films and media. Most are quiet, confident, and easy going. Hell, my Recon buddy is the nicest guy I know. He's one of those dudes that's a Sniper, yet will pick up Oprah magazine and his buddies will just laugh. Squared away PROFESSIONALS.

Pravin: I'm not a conservative nor a liberal and don't vote for a particular party either. I refuse to swear allegiance to any political party simply because, IMHO, loyalty to the parties have superseded loyalty to the American republic. If anything, my views fall solidly in the libertarian camp.

I like to stick to first person accounts or well researched accounts (Like Bowden's Black Hawk Down), primarily books, for information and use google news to read the same news story from multiple sources to filter the noise out. The right information is hard to come by (news accounts have poor reliability, you rarely see journalists go back and revise their data as is done with books, especially for war accounts).

I've pimped him a bunch of times, but check out Michael Yon. He is self funded, very embedded with units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fills that void of quality in-depth dispatches. You'll see a slice, but it's a very thorough look at it.His articles are LONG for regular news. He's a former Army Green Beret, too. Regarding BAD organizational abilities of the administration, please check out No True Glory by Bing West is SOLID. Along with details on Fallujah and what the USMC went up against, he details how the CPA, Generals, and Administration couldn't get their act coordinated and Marines suffered as a result. Bing West is a former Marine who wrote the book "The Village" about the CAP program in Vietnam where Marines lived side by side in villages. It was a VERY successful COIN, though poorly understood by the higher ups.

GujuDude, Vic, Have you guys ever been military ? Is it that you are just interested in military affairs, geo-politics and history ? From your postings all I see is facts from two well informed individuals. It makes me curious about your backgrounds. Do you work for a think tank or some defense agency or The Rand Corp?

to show some military knowledge, it's certainly not necessary to be in the defense industry.

Rajesh,

you do realize that one of the foundations of Western Civ is cherishing the prospect that you might be proven wrong? My father spent 24 years in the Navy and he doesn't show any of the unwillingness that you do to consider contrary views on their own merit--and not retreat to the standard, "all my ideological opponents are terrorist-abbetting manbearpigs with bad breath" defense. It's childish, myopic and the mark of the terminally incurious.

IT GOOD TO KNOW SUCH SUCESSFUL PERSON OF ASAIN KNOW TO BE ASAIN-AMERICAN WITH A SUCESSFULY BUSINESS MAN.

I THINK ITS ALL NATURAL SPRIT THAT FLOW TO SUCH PERSON.

PLS VISIT to www.natureglow.blogspot.com for a nature trail in maharashtra

If anything, my views fall solidly in the libertarian camp.

GujuDude, Mine is more liberal libertarian, if that makes any sense. Unless one is one issue libertarian(like the no tax crowd), i am for more individual choice and free speech. I am for smaller government too.

Does anyone here even pay attention to which candidates Indian lobbies favor? A lot seem to favor Hillary among the Dems. I could care less what they think because she is the one dem I am not voting for in the general election.

And regarding Bobby Jindal. Does anyone know if he did anything great during Katrina? He seemed rather invisible for a guy who has ambitions of becoming Governor. He is lucky he is probably running against Blanco, a woman who looks like she went to special ed.

Here are the latest stats from CAIR. I think with this sort of stuff it's generally hard to get reliable data, but I think the broad trends/analysis are fairly accurate:

Democratic or independent: There is no clear majority in party membership: 42% said they consider themselves members of the Democratic Party; 17% said they are Republican; 28% said they do not belong to any party

At the end of the day the party affiliations obscure the more basic questions regarding which issues are important to the observant Muslim community. Pre-9/11 CAIR had endorsed Bush for the same reasons that conservative Christian groups did: stance against abortion, public funding for faith based initiatives etc. Of course CAIR's endorsement does not give any indication of actual voting breakdown, but my guess is that the current popularity of the Democrats is weak in that it isin spite of their social agenda. I think now it's all about voting in a less interventionist administration.

And regarding Bobby Jindal. Does anyone know if he did anything great during Katrina? He seemed rather invisible for a guy who has ambitions of becoming Governor. He is lucky he is probably running against Blanco, a woman who looks like she went to special ed.

Jindal is not a publicity hound. Here's an article of what he did during Katrina (Katrina piece is on 2nd half of the article.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2007/bobby_jindal_saves_louisiana

Here's an excerpt

"Bobby Jindal doesn’t tell a lot of stories about what he did during Katrina. Seeing the devastation firsthand does that to you. You have to hear it from the people around him, the people who saw what he did.

A few days after the storm, there was a meeting of the Louisiana principals. Blanco was there, FEMA’s soon-to-be-infamous Michael Brown, a handful of Congressmen, and every local political staffer worth shaking a stick at, and some not even worth that. It was supposed to start at Noon. At 12:30, it still hadn’t. People were milling around, chatting, giving quotes to reporters.

Jindal surveyed the room for a few minutes. Then he saw Blanco and the others pause to look at a television in the corner—it was footage from another press conference they’d had the previous day, broadcasting on CNN. The politicians all stood around, watching themselves on the screen.

Jindal turned to his chief of staff, and said, “Let’s go.”

GujuDude, Thanks for the backgound in #129 Your co-workers sound like the people I associate with. They do not appear as the gun-ho types as most of the successful ones I have met are mild mannered. Just one exception the Navy Seals I have met are hard assed with a bad attitude and don't seem to have much social graces. My friend who was a recon Marine and embassy guard is so sensitive and mild mannered that it is hard for me to imagine how he reached that level, as an elite within an elite service.

Hollywood does not portay us right. In boot camp we were told that the Rambo types will not survive because they were not wanted, as everyone was part of a team. The "Army of One" slogan makes all the Army guys I know cringe and the other services uses this to tease them.

Marines are told in basic not to under estimate those Army guys as it takes six Marines to beat up one Army guy, five just to shake him down from the tree. :-))

Rajesh:

I've ran into a few guys who claimed to be SEAL types, and to be honest, many turn out to be posers or dudes who flunked out of BUD/S. Some are known to be arrogant to their fellow servicemen, though most are squarely focused on their mission/job. Usually, the Special Operations community prides themselves in the 'Quiet Professional' motto from what I've read and experienced in interactions with them. The guys who generally beat their chests the loudest and walk around talking about their 'war' experiences tend to be posers of the worst type. Guys who served in uniform, but those that weren't proud of simply being part of a team.

The inter service rivalry thing is pretty funny, though at the end of the day, everyone understands they're part of the same team. Thankfully, the Army has dropped the "Army of One" slogan and replaced it with "Army Strong". Those ads are surprisingly decent, considered how bad their previous marketing pitches were. The USMC still has the best one though.

Apologies to all for deviating off the thread focus so much.

Pravin:

i am for more individual choice and free speech. I am for smaller government too.

I have no disagreements with you here.

May I humbly interject...

U S A! U S A! U S A!

louciecypher, I think the point CAIR made, and the larger political trend that exists, is that Muslim-American voters are not highly wedded to either party. They vote based on the issues that are most important to them (which is also mentioned/detailed in the report I linked). I don't know if this means they vote Democratic "in spite of" the Dems themselves; the impression I've gotten is that the about-face on voting for Bush is very much tied up with post-9/11 profiling and the War on Terror. The folks I meet are voting very stridently against Bush. I don't think it ends up being an "in spite of" issue because party affiliation is not the most important characteristic on the table. In addition to conservative values, it used to be the case that the Repubs were better allies on "the Palestine question" (marginally).

As an aside, I think the more interesting feature of bipartisan politics today is the growing number of "undeclared" or "independent" voters who have analyzed the flaws in the practices of both parties and who are getting tired with the gridlocked nature of a two-party system. I don't think this means we'll have more options, but I do think we're seeing an interesting voice emerge from the middle and from the far left. I wonder if, in the future, we'll have many more voters voting on broader issues than on party loyalty.

GujuDude Technicaly you are deviating of topic because this thread is about a Sikh and they have a glorious military history.

You patience at explaining to others about the military culture is astounding. I do not have that patience and was never a good teacher.

The SEALs I was referring to wern't posers but real. I believe their bad attitude had to do with their current assignment of training instead of being out on a mission. None of them were mean to me because I observed how they treated the other guys who did not do things right or paused when given a direct order. I vowed not to make the same mistake and they were actualy nice to me.

Rahul We need you to keep up the humor when things get too heated. :-)

GujuDude I meant you are not deviating off topic

Vic,

All communist regimes are not the same and it works differently in different cultures with different histories. The so-called "communists" were often (depending on which country) the majority of people, often working-class, who'd been exploited forever to maintain the lifestyle of a fe
w.

Actually all communist movements start when a few privileged exploit the working class. The idea sounds good on paper. What happens after its implemented is where the concern is. There are no checks and balances. The power is in hands of a few and its absolute. Productivity goes down and the states look to USSR for bailout and trade. Further lets not pooh pooh the possibility of threat of nuclear missiles aimed at the US from the American continent.

Vic, IMO I think your comment is very, very naive and part of the brainwashing of the Reagan's era. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "communist regime", perhaps I should have said, what US foreign policy, particularly in the '80s, deemed the evil communist movements, were actually grassroots movements by oppressed groups - whether they called themselves communisits or socialists or workers parties, or leftists - the fact is, the US foreign policy was so dogmatic, so black and white, so naive, and so motivated by the fact that US corporate interests that say in Latin America, would be threatened by leftists movements who wanted to end the torture and exploitation of the majority of people, that they couldn't just let these countries alone and ended up supporting corrupt dictators. It was pick up the lesser evil...it was about the US foreign policy being blind to the development of civil rights in the neighboring countries.

Isabelle Allende's writing so much portrays the sadness of the situation; I still am left wondering how the US foreign policy could be so blind at the time...Did they not learn anything from Vietnam?

The fact is Vic, these leftist movements had no interest in pointing (let me borrow wording from today's ignorant President) Weapons of Mass Destruction on the US; their interest was in getting food in the mouths of majority of people, civil rights, end of expoitation by the dictator and his family who were supportive of course of US investment (hence what I believe is one of the main reasons US foreign policy was so blind).

What a world this would have been if these grassroots movements had been allowed to grow and develop, without the US interfering. US interfering, I'm afraid, led to the more violence and a more violent reaction from Leftist groups; IN the end, movements that supported the ideals that the US stood for were crushed, millions of people tortured by the dictators that were supported by the US, US guns were killing people that wanted to uphold the very principles that US citizens were enjoying.

And many in the US, even the '80s saw Reagan's foreign policy for what it was...afterall Congress didn't want to fund money to the US propped up dictator in that Central American nation, and that led to Reagan lying and using ignorant, ethnocentric idiots like North, as the fall guy - to send weapons to this dictators, depite the fact that Congress explicitly voted against this.

How that part of Reagan's administration is forgotten and how he got away with it, still amazes me!

Abhi, I know that we have veered away from the very specific issue of an Indian-Amer elected to an office...but I hope you don't cut me off, b/c I don't want Vic's, Gujudude, and Haresh to just have their say on US politics. I really hope you don't cut me off for going off topic, b/c there were other things I wanted to say.

What a world this would have been if these grassroots movements had been allowed to grow and develop, without the US interfering.

PS - did you attend the USSF by any chance? I went to it quite skeptical and expecting a lot of Red talk and little substance and little practicalities of implementation. I was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of participants have a good understanding of the issues and more importantly had a clear vision not bordering of idealism on how to change things (though there were plenty of folks whose ideas could never work). I do feel grassroot organizations need to do better at marketing since there is this whole negativity associated with these movements unfortunately. Plus it's refreshing to read stuff like this.

Vic, I urge you not to look at all socialist or leftist or communist movements as leading to a totalitarianism. communism encompases many different types of movements.

I'm from Kerala, and right now the communist govt is control - and there many different types of communist kerala political parties. Kerala (obviously) obviously is not a dictatorship. communists or leftists or whatever you want to call them were voted as state reps and have helped restructure kerala's socioeconomically. Whether you want to look at whether economic policies in Kerala are good or bad, that's not the issue; the issue is that some Keralites, who identify themselves as communists or leftists or socialists argue it out in "congress" (dont' know what they call the "state representatives" in Kerala); There are corrupt people in the every party. There are people who will take their position of power and distort the ideals of communism; there are people who will distort ideas of civil rights from the right or the left. To me Reagan, distorted everything that was in my mind "american" - he somehow twisted the idea of grassroots movements seeking civil rights as evil.

I think the left's economic and social policies has done a lot of good in Kerala. I feel that is has helped end a very castist society, helped with education, helped with a women's position. Roy, in her book, "god of small things" exposes corrupt communists.

But in Kerala, we have the freedom of speech to argue these things out, and criticize politicians from the left and right if we feel they are corrupt.

someone mentioned something about Swedish people running away from their very social govt into other european countries. I don't know about this...I'm sure there are people who disagree with the very socialist form of govt in Sweden and want to get away, and I'm sure there are many people who wish the US govt could be more "socialist" and want to get away from the US to a european country.

But the fact Sweden has one of the highest quality of life indicators. There's a lot to learn by movements/politics that are more socialist, and to improve the US quality of life, I'm sure the US govt will have to become more like many European counterparts...anyways that's my opinion.

And as someone pointed out, the Republicans are in no way against smaller govt - their govt is sticking their nose into everyting and spending money like there's no tomorrow. The difference is what these parties stick their nose into - The republicans stuck their nose into Iraq (through lies and deceiving Americans) and they stick their govt regulation noses into rich corporations that want to make more money and they stick their noses into how i raise my family.

Ardy, thanks for the link and no, i didn't attend the conference - I can learn so much from you though!. I have an anthropology background and just looking at history and also probably coming from Kerala, influences how I view things. Thanks by the way for your vote :).

Yes, you are right - marketing of these more socialist ideas should be better. I think the Dems are struggleing with that now - the Republicans have done such a good job with people like Rove, in creating a black/white world without nuances.

Spending went up because Reagan had to work with a Democrat congress. The prsesident does not spend money Congress does. When Reagan asked for a war-ship or a carrier. the Congress authorised it with tons of pork attached. If Reagan wanted the ship he had no choice but to sign the bill.

You have got to be kidding me...spending went up b/c Reagan's foreign policy was paranoid and wanted to support any govt (despite the atrocities that were so well-documented that these govts committed against their own people)that supported US corporations in these countries - so everything was funding the military for useless things - like Star Wars.

