Uncle Sam's dilemma
Post 9/11 amidst all the outpouring of grief and sympathy for the victims and their families, there were a number of voices that expressed satisfaction, a kind of "they deserve this" or "Americans had this coming". And predictably the response from US was one of bewilderment and frustration. Nobody can understand such distasteful and heartless comments. Americans were even more puzzled as it was inconceivable to them that the US could evoke so much hatred. Of course in 2 years a lot of water has flown down Tigris and a few Americans can now accept the fact.

Not being from America but having a few friends who have migrated there and having long been an admirer of the country, its economic and political freedoms and its leaders I find it distressing that so many people around the world are so eager to hate the US and puzzling that so many Americans cannot fathom it.

To me, 9/11 marks a shift not just in how terrorism has become the single biggest threat to world peace but how it has and will shape alliances. America's right to defend herself from terrorist attacks is irrefutable and the rest of the world has a duty to help the US for past dues - Europe for bearing its security burden during the Cold war, Asia for setting an early example with its War of Independence and for eschewing colonialism and Africa for having the brutal honesty to engage in first the Civil War and later the Civil rights movement.

The present US Administration has formed a useful doctrine of preemption to deal with the terrorist menace. However, the concept has been muddled by wrong and hesitant application to Iraq. The shifting positions on the need to attack Iraq - it is about weapons of mass destruction, its about Al Qaeda, its about Saddam Hussien's murderous regime, its about democracy in Middle East - undermined the cause even before it began. Saddam Hussien posed a threat if he really possessed all the weapons that he was accused of having hidden in the sands of Iraq. Now with hindsight we know that he may not have had any. But at that time it was a difficult decision to make. US had to rely on intelligence that was dodgy at best, patently malafide at worst. In the face of such evidence, it would have made more sense for US to have treaded carefully and to have engaged other countries on the best course. Instead the Adminstration was working on a predetermined timetable - too closely linked to the US election cycle - and the vagaries of weather and logistics proved to be more important than global opinion. What we saw in the lead up to the war was a doctrine of presumption, not preemption. (In future, the events proceeding upto the war and the impasse in the Security Council should be a compulsory case study for diplomats around the world. Of how posturing and bravado got the better of intellect. The French behaved very much like their national bird rooster.)

The war on terror had and has more urgent battles - in Afghanistan, in South East Asia, in the Indo-Pak border and possibly in Africa. In Afghanistan the task is unfinished and the country is in a delicate situation. Unless President Karzai's hands are strengthened, the country may sink into political vacuum similar to the one that resulted in the rise of Taliban. By squandering all its energies on Iraq the Administration has seriously stretched the capabilities of the US military power. The difficulties faced by the military in Iraq at present are precisely the kind of long and hard engagement that the US did not need, least in the midst of hostile Arab populace in close proximity to that Palestine tinderbox. That's why the return to UN for a multinational force is welcome. But this move already looks stuck in geopolitics and US may have to try a different tack.

George Bush would do well to cultivate one habit that has not been in abundance within the present Adminsitration so far - humility. At least Bill Clinton had charm. He might have been a rogue but he was lovable. Maybe Bush can pick up the phone and cosy up to France, Russia and China instead of armtwisting countries like India. The agenda should be to reduce the number of US forces in Iraq and put in place a UN force with a greater proportion of brown faces than white faces. Preferably under UN command. Alas this would involve a massive pride swallowing exercise that would produce the mother of all indigestions (to borrow an idiom from Saddam). But the idea is clear. Cut losses and beat a tactical retreat. But wield enough influence in the background to ensure that the transition regime in Iraq is not unfriendly. And trust to time, patience, goodwill and aid for building institutions of democracy. It cannot be achieved overnight. And it takes more commitment than just winning re-election. Therein lies the dilemma for Americans. Wonder if they recognise it. Elect a President who is intelligent. Its not enough if the President can pick and choose the best talent for his Administration. The present times call for a man (woman?) with vision, who is prepared to be a statesman, who is aware of the legacy he would like to leave and who wishes to be remembered for posterity as the one who made a conscious and decisive difference to the war on terror. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt anyone? In short electing a President whose greatest achievement may come on the foreign policy front. Being tough on security issues alone would not win the war on terror. Now since we don't have an option from the Republican side, our hopes lie with Democrats. If only they would sort out the mess and cut to the chase.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea we are now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures." - William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar