Write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

(Or join the The Edge, the lightly moderated discussion board for our global community.)

Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as a forum for readers to debate with each other. The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct debaters away from the Letters page.

Spengler responds
Vivian Lewis (letter, Nov 28) observes that German Jews have disappeared, but she may underestimate their continuing influence. On the left, the Frankfurt School of Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and Walter Benjamin has had an enormous effect since the student rebellions of the 1960s, as Allan Bloom reported in his The Closing of the American Mind. The ghost of Leo Strauss still haunts the political right. Jews in German-speaking Europe were among the founders of intellectual modernity and their thought is still with us. It is ill for the United States, however, that the German Jews it adopted were followers of Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Martin Heidegger, rather than Franz Rosenzweig, for example. To be sure, Rosenzweig got some things woefully wrong. He was so confident that the Christian side of Germany would triumph over its "inner pagan" that he could not imagine the Nazi terror that lay ahead, and opposed such alternatives as Zionism. But as a sociologist of religion (his phrase in The New Thinking) Rosenzweig helps us make sense of the new epoch of religious wars, where the Frankfurt School and the Straussians are of no use.
Spengler (Nov 29, '05)


Re Playing with protests [Nov 29]: Seventy-four thousand protests in China do not provide the friction to spark a prairie fire - a prairie fire of Leninist myth for a democratic revolution in the land of the Han. Hu Jintao may be a talented party cosmetician touching up the uglier features of Communist Party rule, but he is by no means a [Mikhail] Gorbachev who is going to dismantle the hegemonic rule of a debased Marxist-Leninist party. More, the current apparatchiks who manipulate the strings of power in Beijing have a long memory of those days of warlord rule in the first half of the 20th century. Although Mr Hu may prove incapable of reining in widespread corruption and ever-growing pauperization of the countryside and the yawning maw of urban social inequality, he is equally aware that China's dynasties of yore lasted centuries despite inequality, [malfeasance], sins of omissions and commissions. And in the comfort of that knowledge, he is doubly aware that any opposition has no army, no weapons, no groundswell which could overwhelm him and the Communist Party of China.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 29, '05)


I agree with William Dalrymple's (Myths and madrassas [Nov 24]) thesis that the "madrassas" (actually madarssas) in Pakistan are not graduating terrorists as some have claimed. The madarssas are seminaries, the predecessor of "colleges" (from the Arabic kulliat) with a long history of creating knowledge; Andalusian ones actually spawning the renaissance in Europe, and Indian ones effecting British and Hindu knowledge ... John Locke and Isaac Newton certainly had Muslim influences. Thomas Jefferson, writing The Jefferson Bible, seems to have a heavy Islamic influence. Per Barbara Metcalfe, the philosophies of the Deobandis have to be taken in the context of colonialism and not mixed up with the current crisis in Afghanistan. [Ecumenical] Muslim saints like Moinuddin Chisti (I am named after him) in India are revered by Hindus, Muslims and Christian alike and millions of Muslims and non-Muslims visit their graves each year. This is part of our joint Hindi-Muslim symbiosis. During the anti-British agitation the Deobandis remained non-violent. [Mahatma] Gandhi and [Jawaharlal] Nehru were partners in the anti-British but non-violent Khilafat movement that was spearheaded by the Deobandis ... Discussing the current madarssas, Dalrymple properly reminds us about the geopolitical intricacies of today's international relations. Many bigots today have selective amnesia. Muslims refuse to be held responsible for the foreign-policy failures and shortsighted policies of Western governments who created the Frankenstein monsters that are today threatening Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The literacy statistics about Pakistan are wrong and any comparison has to take into account the condition of Muslims prior to 1947. Indian numbers have to be compared with China, not Pakistan, which prior to 1947 was a neglected and discriminated economic backwater of the subcontinent. One example: Pakistan had one university and one textile mill within its borders in 1947. Today Pakistan has built hundreds. Much needs to be done, though. A 7% growth rate will address education and illiteracy ...
Moin Ansari (Nov 29, '05)

This is in regard to William Dalrymple's excellent essay on madrassa education and its impact on the Muslim world [Myths and madrassas, Nov 24]. It was very well written, but had a few fallacies. Raja Ram Mohun Roy did not graduate from a madrassa, though he did study the functioning of same. The growth of madrassas in Pakistan has a lot to do with the lack of educational funding by its government. Certainly, all madrassas do not teach hatred, India has several thousands, and the Deobandi madrassa is in India too. Political interference in their functioning is what creeps in to alter their ultimate goals.
Sanjeev Vasishtha (Nov 28, '05)


Will Asia Times [Online] kindly enlighten as to what ol' Willie Dalrymple is trying to say [Myths and madrassas Nov 24]? When one reads articles like these from an author of Mr Dalrymple's stature, it becomes clear why Spengler has more or less written off Europe. I am surprised that Asia Times [Online] has given such a prominent place to this confused, obfuscating hotchpotch. After mentioning that he took the "precaution of informing the British Consulate about [his] movements" (post-Daniel Pearl), Dalrymple launches into an elaborate defense of madrassas with the usual standard references to the 7th and 12th centuries etc, the so called "golden age" of Islam, and blaming everything from the Mongols to globalization for the growing radicalism of Islam. Given the tenor of his article (expressions like "an unexpectedly dapper and cheery figure", "two-year-old granddaughter, playing happily with a yellow helium balloon", "green lawns resemble a cross between a five-star hotel and a rather upmarket university campus", "bearded men struggling with the mysteries of using Urdu and Arabic versions of Microsoft Word and Windows XP", "the students were almost all eager, friendly and intelligent, if somewhat intense" litter the article), I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Dalrymple next writes about Osama bin Laden's "sad, soulful if somewhat intense expression". Stick to your travel books, Mr Dalrymple, or take up a job with that antediluvian dinosaur, the British Foreign Office. And by the way, there is no evidence of yeshivas planning to set up a global Jewish caliphate and Jews are not bombing metros or burning cars in London/Paris, nor do Jews go about stabbing people who write against their religion, etc (remember the Dutch filmmaker). Don't make stupid analogies.
Gautam
India (Nov 28, '05)


Re Indonesia armed for a fight [Nov 24] by Bill Guerin: The relationship between Americans and Indonesians was a very special one, unlike most others in Southeast Asia. Take for example the Malaysians: they and the Americans are on friendly terms, but the Malaysians have, when put to the test on several occasions, emphatically conveyed the message to the Americans that they would not tolerate any form of interference in their domestic politics or internal affairs. The relationship between America and Indonesia is more akin to that of a sultan and a lady of his harem. Not only was Indonesian ... president Suharto a protégé of the Americans, the military (TNI) was supplied and trained by the Americans. Even so-called political parties are thoroughly infiltrated by the Americans. Relations were temporarily soured when "the lady" was forced by Uncle Sam to relinquish one of her prized jewels, East Timor, and suffered further humiliation at the hand of the IMF [International Monetary Fund] over Indonesia's financial collapse. The subsequent temper tantrum of the TNI resulted in the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people in East Timor, mostly as a slap in the face for Uncle Sam. Subsequent American-approved elections produced president [Abdurrahman] Wahid, leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, and president Megawati Sukarnoputri, leader of the Democratic Party. Both of them made noises about "decriminalizing" the Communist Party of Indonesia and getting closer to Russia, India and China but nobody took them seriously, least of all the Americans. Americans saw these for what they were, a little bit of threatening "blackmail" as a means to get back into the good book of the Americans. But still Americans would rather wait for someone whom they can really trust, and they finally got their man, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. The subsequent military attacks on Chinese fishing boats, threatening gestures towards the Malaysians over disputed water and islands, blaming the Malaysians for the second bombing in Bali, and Indonesian Islamic parties' condemnation of the jihadis, etc (their predecessors had the honor of helping the Americans to slaughter hundreds of thousands of suspected communists in Indonesia in the '60s), finally did it for the Americans. Darling is welcomed back and everything is forgiven. First on the to-do list would be the long-awaited arms deal, wouldn't it?
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Nov 28, '05)


Re Faith on trial in Malaysia [Nov 24]: As [Clive S] Kessler knows, Malaysia is a patchwork quilt of states with figurehead royals. It is not a reflection of a centralized, secular state that is Muslim Turkey. In spite of rapid economic development, Islam in Malaysia is an example of uneven development, depending on the progress of modern ideas and the benefits of liberal economics. Thus "singular success" exposes the tensions in Malaysia's Islam, tensions which have tugged throughout centuries among the Muslim school of laws and the role of religious authority in governance. In the post-modern paradigm of the center in opposition to the periphery, we find it blatantly evident in Malaysia. PAS [Parti Islam se-Malaysia] has a stranglehold in a state bordering on Thailand, which may be abetting Muslim terrorist in southern Thailand, and the more liberal states closer to Kuala Lumpur. Since the status of a Muslim in Malaysia is privileged by law and custom ... it is little wonder that forces line up for and against modernization in religious clothing. Saying this, however, it is imperative to point out that the "liberal" Anwar Ibrahim has contributed to the reinforcing of conservative trends within today's prosperous Malaysia. His insistence on Muslim dress, observance in spite of modern education and trappings, has given birth to a return to the source in older habits, customs, and tradition. This V S Naipaul presciently foretold in his Among the Believers. Malaysia, its model of economic development as a Muslim state notwithstanding, neglects the dynamic role of the Chinese as the motor of economic progress. It is in the nature of Islam to inform in a way which refuses to inform on the talents of society as a whole. It is one thing to say "mtub", a stagnant world view of fate; it is another to say, "Allah helps those who help themselves (and others)."
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 28, '05)


Kudos, and [I] trust ATol will continue its renewed seduction of present and potential readers with its newest addition of Notes and Quotes. At present, and reflective of the content in ATol's Notes and Quotes [Front Page, Nov 24], news reports in the US are increasingly including verbatim words of recriminations as to the much-vaunted Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first two quotes and notes (the one by [US Vice President Richard] Cheney and the second by [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld] succinctly put the blame of the invasion of Iraq on the individual ... liar who, in the end, could not prove he was not a liar. One is therefore forced to choose whether the decision to "free" Iraq was a premeditated one albeit based on questionable intelligence or whether the decision was not intelligently made. Some conundrum.
Armand de Laurel (Nov 28, '05)


Spengler: Yes, it is really sad that there are no longer any English-speaking Jews who also are masters of German so somebody can translate Franz Rosenzweig to your satisfaction [Indispensable handbook for global theopolitics, Nov 22]. Before [Adolf] Hitler, members of Our Crowd in New York City proudly kept up with their familial Mutterschprach and even went on vacations in Germany, for example to Baden Baden to take the waters. They were more welcome there than in Saratoga Springs, which did not admit Jews. At Central Synagogue, where I am a member, the minutes of the board of directors were kept in German right until the 1920s. The German Jewish refugee community in the Washington Heights section of northern Manhattan, New York, popularly called the Fourth Reich, was the home of Henry Kissinger's parents, Henry Kaufman's parents, and Doctor Ruth Westheimer (to name just a few of its best-known Kinder). Now the German Jews have virtually died out. The neighborhood attracts yuppies, Russian Jews, and Dominicans (from the island, not the religious order). And the only people who speak a related language, Yiddish, who might be able to do the translation are ultra-orthodox or unfamiliar with German culture. But against the death of 6 million Jews, this is a minor inconvenience. What you are really saying is that Rosenzweig's audience was murdered, not just his prose.
Vivian Lewis
(nee Oppenheim, a child of Washington Heights)
New York, New York (Nov 28, '05)


Can I just say how impressed I am at Spengler's essays, and at your printing of them? (I was thinking especially of the [Nov 22] essay on Franz Rosenzweig [Indispensable handbook for global theopolitics].) Their cultural value and intellectual level is exceptional, and a great service to your readers.
John Lamont (Nov 28, '05)


I have long wondered why it was that I enjoyed reading Spengler's articles on religion. His [Nov 22] contribution [Indispensable handbook for global theopolitics], has finally offered me a clue. I think I enjoy these articles because they provide me with an opportunity to understand how it is that so many, otherwise perfectly sane, people fervently believe the absurdities asserted by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. How does it come about that so many believe proclamations which if written down, as H L Mencken once put it, in the form of an affidavit, would have even rabbis, bishops and mullahs rolling on the ground with laughter? Spengler has finally cleared it all up for me - it is fear that gives rise to religion; fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, but mostly it is a narcissistic, craven, undignified, mewling fear of death followed by personal annihilation that is responsible for religion. This last, I believe, is at the heart of the violent reaction of American evangelicals, and other ignoramuses, to evolutionary theory. For the latter, if it teaches anything at all, teaches that all species on this planet are part of a vast ever-changing tapestry, and that every species, even the very arrogant H sapiens, will come inevitably to an end.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Nov 28, '05)


Regarding Spengler's article Indispensable handbook for global theopolitics [Nov 22], I would like to respond to Mahmood Ahmad [letter, Nov 22]. To quote him, "Islam is a threat to Christianity and Judaism in that its growth is attributed to its logic and appeal to human sense and reality." This brought two pertinent points in history on how Islam dealt with these two separate groups. The first [was] the treatment of [Muslims] towards the Hindu/Buddhist culture they encountered in India. Their invasions and the total destruction of Hindu kingdoms and Hindu people reached legendary proportions to the point that no other religion has an entire mountain range named the Hindu Kush or, translated into English, "The slaughter of the Hindus". The second point is African slavery. Long before the Europeans got involved in the slave trade. Muslims [were] active centuries before the Christians and many Islamic kingdoms had large populations of African slaves. Yet today one can hardly find an African descendent in the Middle East while [slaves'] descendents represent 10% of the US population. Whatever happened to the tens of thousands of Africans who were slaves in the Middle East?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 28, '05)


Have you thought of adding a horoscope column? Or a Chinese equivalent? Someone who could interpret current events in the light of, eg, Abu Mash'ar's Political Astrology: The Book of Religion and Dynasties (also called On Great Conjunctions). It would be at least as interesting as Spengler. Perhaps Franz Rosenzweig's books are a good source on the prejudices of assimilated German Jews in the early 20th century. But if he has not noticed that Islam is a way of life rather similar to the Jewish way of life (something as obvious as noticing that the sky is blue), then probably he is not a reliable source on the history of religions. After all, he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much, but he who is not faithful in little will not be faithful in much.
Lester Ness, PhD
Yunnan Normal University
Kunming, China (Nov 28, '05)


The Republican neo-cons masquerading as Americans and Christians have succeeded in destroying what was left of [the United States of] America, far more effectively than al-Qaeda could have ever dreamed. I have witnessed the corrosion and cancer that these so-called "patriots" have inflicted on the body politic, which, while never perfect, at least maintained a reasonable facade of quasi-democracy. Today it is an out-and-out cold war between all aspects of US society, rich vs poor, freedom lovers vs intolerant hypocrites, whites vs blacks, true democrats vs fascists, between all the -isms of the last 50 years. The imperialist war in Iraq, which never had anything to do with terrorism or WMD [weapons of mass destruction] or even Saddam [Hussein], is merely the last fantasy of the psychotics in the Bush administration, their delusional minds concocting a vision of Christian-Jewish neo-colonization in the Garden of Eden. That [the US] will be defeated is historically inevitable and, sad to say, entirely appropriate. Even sadder is that many Americans have been successfully tempted by the White House's Lords of the Sith.
Hardy Campbell
Houston, Texas (Nov 28, '05)


Miguel A Guanipa writes [letter, Nov 21]: "A clear indication that [US] Democrats may be losing steam due to Vice President [Richard Cheney]'s devastating [ly misleading] response to their criticism is ... that they were so quick to respond to his recent" - hypocritical - "charges of hypocrisy by mounting a new offensive on the premise that they were not properly informed about the reasons" the US should go to war against Iraq ... The response to Cheney's latest misleading smears was by decorated veteran [Congressman] John Murtha, who noted the fact that Cheney successfully dodged military service five times, yet smears as unpatriotic those who did serve, when they criticize the Bush-Cheney mishandling of their Iraq quagmire. Does Mr Guanipa view it as acceptable for chickenhawks to lie against the character of those who actually know something of war? Mr Guanipa continues: "If, as they claim, Democrats [and Republicans] did not have the same ... information [as President George W Bush] before deciding to give him the power to wage war, what does that say about their decision-making process?" Like Cheney, Mr Guanipa misleads: the vote was not "for war"; it was authorization to take specific mandated steps prior to that intended as last resort: use of military force. Bush signed the authorization, accepting and agreeing to the mandated steps - then ignored those to do as he intended since before [September 11, 2001]: invade Iraq. Those mandatory steps were required, preceding military action, should such be necessary, because even Republicans ... had doubts. At the same time, however, they knew a president would have more information than they, and trusted a president would not lie about the gravest decision a country can make: to go to war ... The responsible citizen puts country before party, rather than defend proven deceit by further deceit: our country has committed the gravest of war crimes, and - lies deny us knowing how many - tens of thousands, including innocent Iraqi citizens, are dead for the lies ...
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 28, '05)

Re Joseph J Nagarya's letter of November 21: I am not rich enough to make complete research and have hard evidence before writing a letter. Nor do I think all letter writers are doing that. And even if I had any evidence I would have already passed that to the US president to save him. I am a regular reader and simply by reading articles and news on the Internet do I make my presumption. Defending President [George W] Bush and his Iraq war requires elaborate explanations. Here are a few. After [September 11, 2001], and knowing well that terrorists were choosing unique and dangerous ways to fight, Bush had only two choices to make. One, make the US as a fort and live under the mercy of God or terrorists. Second, pursue the terrorists wherever they were and, by eliminating them, reduce the chances of the US again being attacked. Since a single miscalculation would cost the US dearly (a nuclear strike), he opted for the second. Well, now we are sure that Iraq has no WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But prior to the war, how could we be sure that Saddam [Hussein] had not possessed [them]? For a long time denying UN inspections and trying every way to delay the process, Saddam indeed made the world, particularly the US, believe that he was trying to hide something. And intelligence agencies like the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] could help the government to some extent but could not give a complete picture. There were fair chances that Saddam might have fooled the CIA. Remember the CIA was unable to predict India's nuclear explosion and American homeland security also was unable to predict the September 11 catastrophe. Hence it is up to the leaders to decide what is the best or least dangerous option to take. The Iraq war might have increased [the chances of a] terrorist strike, but reduced the chances of a nuclear strike. In medical terms, for a non-fatal disease, we take medicine only after the doctor confirms that we are indeed affected by the disease. But as far as a fatal disease (WMD) is concerned, taking preemptive medicine is the only option. We cannot expect a doctor (CIA) to say to a patient (Bush), "I confirm that it is positive (AIDS/Saddam has WMD), now you can take medicine (action)." It will be futile. Hence, sometimes exaggeration is required to serve the people. Women, in India generally, when their child is not eating food, would simply say, "If you don't eat, the demon will come and eat you." Legally you can call it a lie. But the purpose is good. It is for the American people and judges to decide whether Bush exaggerated/lied to serve his country or himself ... For Nagarya's other question, I would simply say, get the data of how many suicide bombings have taken place so far, and if more than 50% were committed (it must be 90%) by Muslims, you better name it an Islamic threat.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Nov 28, '05)


This note is ... a follow-up to my [Nov 8] letter suggesting your contributing writers submit articles on how the world economy will function once America receives its just deserts. It is easy to criticize the US for just about everything under the sun. It is another to explain how another nation, group of nations or a transnational consortium will provide the economic demand or security arrangements to fuel future world growth. If one is serious about a significantly constrained and/or diminished role for the US there has to be a credible "Plan B". If such a discussion as any merit to ATol editors, you will have to propose such a dialogue, not some reader like me.
Brad Lena (Nov 28, '05)

You could go right ahead and initiate a discussion, in the "Business and Economy" category of our readers' forum, The Edge. For our part, we're far from convinced that the US economy will implode. - ATol


Re Cheney tries to raise the stakes [Nov 23]: Nothing whets the appetite like the talk of war and the foolish acts of others. And so Vice President [Richard] Cheney has shifted into fourth gear in his attack against the Democrats calling for the beginning of withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. He acts as though he were Jacob wrestling the wicked and blasphemous notion that the Bush administration misled the [United States] into war. Mr Cheney [pulls] no punches. His rhetoric is arctic with disdain. He is willing to sacrifice the flower of America's youth in an ill-conceived and poorly executed war in the Middle East; to deprive of strength, and sap the morale of, America's military; to wrap his chest with the flag like the proud summer soldier that he is. His mind has dwindled to forgetfulness of his shameful conduct during the Vietnam War when he applied [for] and was granted six deferments, to escape serving his country in the military, in a war which in many ways resembles the one America is waging in Iraq.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 23, '05)


My nomination for the most arrogant statement of the year is from Spengler's [Nov 22] article, a review of The Star of Redemption by Franz Rosenzweig [Indispensable guide to global theopolitics]. He says, "That the translation is miserably inadequate is another matter; it is probably no worse than its prospective readers." So all prospective readers of Rosenzweig are "miserably inadequate"? No doubt he means that the whole intellectual world is miserably inadequate compared [with] the great and brilliant Spengler himself, the wonderful disciple who alone is able to fathom his Master's turgid prose and even more turgid ideas. I have another suggestion. Perhaps the reason that nobody reads or cares about Rosenzweig is that his ideas amount to mystical nonsense. As for Spengler, beware of the man who has only one idea and only one book. A fanatic is a fanatic whether he is a fundamentalist Christian, fundamentalist Muslim, or a fundamentalist Rosenzweigian.
Mark Snegg
Johannesburg, South Africa (Nov 23, '05)


Saqib Khan wrote ([letter] Nov 19): "But what about the journalists who would do anything, write anything or repeat everything and stoop as low to lick the toes of their bosses and submit to their wishes so as to fill their pay packets with handsome rewards? Honest journalism is a rarity these days and often found in the dustbins of the media moguls." At the protests to the then forthcoming war in Iraq held in Sydney throughout February 2003, I made similar observations to a prominent journalist. In the strongest terms he pointed out to me that irrespective of his personal views, he had a wife, children and a mortgage to cover. Further, his media mogul had already decided President George W Bush was going to have a war and by God everyone had better get behind it. He further added that no matter what he may write, his sub-editors would simply edit it to suit the "party line". I recollect the occasion for its lively and frank exchange of views and to be fair, I walked away with greater respect for this particular journalist but with an even greater amount of despair for how one mogul could have such vast influence over molding Australian public opinion, as it subsequently emerged. At the time there was apparently an unofficial competition among these journalists as to what reporting could be slipped past sub-editors, and indeed several journalists had already been fired. Blame the concentration of media ownership among the despots, not the lowly individual journalist who, without an exceptionally large personal profile, is unlikely to ever be able to write independently and without fear or favor in the current climate.
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Nov 23, '05)

Fortunately alternatives exist, especially on the Internet, as you know as a reader of this website. Yet indications abound that the battle for the right to freedom of information is far from over. See Thai media boss fights gag order (Nov 22). - ATol

Spengler [Indispensable handbook for global theopolitics, Nov 22] talks about a "community of blood" and the physical descendants of Abraham as if that conjunction were an unmitigated good thing. He escapes the implied comparison with Hitler's community of blood (which stemmed from Hitler's envy of Jews and of Judaism and which was derived from Judaism's community of blood) by talking about the need to convert inner pagans so that they may "live" [Franz] Rosenzweig's theopolitics. But it's disturbing to think that out of billions of human beings, only a few have a covenant with God, even if Christians seem to be allowed to go along for the ride. To me, all human beings are equal inside, but it seems that to Spengler they're not unless they convert to his way of thinking. Small wonder that in saying "never again" the Zionists have treated the Palestinians with a ferocity that they never showed the Nazis.
Harald Hardrada (Nov 22, '05)


I would agree with Spengler's review of global theopolitics [Indispensable handbook for global theopolitics Nov 22]. The recent wars are theological in nature [and as such] I don't take slips of the tongue like President Bush's "crusade" as mere slips but fundamental reasons for such wars. Islam is a threat both to Christianity and Judaism in that its growth is attributed to its logic and appeal to human sense and reality. Of course I am not talking about the Islam that is portrayed by suicide-condoning mullahs but the true, unadulterated Islam outlined in the Koran and practiced by the Holy Prophet and excellent exemplar (SAW). Muslims being powerless economically, militarily and intellectually (hence their following of the mullahs) are just a nuisance for Christians and Jews in present times. For Christian fundamentalists, the coming of Jesus is a prime event that is overdue. Some of the preconditions are Armageddon and of course the conversion of the Jews (and of course others such as Muslims) ... What's hilarious is that most fundamentalists, regardless of religion, think that they are somewhat in control of "godly" events and ultimately God himself. For instance the Christians are trying to force the return of Jesus by creating these Armageddon-like conditions that we are witness to in Iraq aka Babylon. The mullahs are no better, they are waiting for the Mahdi ... Anyway, to Spengler's point, yes this is a period of theopolitics and military theoconflicts. The Jews have not forgotten how the Christians ravaged their people over time, in the millions. But the Christians must bring about the [return] of Jesus and be his helpers in the conversion. So keep your eyes peeled for a major conflagration between the Jews and Christians. Before that, watch for either party courting Muslims. I would bet on the Jews courting Muslims, since they have had the best experience with them, for instance in the Spanish Inquisition.
Mahmood Ahmad (Nov 22, '05)


I refer to the article by Syed Saleem Shahzad Time to talk: US engages the Taliban [Nov 22]. [Americans] thought they would conquer those "ragheads" and "camel jockeys" because they are "inferior". American soldiers were told that they would be welcomed with garlands of roses and jasmine flowers and maidens waiting for them to copulate with when they arrived in Iraq and Kabul. Instead they were welcomed with RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and returned in body bags. No satin sheets! Now there is a kind of a rebellion taking place in US ruling circles because of the total failure of American and Israeli neo-cons' military adventures and the huge losses in the number of soldiers killed and maimed for life, [a multibillion]-dollar deficit resulting from the war and not a drop of oil flowing out of Iraq, which was ironically supposed to pay for the costs of the war. (Iraqis were supposed to pay for the war on themselves with their own oil!) The only thing that America has managed to achieve is to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan, rape, torture and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the two countries. These cruel acts have exposed America's hypocrisy and its true nature: the uncivilized terrorist warmongers that they are. This war was not only America's war, it was an imperialist war of the rich countries to grab the resources of the Muslim countries. For the Muslims around the world this was a wakeup call because it also exposed not only America, but the entire Western world, who were allied with the Americans and who played along with them in persecution of Muslims under the cover of "fighting terror". For all their technology and weapons of mass destruction such as depleted uranium and phosphor bombs and the Israeli advisers, the Americans and the British cannot defeat the armies of the Iraqi and Afghan barefooted resistance fighters armed only with stone-age and improvised weapons and in their deep belief in God. [The US] stands defeated and no amount of theatrics and bravado can hide the fact. "The bigger they are the harder they fall" still stands true.
Vincent Maadi
South Africa (Nov 22, '05)


Referring to Rise of the 'patriotic journalist' [Nov 19] by Robert Parry, I would like to comment. The historian Lewis Namier once said: "History never repeats itself; only historians repeat each other." But what about the journalists who would do anything, write anything or repeat everything and stoop as low to lick the toes of their bosses and submit to their wishes so as to fill their pay packets with handsome rewards? Honest journalism is a rarity these days and often found in the dustbins of the media moguls. It is a fact of modern times that more than often salacious and distasteful reporting has given birth in its place. I can recall reading daily reporting of distasteful and vulgar details of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair arousing public imagination and fancy; and not forgetting the "Watergate scandal" which forced [US president Richard] Nixon to resign and the poor emperor was stripped naked by the media; the post-[September 11, 2001] mood which the Bush administration exploited to depict any questioning of the war against Iraq as a sign of disloyalty and lack of patriotism, and where does all this lead to but point to politics playing mendacious games with the minds of the people who watch and read news headlines. Journalists are once again trying to repeat history and since the media these days enjoy a better approval rating than President [George W] Bush, it is the best time to go for the jugular vein and bare the emperor naked and let him walk all night alone feverishly in his bedroom ... [Those in the] Bush administration [who] remember history and Watergate are very nervous of the fact that the Iraq war is nearly lost and the situation in Afghanistan in near jeopardy and collapsing - it is the beginning of the end of a dream when a god in red appeared to him in a dream to announce that his mission was accomplished. I wish that the journalists could pursue the truth and forget about the size of their wallets or fat profits of their bosses when writing about almost anything.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Nov 22, '05)


Re India oils its Saudi Arabia ties (Nov 18) by Siddharth Srivastava: India has been chosen to play a regional role no less important to the Americans than Great Britain and Japan. It is certainly not a given that playing such a regional role would entail the alienations of Great Britain from Europe, Japan from her neighbors in Northeast Asia or India in South Asia. In fact a case can be made that being elevated to such a position would actually define and therefore enhance their roles as regional superpower. If India plays its cards right it will not lose the advantages of its traditionally close relationship with Russia, and its importance in the eyes of the Americans may even add some bargaining chips to its relation with China and its little neighbors in South Asia. Of course these would be the best scenarios for Great Britain in Europe, Japan in Northeast Asia and India in South Asia. India has done its calculations and it seems that this is the way its leaders think India should go. But this cozy, slowly evolving situation will likely take a turn for the worse for India if things come to a head in Iran earlier than most people thought. When the time comes to draw lines and take sides, India will find that before the advantages of closer relations with the US can accrue it will have to pay a price. As I see it, both Russia and China are likely to back Iran. Pakistan and the "stan" countries in Central Asia, for their own survival, will distance themselves from the US and its allies. China may take the opportunity to draw Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka into its orbit. India would be isolated and would be forced to tie itself tighter to the US juggernaut. What implications would that have for Indian domestic politics? For one thing, I think its future as a regional power will be hanging in the balance
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Nov 22, '05)


Moin Ansari [letter, Nov 21]: You are right that there is nothing spectacular in Saudi Arabia selling oil to India, but your extrapolation that the Saudi visit and the Iran UN vote are American attempts to bulldoze into India's foreign policy is far from the truth. In fact, the changes in Indian foreign policy are a clear sign that India is coming into its own with a clearer thinking of what is in India's interests and pursuing it instead of the fuzzy Nehruvian-Stalinist thinking of the past. Yes, oil is in India's interest, but its national security is also in its interest. Its position on the Iranian IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] vote was dictated by a careful reading of what is in India's national interest - read a non-nuclear Iran. Its decision to invite a Saudi royal to the Republic Day parade is a small sop for more oil. There is more cooperation in every sphere that India has with tiny Singapore (whose leader was a special invitee to last year's Republic Day parade) than it has with Saudi Arabia, which has nothing to offer except oil ... Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have become bastions of fundamentalist Islam and jihadist terrorism against India. In fact the reigning political opinion inside India is that the peace process with Pakistan is a sham and it's time to call it off. The same is being communicated to Bangladesh that [it] has to pay a price for its support of terrorism towards India. In fact the US will be more than pleased if India corrects its current softness towards militant Islam on its borders in both Pakistan and Bangladesh ... Most of the issues that have to do with India's neighbors are China-instigated (such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even Nepal) and hence you are right that China is India's first rival - as [former Indian defense minister George] Fernandes once claimed. The current UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government due to its communist party support (the left in India takes its orders from Beijing) cannot indict China. Further, it's the leftists in the Indian government who have prevented India taking decisive steps inside Nepal. There is an enormous convergence of Indian and [US] interests that leads to more cooperation between the two nations. That's what nations do - cooperate in their self-interest. It's similar to your own Pakistan cooperating with China - after all, who is a better WMD [weapons of mass destruction] proliferator than China in the world? If Indian politicians start becoming realpolitik practitioners, you will see a further "get aligned with the USA" happening, and nothing wrong with that, may I add.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Nov 22, '05)

Kudos to Asia Times Online for publishing this article [Rise of the 'patriotic jounalist', Nov 19]. Don't look for its like in any newspaper in the "land of the free". The Bush presidency with its senseless catastrophic war, its widespread adoption of torture and its countless other abominable actions is the price America has to pay for its loss of an independent adversarial press. The liquidation of the latter is the greatest disservice that American conservatives have inflicted upon American democracy.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Nov 21, '05)


[Re] Rise of the 'patriotic jounalist' [Nov 19]: A better headline for Robert Parry's article, to me, is "Resurrection of the 'patriotic' journalist". As Parry rightfully points out in his article, a flag of red, white and blue began waving in an American journalist's heart in the aftermath of [September 11, 2001]. Like a phoenix rising out of its ashes, journalism gave a wide berth to [President George W] Bush in the main, and few reporters viewed skeptically his administration's motives. And as such we see in the Valerie Plame investigation by mere happenstance the fair-haired boy of America's journalism, Bob Woodward, [have] his reputation sorely tarnished. And as a [counterpoint there is] George Clooney's heralding the courage of the dean of modern broadcasting news, Edward R Murrow, [unmasking] senator Joseph McCarthy's demagoguery. Patriotism takes on different coloring depending on the attitudes and sensibilities of the times. Christopher Lasch documented well the role [played] wittingly or unwittingly [by] journalists [fronting] for the CIA during the Cold War. And some of the more senior reporters in Washington today, readers would be surprised to learn, willingly served as surrogates for our [US] spy agency at international conferences. Earlier in time, we find isolationist America's journalists treated Herr Hitler with kid gloves, and not even his war in Europe would shake this country out of hidebound blindness until Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor. Yet Washington wouldn't have gone to war against Nazi Germany had not Hitler in a paroxysm of vanity declared war on the United States. A patriotic journalist is but a reflection of the country's mood. The rebel reporter, on the other hand, saves the trade from its venal self. How often has the legacy of [John] Peter Zenger been derisively mocked?
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 21, '05)


A clear indication that [US] Democrats may be losing steam due to Vice President [Richard Cheney]'s devastating response to their criticism is the fact that they were so quick to respond to his recent charges of hypocrisy by mounting a new offensive on the premise that they were not properly informed about the reasons why we [Americans] should have gone to war and summoning a hawkish Democrat to the front lines to combat these allegations ['Bring them home', Nov 19]. Which incidentally begs the question: If, as they claim, Democrats did not have the same kind of information that the president had before deciding to give him the power to wage war, what does that say about their decision-making process? Isn't it a self-indicting admission of gross negligence on their part to claim that even though they did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether or not invading another country was the right choice they went ahead and voted to give the president authority to make such a historically momentous decision? How gullible can they be?
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Nov 21, '05)



Elizabeth de la Vega's interpretation of the Scooter Libby case [Libby's 'some other dude did it' defense, Nov 19] is so inept it makes your news site look bad.
Suzanne
Connecticut, USA (Nov 21, '05)

Thanks for clearing that up. - ATol


Understand clearly, American troops - heroes all - were sent to Iraq as pawns. One hundred and fifty thousand pawns used to advance the obvious ambitions of the cabal in the White House and the "industrial military complex". Understand also what the cabal's ambitions are: (1) control of the oil resources in Iraq; (2) hegemony in the region; (3) empire-building. A modern-day Pied Piper and his cronies have been leading this nation [US] down the garden path of moral and cultural deterioration. Despicably adversely criticizing men who have actually served this country in uniform and who have bled in doing so. Those who truly (and here I hesitate to use the overly charged word "patriotic" for obvious reasons) love [the US] are the voices raised in opposition to the Iraq war. They are the voices expressing concern for those young men and women, many of whom are still not quite adults. They are expressing their desire to get these young heroes out of harm's way. Perhaps we should revisit the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. There seems to be a frightening lack of sensibility regarding the safety and protection of the young adults placed in harm's way. The decision to begin the Iraq war appears to have been made in a grossly incompetent cavalier fashion.
Richard J Abato (Nov 21, '05)


This is with reference to India oils its Saudi Arabia ties [Nov 18] by Siddharth Srivastava. There is nothing spectacular in Saudi Arabia selling oil to India. The Saudi visit is of course an American attempt to force India to find [alternative] sources of energy and not deal with Iran. The subtle but sure changes in Indian foreign policy are a clear sign of American pressure on India; a softer approach with Pakistan, hands off in Sri Lanka, toleration of an independent Nepal, toning down the rhetoric against Bangladesh, firing of a foreign minister, and talking to dissidents who were earlier branded as "terrorist". All this with a carrot of technology transfer. American policy wants India to toe the Exxon line on Iran. Two centuries ago, this is exactly what the East India Company did, while playing cat and mouse with the Nizam, the Marhattas, Bengal and Sirajud Daulah. The "Saudi card" is being played to show Iran that it is dispensable as an energy source. The metamorphosis in Indian policy is visible in the dissolution of the Indian-Iranian relationship that had helped place the Northern Alliance drug lords in power in Afghanistan. If India votes to send the Iranian case at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to the Security Council (November 24), this hostile action will destroy the Indian-Iranian nexus, and stop the Indian-Iranian cooperation in Herat and Mazzar Sharif in Afghanistan. An Iran at odds with India will have global consequences for India surrounded by a competitive China, a belligerent Pakistan, an angry Nepal, a hostile Bangladesh and a mad Sri Lanka. The dream of India as a "global power" is being tested at the regional level first. In South Asia, India's regional power is clearly being challenged. If India cannot get along with her neighbors, how could it send messages to regions that are far from her shores? With China joining the SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation], the balance in South Asia will surely move towards China, isolating India. Clearly China has superb relations with Pakistan, excellent relations with Bangladesh and good relations with Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. These long-term relationships will pay long-term benefits to China and the region. A pro-Russian Iran allied with China will surely cause issues for India.
Moin Ansari (Nov 21, '05)


[In the] current story by David Lenard, Copper trader throws market into confusion [Nov 17], I am cited as refusing to make a comment. I don't recall anyone from Asia Times [Online] contacting me regarding this story [but] we do have a comment which is quite specific: "We do not comment on market rumor and speculation." This is different from refusing to make any comment.
Adam Robinson
Head of Public Relations
London Metal Exchange
London, England (Nov 21, '05)

Robinson is not mentioned in the cited article. A subsequent article by David M Lenard, China to LME: Come get me, copper! (Nov 19), says "LME spokesman Adam Robinson refused to comment" on a Taipei Times report and remarks by former London Metal Exchange lawyer Mark Topfer. - ATol


In the article Raising the red scare in India's telecom sector [Nov 16] by Indrajit Basu, he states that [India] is considering banning [a] Chinese telecom company for security reasons and this may lead to India shooting itself in the foot according to [former regulatory authority member R R N] Prasad. I totally disagree. India's security concerns are a higher priority than its economic gains, especially in the light of the recent Indo-US alliance, and Mr Prasad is not informed on India's security reasons. The article doesn't point out exactly what security breaches this Chinese telecom company has committed or plans to commit to warrant such an action. If India Inc allows Huawei to enter [the] telecom sector without [safeguards] it will lose more, since the US will interpret this action as a danger to US dual-use technology transfer to India, which in the long run would cost India more in terms of economic and strategic gains. US intelligence has already taken steps to prevent Chinese espionage in the guise of doing business in the US. If India opens the gates to shadowy companies such as Huawei and ZTE, there is a strong possibility that the US will perceive India as a nation not capable of protecting vital national-security technologies and use that as an excuse not to transfer much-needed dual use technology to India.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 21, '05)


Shivanantham writes [letter, Nov 18]: "While the US president exaggerated the Iraq threat a little bit" - according to him and [Vice President Richard] Cheney, there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMD. That is shown by the evidence they knew at the time to be not "exaggeration" but knowing lie. Shivanantham continues: "Today we are living in a world where exaggeration has become a norm for everybody and every field." To the contrary, and though I accept his admission that it is true for Shivanantham, not "everybody" exaggerates - or minimizes, as does Shivanantham, as "exaggeration" known and substantiated lies: I [Lewis] "Scooter" Libby is indicted for perjury - lying, not "exaggerating" - false statement - lying, not "exaggerating" - and obstruction of justice by that means: lying, not "exaggerating" in relation to the illegal "outing" of a CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] operative. At the same time, there is no evidence that exceptions to Shivanantham's perfectly inclusive "everybody" such as Scott Ritter and special counsel [Patrick] Fitzgerald have either "exaggerated" or lied. Shivanantham continues further: "It is true that the US drive to remove, using military means, the regimes it does not like makes some countries wary of their security. And their desire to have nuclear bombs as a deterrent is truly justifiable." No "exaggeration" no lie: the CIA operative illegally "outed" by such as Libby had as her task tracking the very WMD about which the Bush War Crimes Family claimed ("exaggeration" or lie?) to be concerned vis-a-vis Iraq. That "outing" destroyed her career and that effort, which undermines US national security - not an "exaggeration" by a crime. Shivanantham then exaggerates - or "misstates"? - by attacking Muslims: "The Muslims' way of fighting (suicide bombers) also makes one shudder to think what will happen ... if WMD ever fall into their hands." No "exaggeration", no lie: the other half of the task of the CIA operative illegally "outed" was preventing WMD falling into the hands of terrorists (regardless whether actually, or falsely labeled as being, Muslim). "Though suicide bombings were attributed to [but not actually committed by?] other religions as well ... it is only Muslims who are not only relying more on this deadly option but also choosing public places as targets." No exaggeration, no lie: Not all Iraqis - or Palestinians - are Muslim; a significant percentage are Christians. If Shivanantham has evidence of any kind to support his perfectly inclusive assertion that suicide bombers are exclusively Muslim, he should present it.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 21, '05)

Who says North Korea is inscrutable? Certainly not Michael Rank [Minerals, railways draw China to North Korea, Nov 18]. China in squirrel-like fashion is investing in Pyongyang's riches in minerals and precious metals; in its infrastructure and port facilities. Yet Beijing is investing in a broader sense, and in a manner which follows Seoul's lead: to avoid the collapse of North Korea.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 18, '05)


Re More at stake than regime change [Nov 17]: Today we are living in a world where exaggeration has become a norm for everybody and every field. While the US president exaggerated the Iraq threat a little bit, Conn Hallinan seems to be falling into this same category. After the Afghan and Iraq wars and until peace can be established there, no American president can ever think of another war (Iran, Syria). It is true that the US drive to remove, using military means, the regimes which it does not like makes some countries wary of their security. And their desire to have nuclear bombs as a deterrent is truly justifiable. But one will have to bear in mind another aspect as well. The Muslims' way of fighting (suicide bombers) also makes one shudder to think what will happen to the world if WMD [weapons of mass destruction] ever fall into their hands. Though suicide bombings were attributed to other religions as well, now they have virtually given up that choice. It is only Muslims who are not only relying more on this deadly option but also choosing public places as targets. I cannot exactly read what is in President [George W] Bush's mind (whether it is oil or world security), but I share his views that letting Muslim dictators have dangerous [weapons] will certainly find its way to the terrorists, and these dictators too cannot be trusted [to use such weapons only] as a last option ... Since both the US and Iran have genuine grievances to address, I suggest Islamic regimes must be prevented from having these WMD, and to ensure security for them, the UN can forge a group of elite countries (comprising the top 50 economies, because they are going to be hurt more in any turmoil around the world) and if any Islamic or other countries try to tread a dangerous path, then this group be given authority to decide what course of action needs to be taken. More important, this group must be allowed to vote in secrecy (many countries would have preferred to support or oppose the Iraq resolution, but they cannot say so openly because it will invite American or terrorist wrath), so the countries can judge any resolution on its merit ... If any country violates that resolution, then other member countries must join the war to save the disputed country.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Nov 18, '05)


Spengler (Why Western governments fall apart, Nov 15), calls the governments of the old Atlantic alliance weak, [and] the West cannot field a single functioning government. Of course they're weak now, [but] they weren't weak prior to the Iraq invasion while people still believed all the hype. We all remember France did not agree to the invasion, [nor] did Germany. How is it that days of rioting across France aren't running out of steam? How is it that an immigrant population of dustmen (Spengler's words) whose children burn cars out of frustration can outsmart the French politicians including police? Not once or twice, but for weeks. It's simply laughable to blame the disillusioned youth from North Africa. Sure, they're the tool to torch cars. The French and German arson attacks are well planned and coordinated in the two NATO countries that opposed the war in Iraq. But can you tell us who besides the youths are lighting the fires and the passions there?
Leo Meister
Bern, Switzerland (Nov 18, '05)


Although ATimes rightly dissuades readers from using the Letters section as a debating room, I feel recent comments regarding Mao Zedong merit further discussion. "Long Live North Korean Self-Reliance" (aka Juchechosunmanse) writes [Nov 17] that Mao Zedong was a good leader because "Chairman Mao is still widely admired and respected by millions of Chinese today" and because Mao laid the groundwork for China's current "rise". Here we have the crux of the Chinese communists' argument, that Mao and his revolution were great for China. The communists and their apologists credit Mao, not Hiroshima, for Japan's defeat in World War II. They deny the vast crimes against China's people and culture carried out by the fanatical, benighted communists under Mao. They deny the horrors of the "Great Leap Forward" and the Cultural Revolution. They are indifferent to the extermination of China's classical culture. Even today, [Joseph] Stalin, [Hideki] Tojo, [Adolf] Hitler and [Osama] bin Laden are adored by millions. Does this absolve them of their crimes? I am saddened that today, in the year 2005, we still cannot arrive at a consensus on the great evils of fascist and communist totalitarianism. These ideologies justified the vilest misdeeds on the basis of national strength, much as China's government continues to do today.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 18, '05)


Saqib Khan writes [letter, Nov 15]: "Jordan has overtaken Israel as America's most trusted and important source of intelligence gathering in the Middle East and has gained many favors from [President George W Bush] for its vital collaborations with the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] in providing intelligence regarding al-Qaeda's insurgency in Iraq." According to that same CIA, the Iraq insurgency consists of some 26 different factions, and well over 90% of insurgents are Iraqis. Perhaps Bush would prefer Saqib Khan's theory to the facts provided him by the CIA, as he has shown he has no interest in facts which don't support his stubbornly [uneducated] intentions. The majority of the world prefers the facts, and the large majority in the US prefers the same, therefore believes, on the evidence, that the "failure of intelligence" was in the White House, not in the intelligence community - and CIA - Bush's dishonest efforts to blame the CIA and everyone but himself notwithstanding. Jakob Cambria writes [Nov 15]: "Ulan Bator will make a gift of a fine stallion which [Bush] can ride on his ranch." For one, Bush's Crawford, Texas, residence is not a ranch; it is a photo-op stage setting bought for that purpose as part of his false campaign image. For another, Bush is afraid of horses, does not ride them, and has none on his photo-op stage setting. You confuse him for the other disingenuous cowboy, [Ronald] Reagan, who actually could ride horses. Ben A writes [Nov 15]: "Bush will retire victorious in the war against terrorism and his legacy will not waste away into history as a failure or marked with scandal." Up to 70% disagree with Mr A, as it is increasingly clear he belongs to an extremely well-healed and loud-mouthed minority which supports, among other crimes, Bush's authorization of the war crime of torture. And now we find that the oil-corporation executives who testified to the Senate that they had no part in the secret Cheney "energy task force" were lying on that point. All while Bush, et al, continue to lie against the known evidence, which continues to accumulate, that he lied the US into illegally invading and occupying the non-threatening sovereign nation of Iraq. Only if the US's history is a lie will Mr A's effort to whitewash the realities succeed. I suggest he not count on such an outcome, as the 70-plus percent of US citizens, and the world, are against, and actively exposing, the Bush War Crimes Family and Imaginarium's lies which prop up his dreamland fiction. Not even [Richard] Nixon faced such a unified majority against his criminality. Bush may escape impeachment; but he is going down before the end of his second term of imposing lawless anti-American thuggery and butchery on the US and the world.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 18, '05)

I want to comment on Joshua Eisenman's and Devin T Stewart's article China-Japan oil rivalry spills into Africa [Nov 17]. They argued that China has been totally disregarding political development, governance and transparency in Africa in its pursuit for oil there. That's quite true. To put it in perspective, you have to understand that it has been one of the cornerstones of Chinese diplomacy not to interfere in other countries' domestic affairs, generally. Also may I remind you that China does not have the luxury some of the Western countries and Japan have in securing oil supplies: most of the petroleum suppliers are "allies" of the United States. So China has to diversify its oil sources as much as possible in fear of a US-led embargo and blockade. And since China's oil routes and sea lanes are often shadowed and jeopardized by the everlasting presence of the US Navy, China always finds itself scrambling for oil deals around the world (and often by overpaying) in order to hedge from possible hostile moves by the US and its allies when the crunch time comes. Maybe when China is no longer a poor, Third World developing country it will be able to help spread wonderful things such as democracy, transparency and interference around the globe. Cha-am Jamal [letter, Nov 16] spoke about Chairman Mao [Zedong] causing more harm than the Japanese did and an emerging China rising from the grave that Mao dug. I am sorry, Mr Jamal, the very fact that Chairman Mao is still widely admired and respected by millions of Chinese today might very well dispute your statement. So it's either you missed it or those millions of Chinese are stupid that they can't tell right from wrong. Without the "grave" Mao dug for China, there would have been no ground for China's rise today - it would probably be a much poorer country that was heavily exploited by the West, making a living by exporting nothing but raw materials and resources. As for Mr Mullins, who is keen on seeing [the US] whopping China's ass, I have to apologize on behalf of all 1.3 billion dumb Chinese people for Spengler's remarks, it's totally uncalled for. Please forgive him. ATol said it the best: "Spengler is Chinese and therefore not very smart." Now, Mr Jamal and Mr Mullins, let's continue our discussion on The Edge.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Nov 17, '05)


This is with reference to Spengler's Why Western governments fall apart (Nov 15). I must commend Spengler on a well-researched and well-written article free of any polemics ... As a statistician I wholeheartedly disagree with Spengler on his "dull" comment. The "sample" of Pakistanis/Indians/Chinese in the USA does represent the "universe" in Pakistan, India or China. To the Spengler eye, rural China, or rural India, may be full of "dull" individuals, but that does not translate into "dumb" Chinese or dumb Indian. The Pakistani farmer works hard, 16 hours a day, in sweltering heat and frigid winters. The Indian rickshaw driver or programmer and the Chinese laborer shed blood, sweat and tears all day and all night. Statistically speaking the same number of geniuses are born in Bangalore, Beijing and Balakot as there are in Broadway, Brazil or Birmingham. [The United States of] America, the land of opportunity, offers the best of us [the opportunity] to flourish and flower. Many Indians drive cabs and go to school. Thirty years ago I delivered pizzas, and this paid for my bachelor's [degree]. Employer tuition-reimbursement programs paid for my post-grad engineering degree, my MBA [master of business administration], and my partially completed PhD, but the effort was mine. All of this hard work eventually translated into affluence and above-average lifestyle. However, I had to work "two jobs" all my life. If I had been in Pakistan, the Spengler eye could have defined me as "dull". American Muslims didn't just "get" graduate degrees. They earn them with hard work. The prophet Mohammed, emphasizing the importance of education, said "Go to China if you have to." Entire Muslim societies learned English or French and transformed themselves in dress and culture and cuisine. This has brought rewards to Malaysia, Indonesia, Dubai and others. The legacy of colonialism and corruption and fratricide stops many [reaping] the harvests of education. However, this is not limited to Muslims. Indians, Sri Lankans, Chadians, Ghanaians and Congolese also face similar impediments to growth. The qualitative difference between the American Muslim and the French Muslim is not that American Muslims have graduate degrees. The difference is that American Muslims strived to come to America and love America and what it offers us. The French Muslim was awarded French citizenship as a reward for betraying the Algerian independence movement. Blatant racism in France and Europe keep the poor Africans and Muslim in ghettos. [The US], on the other, hand has plenty of outlets out of poverty for hard-working people.
Moin Ansari (Nov 17, '05)


Re Why Western governments fall apart [Nov 15]: Every nation has a purpose in existing. Once the government no longer follows the original agreement and purpose it was founded under, it starts to decay. This is true everywhere, from Rome to the dynasties of China. When a government loses touch with [its] mandate, people find it easier to cope with the betrayal than to demand that the government return to the founding agreements. All governments are successful only as long as they follow the mandates they are given. When they lose their way, they begin to fall apart. The larger they are, the longer they take to fall apart. The same is true for all institutions, corporations and relationships. Japan has violated its agreement for people to exchange labor and loyalty for lifetime employment and paternal corporations. Japanese people have lost their enthusiasm for their relationship with their corporations, among other institutions. They may appear strong now, but they are losing, not gaining, strength, though this might not be apparent for a while.
Joe Prizzi (Nov 17, '05)


[Todd] Crowell articulates the tenets of orthodox Confucianism so well [The Confucian renaissance, Nov 16]. Just wish he would have included the importance of the "rectification of names" and have addressed the distortions of the Master fostered by the neo-Confucians as well.
Lawrence Driscoll (Nov 17, '05)


Patrick Mullins in his letter of November 16 shows a sick mind in "looking forward" to seeing China invade Taiwan as if he enjoys seeing Chinese casualties on both sides. He also displays low intelligence in not realizing that of the 900-odd steel towers carrying electricity in Taiwan, only a few need to be knocked out by missiles to paralyze the whole province.
Li (Nov 17, '05)

Reading Jaya Prakash's article [Singapore learns hard lesson, Nov 16] raises a question. Is he speaking of the faculty-expressed opinion that Warwick University not accept Singapore's offer of land in Jurong for a campus? Or is it the decision of the university administrators and officers to reject Singapore's invitation to build a Warwick East in Singapore? Is Warwick forsaking the strategic location of Singapore in order to tap the China market? [Would] university fees it would charge there equal those that students in the United Kingdom pay? Warwick is a second-string university with good credentials. Singapore offers an oasis to attract upwardly mobile students from China with fat purses. A campus in Southeast Asia would kill a second bird: it would relieve Warwick of the presence of students from overseas [as] the United Kingdom does not welcome foreigners with open arms. It is true that academic freedom is of high value, but it seems to me that the ringing song of a guinea is more appealing [than] accepting Singapore's unspoken conditions for a Warwick in Asia.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 16, '05)


Spengler [Why Western governments fall apart, Nov 15], in blaming the "voters" for failed governments, is like the waiter who works in the restaurant that has only two things on the menu, fried horseshit and baked horseshit, who then yells when you leave in disgust, "it's your fault you're still hungry, you didn't eat your supper!"
Wadosy (Nov 16, '05)


I just read Why Western governments fall apart [Nov 15]. I was wondering how you could call America dumb, because that would mean that Asia is controlled by dumb people. China cannot take being a second-rate country; as soon as [it comes] to terms with that [its] life will be a lot easier. I also look forward to China invading Taiwan, because I'm going to enjoy watching [it] try to stop America from kicking [its] ass. China may think it would have a chance, but as soon as [it realizes] most of [its] military is from the 1950s and '60s, it would be a massacre. Get over not being a superpower - maybe some day, guys, but not if you invade Taiwan, because most of your military would not exist if you [did] that.
Patrick Mullins (Nov 16, '05)


In reference to Syed Saleem Shahzad's article [Al-Qaeda tightens its grip in Iraq] of November 15, I would like to comment. I can understand the insane motivation of [Osama] bin Laden and his followers: it is the desire for re-recognition of glorious Islamic civilization that ruled the world for over 10 centuries and civilized the world from darkness to light in every sphere and aspect of life. It is the decline and the gap in the prestigious ancient Islam and the Islam of today, and what caused its splendor to ... decline. The wound is much deeper than thought; it is the sheer humiliation felt not only by al-Qaeda's followers but also by a substantial numbers of Muslims around the globe for being constantly depicted as outcasts by the Western lewd media. It is this inscription of humiliation in the innermost core of their being and denial of dignity to the religion of Islam that incites virulent rage against the West and in particular the USA since President [George W] Bush instigated his war on terror by invading Afghanistan and killing over 40,000 innocent Afghan Muslims in order to pursue and kill Osama bin Laden. They believe that Bush is a homicidal megalomaniac and wants to take over the world and the USA is the world's biggest terrorist; and Osama is defending his territory against the evil intentions of the West and their boot-licking regimes in the Islamic world. The [September 11, 2001] terrorists were the product of Americanization - digital technology, IT [information technology] mastery, Internet skills and [training] by American instructors in flying commercial planes - and in many respects photocopies of American technocratic civilization. They used their obtained skills against an imperialistic power that they considered was going to colonize the Arab world and inflict humiliating defeat on them and rule them through greedy puppet regimes, which became obvious with the illegal invasion of Iraq and its occupation, and subsequent killing of over 150,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children by the American and coalition forces. The Muslim young and the new breed of radicals want equality with the Western counterparts and no less; [they] cannot grasp the fact that [the Muslim world], once a leader over its centuries-old adversary, should submit to his immoral dominance. The aristocracy of the Muslim world is happy accepting this dominance of the infidels, but these new fanatics of Osama bin Laden have the misconceived notion that they can liberate their brethren from humiliation by violent means. It is an audacious struggle but bound to fail because terrorism will result in nothing but bloodshed of the innocent Muslims. This resentment will linger on and violence is not an end to achieve the objectives. First, it is essential that Muslims detach themselves from this stereotype notion and a kind of entropy of mind that all is good in my garden and everything bad in my neighbor's garden. If Muslims want to regain their lost glory and dignity, they must become more inventive - as they were once the leaders in science, medicine, astronomy and engineering etc - and unite under the banner of the glorious Koran and not [be] counted as people of different sects forbidden in Islam.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Nov 16, '05)


The Chinese government's advice to Japan is that it should learn from Germany's postwar rejection of [Adolf] Hitler and stop worshipping tyrants. They are referring to the annual visit to the Yasukuni shrine by [Prime Minister Junichiro] Koizumi. The Chinese are walking on thin ice. After all, the other two members of the trio of modern mass-murderer tyrants are [Josef] Stalin and Mao [Zedong]. One of these individuals is widely worshipped in China even more so than paying annual visits to a shrine. It should also be noted that this individual caused more harm to China than the sum total of harm caused by Japanese aggression. China is only now emerging from the grave he dug for this great nation. All nations have skeletons in their closets. No useful purpose can be served in using them as a basis for forming foreign policy, particularly when the offending historical events are old, moldy, and irrelevant.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Nov 16, '05)


Former [US] president Jimmy Carter said it all when he asked the question, "What in the world has happened to our country?" In the past five years of total Republican rule of the US, we have managed to lose everything that was worth having in a country. The top echelons of our government are in the control of the military-industrial complex. Our Justice and Education departments are riddled with ultra-right-wing Christian ideologues. We have the Christian Bible taking precedence over science. We have Gestapo-like police departments and federal agencies spying on the entire population. We have corporations writing laws by congressional proxy and ridding themselves of all social responsibilities while writing their own corporate-welfare checks. We have an ultra-rich elite getting tax breaks paid for by the working poor. We have, at a cost of [US$]400 billion a year, grandmothers getting their colons probed at airports in order to retroactively justify an illegal immoral war. We have oil companies recording record profits from $60 oil while seniors freeze in the dark. We have the most expensive medical care on the planet and we have more people without hospital access than any other modern state. We don't support environmental treaties, nor do we comply with the Geneva Conventions. We support torture and incarceration without charge or trial. We do war-criminal acts such as bomb water supplies and hospitals and shoot civilians for political cause. We don't support the International Court of Justice because we are cowards. We are hypocritical extortionists in much of our foreign policy. In short, Mr Carter, the answer to your question is, "It's gone!"
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 16, '05)

In [Why Western governments fall apart, Nov 15], Spengler writes, "Only in Beijing and Tokyo do we find strong governments in powerful nations." China's and Japan's "strength", or rather the strength of their central governments, stems from a recent history of their rulers ruthlessly waging war against native culture. In their pursuit of national strength, the communists in China and the Meiji in Japan both violently uprooted entire ways of life and extinguished millennia of tradition. One result is deep malaise and misery of the Japanese and Chinese people. Europe, despite the best efforts of fascists and communists, has so far kept alive its traditions. Europe's leaders have served their people far better, despite their "weakness". Spengler's analysis of the difference between American and European immigration ignores geography. Poor people with little means immigrate to nearby countries in large numbers. The vast majority of immigrants to [the United States of] America are unskilled and uneducated people from Latin America. The vast majority of immigrants to Europe are unskilled and uneducated people from Africa and the Middle East. As such a devotee of demographics, Spengler seems painfully ignorant of its basic principles. Finally, Spengler has invented a version of [US] history to suit his social-Darwinist leanings. The "self-selected" people who created [the United States] were "huddled masses" from Europe. The English, Irish, Scottish, German, Italian and Eastern European peasants and workers who created [the US] were anything but the rich and famous of their home countries. The well-to-do stayed in Europe. It was an unlikely motley crew of refugees who built [the US], not some awesome assemblage of supermen.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 15, '05)


Spengler's article of November 15 [Why Western governments fall apart] is very interesting. But where is the other half of the equation? What qualities of strength do the people of China and Japan possess/exhibit that are making these countries leaders now? When did these traits come into play? Don't these countries have a history of "burying" the individual? That sounds fear-based, not coming from strength. Anyway, it would be helpful to hear his views on this to better assess the premise of [the November 15] piece. (I'm not disagreeing with him, just want the full picture.)
Godfrey (Nov 15, '05)


Not everyone in the world views Americans as "obstreperously anti-intellectual, and [who] chose a president with whom they can identify" [Why Western governments fall apart, Nov 15]. In fact, given the alternative candidate in the 2004 elections, it appears that the majority of the intellectual individuals in the United States voiced their opinion and voted for the person most suitable for the job. Furthermore, President [George W] Bush will retire victorious in the war against terrorism and his legacy will not waste away into history as a failure or marked with scandal.
Ben A
USA (Nov 15, '05)


Ira Straus has taken a flight to fantasy [Nixon to China, Bush to Kyoto? Nov 15]. George W Bush is a man of single resolve. Unlike [Richard] Nixon, he has not a nimble mind. He is steadfastly opposed to the Kyoto Accord. Mr Bush is off on a trip to Asia. [Junichiro] Koizumi will be in his corner because Tokyo is isolated and in bad odor with Japan's neighbors. Hu [Jintao] full well knows that he is meeting a weakened American president, and will not be of a mind but to throw him a crumb of little consequence. Roh [Moo-hyun] will mouth words of sympathy, while at the same time broadening Seoul's approach to North Korea. Mr Bush will find a welcome more befitting his Texan background in Mongolia. Ulan Bator will make a gift of a fine stallion which he can ride on his ranch ... Which is all to say that Mr Bush's America is short on expertise when it comes to Asia. Mr Bush ... is a man who will not back down from a position set in stone. Unlike Nixon, whose sleight-of-hand diplomacy got [the US] out of Vietnam, Mr Bush is sinking in the quicksand of the swamp of his Madison Avenue hype of axes of evil.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 15, '05)


[Syed Saleem Shahzad:] I have just read your article [Al-Qaeda tightens its grip in Iraq, Nov 15]. You mention the possibility of greater cooperation between Iranian elements and the insurgency in Iraq. However, if the death of [Ezzat Ibrahim al-]Douri strengthens the Zarqawi-led al-Qaeda, wouldn't this only lead to further strain in Iran-Iraq ties, as [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi has called for a civil war against Shi'ites?
Anand Raythatha (Nov 15, '05)

Al-Qaeda deviated a lot from its main plans, primarily after the US invasion of Afghanistan in which its communications were disturbed. Now there is a discourse within al-Qaeda on many issues and as things are unfolding, Asia Times Online will present many things in the near future, including Shi'ite-Sunni conflicts and al-Qaeda's discourse. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Syed Saleem [Shahzad]: I enjoy reading your authoritative articles on the Middle East. Please write more. I have two questions for which I have not been able to get an answer from any scholar in the US, where I live: (1) Someone has claimed in an article published in Singapore that Shi'ites traveling on the way to Mecca for the hajj always ride on buses without the benefit of a roof, whereas the Sunnis make no distinction as to the architecture of the buses they ride for the same purpose. Given the desert heat, I find it hard to believe. Would you please confirm or deny such an allegation? (2) What is the attitude of the Seveners (Ismailis) toward the Iraq war? Are there substantial communities of Seveners in Iraq?
Du Ren (Nov 15, '05)

There is no issue of architecture of buses for Shi'ites either. They use normal buses. There is no indigenous presence of Bohras or Ismailis in Iraq. They come and visit the shrines and go back to their native countries. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


I refer to Ehsan Ahrari's [Jordan bombs a terrorist master-stroke, Nov 11] and would like to answer his, "questions of the hour ... why was Jordan targeted, and why now?" The answer is very simple and it does not take long to guess: Jordan has overtaken Israel as America's most trusted and important source of intelligence gathering on the Middle East and has gained many favors from [the] Bush administration for its vital collaborations with the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] in providing intelligence regarding al-Qaeda's insurgency in Iraq and also assisting Mossad to fight the terrorism on Israel's soil. The ... visit of Condoleezza Rice to Jordan [was] to announce America's appreciation and also to thank Jordan for actively participating in thwarting terrorist attacks, interrogating suspects and giving CIA officers extensive access to Jordan General Intelligence Directorate headquarters. Al-Qaeda now considers Jordan as much an enemy as Israel because of its increasing usefulness to the CIA and King Abdullah's licking President [George W] Bush's toes with obedient delight. Following the horrendous triple bombing, King Abdullah is being presented by his royal court as a new strongman of Jordan and of the Middle East who should be trusted by the West and at the same time helped to consolidate his power base and authority over his subjects. The English-speaking king who feels more comfortable in Savile Row suits and King's English accent is riding a wild horse in building stronger ties with the Americans along with its peace treaty with Israel. A message from al-Qaeda on [the] Internet [that said the] three hotels had been targeted because they were created by the "tyrant of Jordan as a back-yard garden for the enemies of religion", Jews and crusaders, is a stomach-churning and frightening new development for the Jordanians.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Nov 15, '05)

It's hard to argue with the main postulate of Aaron Glantz's thesis [Why the Iraqi quagmire is no Vietnam, Nov 12]. Iraq is no Vietnam. In fact, it's as far from Vietnam - culturally, ethnically, politically and geographically - as two countries on this planet can get from each other. Still, to imply that Iraq has a better ending than Vietnam is wrong. Quite likely, it'll be worse. Quite possibly, much worse. While Vietnamese resistance was fed by reasonably rational forces - nationalism and by-then-in-vogue socialism - the Middle East is a cauldron of the most irrational and enduring faith-based enmities. Historically, religious wars are the longest-lasting and blindingly passionate conflicts of them all. I don't see how this can be good. Granted, Arabs are tribal and are easy to manipulate. They don't really like each other. But it's not as conducive a factor as it is supposed to be. While in the short run it can spare the US from an outright military defeat and postpone an inevitable reckoning, it also ensures that [the US] occupation will have to stay in place longer than its all-volunteer army and Marine Corps can bear. It means that many more multibillion[-dollar] supplementals - all borrowed from foreigners - will have to be passed. The eventual drag on the economy is bound to erode American self-esteem and its will to persevere. It always does when one isn't fighting for his own land. On top of that, the very lack of Iraqi national cohesion - in contrast to the Vietnamese - is making any effort to keep Iraq as a single country an impossible and futile one, particularly if one predicts that America will sooner or later find itself sabotaged by its most loyal allies - the Kurds - on that very front. Ironically, US military strategists would probably love a chance to re-fight Vietnam all over again. Unfortunately, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan may be more fitting for study.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Nov 14, '05)


Aaron Glantz's arguments are indefensible when it comes to talking about the failure of America's war in Vietnam [Why the Iraqi quagmire is no Vietnam Nov 12]. It is true that Iraq has no charismatic figure like Ho Chi Minh; no militant communist party hardened and disciplined by a long struggle against France, Japan and the United States. Yet Ho did play the nationalist card in carrying out decades-long warfare against a foreign presence in his country. What we are seeing in Iraq is the savvy mix of nationalism and the weapons of anarchy of the weak against a more powerful enemy. It has more in common with the paean of utter exaltation of violence and mindless destruction which Franz Fanon praised in his Les Damnes de la terre (The Wretched of the Earth), and to which Jean-Paul Sartre put his imprimatur [in] his introduction to this text which a generation ago was read in America's universities. On the other hand, in spite of its appearance of military invincibility, [the United States of] America has many weaknesses, which is best summed up as waging war on the cheap. Inadequate planning. Understaffed troop levels. Inadequate materiel. A tactical approach to a popular insurrection, when a focused strategy is called for. Consequently, [President George W] Bush has dug himself [into a] hole which he has no intention of abandoning. Washington can win but at a price no democratic nation is willing to pay: a scorched-earth policy, [or] to bring up a comment from the war in Vietnam, "We destroyed the village to save it."
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 14, '05)


I enjoyed reading Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article US drives a wedge between Russia, Iran [Nov 12]. I wonder, however, to what extent Russian policy is currently hanging in the balance between "Westernists" and "Eurasianists" on Iran. Who are these people? Where can we read some of their views? Is President [Vladimir] Putin "balancing" between these two groups? Let's remember that these are not states but, tenuously, foreign-policy groups - possibly united by a convergence of views, not of interests backed by power - against or between which it isn't necessary to "balance". Also, how can it be possible that the US might work out some sort of a quid pro quo with Russia for Central Asia and the Caucasus if some of the key decisions are to take place in two weeks? That President Putin might accept an American promise rather than deed would be unconvincing. American expansionism into the region is one of the forces behind Russian cooperation with Iran. And the US has no plans to freely abandon it. Russia has lived with a nuclear US and China, and now Pakistan, among several states, and even if its leadership has apprehensions about a nuclear-armed Iran, there are also geopolitical benefits as, unlike the US warnings to Russia, Iran has not undertaken an expansionist policy into the Caucasus and Central Asia, the US has. Iran has cooperated with Russian in Azerbaijan and was also cooperating with Russia against the Taliban at a time when the US was still flirting with that regime. Iran has shown understanding and restraint towards Russia's campaign against separatism and terrorism in the north Caucasus to a greater extent than the US or EU. Strategically positioned and sitting on huge oil and gas reserves, Iran now finds US forces to its west, south, and east. In the light of the US attack on Iraq, not having nuclear weapons is a security risk for Iran. Russia, and increasingly China, cannot afford an American attack on Iran. The current state of US-Russian relations is not worth abandoning another geopolitical interest in the region while the US and EU continue to have knee-jerk reactions to any expansion of Russian economic and political influence in the former Soviet Union.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Nov 14, '05)


This is with reference to US backs its tarnished golden boys in Iraq by Ehsan Ahrari (Nov 12). Our [US] government has replaced Saddam Hussein's totalitarian but secular government with an Iranian-led theocracy in Iraq. Allowing the henchman of Mr Hussein, [Iyad] Allawi, to run a Stalinist government in Iraq will surely sends the wrong message to the world and to the Iraqis. After "liberating" Afghanistan ... this warlord-led "drugocracy" threatens our children with drugs in our home towns. Why does the US government give [Hamid] Karzai a free pass on his drug policies and not force him to create a more open and drug-intolerant society in Afghanistan? The drugs fund the Taliban and other antisocial elements over there and over here ...
Moin Ansari (Nov 14, '05)


Re Ehsan Ahrari's piece Jordan bombs a terrorist master-stroke [Nov 11]: The author writes: "Much of the Jordanian populace, like that of Pakistan, nurtures sympathy in various levels for al-Qaeda." The statement is really quite misleading. Most Pakistanis are moderate and those who have put Islamist parties in power have not done so because they necessarily agree with the ideologies but simply because the [alternative seemed] a worse choice.
Nadia Shoeb (Nov 14, '05)


Re Indian left out of step over US exercises [Nov 11]: What once the Indian communists vigorously opposed (the Congress, computers, capitalism) all became a thing of past and now they [have] tactically accepted all of them. Though I doubt whether their anti-Americanism will fade away with time, the Indian communists will be exposed if they don't realize the anomaly in their stand. If they are per se opposed to any joint military exercise with any other countries, then why didn't they oppose such exercises when India had [them] with the Chinese and Russia? And ironically the communists too are following the same American way of disregarding majority views. In the Iraq issue, if the US ignored the world (majority) opinion, in India, the left parties too are disregarding majority views (Congress, BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and many smaller political parties are supportive of this joint military exercise) and trying to push their own agenda.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Nov 14, '05)


Re When will 'South Asia' disappear? [Nov 10] by Farid Bakhat, I wish to bring to your notice the following points. (1) For understanding South Asia we need to keep in mind that if the Eisenhower doctrine produced a golden egg in Jordan, the Kissinger doctrine produced a diamond egg in Communist China. The effect [has] been enormous and long-lasting. (2) Indian history has been full [of] foreign invasions and so it's natural that the country builds up a strong defense. (3) For the complex geopolitical nature, it's impossible to prevent terrorist attacks in India, particularly when only those who attack American and Pakistani interests are called "terrorists". (4) The head of state in India is a born Muslim, the prime minister a Sikh and the most important political leader is a born Christian of Italian origin. The majority community has accepted this arrangement. (5) The BSE index will move up and down, but the fundamentals are strong. The current 7% plus growth will go up if the initiative to build up infrastructure and the rural employment scheme really work well. (6) If we look at the history of Afghanistan, it's not at all easy to take the country to the 21st century. The current regime is trying its best. However, it needs foreign help. (7) Controlling oil wealth of the world (and thus energy resources) has been the policy of Washington. The current gas diplomacy is to counter that. No, India will not support any move to take the Iran issue to [the United Nations Security Council]. It voted against only because India had to behave as a responsible nuclear power. (8) The process of expanding trade, investment and contacts has already been initiated by New Delhi. If Bangladesh and Pakistan fear India as the "big brother", is it possible for India to become a "little brother" with a population of 1 billion? Kolkata has to do quite a lot. Its fall really started when the capital was shifted. Subsequent history had been so cruel that it has actually become impossible to salvage a sinking ship. The holding of the SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] meeting is important in the sense that the member countries will find reason to come together to protect their own interest against the West.
D Kanjilal (Nov 14, '05)


Leaving aside the question of whether [US President George W] Bush is capable of making a "clear case" for anything at all, surely [Larry] Wortzel and [Devin T] Stewart must realize that the Chinese leadership takes much more note of what US administrations do than of what they say [The US formula for China, Nov 9]. Unfortunately, these last years, with regard to massive military buildups, aggression against foreign countries, lack of transparency in government dealings, civil rights, etc, etc, the example provided by the Americans to the Chinese on how a modern superpower is run has been largely negative. Perhaps the best thing Wortzel and Stewart could do to influence Chinese policy is to take their concerns regarding peaceful development, transparency and civil rights to Mr Bush and ask him to work to reverse the negative development that has marked the course of the last five years. Another alternative would be for them to work for (peaceful) regime change in their own country.
Henri Day
Stockholm, Sweden (Nov 14, '05)


Re Walter Tseng's [Nov 11] letter: I don't see that [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy hates China at all. Like him, I just see the Communist Party's insistence on keeping unchallenged political power incompatible with any form of democracy, no matter what [Francesco] Sisci [Democracy with Chinese characteristics, Nov 9] or other democracy advocates write. Hating China has nothing to do with it. Why is it that every time someone points out the hypocrisy of the party in supporting democratic reforms, someone has to come to its defense? It sounds to me like someone else is the paid mouthpiece here.
Jody Barr
USA (Nov 14, '05)


I am writing in response to your article British Arabism and the bombings in Iran (Nov 3). While the article gives the appearance of careful, scholarly work, its analysis is marred by the authors' bias, revealed early on by their racist reference to "the Arabs' tendency for self-delusion". The reference to Iran as "historical Persia" is misleading. A more accurate description would be "the historical Persian empire". To evoke Iran as a "nation" without defining that nationhood is misleading - clearly Iran today is a modern nation-state made up of Persians as well as many other linguistic and ethnic groups. But Iran, and the Persian empire, has never been a "nation" in terms of a common ethnic or linguistic identity. The authors do concede that "Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan have a number of economic grievances" which "were, at the very least, a factor in the riots of late spring". But they refuse to admit the history, well documented and readily available, of persecution of Iranian Arabs, callously dismissing such claims as "false" and "amusing". The authors characterize the Iranian Arabs' popular movement for justice and self-determination as "separatist" and "underpinned by the assertion that the Arabs in Khuzestan constitute a majority". The rights of an indigenous people are not dependent upon their "majority" status in a territory, especially when they have been victims of state policies aimed at eradicating them or their identity, or assimilating them to a different, imported, population. And labeling that movement "separatist" or the work of the "British secret state" is deliberately misleading and unfair. The authors ask, "How can dismembering a nation and producing false historical narratives be achieved by non-violence?" A people's giving voice to their own historical narrative, and their practice of self-determination, up to and including secession if that is their will, can certainly be achieved non-violently, through the ballot box, if fair and honest elections are assured. And it goes without saying that historical narratives are written every day, some truer than others - but that truth can only be achieved by both a careful apprehension of the facts and a frank examination of one's own assumptions and biases. Subscribing to a narrative, begun by the Pahlavi regime, based on racist, nationalist notions will not lead to truth.
Jenna Joya Blondel, PhD (Nov 14, '05)


I have some questions I want to raise here; in fact, these are questions shared by many Asians in this country [the US]. The United States claims itself as a melting [pot], that there is equality and opportunity for everyone ... in reality this country is a white-dominant society. This country lies to us and lures us to come here. There is a lot of discrimination/bias against Asians. My questions are: (1) What kind of social status [do] we earn in the United States? Why do some of the Americans (white Americans, African- and Latin Americans) think that we are inferior to them? (2) Do we enjoy the same equality and rights in terms of employment opportunities and other opportunities in this society as other races? (3) Many foreigners (including Asians) come to the United States to seek employment but will not get equal opportunity as the foreign qualifications and experiences are not recognized by local Americans. We are more intelligent than Americans, and the societies we come from are modern cities. What should we do to defend our rights, to get rid of discrimination from other races (verbal discrimination, eg saying we are poor people, but in fact we are not poor, or other means of discrimination)? To raise our social status, and to gain equal opportunities in employment and in all other aspects in this society: (1) Just boycott United States by not coming here, since the United States acts like a communist country, the white people have whatever rights they want (see how the government acts, and see in different circumstances the privilege of the white or other races over Asians). (2) Talk to the media or raise campaigns to defend Asian people in the United States. (3) Talk to the consular [services] in our own countries. You can recall there [was a] "white policy" in Australia before, attacking Asian people and the Chinese especially; there is a [similar] hidden here in the United States, Canada and European countries (if you observe carefully). The whites, black people or Latinos will not defend us, we have to [fend] for ourselves. The recent riots in France are a good example of how minorities have been treated by the white-dominant society ...
Wong (Nov 14, '05)

From the first two paragraphs of the article by Farid Bakht, When will 'South Asia' disappear? [Nov 10], it appeared as if the author was going to explore the reasons for the lack of cooperation among South Asian countries, but in fact went into a different direction, [and] just concentrated on India. Some of his assertion is highly speculative, even beyond a journalistic limit of speculation, without giving the slightest idea how he reaches the conclusion that "by next year" the BSE Index will collapse. Is he trying to spread rumors through ATol? Further, he thinks that India will "split down the middle, with the poorer half lying on the eastern flank". The author is out of [his] mind when he suggests the "eastern Indian region should link up with China and Myanmar". He appears to conclude it because people in the eastern region look like Chinese, and some of them believe in Mao-style communism, which is not followed even in China. Does the author have any knowledge about Indian history? ... In Indian history, during all sort of imperial periods, Maurya, Kushan, Gupta ... Mughal or British, by and large there was acceptance of heterodoxy. I suggest that the author read the recent book by Amartya Sen, who is from the eastern region of India, The Argumentative Indian. Politically and economically India/Indians are more integrated ...
Shekhar
Chicago, Illinois (Nov 11, '05)


With reference to When will 'South Asia' disappear? [Nov 10] and Moin Ansari's letter [Nov 10], I would like to inform him that it is always called and has always been called the Indian subcontinent. Please don't slyly refer to it as "Indo-Pak subcontinent".
Ravi (Nov 11, '05)


Regarding your article India and Pakistan push on, despite blasts [Nov 1], I would like to [ask] why major Indian cities are not equipped with surveillance cameras at street intersections, buildings, etc [as] in London? This would definitely help India's intelligence service to track down perpetrators.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 11, '05)


Hisane Masaki keeps saying in his [articles] that the United States will be "thrilled" with a right wing, militaristic Japan [eg Japan, US closer in step, Oct 29]. I don't think so. I think the United States understands that Japan, which committed one of the greatest genocides in human history (ending just 60 years ago), should not possess an autonomous military. The United States knows that this would create unimaginable political friction in Asia. Of course, there is an outside chance that this is just what the United States wants because of its painfully apparent jealously of China's super economic power. If instability in Asia is what the [Americans want], then they will certainly get their wish if they allow Japan to have military autonomy.
Dobbs (Nov 11, '05)


Saqib Khan's letter [Nov 10] stated that the Chinese government is one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth. While I dislike many things the Chinese government is doing, I do respectfully disagree with Saqib Khan. When you made the statement, did you consider the countries claiming "we do not torture" while torturing? Did you consider the ... Muslims you defended in your previous letter? Women in some of these ... Muslim countries risk their lives to have their faces or arms uncovered ... Did it ever come to your mind that the long thousand-year suffering of the Muslim world resulted from the oppression of other regimes which had a different religion? ...
Tony
California, USA (Nov 11, '05)


It is nice to see Daniel [McCarthy] back on the Letters page [Nov 10]. For a moment I thought he was just another paid mouthpiece who disappeared together with his income - wherever that came from. His resurrection shows he is a dedicated China hater and his letters should bring back a more balanced perspective to the Letters page. [Re the] riots in France and Germany: Sometimes you wonder at what the news headlines don't tell you. On the surface, the riots are blamed on racism, inequality, economics, etc - elements that also abound in other European countries, especially Britain. Yet, strangely, it happens only in the two countries that have a different mandate in Iraq.
Walter Tseng
Hong Kong (Nov 11, '05)


When will 'South Asia' disappear? [Nov 10] by Farid Bakht is full of holes. Look no further than the author's statement, "The India narrative is full of holes, which will become apparent with the collapse in the BSE Index next year as foreign funds withdraw at the peak, as they always do." Perhaps the author has the vision of ancient Indian astrologers to predict the peak and decline of any stock index, but as a journalist, when he seems to be deliberately overlooking the rise of Indian software, engineering, medical, consumer companies that are all listed on BSE [the Bombay Stock Exchange] or its sister/competitor the NSE [National Stock Exchange], he either seems to have an acute sense of tunnel vision or shares the (lack of) wisdom of the ruling Bangladeshi political class.
Rocky (Nov 10, '05)


Ironically, while Farid Bakht [When will 'South Asia' disappear?, Nov 10] calls for dumping the baggage of colonial legacy from the nations in the Indian subcontinent, he forgets that "South Asia" as a term is indeed alien to the region. None of the countries share the slightest traits in common with each other except all of them having something or other in common with India. India is the glue that affords lending a regional name to this diverse area. Therefore, by harping for the correct formulation of the region, he may be unconsciously siding with the Hindutva ideologues who want to turn back the clock on partition. Now who's stuck under the baggage of history? Second, his predictions about the imminent collapse of the BSE [Bombay Stock Exchange] are based on mere speculation. The market has already been corrected in the last week or so. The fundamental point is that macro-economic fundamentals and corporate balance sheets of India are extremely healthy, and that is in turn likely to keep foreign funds interested in the market. Where direct foreign investment is concerned, India is rather insular. While that has its disadvantages, it also makes India less prone to succumb to a global downturn. Finally, the author seems peeved at India's de facto dumping of Dhaka over the Myanmar gas pipeline. If only the jihad junta could be controlled, and Bangladesh would quit dragging its feet over the project - and SAFTA [South Asian Free Trade Area] - things could well be different.
Aruni Mukherjee (Nov 10, '05)


With reference to Farid Bakht's article When will 'South Asia' disappear? [Nov 10] I would like to make the following comments, even though I really could not understand the title - how could a region disappear? "South Asia" is a synonym for "Indian subcontinent" or "Indo-Pak subcontinent" etc, though it is true that South Asia mingled with West Asia [and] East Asia on some occasions ... The backhanded sly remark about helicopters was unwarranted. It is self-evident that Pakistan could not accept Indian pilots flying over sensitive Pakistani assets in Azad Kashmir. Even the Indian government accepted this sensitivity. The Pakistani nation faces an unprecedented calamity and the entire nation has made a Herculean effort to help the victims. Today 300,000 Pakistani soldiers and 100,000 volunteers are working night and day to help the 5 million victims. No other nation has galvanized its citizenry and mobilized every section of its society like the Pakistanis have.
Moin Ansari (Nov 10, '05)


The article Bangalore's IT dream fades in the rain [Nov 10] speaks volumes of Karnataka's corrupt and inept politicians who, witnessing Bangalore's phenomenal growth, took it for granted and did not do the necessary infrastructural needs for a rapidly growing city. Bangalore is not the "holy grail" for [information] technology. As the article points, out many other Indian cities are far more enlightened to meet the needs of these multinational companies and are willing to put petty partisan issues aside for a share of the lucrative IT industry. Even [those in] Silicon Valley in the US who did everything needed to deliver first-class services during their heyday were outwitted by India's IT professionals. Silicon Valley's Achilles' heel was its exorbitant cost of living, which I hope other emerging IT centers in India will take into account.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 10, '05)


To writer Francesco Sisci (Democracy with Chinese characteristics [Nov 9]), I would like to ask: Isn't it just window dressing with democracy characteristics?
Daniel McCarthy (Nov 10, '05)


[Re] Francesco Sisci's Democracy with Chinese characteristics (Nov 9): I am really appalled and disgusted with the pomp and ceremonial splendor afforded to the Chinese President Hu Jintao by the British queen and boot-licking government of Tony Blair. I could not have imagined that Tony Blair would stoop as low as to have accredited [Hu's] as a "state visit" when even the Bush administration refused to give it that status, but the visit was eventually canceled because of [the Hurricane] Katrina disaster. It is a shameful reflection and wretched demonstration of double standards followed by the Western governments when it concerns their monetary interests and gains, and their disgraceful readiness to abandon all the high talk of supporting human rights, freedom of speech, liberty and democracy for the greed of getting a few trade favors from the morally deprived [and] oppressive Chinese government ... Greed is the West's only motivating force in invading Iraq [and] Afghanistan and dealing with undemocratic, repressive regimes. Western politicians and their governments are these days busy polishing Chinese official boots ... and do not wish to miss out on the bandwagon of treasures [on offer]; their morality is pocket-deep and lewd. This is only because of China's enormous economic potential because it will soon take over [from] the UK as the fourth-largest economy ... The Chinese government is one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Nov 10, '05)


[Saqib] Khan [letter, Nov 9]: I read Spengler's Crisis of faith in the Muslim world: The Islamist response (Nov 8) and I thought it was a very well-researched article. It was logical, convincing and accurate in the portrayal of the ignorance and rage in the Muslim world. Yet you call it statistical nonsense. I assume it's because it is objective and speaks the truth which you do not wish to hear. Your statement about ATimes readers' opinions was also misplaced. I personally checked with many of the ATimes readers who correspond with me, and they all thought that Spengler was right on the money with his article and opinions. In fact, they all thought your letter represented your self-denial about jihadism in your midst. Next time, take care to write about your opinions and not misrepresentations about ATimes readers. Your statement about Spengler being ignorant of Islam is so untrue. One does not have to be a practitioner to know about a religion and Spengler proves it ...
Dirty Dog
USA (Nov 10, '05)


Francesco Sisci [Democracy with Chinese characteristics, Nov 9] provides an illuminating summary of the discourses that have recently resurfaced over two individuals who were widely expected during the 1980s to be at the helm of China today - Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. Had Hu and Zhao been in power instead of the likes of Jiang Zemin and Li Peng, China's political economy may well look significantly different today. However, Sisci does not seem to provide an answer to the original question: Does democracy have any prospects in China? He cites [Antonio] Gramsci on the organization of the party, but he excludes Gramsci's most profound contribution to scholarship - that of the power of ideas. In China, these powers are surprisingly small. Therefore, a resurfaced discourse will not achieve anything substantial towards ensuring greater democracy for China. The crucial point expressed by Sisci is that the people will have to "ultimately trust that [the party] will give China what it expects". In other words, the people will have to wait for the right time (as defined by the cadres in Beijing) before they can have the bliss of individual rights, freedom of expression, transparent elections et al. Even then, the delineation of the extent of that democracy will perhaps be "guided" by Beijing. All in all, the Communist Party is preparing to shift its role within the country. That doesn't equate to giving up power, but holding different variants of power.
Aruni Mukherjee (Nov 9, '05)


To Larry Wortzel and Devin T Stewart on The US formula for China [Nov 9]: I am sick and tired and disgusted about this "US-led" thingy. It's either a US-led system, US-led FTAA [Free Trade Area/Agreement of the Americas], US-led recovery, US-led war, US-led this and that, US-led blah blah blah. Is there no democracy in this world? Can't other nations think for themselves? Have other nations no brains?
Roy
USA (Nov 9, '05)


Nasser Bani Assad's letter (Nov 7) to Mahan Abedin is of the utmost interest, especially in the manner in which information is selectively presented. As co-author [of British Arabism and the bombings in Iran, Nov 3] with Mr Abedin, I found the first item of Bani Assad of interest: "Iran can thank the British for giving [it] the Ahwazi homeland." This is somewhat misleading. Although I am sure that Mr Bani Assad will argue otherwise, he is carefully omitting the region's integral role in the history of ancient Iran that can be traced to the confluence of the Elamite and Iranian peoples in the regions over 2,500 years ago. Khuzestan has been an integral part of Iran throughout Parthian, Sassanian and post-Islamic Persia. It would appear that Mr Bani Assad is focusing on the Safavid-Ottoman relations and the migration of a number of peoples across what roughly corresponds to the modern Iran-Iraq border. British and Russian imperialism (dating back to the early 19th century) sought to dismember Iran into "spheres of influence" by the early 1900s. Mr Bani Assad is visibly uncomfortable with the history of Britain's sponsorship of anti-Iran movements in Khuzistan. To that end, I invite Mr Bani Assad and all readers to read Professor Roger Adelson's London and the Invention of the Middle East (Yale University Press, 1995). The role of British sponsorship of separatist tendencies in Iran (especially Khuzestan) by fomenting alliances with Arab tribes on pp 45-50 may be of interest. There is also a very interesting discussion as to how the British (especially Lord Nathaniel Curzon) literally "invented" Kuwait. The Persian government had virtually ceased to exist as a result of Russian military activity in northern Persia in 1911. Lord Grey wrote to the head of the British legation in Tehran that "... establishing order [in Iran] without partition is an impossible [task]". It was this power vacuum within Iran, which the British government helped create, that explains how APOC (Anglo Persian Oil Co - later BP) "simply negotiated with Arab chiefs in Khuzestan province and arranged for Bakhtiyari tribal leaders to guard the company facilities" (Adelson, p 97). Mr Bani Assad continually produces qualitative and anecdotal information to provide the impression of some sort of cultural conflict between Arabs and non-Arabs. This is interesting given Iran's multi-ethnic character and that Khuzestan itself is populated by numerous linguistic groups. Apparently, in his quest for "rights", Mr Bani Assad had conveniently forgotten to mention that Khuzestan is not an exclusively Arab province ... In his quest to define the current violence in Khuzestan in purely ethnic and cultural terms (Arab-Persian), Mr Bani Assad is hoping that readers are not aware of the history of British sympathy for separatist movements within Iran or that Iran's current economic hardships are at least partly to blame. Undoubtedly, Mr Bani Assad will find ways of dismissing this humble retort in Mr Abedin's defense. However, there is one item of encouragement in Bani Assad's letter. It actually provides the impression that he does not advocate separatism. Unfortunately, this is belied by the overtly hostile anti-Iran tone portrayed in his "British-Ahwazi Friendship Society" website.
Dr Kaveh Farrokh (Nov 9, '05)


We are forbidden in this politically correct milieu of ours from drawing irresponsibly superficial cultural parallels. The Islamic fundamentalists who are today torching cars in the suburbs of France supposedly have no connection, ideological or otherwise, to the Islamic fundamentalists killing Jews in Palestine, funding al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, slaughtering schoolchildren in Chechnya, or blowing up cars in Iraq. But one recurring theme does seem to emerge, doesn't it? Yet by blindly adhering to the faulty premise of the brotherhood of all nations, [French President Jacques] Chirac failed to learn a valuable lesson from his own country's history of Arab-European relations, which is that the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns upon a fundamentally foreign culture has seldom been known to override the native religious fervor of the individuals who compose it. And therein lies his problem, which is by extension France's problem. This is hardly a problem [that] will be fixed by simply lifting the ban on the wearing of Muslim headscarves in French schools.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Nov 9, '05)

We doubt that the Paris rioters are "Islamic fundamentalists". - ATol


Re Spengler's articles, it is intuitively clear: people living and working in the non-industrialized countryside depend on children for help and, later, for support. This is true in the Near East, Asia, Latin America - anywhere. Urban populations begin to realize that this habit of having many children will just add to their problems. Literacy plays a part of course, but economic necessity is determinant - not "faith".
Juan Jacobson (Nov 9, '05)


Spengler (Crisis of faith in the Muslim world: The Islamist response, Nov 8) appears to be his own teacher and pupil and heaven knows from [where] he gathers all the statistical nonsense to convince readers that he is master of none, but I believe that he becomes boring with every sentence and deviates hither and thither with his perfidious ambition to sully Islam. He is as ignorant of Islam, as demonstrated each time one makes the mistake of reading him. He should never [blame] society's ills on Islam, which he so conveniently does most of the time. The rioting and burning ... by the French youngsters is motivated by their rage [against] injustice, inequality, racial prejudices inflicted upon their people, loss of dignity and being deprived of the feeling of their nationhood, as most of them say openly on TV. In simple terms their rage is against the French government and their local authorities as well as the host community's reluctance to accept them as one of them. If the French government can find tangible and lasting solutions of the root causes of their grievances, peace will be restored permanently ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Nov 9, '05)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I enjoyed your article Al-Qaeda goes back to base [Nov 4]. [From that and] other articles I've read regarding the reorganization of al-Qaeda, including senior staff, I'm being led to believe that [Osama bin Laden] no longer functions as the leader, or indeed is in a position to lead, not having been heard of for nine months. Can you comment on this matter? ...
Bob (Nov 9, '05)

As far as bin Laden is concerned everything will be clear in coming months. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


I love this website. All your content is fabulous. I've been a frequent visitor of the site since discovering it at the beginning of the year. Keep up the good work in providing all your articles that dare to analyze and go beyond mere reporting.
John Li
Los Angeles, California (Nov 9, '05)


The good news is that the six-power talks have come to a fifth round of negotiations [N Korea nuke talks on track but dangers loom, Nov 8]. It is anachronistic to say that "danger looms", for the simple reason that danger has lurked on a divided Korean Peninsula for the past 60 years. In consequence, there is small reason for optimism. Tokyo and Pyongyang will begin talking again. It is hoped that North Korea will take the bull by the horns and bring more light and even closure to the open sore [that] is the matter of abducted Japanese. On the other hand, is there cause to hope that [US President George W] Bush, in a bold effort to burnish a badly tarnished image, is going to [be] more flexible on a long-delayed American promise of financing the building of a light-water reactor in North Korea? Yet a meeting on the six-power talks at the influential Council of Foreign Relations in New York, sponsored by the Council of American Ambassadors, the Asia Society and the Korea Society, was canceled at the last moment without explanation. This cancellation may mean something, and then it may not.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 8, '05)

To split hairs, perhaps, ATol didn't say "danger looms" - you did. We said "dangers loom", ie, dangers that could derail the talks. As most of the article is about the potential stumbling blocks, the headline is pertinent. - ATol


Spengler is at it again [Crisis of faith in the Muslim world: The Islamist response, Nov 8]. One doesn't expect anything different from him other than recycled ideas that have now been [debunked]. Are the riots in Paris any different from the riots in Soweto, south central Los Angeles or Cleveland? Were the African-Americans part of some global ideology with Lex Luthor sitting in the background? Spengler knows some history. However, he has a selective version of historical facts. Since Spengler loves statistics, perhaps he can chew on some. According to [Richard W] Bulliet [The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization], the so-called "decline in Islam" was actually a great boon to Islam. More than 80% of the Muslims in the world today are descendants of the rise in the Muslim population that occurred between the 16th and 21st centuries. According to Dr Bulliet, if "saving souls" is used as a yardstick of success or failure, then surely Islam was the winner. Spengler forgets that while Muslims were in decline in Arabia and Western Europe, Muslims were on the ascendance in India, South Asia and Southeast Asia, Central Asia and even China. This ascendancy actually continued with a huge splurging of art, literature, music, and architecture all over Asia ... Spengler's mumbo-jumbo statistics make sense only to him. American popular culture is not a challenge to Muslims. In fact it is embraced by Muslims all over the world. MTV is as popular in Indonesia as the world's largest Pizza Hut is popular in Karachi. KFC is as popular in Dhaka as blue jeans are popular in Kuala Lumpur. Chevrolets are as popular in Jeddah as apple pie is popular in Dubai. Nike is as popular in Tehran as American movies are popular in Casablanca. Spengler mentions the pool of Arab unemployed men but fails to compare it to the number of African unemployed men or Asian unemployed men or Christian unemployed men. Since there is no comparison, then the statistic is as hollow as the rest of his argument.
Moin Ansari (Nov 8, '05)


In the article Crisis of faith in the Muslim world: The Islamist response, Nov 8, by Spengler, where he thinks he is [the] topmost expert on Islam and all the issues related to Islam and Muslims ... he is not. If he thinks the current problem in France is due to French Muslims or Islam, he is wrong. It is a French problem and it [had been waiting] to happen. Please do not blame Islam and Muslims. If Islam is the issue, please come and see how [the] Canadian system works, where society [is] based on equality, tolerance, and multiculturalism and with religious freedom ... Canadian Muslims are equally participating in all walks of life. There are [a] few Muslim [members of] the Canadian federal parliament and [a] few are members of different provincial assemblies. Mr Spengler, it is you and people like you who think negatively about Islam [who] want to portray ... Islam [negatively] instead of looking into the positive side. You have the result of your thoughts: the current problem in France, and [it also] can be seen in [a] few other countries in Europe.
Afaq Sher
Canada (Nov 8, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari is absolutely right (The unraveling of the Cheney cabal, Nov 1). [Vice-presidential chief of staff I Lewis] "Scooter" Libby's indictment leaves no doubt that [US President George W] Bush's adventure in Iraq is not only based on hubris, ignorance and incompetence, but also on a "big lie". In order to protect that big lie, the Bush White House surrounded it with a bodyguard of lies. The irony is that in their haste to silence their critics and to wage a war under the pretext of fighting terrorism, they committed the heinous act of revealing the name of someone who was on the front lines of defending the US against terrorism. No matter how the Bush administration and its apologists try to spin this, the truth is that so far over 2,000 of our brave service personnel are dead and the war is costing over [US]$250 billion and counting, with no end in sight. Iraq has become a magnet for creating terrorists. America, after having spent billions of taxpayers' dollars, by every measure is less secure, with ports, bridges, tunnels, power plants, pipeline, dams, chemical plants, railroads, mass transit, etc all lacking real protection.
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (Nov 8, '05)

By definition under the US justice system of "innocent until proven guilty", an indictment cannot by itself "leave no doubt" about anything. Libby's suspected wrongdoings must remain in doubt unless and until he is convicted of something. - ATol


Perhaps your contributors would be willing to remark on the following. If the US suffers economic collapse resulting from one or more of a number of scenarios written about at ATol, what nation(s) are the most likely to step into the breach? Will Asian countries, those that have or are evolving into a benign authoritarianism, develop the required financial transparency to the global system? What of the demand side regarding consumption - where will these markets come from? Will one of these nations provide global security or will it be a transnational organization?
Brad Lena (Nov 8, '05)


The article titled Silenced in the name of freedom [Apr 10, '03] concerning the death of Al-Jazeera producer Tariq Ayyoub in Baghdad contained the following sentence: "Every street vendor and taxi driver in Amman knows the circumstances of Tariq's death, and to say that anybody here is buying any part of that crap for a heartbeat would be to commit a severe overstatement of fact." The word "crap" shouldn't have appeared in that piece, and [I as] the reporter would like to retract it and apologize for it. Also, the piece should have made clear that the widespread anger the reporter encountered on the streets of Amman in the aftermath of Ayyoub's death, and disbelief of Pentagon statements concerning it, were based on raw emotion rather than fact or logic. Whatever anybody might have thought they knew about Ayyoub's death, nobody interviewed for the story had any factual reason to doubt the Pentagon's version of events, and this reporter regrets any inference to the contrary.
Paul Belden (Nov 8, '05)


[Siddharth] Srivastava's Beijing blusters over India's nuclear deal [Nov 5] is an excellent article that points directly to Beijing's double standards and India's possible perils. His article is so concisely written that a quote from [it] ... needs repeating: "New Delhi, which bitterly complained about China's support for Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1980s and Islamabad's missile program in the 1990s, will find it a bit rich if Beijing now opposes international civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India in the name of double standards." Well written, Mr Srivastava.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 7, '05)


Western investment banks are rushing headlong into Islamic banking. They know a good deal when they see one. However, the failing Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad is an example to learn from. The lesson has more to do with where the auditors found non-performing debt. The red ink came to light from a branch in Labuan. As Anil Netto documents [Islamic bank's woes highlight problems, Nov 5], Labuan is a tax haven, and is a port in a fiscal storm for paper companies looking to avoid paying taxes. Labuan has become a bone of contention in the internal affairs of South Korea: the United States private equity [firm] Newbridge Capital, by selling Korea First Bank, walked away with a profit of US$1.16 billion, without paying one won in taxes, because Korea has signed away its right to taxes with Labuan-based shell companies, of which Newbridge Capital had one. When it comes to Bank Islam, as Netto states, the problem lies with corporate governance, which is endemic to unsupervised banks. [Though] Islam forbids charging interest, it does permit Islamic banks to impose late payments should the borrower be guilty of zulm. This allows Islamic banks to penalize a fiscally sound company [with] interest when it defers payment of debt, and thereby deal with a recurrent problem which banks face. Since the bank had non-performing loans, it had the proper instruments to collect debts. Did it, one wonders? The Bank Islam loans fanned out to Bosnia and South Africa. Netto's article has little information on the financial health of companies in these two countries; nor do we have a sense of loan criteria. Nonetheless, given the endemic corruption in Malaysia, it is not unreasonable to suspect that a money trail dries out quickly, and the monies borrowed may not have gone to sound companies in the first place.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 7, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari in CIA's 'black sites' breed more evil [Nov 4] has brilliantly portrayed the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims. The Chinook helicopter transporting relief supplies to victims in Azad Kashmir does more in sending the message of America "with a heart" than [Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs] Karen Hughes' staged tours to Islamic lands. The "ban on torture" legislation passed by the US Congress does more to propagate American values than the US marines "liberating" Fallujah again. The [I Lewis] Libby indictment, where even the high and mighty may have to pay the price for transgressions, does more to propagate "democracy" and freedom than the French legions, US marines and British troopers brandishing their weapons in Muslim lands. The battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims is not being fought in Basra, Mosul, and Kabul. It is also being fought in London, New York, and Paris. If the USA wants to conquer the hearts and minds of Muslims, the symbols of oppression have to be destroyed, and acts of repression have to be eliminated. Abu Ghraib is a symbol of Saddam [Hussein's] repression. We should not allow this gulag to function today. Let the Iraqi citizens storm Abu Ghraib and tear it down, brick by brick. Let the American GIs help them destroy the torture centers of Abu Ghraib. The Muslim and the civilized world anxiously await President [George W] Bush's speech [in which] he orders the demolition of Abu Ghraib, the closure of Guantanamo and an American requirement that the archipelago of CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] torture centers be erased from the world. This should be our answer to hatred and bigotry ... American GIs handing out candies in Pakistan in the '60s created a genre of Westernized Pakistanis who believed in America and a moderate Pakistan. Today the ... loose-lipped American pastors spouting vitriol, pornographic pictures from Abu Ghraib, first-hand accounts of discrimination from deportees, desecration of holy books, and horror stories from Gitmo create fear and hatred for the same uniforms ... Today, America is doing the right thing in supporting the victims of the Pakistani quake. Yesterday it did the right thing in helping the tsunami victims ... These good acts are changing attitudes ... The entire world was with America when president [Ronald] Reagan demanded, "Tear down this wall, Mr Gorbachev." That line resonated with the Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Mr Bush, tear down the prisons, the symbol of atrocities, and shut down the torture centers, icons of evil.
Moin Ansari (Nov 7, '05)


Re CIA's 'black sites' breed more evil [Nov 4]: Another typical Muslim mind, which always finds fault with everything but Islam. [Perhaps] the author is not aware that the London suicide bombers (Pakistani origin) had decent education and might have played with high-tech toys and even have got a surprise gift from Santa Claus. Even for the sake of his argument if one were to believe that basic education alone can change Muslims minds, then who had prevented them [doing] so? If the poor Africans have grievances against the Western governments for not helping them, they certainly have reason ... But the oil-rich Islamic countries have enough money to help their own Muslim brothers. The author subtly reminds that being fellow humans it is Americans' (read democracies') duty to help earthquake victims and have to reduce their defense spending in order to provide education to Muslims, while the rich Muslim countries will use their money to build splendid mosques and train jihadi elements to kill innocent people. And again being fellow humans, if the Americans think that it is their duty to liberate some Muslims (even in the disguise of their own interest) who are under tyrannical rule, then these enlightened Muslims would say that it is none of their business, the Muslims will take care of themselves. One certainly needs more than the sixth sense to understand the Muslims. Still, he raised a valid question: whether a civilized government can stoop [to the level of terrorists] to disregard basic human rights. But when a faceless enemy [is] killing innocent people and using the liberties provided in the name of basic rights to hoodwink investigative agencies, it is difficult to answer whether the Americans are right or wrong in denying these rights to terrorists. The solution lies in accepting a modern educational system (all religions [do] except [Islam]) which is devoid of old religious belief and does not teach pupils that theirs is supreme and others have to be eliminated.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Nov 7, '05)


Oh, no! Is it true that according to US and foreign officials the US has secret prisons around the world, and the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] is allegedly not abiding by the Geneva Convention when it comes to handling people whose sole purpose in life is to strap themselves with explosives and go on a shopping spree [CIA's 'black sites' breed more evil, Nov 4]? The horror! Personally, I think that being concerned about the human rights of people whose favorite pastime is making home videos of decapitations is akin to making sure that a serial murderer is fully satisfied with the assortment of cuisine choices offered on the jail menu. Those zany liberals: They will strain the gnat of nebulous and fragmentary trespasses by political enemies while they swallow the camel of going to extraordinary lengths to protect the civil rights of barbarians.
Miguel A Guanipa
Whitinsville, Massachusetts (Nov 7, '05)

The concern of the author is less about the human rights of alleged terrorists than it is about winning the "war on terror". Opinions on how to do that vary, but we'd suggest that current methods don't seem to be working very well. - ATol


Syed [Saleem Shahzad]: I read your article [Al-Qaeda back to base, Nov 4] and have a couple of comments. First, I disagree with your opinion that al-Qaeda sees [President General Pervez] Musharraf as "pro-God", but not the Pakistani army. Musharraf runs the Pakistani army, so this lacks logic. Do you have any ... proof of this statement? Second, I don't think they will be able to establish an openly declared base of operations. The US coalition will still have a huge military presence in both countries and the feasibility of this type of open-base transition is unrealistic, even a year or so out. But let's see what happens.
Hesham (Nov 7, '05)

You are right about the "pro-God" reference. There are dajal (anti-God) and those who are allied with the anti-God (pro-dajal). - Syed Saleem Shahzad
The article has been clarified. - ATol


Mahan Abedin [British Arabism and the bombings in Iran, Nov 3] has managed to concoct a conspiracy theory on the events in Khuzestan based on little knowledge of the current situation. While it is true that the British had colonial influence in the region ([in] which region did they not have influence?), it is an act of grotesque historical revisionism to suggest that there is somehow some doctrine of "British Arabism" that guides policy to this day. First, Iran can thank the British for giving [it] the Ahwazi homeland. Reza Shah took control of Arabistan in 1925 at the behest of the British, who wanted a strong Persian state to counter the influence of Bolshevism in the region. Second, the overthrow of the Mossadeq administration and the re-establishment of an extreme monarchy occurred with the backing of the British establishment. The British-backed monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi represented the Ahwazis' worst nightmare: a racial supremacist who showed no mercy to his opponents. The Shah sought to "Persianize" the Ahwazis and eradicate their Arab culture, a program that continues under the Islamic Republic. So you see, the Arabs have not had British sympathy for over 80 years. Mr Abedin's claims that the British establishment is partly responsible for the Ahwaz bombings, if only passively, is laughable. His proof rests on the idea that there is no such thing as Ahwazi Arab identity or disharmony in the province and that if any exists it is because Ahwazi Arab political parties exist in London. Does he think that just a word whispered in London can lead to rioting in Khuzestan? Does he believe that the British are exporting stones to Khuzestan for Arabs to throw at police? The fact is that unrest has existed in Khuzestan as a result of the Iranian regime's policies. Political oppression, economic marginalization, land confiscation and racism have created a climate of instability. The province has witnessed an upwelling of anti-government sentiment following Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president. Khuzestan, Kurdistan and Balochistan are experiencing heightened unrest as ethnic minorities rebel against a fascist regime. It does not require any intervention from Ahwazi exiles or foreign governments to fuel unrest. The regime has sought to justify increased repression by staging bomb attacks. Mustafa Moin threatened to withdraw his candidacy during the presidential elections over the bomb attacks in Ahwaz, which he suggested might be the work of those seeking the election of a military candidate such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Moin is no British agent or exiled separatist. He is a highly respected reformist figure who is well aware of the cruel power of the Revolutionary Guards in Iranian Society. The Ahwazi groups Mr Abedin lists are all campaigning for a democratic and federal republic, similar to multi-ethic states such as India where the state's stability is ensured by political devolution. We want to promote a future for Iran that moves away from elitism to modern popular democracy and strong provincial government and we hope this will occur through a peaceful revolution. We are all very well aware that a political system imposed by foreign governments will be rejected in Iran. That is why we oppose any foreign invasion of Iran. It is a shame that there are some in the Iranian diaspora, such as Mr Abedin, who seem to want to gain favor with the mullahs, whose authority is being challenged by social forces in Iran.
Nasser Bani Assad
Spokesman
British Ahwazi Friendship Society (Nov 7, '05)

Just to clarify, the article in question was co-authored by Mahan Abedin and Dr Kaveh Farrokh. - ATol


We [Thais] have newspapers [that] tell the truth about the prime minister. But he tries to close these newspapers [Thaksin meets the press - in court, Nov 2]. Because of him we have a problem in the south of Thailand. And we still have bird flu - he can't solve this problem ...
Kunyakorn
Bangkok, Thailand (Nov 7, '05)


Moin Ansari writes [letter, Nov 4], "The word 'democracy' does not exist in the [US] constitution and ... [Thomas] Jefferson and [James] Madison wrote reams against it." That set of assertions supports Ansari's larger view, but are misrepresentations, the underlying facts of which do not support his "history". First, the constitution's framers lived in an age of monarchy, so distrusted - but did not reject - democracy; nor did they write "reams" against it. Second, though the term "democracy" does not appear in the constitution, the quintessence of democracy - elections - is prominently incorporated in it. Third, James Madison, "father" of the constitution, during the framing debates, opposed anti-democratic proposals, as example that the president be appointed or selected by the Supreme Court. As for Jefferson: he had nothing whatever to do with either framing or ratification of the constitution, as not only was he not a delegate to the framing convention, he was in France throughout that period. His "Declaration of Independence", though, does include the democratic principle "All men are created equal."
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 7, '05)


I must remark that I do not agree with the majority of the articles you publish, [but] I'm very glad that ATol is here and contributing to the great debates of our times.
Brad Lena
North Carolina, USA (Nov 7, '05)

"The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences." (Anonymous) - ATol


F William Engdahl's recent article concerning the avian flu and the US Secretary of Defense [Rummy's bird flu bonanza, Nov 4] is riddled with conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods. He makes assertions he could never prove, because they are not true. One important fact must be repeated for the benefit of the readers that Mr Engdahl's screed has reached: Secretary Rumsfeld was elected to the board of Gilead Sciences, Inc, in 1988, when he was a private sector business executive. Secretary Rumsfeld severed his relationship with Gilead Sciences when he returned to government service in 2001. Gilead Sciences is not a defense contractor, as defined by the relevant ethics agencies of government, including the Senate Armed Services Committee. As such, Secretary Rumsfeld was permitted to retain his investments in Gilead Sciences stock. In January 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld disqualified himself from participating in government decisions involving Gilead Sciences, and that disqualification continues to this day. He has not participated in government deliberations involving possible medications to treat avian flu, nor has he been involved in deliberations affecting other Gilead products. Mr Engdahl has done a disservice to Asia Times Online by providing such a blatantly false article, and Asia Times Online has done a disservice to its readers by printing it.
Lawrence Di Rita
Department of Defense Spokesman
[Lawrence Di Rita is Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. In addition, he serves as Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.] (Nov 4, '05)

Rumsfeld has previously been chairman of the board of Gilead Sciences, and owns stock in the company. The Bush administration's order for Tamiflu has enriched, and will further enrich, Rumsfeld, and this is not the first time he has profited financially from government decisions. The article nowhere states that Rumsfeld had a direct role in these government decisions, so please show us exactly where the article is "blatantly false". Meanwhile, ATol has a question for you: Do you stand by the following statement by your boss in 2002 (before your time at DoD, I think). It's from your department's own website:

- ATol


[Syed Saleem Shahzad]: Outstanding article, very interesting [Al-Qaeda goes back to base, Nov 4]. I envy your research capabilities.
John G Scherb (Nov 4, '05)


CIA's 'black sites' breed more evil [Nov 4] by Ehsan Ahrari points to the excesses of the [US Central Intelligence Agency] and how [these] will lead to not only Islamic condemnation but "world condemnation", and with that I agree. But Mr Ahrari does not mention that the conservative aspect of the Islamic world despised the West, particularly the US, long before these "black sites" existed. For decades radical Islamic leaders have condemned the lifestyle and the democratic institutions of the West and other nations, retaliating with terrorist acts long before [September 11, 2001] or the invasion of Iraq after it invaded and annexed Kuwait. Mr Ahrari suggests a more conciliatory or benign approach to the radical Islamic movement will win the hearts and minds of young Muslim men. It never has. When the tsunami hit mostly Muslim nations in Southeast Asia there was an outpouring of humanitarian support in dollar terms, primarily from the West. Did that win the hearts and minds of large numbers of Muslims towards the West? ... Ultimately the West or Westernized non-Islamic nations are left with the conundrum of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Furthermore Mr Ahrari's article makes one believe that it is only the US that is fighting this global Islamic terrorism. By the very nature that this is a global act the fight against it is also global, and not [unique] to the US.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 4, '05)


This is with reference to the brilliantly resplendent and prodigious research of Mahan Abedin and Kavel Farrokh in British Arabism and the bombings in Iran (Nov 3). The uniquely effulgent and profound historical insight on Khuzestan exposes the resurrected "Orientalist" machinations of what Farrokh calls "British Arabists". The article prolifically sheds light on the continuance of the "Great Game" that was played between Lord Curzon's British India and czarist Russia in the 19th century ... In discussing the Great Game, under a new name, we must remember the wise words of Lord Curzon's world view, "Whoever controls Central Asia controls the world." Lord Curzon's ... "on to the Oxus" policy has now been translated by ... the [Project for the] New American Century (PNAC). On our [US] shores we know these "Arabists" ... as neo-cons who are carrying Rudyard Kipling's "white man's burden" to civilize the world. In today's neo-con terms "civilize/Christianize" is coded as "spreading democracy", notwithstanding the fact that the word "democracy" does not exist in the [US] constitution and that [Thomas] Jefferson and [James] Madison wrote reams against it. This PNAC goal is to continue to create tribulations for Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Many of Tehran's woes are self-inflicted ... Iran has burned bridges with all its neighbors ... Today the Great Game continues. Britain provided bases to the Hisb-e-Tehrir, the Khuzestani militants, Chechen rebels and those British Muslims who fought in the Bosnian war. Foreign-policy failures do not justify terrorism. However, in order to eliminate terror, we have to drain the swamps and find the root cause of the problems. These British forays into "empire building" and other foreign-policy failures led to the [July 7 London bombings] blowback. The last time, Britain lost the Great Game and had to withdraw from the Amu Darya (Oxus) to the Indus. Afghanistan was a buffer between [the British] and Mother Russia. Britain also had to withdraw from Baghdad rather ignominiously. Today it is embroiled in both, seeking to play another round of the Great Game ...
Moin Ansari (Nov 4, '05)


This in reference to Self-made threat to US oil and security (Nov 3) by Jephraim P Gundzik. [I] agree largely with its contents. I have to be honest and frank in saying for many years that Bush administration [has been] cynical, dishonest and incompetent but could not make many see the obvious as it is increasingly becoming clear that [George W] Bush's presidency has been nothing but a political nightmare of one or the other sort, not only for the Americans but for the rest of the world. Finally, this nightmare surfaced with the [Hurricane] Katrina disaster and more recently with the indictment of [I Lewis] Scooter Libby ... Whether [US Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald will bring more indictments is an interesting prospect and must surely be bringing many more nightmares for a long time to come to the Bush/Cheney partnership. The Bush administration's record of policy failures has been carefully camouflaged by his cronies by presenting him as tough cowboy figure of Hollywood movies who is good at controlling his herd by whipping the disobedient, and this false projection has been exposed by his failure to handle the Katrina disaster and by recent political cock-ups. The record of failures is truly astonishing: Iraq, Katrina relief, prescription drug coverage, chasing Osama bin Laden and many more ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Nov 4, '05)


Spengler's article [Crisis of faith in the Muslim world, Part 1, Nov 1] is an interesting blend of subtle verbiage and mind-boggling statistics, to an average reader. However, to someone who has had the slightest exposure to statistical theory, it will read as no more than verbal gibberish souped up with unfounded and unexplained statistical evidence, techniques and charts. The UN predictions, which project trends for 45 years (2005-50) based on just 10 years of available data, are certainly revolutionary to say the least. What kind of a regression or projection analysis is capable of doing that certainly beats me. Quoting the UN, which by no means is a school of reference for statistics, cannot form a basis for proposing theories of the Spengler kind. Pray tell what is this revolutionary statistical technique? Quantifying the growth rate of a segment of humanity which is distinctly different from the rest of the world in [its] outlook towards this worldly life is expecting too much from statistical theory to say the least ...
Some Food For Thought (Nov 4, '05)


James B Griffin (letter, Nov 2) observes with respect to my October 4 review [Do you call that an empire?] of Robert Kaplan's book Imperial Grunts that "it is simply unfair to compare the non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of any army with the officers of another". His point is well taken, but it goes to Kaplan's whole argument. Kaplan believes that American NCOs on the ground rather than the Pentagon brass are the backbone of the new American Empire. Given that (in Mr Griffin's words) "NCOs are simply the senior grunts, sometimes men of great warlike or technical ability but limited formal education", Kaplan is stretching to begin with. The trouble is that nowhere in the United States can skills be found comparable to what the British could deploy in the 19th century. When Kaplan argues that the senior officers know less than the NCOs I tend to believe him, and that is the problem.
Spengler (Nov 4, '05)


Kaveh Afrasiabi's article Iran, Israel: The good, the bad and the ugly, [Oct 29] was encouraging in its assumption that a solid coterie of career diplomats would bring and/or continue a much-needed strain of pragmatism in Iran's foreign policy towards Israel and the West. However, as critics of the Bush administration always hasten to point out, an administration with a strong ideological agenda may wield much more influence than the bureaucracy believes possible. Purely as an instructive example of bureaucratic/charismatic leader interaction, and in no way implying any moral equivalence, German traditional conservatives in the early 1930s were famously convinced that they had Hitler in "a box" that would constrain his foreign and domestic policy. Clearly, they were mistaken. Certainly many counter-examples could be found where a set of career diplomats were able to impose some pragmatic discipline upon a dangerously ideological administration; but that is not automatically the case. In particular, I wonder if the recent purge of 40 Iranian diplomats, most of them inclined to be moderate and/or pragmatic in their approach, alters Afrasiabi's opinion on the ability of cooler heads within the professional ranks of Iranian diplomacy to prevail over the heated rhetoric of its new president.
Nathan Reinsma
Chicago, USA (Nov 3, '05)


Regarding the impressive article British Arabism and the bombings in Iran [Nov 3], I totaly oppose any such thing (foreign intervention)against Iran ... As a half Armenian/Iranian, I totaly support Iran in pursuing British-backed terrorists ... I wonder how the British would feel if Iran or some other country supported Irish separatism or, even worse, a Scotish one ...
Jamshid Petrossian
Ottawa, Canada


For the most part I think that Jephraim P Gundzik's commentary on America's national security policy [Self-made threat to US oil and security, Nov 3] is accurate and reasonable. But I do take issue with his sentence: "While evidence is thin supporting the notion that US military action against Iraq was economically motivated, it is probable that oil security played some role in the final decision to invade Iraq." If one looks at Project For A New American Century's website, one could argue there is a direct link between American dominance of the middle east, oil and money. After all, Vice President [Dick Cheney] himself is an oil man, even the current Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice had an oil-tanker named after her; these people and other high government officials in the US have made their personal incomes in oil and have a direct self-interest in seeing that American oil companies prosper. This neo-conservative ideology may be decorated in an outer layer of idealism, in which freedom and democracy are brand names to sell, but are instead wishful fantasies that have no bearing on how history and human evolution actually work ... I think there is evidence to show that economic gain was, at heart, one of the chief motives for this senseless and tragic historical event. I believe more data will continue to become known that will show that, though incompetence does play a role, whatever is driving the Bush administration's national security policy is not in America's or the world's best interest, excepting those who financially and/or politically profit from his blunders, distortions and historical stupidity ... Saddam was a criminal and perhaps sooner rather than later, the Iraqi people would have succeeded in ridding their nation of that tyrant. If that tyrannical government's chief export was shrimp, I doubt Iraq would have even caught a passing interest from the Bush administration. Oil and war is big money, control of oil and its profits is about power and this is what the Bush administration loves more than anything. Only through sincere love of justice, peace, economic stability and hope for humankind can we overcome the ill effects of the love of power. Trying to build democracy through violence and intimidation is like trying to win the heart of a dear friend through criticism and resentment.
Jerry Gerber (Nov 3, '05)


ReBush, Hu to meet at crucial crossroad, [Oct 29] by Francesco Sisci. If we can accept a liberal interpretation of the term "crucial crossroad" I guess we can say that it is a "crossroad" of sort. And whatever agreements Bush and Hu can arrive at at this coming meeting will only be good for the next maybe two to three years. I am that pessimistic, you see. Mr Sisci himself has given us a good summary of all the possibilities and likely scenarios for the future of Sino-American relations. Anyone who has read the article can't help but come away with the impression that, according to Mr Sisci, anything is possible in Sino-American relations, from the most disastrous to the sublime. Personally, I do not believe there is such a thing as a "crossroad," in the conventional sense in Sino-American relations. Things are just too fluid. If you want to count "crossroads" there are at least half a dozen during the last twenty odd years, and there will probably be another half a dozen for the next twenty to thirty years. The term "crossroad" has lost its meaning simply because there are so many of them. You know the game in children's magazines where children have to find their way through a maze to reach the destination? Before they finally reach the destination they have to follow many false trails, cross many "crossroads," stop at many dead ends, cul de sacs, etc. It is like that with Sino-American relations. Accept that in this real life game we may have to deal with the possibility that someone might plant a bomb at one of those dead ends to blow us all up. And the "destination" may not be win-win after all.
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Nov 3, '05)


China is not putting all its eggs in one basket when it comes to oil [Hu calls for closer Vietnam/China links, Nov 3]. Its latest agreement is with Vietnam. Vietnam's oil is a feather in China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) hat. The oil in Beibu is called "sweet crude." It is a quality which is much sought after; it has low levels of sulfur and hydrogen; it is less corrosive compared to Indonesia's crude oil which wears badly on drilling equipment. Although CNOOC lost in the bidding for Union Oil, it is ironic that it now has access to Vietnam's drilling patch which the Americans brought in during the Vietnam War, and which the Soviet Union developed. CNOOC's contract is part of a larger development package that China is offering Vietnam. Beijing is investing US$1 billion in its neighbor to the south. It is yet one more move to reassert its influence among former imperial vassal states.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 3, '05)


Former US Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's article [Smoking guns and red herrings, Nov 1] concerning the Plame "outing" investigation, and that which is relevant and irrelevant to the matter, is excellent. Those who are of a mind to accuse [US Attorney Patrick] Fitzgerald of engaging in a "fishing expedition" should instead swallow their red herrings, lest they insult mature human intelligence, due process and the US's system of laws as constituted in its Constitution.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, USA (Nov 3, '05)


Mr Gatsiounis [A US ear in the Muslim world, Nov 2] may want to consider this thought of the infamous Mao: "The longest journey begins with the first step."
Howard Lohmuller
Seabrook, USA (Nov 3, '05)