Too bad Reagan couldn't have learned from Vietnam --- look at this "communist country" now; internally the country decided to open their markets -- why did so many people have to die when these things are none of the US business and a country's grassroots movements should be allowed to develop naturally? The whole thing about Vietnam out to get the US - pleeeze...the domino theory has been proved false --- during Reagan's time social and domestic agendas were neglected...Congress wanted funding for schools, infrastructure building, much needed social services ---- all these things were woefully neglected during Reagan's time and our society is still paying the price for neglected schools --- money that could have gone to schools went to fund Star Wars and Central American dictators; despite Congress not wanting to support these "pork" endeavors, Reagan illegally thru such things as the Irean-Contra affair went right ahead and did this.

...would be threatened by leftists movements who wanted to end the torture and exploitation of the majority of people, that they couldn't just let these countries alone and ended up supporting corrupt dictators. It was pick up the lesser evil...it was about the US foreign policy being blind to the development of civil rights in the neighboring countries.

I

was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of participants have a good understanding of the issues and more importantly had a clear vision not bordering of idealism on how to change things (though there were plenty of folks whose ideas could never work). I do feel grassroot organizations need to do better at marketing since there is this whole negativity associated with these movements unfortunately.

This is Mcgovern's response to Cheney's criticism of today's Dems b/c they don't support the Iraq war - love what he says:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcgovern24apr24,0,4084076.story

The whole thing about Vietnam out to get the US - pleeeze...the domino theory has been proved false

PS: It's interesting that you say "has been" proved false. I agree, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it has been proven false in the case of Vietnam and many of the Latin American conflicts. They were local struggles with local aspirations. But in the context of those times, how exactly was the U.S. to interpret democratically elected communists like Allende who took every opportunity to have their photo taken with despots like Castro? Actions like that did contribute to the impression, which we can now say was false, that there was a larger expansionist motive behind these conflicts. Which is why I urge some charity when it comes to evaluating the foreign actions of Cold War presidents. People talk about nuance, why can't they accept both that Pinochet was a monster and Allende precipitated the coup through his pro-Castro posturing (which was infantile and did not have any utility for the Chileans)?

This is Mcgovern's response to Cheney's criticism of today's Dems b/c they don't support the Iraq war - love what he says: let me provide the link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mcgovern24apr24,0,4084076.story

Louiecypher - I will answer you at length in a little bit; but for now- You bring up some good points - it's important to understand a country's, president's actions without the hindsight we have now.

I can give a lot of "charity" to Kennedy, FDR, Truman, and even Johnson, but when you get to Reagan what charity is there to give. He had the evidence of Vietnam ; there were plenty of political leaders (in Congress) who disagreed with him. I see him, much like Bush, as a fear-mongerer and that is why he was able to get re-elected.

But in the context of those times, how exactly was the U.S. to interpret democratically elected communists like Allende who took every opportunity to have their photo taken with despots like Castro? Actions like that did contribute to the impression, which we can now say was false, that there was a larger expansionist motive behind these conflicts.

I think the left's economic and social policies has done a lot of good in Kerala. I feel that is has helped end a very castist society, helped with education, helped with a women's position. Roy, in her book, "god of small things" exposes corrupt communists.

Any comments/insights on the Bengal scene; the other leftist bastion ?

The fact is Vic, these leftist movements had no interest in pointing (let me borrow wording from today's ignorant President) Weapons of Mass Destruction on the US; their interest was in getting food in the mouths of majority of people, civil rights, end of expoitation by the dictator

PS, Perhaps it would help if you named the latin american leftist movements that fit your above description. Shining path? Sadinista? Castro? Allende?

PS Please tell us me how you come to the conclusion that Lt.Col. Oliver North USMC. Ret. is ethnocentric. I believe Vic answered you well on President Reagan. Ditto to everything he wrote. On what do you base your hatred for the most beloved President since Kennedy and the most sucessful in my lifetime?

How many times do I have to explain the functions of the three branches of government and who allocates and spends money. This is elementary civics. But then again how can anyone who listens to the likes of McGovern and Chomsky be taken seriousy by any stretch

You can bet that there will be more Indian Americans running in 2008 and that we shall cover them all

Indeed it will be an interesting 2008 election. There will be no dearth of some real action on the foreign policy front. With Obama's recent "gaffes" on India & Pakistan, an entire website on India-policy of the presidential candidates and the recent amusing "Shut Up" advice from the State department to the presidential aspirants !!
Also mutineers keep a tab on the Issue Trackers for Campaign 2008

I was trying to create a middle ground on Reagan, but now that I see that is not possible here it goes: I believe Reagan to be Kalki, the photographic evidence is here & here

Now Pardesi Gori can do darshan at the Reagan library in Simi Valley with little chance of encountering an amorous desi man (you behave Dinesh D'Souza !)

On what do you base your hatred for the most beloved President since Kennedy and the most sucessful in my lifetime?

you will meet an equal number of individuals who feel anything but love for him or his policies.

Camille, you must be one of those sour people that does not like mornings.

PS..Kerala's so called increased standard of living might have something to do with the fact that 22% of state's income is from remittance from Gulf (taken from Center of development Studies), rather than economic growth environment created by leftist policies. East Bengal and Calcutta sort of represent what we can expect from Leftist policies. The productivity of all socialist/leftist government goes down, and the fear during Cold war was that the potential Central American communist regimes would become dependent of USSR...and lets not forget that USSR wanted exactly that. Dependency is the prime opium of Socialism. You mentioned the Sweden utopia. Read this article on how leftist policies are destroying it.
Link for PJ

Rahul, I wasn't born when Morning in America happened.

Just kidding! In addition to hating morning, I hate evening, the afternoon, and most midnights. I also hate puppies, children, freedom, and America. =)

PS..Kerala's so called increased standard of living might have something to do with the fact that 22% of state's income is from remittance from Gulf (taken from Center of development Studies)

Yes, and....

rather than economic growth environment created by leftist policies

Like I said, there's many types of leftist ideologies - Kerala's (the many types) hasn't turned into a totalitarian regime where one person controls everything and they are going to shoot down the US; As can be seen by the movement of people within Kerala it is an open society. I've read that there are some major problems with Kerala's economy - I'm glad people can openly critique this and decide for themselves what works in their society.

But my main point is - let Keralites decide what is good economic policy (let Swedish people decide for themselves) - not the US; Kerala's leftist groups (the noncorrupt ones) came to power in a very different society than the US. Issues of caste, religion, colonization, language - all these things came to play to make people support leftist groups. Different history, cutlure, society can produce different paths in achieving civil rights....that is what the US foreign policy under Reagan should have realized. I can't imagine if the CIA and US govt had gotten more involved with India and communist govts in Kerala and destroyed the land redistribution and anti-caste policies and funding into education that are now part of Kerala's society (b/c I know at one time the CIA was involved with trying to rid Kerala of its first democratically-elected "communist" govt.)

IMO,REagan was suave and slick with words - he painted his horrendous foreign policy that supported so many dictators as fighting for freedom. It is unfortunate that so many leaders, while they may be highly intelligent and wise in how they conduct policy, cannot win elections b/c they are not good with the public persona. So like Ardy said, communications and media is definitely important to get the point across.

I also hate puppies, children, freedom, and America.

I debated myself re: including America (since god knows this comment may come back and bite me in the future), but I figured if one is going to be super-sarcastic, she should go all the way.

Rajesh,

Why do I despise Reagan's policies? - b/c it caused destruction to so many grassroots movements (which started out peaceful) in the name of the illusionary evil Soviet empire. How the hell can you admire him?

I can understand more the "evil Soviet thinking" in the 50s or '60s, but by the time you get to the '80s I see this as fear-mongering - just like what Bush/Rumsfeld did in conflating 9-11 and invading Iraq. There were plenty of politicians at that time who, even in the early '80s, learning lessons from Vietnam, disagreed with REagan.

I find politics pretty complicated - and your way of thinking hearkens back to the 2nd grade when we first learned about the 3 branches of govt - that's just not the reality though.

As far as Congress being the purse-string, (besides the fact that the President can veto budget initiatives) - the 1980s-Congress is accountable too but not as much as Reagan. To me this is b/c most of the foreign policy and slashing of govt funding of social services came from Reagan and the neoconservatives and many Congressmembers who disagreed with him had to play politics. Like most political leaders they had to sometimes go along with something they disagreed with, otherwise b/c of Reagan's popularity, risk losing an election back in their respective states and have another neoconservative come in their seat in Congress.

Of course sometimes when Congress did vote against funding - well Reagan still got his illegal ways such as the Iran-Contra affair.

Unfortunately many Congressmen had to b>play politics to REagan's popularity which IMO was based on Reagan's use of his fear-mongering to rally the American people (kindof what happened when America re-elcted George Bush- he gained strength by playing on the fears of his constituents). Reagan also really played to the constituents of the South who normally would have voted democrat - his policies on abortion and anti-affirmative action, helped win him popularity in the South.

What was the other question you asked? Oh yeah, about North being ethnocentric:
The foreign policy under Reagan and his neoconservatives (and North was an ardent follower) is ethnocentric b/c everything is decided according to what has worked in America. Different parts of the world have different histories and forms of oppression and people like North jump on the evil "communist" bandwagon b/c they saw everything thru American eyes. If he could have been more open-minded he might have realized there were better ways to spend tax-payer money.

Like I said, there's many types of leftist ideologies - Kerala's (the many types) hasn't turned into a totalitarian regime where one person controls everything and they are going to shoot down the US; As can be seen by the movement of people within Kerala it is an open society. I've read that there are some major problems with Kerala's economy - I'm glad people can openly critique this and decide for themselves what works in their society.

PS: I do agree that the Communist state government produced great results in basic education and in health. Communities like the Ezhavas that were once treated like serfs are now on the intellectual & professional vanguard. But the fact that totalitarianism did not develop in Kerala does not say anything about the inclinations of Malayalee communists. Clearly the central government/army would not have sat by if Kerala rejected the Indian constitution. Vic brings up 22% of Kerala's economy coming from the Gulf...I can guarrantee you that if the other states in the Indian republic were treated as separate countries that we would be talking about 40-50%. Half of my grandparent's neighbors in TN are Malayalee (and I am talking about a tertiary town not on the border). The constitution keeps Kerala from engaging in the excesses that have typified Communist nations and the rest of India serves as a pressure release valve for Mallu discontent. I am not saying this to dump on Kerala , if their government became less strike happy it would overtake Karnataka, TN, and AP in terms of tech industry development within 10 years

PS: I do agree that the Communist state government produced great results in basic education and in health. Communities like the Ezhavas that were once treated like serfs are now on the intellectual & professional vanguard.

yes, i am part of the ezhava/thiyan community

But the fact that totalitarianism did not develop in Kerala does not say anything about the inclinations of Malayalee communists. Clearly the central government/army would not have sat by if Kerala rejected the Indian constitution

actually i think it does ----- communism doesn't = totalil. Communists in Kerala is just another party that tries to get elect in a democratic system that is NOT in opposition to the ideas of communism as practised by most Kerala's communist parties.

While I bash Bush and Cheney types, I got no affection for the communists of India. Though I agree that communists in India are really socialists. I do hate the way the Bengal communists slavishly refer to China for role models. THe same politicians would not be thrilled if India really muzzled them like China does to its opposition. A lot of Indian communists are either hypocrites or clueless about what went on for real in China and the USSR. But they are not harmful. THey do not have expansionist tendencies like the Russian communists.

actually i think it does ----- communism doesn't = totalil.

PS: In theory you are correct, but in practice it does seem to where it has control of entire nations (e.g. Soviet Russia & Eastern Bloc, China, Vietnam, Cuba, N. Korea etc, etc.) So we can say that either Malayalee communists are committed to democracy or that the Indian constitution makes them pragmatic. My guess that you will find party members across the spectrum

A lot of Indian communists are either hypocrites or clueless

sure as are a lot of congess or bjp people; a lot of them aren't;

i don't think communism was the only factor into considering kerala's successes by the way

PS: In theory you are correct, but in practice it does seem to where it has control of entire nations (e.g. Soviet Russia & Eastern Bloc, China, Vietnam, Cuba, N. Korea etc, etc.) So we can say that either Malayalee communists are committed to democracy or that the Indian constitution makes them pragmatic. My guess that you will find party members across the spectrum

A lot of nations b/c of US foreign policy weren't able to decide how their grassroots movements would have panned out. What would Vietnam be like if the forward-thinking Vietnamese didn't have to first fight the French and then the Americans? What would have happened in nicaragua, in Guatamala, etc if all these areas of the world had been allowed to develop a govt system that was attune to their specific culture and history.

GujuDude, have you ever read any of Andre Beaufre's works or Makers of Modern Strategy? I've only become interested in this strategy stuff in the past few weeks and was wondering if those were any good (and didn't require too much background knowledge).

A lot of nations b/c of US foreign policy weren't able to decide how their grassroots movements would have panned out. What would Vietnam be like if the forward-thinking Vietnamese didn't have to first fight the French and then the Americans?

Ho Chi Minh, recently returned from the useless hipster factory that is the French university system, would have turned Vietnam into a nation of lotus eaters and the number #1 producer of pretentious art films no one watches. The Vietnamese would have to outsource to France to find low cost labor.

What would have happened in nicaragua, in Guatamala, etc if all these areas of the world had been allowed to develop a govt system that was attune to their specific culture and history.

These countries would have come under the control of mostly "blanco" Marxist professors who after 30 years of misrule would finally see the light and privatise state assets. Their children who would have studied at Harvard and Williams would be the I-bankers who take 7% of the transaction fee (and take all the hot Manhattan desi skinny straight haired women) and sell at fire sale prices to their cronies and extended family creating a kleptocracy of castilian rather than anglo ancestry.

PS, How can you call thinking of what is in America's best interest (as a deciding point on foreign policy) ethnocentric. If you do not agree with this being a poor choice of words and should have said nationalist then you are being ludicrous. America (USA) is not a homogenous society like China, Korea, or Japan. Colonel North is was highly respected my the mostly minority company of Marines he commanded in war out in the field as a young Lieutenant and then as Captain. He continues to be respected and loved by the Marines I know.

I think I understand why you dislike a sucessful Presidency as Reagan's. I believe you are a Communist. The very least of which I am sure of, (from your postings) you are a Communist sympathizer. Knowng this we will just have to agree to disagree on ideological grounds.

What would have happened in nicaragua, in Guatamala, etc if all these areas of the world had been allowed to develop a govt system that was attune to their specific culture and history.

But, PS, we know what happeened. All became representative democracies, in part because of US influence. All receive US aid, trade with the US, and American open-borders (non)-policy benefits their poorest.

Now one may argue that US influence helped some anti-democratic regimes, especially during the cold war. But since you like your politics nuanced surely you can see that the US simultaneously supported dictators while encouraging democracy and free markets. Their suppression of the more brutal totalitarian leaning leftist movements surely benefited the prospects of self-determination for Latin American people (especially in Nicargua where the sandistas were reeled in and forced to work in a democracy).

politics is complex as you like to say. and US foreign policy cannot be reduced to US big-biz interests, though it rightly plays a part (you're not free unless you have property rights). There is more to the afghan war than a gas pipline, to give you an example. freedom, democracy, free-markets, and self-determination do play a role, as the people of the eastern bloc know all to well.

I think I understand why you dislike a sucessful Presidency as Reagan's. I believe you are a Communist. The very least of which I am sure of, (from your postings) you are a Communist sympathizer. Knowng this we will just have to agree to disagree on ideological grounds.

Umm...okay Rajesh and yes, i def disagree with you on probably everything. What an appropriate response coming from you! so b/c I hate REagan's foreign policy I must be a communist...that is funny!

PS, How can you call thinking of what is in America's best interest (as a deciding point on foreign policy) ethnocentric. If you do not agree with this being a poor choice of words and should have said nationalist then you are being ludicrous.

Rajesh, I just don't get how naive your questions and statements seem to me. "Reagan is the most loved..." - I'm sorry but that's just illogical reasoning to me. Why do you like Reagan and Ollie North so much? You do realize North broke US law --- you know that whole 3rd grade civics class you cling to, about the balance of power, North kindof circumvented all the balances.

I don't think you have a good understanding of the word ethnocentric. To have an ethnocentric foreign policy is not good for any nation, b/c we live in a very interconnected world. Instead of the thousands of American lives dying in Vietnam to fight for a vapid foreign policy, if our leaders had been less ethnocentric, it would have brought so much good to this country...and I'm sure the millions of Vietnamese who had to die.

Louiecypher - Ho Chi Minh, recently returned from the useless hipster factory that is the French university system, would have turned Vietnam into a nation of lotus eaters and the number #1 producer of pretentious art films no one watches. - that cracked me up

louiecypher #174:

brilliant colouful (and true) commentary. like the alice in wonderland reference.

Manju, I will answer you in more detail later but for now:

But, PS, we know what happeened. All became representative democracies, in part because of US influence. All receive US aid, trade with the US, and American open-borders (non)-policy benefits their poorest.i>

Didn't you forget to mention that whatever these countries have become now, most of them went through a needless bloodbath b/c of US support. If it was your brother/sister/mother that was tortured b/c they were protesting for land redistribution I dont' think you could so easily dismiss the bloodbath. And your statement about "because of the US" ----- What makes you think that a socialist/left form of govt wouldn't have formed in many of these latin countries that would have representative govt? how nice of the US after butchering thousands of people to now trade with these govts.

What would have happened in nicaragua, in Guatamala, etc if all these areas of the world had been allowed to develop a govt system that was attune to their specific culture and history.

But, PS, we know what happeened. All became representative democracies, in part because of US influence.

Now one may argue that US influence helped some anti-democratic regimes, especially during the cold war... Their suppression of the more brutal totalitarian leaning leftist movements surely benefited the prospects of self-determination for Latin American people (especially in Nicargua where the sandistas were reeled in and forced to work in a democracy).

Have you spoken to the survivors and refugees of the wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Guatemala? Their viewpoint is not the same as yours, regardless of whether they voted for the Contras or the Sandanistas. The U.S. has done such a great job of vilifying any "leftist" or "Socialist" movement that it is unwilling to accept the (democratic) victory of such movements and campaigns. Half the time I wonder if people even know WHY these campaigns are called "Leftist" or "Socialist" to begin with. Oftentimes it's because people are resisting oppression in order to lobby for democratic principles, protections, and freedoms -- the same freedoms we enjoy today.

Louiecypher - Ho Chi Minh, recently returned from the useless hipster factory that is the French university system, would have turned Vietnam into a nation of lotus eaters and the number #1 producer of pretentious art films no one watches. - that cracked me up

Thanks PS. Don't get me started on Pol Pot, another product of French education. I was listening to some French dude on NPR who wrote some book on Pol Pot that concluded that the Buddhist concept of "nonself" was to blame for Khmer Rouge nihilism. I was so angry I almost lost my Buddha nature and wanted to jump through the radio to smack the je ne sais quois out of him. "Professional students" are dangerous, freed of mundane concerns they are prone to solipsistic thinking. They should train rottweilers to flush out malingering grad students from the halls of the Sorbonne

Camille - this is discussion for everyone who wants to join. I always learn something from your comments, even if sometimes I don't agree with them; I hope you'll keep adding your knowledge in.

I was listening to some French dude on NPR who wrote some book on Pol Pot that concluded that the Buddhist concept of "nonself" was to blame for Khmer Rouge nihilism. I was so angry I almost lost my Buddha nature and wanted to jump through the radio to smack the je ne sais quois out of him.

Thanks, PS :)

Didn't you forget to mention that whatever these countries have become now, most of them went through a needless bloodbath b/c of US support. If it was your brother/sister/mother that was tortured b/c they were protesting for land redistribution I dont' think you could so easily dismiss the bloodbath.

if your family was tortured by shinig path or if you were a miskito indian buthered by the sandinista I dont' think you could so easily dismiss the bloodbath.

What makes you think that a socialist/left form of govt wouldn't have formed in many of these latin countries that would have representative govt?

i didn;t say they wouldn't. it depends. if hey preah mao or lenin, embrace castro or the soviets, i'd say the probability is low.

how nice of the US after butchering thousands of people to now trade with these govts.

what happenned to your nuance? i thought you thought politcs was complex, multi-faced?

PS, Lt.Col. Oliver North did circumvent (broke) US law but what was this law. The Boland Ammendment crafted by a Mass Democrat by the name of Edward Boland. This Democrat like his fellow democrat congressmen were vapid America haters and were sympathetic to all Communist regimes and this included Nicaragua's Ortega.

For breaking this law Col. North. became a national hero, celebrity, Books were written and movies made. It really created a backlash against that tried to interrogate him. The hearings that were broadcast live showed America what a vile evil bunch these Dem. congressmen were.

No court would convict Lt.Col Oliver North not even the (Democrat area) A jury made up mostly of black Democrats asked the judge to dismiss all charges. This court was the D.C. Circut Court.

We have no obligation to consider the the interests of other countries before America as no country does this. This would be beyond naive but just increcdibly stupid. Only when interests are mutual like the US/India Nuke deal.

The only speculation about the Sandanistas being somehow "antidemocratic" comes by way of the U.S. foreign policy propaganda machine

amneaty international, salman rushdie, the UNO don't count?

@ 154,

the recent amusing "Shut Up" advice from the State department to the presidential aspirants !!

Apologies to everybody for digressing a bit from the main thread -

Brij, On a lighter note the "Shut Up" reminds me of nice music of Rihanna's song - Shut up and Drive which I am currently hearing. For a better video reception check this yahoo music link instead of the youtube one. Also the Pepsi exclusive video is much better

i didn;t say they wouldn't. it depends. if hey preah mao or lenin, embrace castro or the soviets, i'd say the probability is low.

Really, so that means b/c you don't know how things will pan out, its a good idea to use taxpayer money to support arms for dictators that we already know violate civil rights?

how nice of the US after butchering thousands of people to now trade with these govts.
what happenned to your nuance? i thought you thought politcs was complex, multi-faced?

I'm not following you Manju - why is it that my comment makes me unnuanced? I'm glad the US has decided to let go of it dogma (in many of these countries after the needless bloodbath, compromise had to be reached between the dissenting groups) and able to now trade with these nations. If only when these grassroots movments first began, many of whom gained control through elections, weren't shunned by the US, embargoed by the US, these grassroots movements could have thrived. Instead my tax money was going to support crazy oppressive dictators and causing death to people who were fighting for their civil rights. All b/c of neoconservative ideology that sees things as black and white - I'd rather my taxes and if I have to go to war or if I send my child to war, go toward a war that my country has gotten into not thru fear-mongering and stupid jargons. I'm not a pacifist, and if anyone is going to die, it's best to have an intelligent leader that is aware of NUANCES and understand what exactly is a threat to our national security. Popular grassroots movements in latin American countries that were fighting for civil rights, after being oppressed for decades is/was not a threat to the US, nor is it our/US business to decide these things.

Manju, how are you defining anti-democratic? If you're trumpeting out the human rights allegations that were popular in the 80s, then it's important to note that the primary proponents of the Sandanistas being "anti-democratic" were the Heritage Foundation and President Reagan -- hardly impartial sources.

According to Human Rights Watch (1989):

Under the Reagan administration, U.S. policy toward Nicaragua's Sandinista government was marked by constant hostility. This hostility yielded, among other things, an inordinate amount of publicity about human rights issues. Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras...

This is an important change from a human rights perspective, because the contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights states (re: mass-graves/executions):

In the Commission’s view, while the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war. During the weeks immediately subsequent to the Revolutionary triumph, when the government was not in effective control, illegal executions took place which violated the right to life, and these acts have not been investigated and the persons responsible have not been punished.

And according to Amnesty International:

Another goal of the Sandinistas was a change in the old government's pattern of repression and brutality toward the general populace. In their first two years in power, Amnesty International and other human rights groups found the human rights situation in Nicaragua greatly improved.

Finally, in deference to the (very partial) Heritage Foundation:

It was not until June 22, 1982, however, that Amnesty International first urged the "Nicaraguan government to review the cases of over 3,000 people convicted after the 1979 revolution of criminal offenses committed under the previous government. [emphasis mine]

OK guys, the SM crew has given us new posts to mess with. We started off with a proud Sikh uncle who won office in LI and we ended up with a karmic accounting of the Cold War. Bye-bye, I feel the urge to diss MIA some more

Just kidding! In addition to hating morning, I hate evening, the afternoon, and most midnights. I also hate puppies, children, freedom, and America. =)

Don't forget mommies.

Rajesh, in addition to breaking a law -- passed through a DEMOCRATIC (as in system/ideology, not the party) method of governance --, Lt. Col. North also used DRUG MONEY to help fund the arms trade. It's convenient to completely overlook the gross illegality of his actions, and the fact that he was indicted on sixteen counts and convicted on three (with the sentence later overturned on evidentiary appeal). That is way different than saying he "was not guilty."

Additionally, Oliver North is a hero on FoxNews and among conservative zealots, alone. How else can you explain his failed Senate candidacy and the fact that fellow Republicans wouldn't even endorse him over an independent candidate? I really don't think you can speculate that the majority of the U.S. felt that his actions were laudable or praiseworthy, let alone heroic. I think your hatred for the Democrats and the Democratic party far outweighs any rational or objective evaluation of the Iran-Contra debacle.

Camille - all I have to say is well-said.

Don't forget mommies.

Camille, The issue of drug money later proved to be a lie and a myth planted by DNC. The people recognized he broke the 'law' made by a Communist America hating Democrat and recognized it for what it was and in the end gave it the same contempt as Col. North. In this case the courts recognized what this 'law' was and gave it notable contempt. There is 'The Law' and 'Doing The Right Thing' They are not allways the same.

Camile you and I will never agree on policy and issues ,as I am a right-wing nut for example: I love to read Ann Coulter, and you are just the opposite.

Rajesh, you're in the military, right? What unit? (yes i would probably recognize it)

Rajesh, could you please provide documented evidence that "drug money" was a DNC lie? According to the NSA, North helped promote an environment in which the drug trade would be facilitated for the Contras so that they could fund their side of the war. How is this, then, any different from pandering to the lowest common denominator? Could you also provide cites/links to the court documents in which judges decided that they would overturn the law because said laws were passed by "Communist, America-hating Democrats"?

It's true that we may never agree on policy issues based on our ideological viewpoints. That said, I question your reasoning because it is specious, not because we are ideologically opposed. If I came into an argument saying that Ronald Reagan was a terrible President because the Republican Party is full of xenophobic, neo-fascist, Jesus-freaks, I think it would be offensive, inaccurate, and completely irrelevant. Similarly, your comments on "America-hating Democrats" are equally irrelevant. Additionally, I think it would be irresponsible to have the thread-record stand as solely pro-Reagan and interventionist-U.S. by any means necessary instead of offering an alternative, or perhaps more balanced, assessment of both the pros and cons of U.S. foreign policy.

I'm not saying this to be rude, but Rajesh, I think the quality of conversation would be much better if it addressed the issue at hand instead of relying on attacks on the straw man. For example, I've disagreed with Manju and melbournedesi many times, but we try to keep the conversation fact-based and logical, and we agree to disagree when the subject comes down to an ideological difference regarding values or preferred outcomes.

Camille, When I use the term 'America hating Democrats' I am only referring to a faction of the part's leadership and not all.
I dont know how to get that info about the allegation of drug money but I remember reading about it as late as 1992.

It came out around the time that Bush senior pardoned Casper Wienberger for the same thing as Col. North. In case you don't remember Wienberger was defense secretary under Reagan. He also pardoned the Admiral that Col. North took orders from (forgot his name) as he too was being prosecuted by the congress.
I hear you but it is hard for me to be di-passionate about politics but will try.

verma I am no longer active(Navy). I was given a medical retirement after being injured in the line of duty. I can't run anymore. I was in a unit that provided direct support to Marines in forward areas as relating to communication and logistics. This meant combat training Marine style. The Unit was disbanded a few years ago and its functions given to another unit.

I hear you but it is hard for me to be di-passionate about politics but will try.

Poindexter was the name of the Admiral

Camille. I campainged for Col North when I lived in Northern VA.
He lost because John Warner R. the seventh husband of Elizabeth Taylor :-)came out against him.

Rajesh, it's good to have your point of view, but at least LISTEN to what others are saying...and try to consider all angles...don't have knee-jerk reactions. After all that, if you still honestly think your views are the only correct ones, then by all means stick to them. Even then, keep an open mind...you never know what new things you might learn in the future that will challenge your beliefs. For that matter, as you get older you may mellow and realise that others had legitimate points of view as well. And by the way I disagree with some things Camille has said (but I still read EVERYTHING you write Camille) and certainly with much of what PS has said, but they've made excellent, thoughtful, and informative points as well.

Rajesh, it's good to have your point of view, but at least LISTEN to what others are saying...and try to consider all angles...don't have knee-jerk reactions

Amitabh,

I see a pattern developing: RH says something, someone else advises a more deliberate, reasoned approach, RH says something else in the same vein.

He's not a troll by any means but I think there is a serious language gap--how many times can people say essentially the same thing, and the target of such cautions continue on the same track?

And by the way I disagree with some things Camille has said (but I still read EVERYTHING you write Camille) and certainly with much of what PS has said, but they've made excellent, thoughtful, and informative points as well.

GujuDude, have you ever read any of Andre Beaufre's works or Makers of Modern Strategy? I've only become interested in this strategy stuff in the past few weeks and was wondering if those were any good (and didn't require too much background knowledge).

I haven't read his stuff, so I can't really recommend either way unfortunately.

I'd start with the classics (Sun Tzu, Book of Five Rings, Von Clausewitz) if you're looking at strategy/conflict theory. Robert Greene's 33 Strategies of War is pretty readable. Another good book, though not directly about strategy, is about one of the best modern strategists. Col John Boyd. The book is called Boyd: The Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of Warfare by Robert Coram. The biography is a good place to get interested about how one lives strategy. There are better books on his OODA loop theories out there.

History of the Peloponnesian wars, The Prince, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius are all neat, too.

love to read Ann Coulter, and you are just the opposite.

I love to read Ann Coulter, and you are just the opposite.

Rajesh: Most dedicated Republicans I know want nothing to do with Ann Coulter...conservatives, at least the Natl Review reading mainstream, consider her a liability.

Any comments/insights on the Bengal scene; the other leftist bastion ?

You may want to check out this post and the comments.

I'm not following you Manju - why is it that my comment makes me unnuanced?

Because PS, you seem capable of seeing great nuance in one of the world most bloodiest ideologies (which is fine, after all, how so many idealists and intellectuals could descend into a madness only comparable to Nazism is one of the great questions of our time); but cannot seem to grasp the other side of the coin in regards to reagan, kennedy, kennen, & kissenger...leaders of one of the world's most freest nations. that the US could have supported dictators while moving the world toward democracy and capitalism seems beyond your grasp. You ar right to point out that some of the world most brutal dictatorships were supported, but to de-contextualize it out of the specter of the brutality of communism would be like saying the US supported the USSR in WWII w/o any reference to nazism.

What I am saying is containment (and reagan's ratching up of it to defeat communism) was a complex mix of old-fashion otto vosn bismarck realpolitik, corporate self interest (or property rights depending on your pt of view), human rights concerns, and advancement of classic liberalism. in regards to latin america, i think the above mentined men were haunted by the brutal suppresion of the people of cuba by castro, who was hailed as a liberator by the left and eventually ended up enslaving his people and not even allowing them to even leave the island. so better with the bastards we know (batista, pinichet) than the bastards who would make alliance with the evil empire.

i thought since you were lecturing rajesh on being more nuanced, you might appreciate the contradictory and complex politics of containment.

He lost because John Warner R. the seventh husband of Elizabeth Taylor :-)came out against him.

what's with all these liz taylor men eventually coming out?

Have you spoken to the survivors and refugees of the wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Guatemala?

Camille:

Actually I have. I used to work for Amnesty International in '82. My job was to put together testimonials from prisoners of conscience so AA could use them for fundraising purposes. Since the leftist regimes of that time (cuba, USSR) were much more totalitarian than the right (even S. Africa), AA had a much harder time documenting human rights violations from the left.

so i was very familiar with the brutality of the right. but i would much rather live in aparthied s.africa than cuba...since i could alway get out.

i think the sentiment behind my last statement drove many cold-warriors. they may have benn wrong about the nature of some leftist regimes, but i'd take ollie north's record over jp sartre's any day.

PS in #146 - Well, I can surely talk about some stuff I attended if you are interested. I was at this GLBT session at the conference and I must say the energy in that big hall was quite captivating and high. But I felt there was more of patting each others backs than anything else in that one. Feel free to drop me a note if you have any Qs per se.

On a random note and learning - the more I get into the social sector, the more I realize that lot of times no one knows much, For eg, last few days I have been trying to find out economic distribution in India across castes in modern in India society. Turns out there is hardly any data - the census board banned collection of such data and thus there isn't much available since Indian independence. I did find some books related to the same but now I cannot find those books.

so i was very familiar with the brutality of the right. but i would much rather live in aparthied s.africa than cuba...since i could alway get out.

On a random note and learning - the more I get into the social sector, the more I realize that lot of times no one knows much, For eg, last few days I have been trying to find out economic distribution in India across castes in modern in India society. Turns out there is hardly any data - the census board banned collection of such data and thus there isn't much available since Indian independence. I did find some books related to the same but now I cannot find those books.

but i would much rather live in aparthied s.africa than cuba...since i could alway get out

Are you speaking for black South Africans too?

But seriously, I think this is one of the biggest failings of social programs -- failure to enumerate and track data in a methodologically sound way. We know that governments haven't been doing it, but as research globalizes (with interest), it's a great time to start institutionalizing tracking.

Yay, more jobs in program evaluation/evaluation research!
Clinical/health research folks have only recently begun to go down this analytical path with respect to tracking the reach of research funding.

Yay, more jobs in program evaluation/evaluation research!

louiecypher, I guess this means I am not really a commited Republican.

Amitabah, You are right about me being a knee jerk reactionary.

I like to think of myself as an independant conservative. The term means little because individuals are complex and you realy can't put them in neat ideological boxes or compartment.

Guys, Take note of the books that GujuDude reads in #205. This explains his insight. I have read these books also, except for two, Robert Coram and Col Boyd.

Pravin, I agree with almost all of you what you said, except for:

A lot of these Repub warmongers seem to have a trend of avoiding serving.

This is a very poor reason to criticize their decision to go to war (which I completely disagree with). I do not at all think that a decision to go to war can only be made by an ex-soldier, but what it does require is an excellent understanding of geo-politics, history, military strategy, and political savvy. And these are all elements in which the current crop is lacking.

Rahul, I actually feel the same as you that lack of military service should normally not be held against a politician in such positions. Hell, Cheney probably would not have been a good soldier. So it's probably good he stayed away. However, with this current crop, not only are they deficient in the areas they mentioned, you would think at least with all the warmongering they do, it might have come out of something habitual. But you look at their past, and a lot of them seem to indulge in a pattern of finding some excuse to avoid serving when asked or were in danger of being asked to do so. Didn't Cheney have a few deferments? He also has said he had better things to do. It's not like he was discovering the next scientific breaktrhough or his family situation was in such dire shape. So when these guys turn around and accuse others of anti americanism or go after Kerry when he clumsily said something along the lines of "if you don't have any options, you too might end up in Iraq", isn't that pretty much the attitude of a Cheney. "He had better things to do" was his only real excuse not to serve. And when you see these guys make their fortunes off of the defense industry and pander to the military community and ridicule others on these issues, you gotta ask if they led by personal example. It's just a combination of many things where it compels me to not give them the benefit of doubt. I do not apply this to everyone who doesn't serve.

It also annoys me when Bush gives a speech asking people to join the military and how honorable it is. Yet he never says whether he exhorts his own kids to serve. How about Lieberman. DId his kid volunteer over here or in Israel(Let's not get PC over this. Lieberman is practically a dual citizen). Should they serve? Not necessarily. But for being such a "military friendly" President, shouldn't he at least have had that conversation with his kids? Couldn't Jenna volunteer in a military hospital instead of partying in South America to "intern as a teacher"? Bush strikes me as the kind of guy who would get into a fight, but if friends are holding the two rivals back, Bush would be the one if you actually called his bluff and let go, he wouldn't be moving forward to hit his rival. Cheney would be the type calling his enemies cowards, but will always get someone else to do his dirty work.

My thing is this, when there is no shortage of troops, it is best for everyone to do what they are best suited to do, and many are not cut out to serve in the military. I am one of them. I cannot take orders. I am not the most disciplined. However, when the country is in a war, advocated by a certain group of people, and there are not enough enlisted troops at some point during the war, and the time comes for a temporary infusion of new blood, I think the more you support such elective wars, the more you should be willing to volunteer to serve unless you are engaging in something which is of greater use to society during that period. What makes me laugh is when these people are posed such questions, is not the fact that they come up with some lame excuse not to serve. It's the fact that you can tell that they never even considered the possiblity seriously. Otherwise, support such a war, but have the decency not to question other people's patriotism.

However, with this current crop, not only are they deficient in the areas they mentioned, you would think at least with all the warmongering they do, it might have come out of something habitual.

Please. Can we stop with the Clinton and Obama bashing?

The military life is not for everyone. The military does not like the draft. Maybe it is good that Cheny got a deferment. He would have been discharged for health reasons anyway. I remember reading that he worked as an electrical lineman while putting himself through night school. That isn't exactly a safe job. This was before he joined the civil service.

The only pols that I know of that have kids in Iraq are McCain and Webb. A few congressmen are reservists and were called up for duty, Lindsey Graham is one. I do not remember who the others are.

Are you speaking for black South Africans too?

Well I guess I don't speak for the hordes of black south african refugees who banged on the doors of cuba yearning to be free.

Amitabah, You are right about me being a knee jerk reactionary.

Rajesh, please, more knee and less jerk in the comments.

How creepily ironic is it that the online radio started playing Cops of The World as I read through this comment thread.

Rajesh, GujuDude:

some insider perspective on Beuchamp, et. al--video blogging style.

Very funny Abhi, By the way thanks for posting this story. I know we have gotten of topic a bit but it all comes full circle re: politicts, military, Sikhs.

Beuchamp's Myspace profile. His buddy 'baby killer's' profile screams raging angst to me. He's married to a TNR reporter, too.

Among other things, the Weekly Standard is mentioning he's recanted his story under oath.

I take anything from the TNR or Weekly Standard with a whole shaker worth of salt, but the following logic does hold true:

So, as the post suggests, he's either lying under oath or he's been lying to the TNR. Either way, the dude is a shitbird for having lied about the story (lame) or been part of a group doing those dishonorable acts (very lame). His NCO's and Officer's asses will be smoked regardless for not enforcing discipline if there is an ounce of truth to his stories.

If those guys are scared of any alleged activities that the Army regs and orders state they shouldn't partake in, well, I hope they're shitting their pants. The UCMJ should be thrown at them. If not, well, he got his 15 minutes of fame as a liar (wouldn't be the first).

Muralimannered Read what these two anti war liberal reporters wrote after returning from Iraq. It realy upset Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha The reporters are :Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. Sorry I do not have the link but you Can find it in The New York Times or The New York Post.

Beuchamp is a fraud but even if it were true It is a non-issue, (except for running over a dog) the equivalent of putting panties on the heads of prisoners and stripping them naked. A lot worse goes on in college Fraternities across this country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/COMMENTARY/108070009 This is a link to a commentary on the the article by O'Hanlon and Pollack

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack aren't exactly "anti war liberal" reporters.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/

"In March, 2003, Michael O'Hanlon was one of the signatories to a letter on Iraq policy issued by Project for New American Century."

I second Nil.

And Rajesh, I had a good friend who was sucked into the Moonie cult, actually was married in one of the mass-events held at the old RFK in DC and for many years was lost in that incredibly loony, mindf8ck of an organization.

I think Sun Myung Moon is a criminal, should be prosecuted further and wouldn't even think of trusting stories from one of his publications (let alone contribute to ad revenue generated by hits on the wash-times site.)

My dad does cross over in wash-times territory occasionally and I never fail to remind him that their HR dept. is okay with Confederacy-sympathizers and white supremacists.

but then again, the NYTimes and DemoCrats all hate america and the liberal values that have brought us this far.

muralmannered

Sun Myung Moon Is no longer associated with the Washington Times. You will not find any pro Moonie stuff in that paper. Moon spent many years in jail in South Korea for tax evasion. He has disappeared from the public light. I do not agree with his religion or his methods. Many couples from his mass weddings have gotten divorced.

The Washington times is a good paper that bears no resemblance to his touch. The Washing Times continue to out-sell the Washington Post in Northern Virginia. The Washington Post even tried giving away a less biased, condensed version, at Metro stations, called the Express. Some people took it but still purchaced the Washington Times.

This strategy by the Post was if they could give away a smaller version of their paper then less people would buy The Washington Times. It did not work. The Post is far less leftist than it used to be because of competition from The Washington Times.

Prior to 1982 The Washington Post was the only daily in the metropolitan area for three years. During 'The Cold War' they (The Washington Post) was mockingly reffered to by conservatives as "Pravda" on The Potomac"

I think the Washingtonian Times reference came up to support the characterization of "these two anti war liberal reporters wrote after returning from Iraq" - Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack.

here is what O'Halon has had to admit to a reporter recently recently, these are his words:

"As you rightly reported -- I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter."

"if I'm being held up as a "critic of the war", for example by Vice President Cheney, it's certainly only fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself,"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html

A lot of buzz phrases are thrown around and a lot of straw men are built up but when it comes down to being factually incorrect (by characterizing people who are for the war as against it) it doesn't look good.

8 · Pravin on August 2, 2007 09:31 PM · Direct link

Harry is such a cliched Americanization of his name. Why not HARVEY, if he must bastardize his name?

10 · Abhi on August 2, 2007 09:36 PM · Direct link

Harry is such a cliched Americanization of his name. Why not HARVEY, if he must bastardize his name?

Why not "Hairy?" :)

-really guys?
first of all he did not bastardize his name, his fully name is Harvinder Anand and Harry is the most accurate derivative of it.
secondly, its his choice, he chose Harry as a matter of convenience
- making jokes about names such as Harvey and Hairy are really immature and disrespectful, and you never know who they might upset