Many thanks to Pepe Escobar for his detailed and comprehensive account of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's courtroom crusade against the media (Thaksin meets the press - in court, Nov 2). Though hardly sympathetic to the prime minister, the article clearly explains the legal case he may be able to present against media tycoon (and former Thaksin confidant) Sondhi Limthongkul and his Manager Media Group. However, as the opening paragraphs point out, the situation in Thailand has gotten far beyond the merits of any particular court action. In the court of public opinion, Thaksin has already lost because of his own arrogance. Fairly or not, people now assume that everything he does is to expand his own power, bully his critics and line the already swollen pockets of his family and friends. One of the most telling bits of Escobar's article was the quote from Thaksin lawyer Thana Benjathikul regarding Sondhi's 1 baht lawsuit, the classy symbolism of which was made glaringly obvious by the PM's "blind them with billions" theory of jurisprudence: "The court is not a joke." In the first place many Thais would beg to differ; in the second, the credibility of the Thai judicial system is itself now on trial before the international community because Thaksin has made sure of the high profile nature of his anti-media campaign; and in the third place it shows just how much Thaksin and his disciples have lost touch. Was it not Khun Thaksin himself who showed up recently at a press conference wielding two little gadgets he had found in Japan, holding the green one up to acknowledge "constructive" questions and the red one for those he deemed "not constructive"? The PM apparently thought it was a harmless joke, but it made him look like a buffoon and Thailand an international laughing-stock. That is not the sort of humor - or foolishness - the Kingdom of Thailand needs right now.
S Tearack
Bangkok, Thailand (Nov 2, '05)


Spengler, it is simply unfair to compare the noncommissioned officers (NCOs) of any army with the officers of another [Do you call that an empire?, Oct 4]. Officers have advanced educations or connections. NCOs are simply the senior grunts, sometimes men of great warlike or technical ability but limited formal education. There have been Renaissance men in uniform for many armies in history (General Stonewall Jackson's staff could have formed the faculty of a college or seminary), but few of the lettered ones were NCOs, and most were officers. America deserves some of your criticisms, but let's be fair to NCOs in armies all over the world: they train, they swear, they spit, they repair, they improvise, they fight, they shoot to kill. But they don't write treatises on international law or wine reviews in the Sunday Times. Wellington's NCOs in 1814 were no more likely to have advanced learning in the arts and sciences than Franks' NCOs in 2003.
James B Griffin
Covington, USA (Nov 2, '05)


I lift my hat to Elizabeth de la Vega for her concise article on the case of the Plame leaking [Smoking guns and red herrings, Nov 1]. It is refreshing to read such a clear headed, rational and professional analysisfrom a true insider of the US legal system.
Dr V L Velupillai (Nov 2, '05)


Toni Straka's refreshing article [Sad place in history for next Fed boss , Oct 28] makes two critical points; first, that with the decline of the dollar, commodities such as oil are becoming the reserve currency of choice; and second, a rush to dump dollars "could turn into a crash that would lead to global impoverishment." Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and every other nation in the world holding dollar paper needs to face up to these two points and do something now. The world needs a new reserve currency, and it needs it before the dollar's slow slide turns into a panic. Only by setting up a multinational equivalent of the US "Fed," a politically independent agency chartered to manage a reserve currency, is there any hope for avoiding the potential disaster that Straka identifies. As Straka points out, a truly credible reserve needs to based on commodities. Oil, gold, diamonds, uranium, timberlands…etc are where jittery money managers are moving their money now. But the sad truth is a speculative rush into these obvious hoardable commodities will just hasten the dollar disaster. Speculative pressure pushing the dollar denomination of such commodities up is exactly the same as inflation when measured for an easily hoardable market basket. What we need is a concerted action by almost every country that holds a significant pile of dollars (except the US, of course) to take control of hoardable commodities within their jurisdiction and remove them from the dollar market immediately, mandating that transactions be conducted in the new reserve currency. Simultaneously, the new reserve bank would take possession of the dollar paper of the participating countries, exchanging them for the new reserve currency on a somewhat discounted basis. The amount of the discount would represent two things: first, the cost of acquiring ownership of a reserve tranche to back the new currency, basically forward positions in a wide-ranging market basket of commodities; and second, a prediction about the financial cost of fighting off the speculative pressures that would surely follow.
Daniel Turner
Pennsylvania, USA (Nov 2, '05)


Re Iran searches for nuclear exit by Iason Athanasiadis, (Nov 2): The world is now in the post-Empire era. The Empire, having lost both it’s credibility and the war in the desert of Iraq, is now in no position to take on countries like Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Even with the “shock and awe”, rape, torture and mass murders exhibited in Iraq (meant to frighten off smaller nations), the world has come to the realization that the Empire is defeated. The Empire was a paper tiger to begin with. Muslims have been awakened from their long slumber and there is nothing to stop us taking our own destiny in our own hands, in spite of what Spengler says. Muslims will come out stronger in their faith and eventually all divisions created by both outsiders and local Western-educated elites will disappear for a stronger Muslim nation.
Vincent Maadi
South Africa (Nov 2, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari's commentary [The unraveling of the 'Cheney cabal', Nov 1] pirouettes around the core of what caused the unraveling, as well as the implication of the acts that brought about the unraveling. Possibly his intent was to broad stroke the backgound. But one is left with the feeling that the issue still requires a walking-on-egg-shells strut. The fact that the so-called neocon cabal has begun to unravel lends credence to what it was intentionally set up to accomplish. The belief that such a pseudo coup d'etat in the US could occur is stuff that is worthy of what Hollywood creates. Nevertheless and notwithstanding a one-word Spengler comment ("Piffle") on one of his forums in alluding to this subject. The stage seems to be set for a scenario where the neocon and/or Cheney cabal could be charged with conspiracy to defraud the US by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence mandated as necessary to the pursuit of military actions. Such misrepresentation violates federal statutes. Interesting as all this may seem, the line has already been drawn and red herrings are aplenty. So Mr Ahrari already has his work cut out for him at least for a year or so in ATol.
Armand De Laurell (Nov 2, '05)


Karen Hughes [A US ear in the Muslim world, Nov 2] is a voice to the Muslim world. She is an ear, too, as Ionnis Gatsionis suggest. George W Bush has called her out of her retirement from the West Wing to roam the Arab and Muslim world to improve America's much tarnished image. Bright and cheery with the brisk manner of a Girl Scout leader she plunged head first into a difficult assignment. She has worked the Arab and Muslim audiences like the slick, efficient publicist that she is, but without banner headline results. Although Mr Gatsionis cynically remarks that Ms Hughes is primarily trying to improve the US president's sagging image, this ambassadrix's wanderings has a broader appeal domestically. She embodies that naive, Candide like wonder and goodwill which the American wit and wag Mark Twain archly made fun of as an "innocent abroad." Her simple, faux homespun words echo a wondering by ordinary Americans: why do they hate us? So, in spite of the obviousness of Ms Hughes' actions, she cannot be dismissed as a cypher or a sycophant. Americans are disturbed as why even good friends of the US in the Arab and Muslim world, are at times extreme in their views about their country. Thus, Ms Hughes is a public face for her country which thinks of itself as generous in sharing its riches and its bounty; as a country with open arms welcoming the masses from the Arab and Muslim world who want to emigrate there and begin a new life, in a tolerant new world. On the other hand, it seems risible after years of penny pinching that Mr Bush wakes up to the fact that the US is failing in its efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim street, which it has taken much for granted. Hence, Ms Hughes' cutting the ribbon to a Lincoln Corner in Malaysia where the use of English is hardly encouraged but of late.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 2, '05)


You sure wouldn't know Ioannis Gatsiounis was an American by the way he lambasted Karen Hughes' "Be Nice to Muslims Tour 2005" [A US ear in the Muslim world, Nov 2]. He sounded more like a disinchanted Lithuanian Communist trying to stir up the masses. It would probably be better if all Americans just stayed away from Muslim countries altogether. Even Mr Gatsiounis.
Doug Webb (Nov 2, '05)


Ehsan Ahrari tells a whopping falsehood in his latest analysis article [The unraveling of the 'Cheney cabal', Nov 1]. Ahrari speaks of, "the American media, internationally known for its hard-nosed commitment to truth and investigative reporting ..." What a howler - especially in light of the fact that part of the importance of Asia Times Online is that it conveys much major geopolitical news that is suppressed or obscured by the corporate-owned US media companies. Serious media analysts have for some time now documented how US media are the most narrowly pro-government media of any Western developed nation, though it is censored and manipulated by corporate owners rather than government commissars. There is almost NO serious "investigative reporting" in the US that does not originate with the government itself ... I think the otherwise learned Mr Ahrari has watched too many Hollywood movies and American TV shows, where a fictional, brave "investigative reporter" is a standard character, even though such people would quickly get fired in real life.
Les Sachs
Amsterdam, Netherlands (Nov 1, '05)

You do Ahrari an injustice by truncating your quote. His sentence reads: "[T]he American media, internationally known for its hard-nosed commitment to truth and investigative reporting, rolled over and played patsy to the Bush administration's persistent exaggerations and unproved claims about Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction-related activities." - ATol


I find the commentary Hoodwinked in Washington and Damascus [Nov 1], by Maggie Mitchell Salem, rather disingenuous for linking two completely different investigations - Hariri's assassination and the outing of Valerie Plame such that it implies if you believe in the culpability of one, then you should the other. In her words, "If after scrutinizing all 87 pages of the report you still believe Syria played no role in Hariri's assassination, well then, perhaps you shouldn't read any further. Clearly, you've been conned. Or is it that you dislike and distrust President George W Bush's cabal more than you do Bashar's?" This is an insidious tactic, implying that if you are unsure of Assad's guilt, perhaps it is because you distrust Bush, not because the evidence isn't there. Frankly, this sounds too much like the hard-sell American hawks were peddling to prepare for "regime change" in Iraq. According to the much respected Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, the Mehlis report is built on the same anemic foundations as Colin Powell's UN presentation in February, 2003. "He is relying on intercepts of an unnamed source inside the Iranian air force, someone without inside stuff. It's not empirical." On the basis of this thin evidence, he says, the Bush administration is campaigning at the UN for sanctions on Syria ... Our intelligence should not be insulted (the implication that we are "conned") if we insist on hearing the views of other respected opinion leaders before we make up our minds as to the substance in the allegations against Syria. And yes, we do insist on a smoking gun, now that we know better after Iraq about the game of smoke and mirrors.
L Kirchhoff (Nov 1, '05)


On behalf of the voiceless Iranian people in Iran, I strongly condemn the recent blatant comments calling for the destruction of the great nation of Israel by the newly selected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian people neither agree with the handpicked President Ahmadinejad’s comments, nor have any such desire to eradicate the people of Israel. As a matter of fact, Iranians are very proud of the action of their champion of human rights, Cyrus the Great. It was this great Persian trailblazer of human rights who freed the Jews from captivity and promoted freedom of culture, religion and beliefs in the vast empire under his rule, something we wish to follow ...
Amil Imani
Washington, USA (Nov 1, '05)


I am not all surprised at what is happening in Washington these days with President Bush getting buried in the deep pit of mess that he has built for himself. I personally believe that wisdom is as alien to him as slippers are to a snake. He is in such a confused state of mind that he is turning to every priest in sight for deliverance and redemption and believes closing his eyes for a few seconds during his prayers is a sufficient exercise to hear his Christian god tell him to invade Muslim countries and kill hundred of thousands of innocent men, women and children ... With regard to the statement of the Iranian president about “wiping Israel off the map”, it was a statement of principle rather than of intent and was a flourish of sentimental tongue. He was simply reaffirming Iranian policy towards the state of Israel since the revolution. He did not literally mean using force against Israel, which would be pronouncing Iran’s death sentence ... However, I believe it was a miscalculated and untimely statement as we know that the US and the Europeans are searching every corner and excuse to vilify Iran and this statement traps Iran in the net laid for him long time ago ... Finally, I would like to commend Moin Ansari [letter, Oct 31] for his dedicated endeavors to build bridges of harmony amongst his different local communities and raise funds for the relief of Pakistani earthquake victims, but I would urge him not to feel so sour with Palestinians for their lack of response, which is regrettable. Palestinians are oppressed people living under the cruel pressure of Israel’s daily aggression and need our sympathy more than anything else.
Saqib Khan
London, UK (Nov 1, '05)


Is Spengler [Crisis of faith in the Muslim world, Part 1, Nov 1] perchance a descendent of Malthus? No hanky panky by any foremothers? And in any case, will Spengler be any more accurate in his predictions than Malthus? Questions, questions, questions! The world is queerer than we can suppose is right. Somehow I don't think things will be as bad as Spengler suggests. They might be worse in a different way but won't be quite as bad as depicted. Coming from a poor background, I know that it takes only a couple of handfuls of grain to feed yourself, a few cents worth of clothes, a modest roof over your head, a basic level of health care, and (provided you are in a warm climate) you are in clover. It is all in the mind. Perhaps Spengler should blame his views on too much time spent on studying the apocalypse part of the Bible.
kivalur (Nov 1, '05)


Reading Spengler's Crisis of faith in the Muslim world, Part 1 [Nov 1] reminded me of the the old adage "There are liars, damned liars, and then there are statisticians." Spengler's half-truths also remind me of the Reagan-Carter debate in which a smiling President Reagan shakes his head and says, "There you go again." How many times will ATol allow Spengler to repackage his old "pseudo-statistics" to once again attempt to degrade Islam and try to show that the world Islam is in decline? ... Let us scrutize a few of his half-truths and non-truths.
1) "As Muslims (and especially Muslim women) learn to read, they drift away from traditional faith." It is a fact that Iranian, Turkish, and Bangladesh women have been becoming more and more literate. However this has actually turned them to more traditional faith. This is especially prominent in Turkey, where several decades ago scarves were unknown. Today, many educated women wear the scarf ...
2) Spengler uses averages to degrade and demonize. If one were to take the average depth of a lake and try to walk through it based on the average depth, one could drown. "One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per day" means little because it lumps affluent Saudi Arabia, the rich Emirates, the prosperous Libyans with the developing Egyptians, the poor Yemenis, and starving Sudanese.
3) Spengler fails to discuss the stupendous growth of the "Singapore of the East", a confluence of Indian entrepreneurship, Pakistani creativity, Arab capital, European ingenuity and American expertise. This contagious symbioses has already permeated Kuwait and Qatar, and is spreading like wildfire through Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Gulf ...
4) The reduction in fertility rates is a result of industrialization, television, the economic rat race, and availability of other means entertainment than procreation. More industrialized parts of the US have lower birth rates than rural areas of the US. This is a worldwide phenomenon not peculiar to the Muslim world.
5) Spengler's narrative is very Arab-centric, while Arabs comprise only about 10%-15% of Muslim world.
6) Spengler makes some inane statements about Iran. Reducing "the number of villages from 66,000 to only 10,000 does not mean depopulating villages. It means making the remote "villages" into neoteric cities with all the modern amenities that modern cosmopolitan centers offer. Movement of rural people to urban megacities is not confined to Iran. This is a global phenomenon. From China to India and Egypt rural farmers are moving to the megacities. This is also evident in the bi-coastal growth in the US. 7) "It is hard enough for rich nations to care for a growing elderly population, but impossible for poor nations to do so." This is a paradigm that only someone who has blinkers and is absolutely unaware of Eastern traditions would state ...
8) Spengler's prejudice clearly shows when he lists statistics without any comparative analysis of similar cultures or neighbors. For example he list several Arab countries, but fails to compare them with non-Muslim Arab countries or non-Muslim Asian countries ...
Moin Ansari (Nov 1, '05)


Francesco Sisci, thanks for your great essay [Bush, Hu to meet at crucial crossroad, Oct 29]. It presents a well-balanced and informative view of the current situation. I have only one comment, regarding your paragraph dealing with Japan's worry about the shipping lanes via Taiwan. A carefule examination of the geography shows that this is not the case (please see maps and discussions here.) I have also tried a search myself, but all I could find is indirect reporting on the "concerned Japanese" view on the Taiwan shipping lane. I would be interested to know the original text or speech of such concern, and who in Japan had presented such view.
Sun Bin (Oct 31, '05)


Francesco Sisci in Beijing argues a good case [Bush, Hu to meet at crucial crossroad, Oct 29]. Yet, conditions for George W Bush have changed so dramatically in the past week, any meeting with Hu Jintao would put the American president at a net disadvantage. For in the past week, more of Bush's chickens have come home to roost. In the wake of his failure to deal competently with the after effects of Hurricane Katrina and his inability to rein in spiking gasoline prices, he finds his own vice president's right-hand man indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice; his hand-picked candidate for the Supreme Court taking herself out of the running after causing cracks in his right wing, Christian electoral base; the war in Iraq taking the American body count over 2000. Bush has low cards in dealing with China. He is playing with a weak hand. Hu knows this full well and will press his advantage. The United States is in the grip of inertia till the end of Bush's presidency. The 43rd president is wounded. Washington's ship of state will willy nilly stray without a seasoned captain. Three more years of Bush in the Oval Office will put another nail in the coffin of an America in decline.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Oct 31, '05)


Franceso Sisci is totally off base in giving the impression that Japanese victory over Russia early last century and the victories in Asia in early World War II were victories to free the Asian from white colonialists. This is definitely without regard to historical facts. The Japanese did not liberate fellow Asians. They came to enslave. When the Asian conquered were enslaved, they certainly did not feel liberated. Who needs a new master in place of another? The Japanese revisionists cannot fool the Asians who sufffered under Japanese brutality. And now many of us are wondering whether the Japanese of tomorrow, free from any real historical education, will try to subjugate the rest of Asia once again on the back of the US.
Jack Chua (Oct 31, '05)


This is with reference to Kaveh L Afrasiabi's prodigiously well written piece, Iran, Israel: The good, the bad and the ugly [Oct 29]. From Tel Aviv to Riyadh to Dhaka to Islamabad, the world cannot understand the high-on-rhetoric and low-on-content statements made by the president of Iran. These statements do nothing to support the cause of peace and do not help the Palestinians in any way. In fact they do the exact opposite. For a quarter of a century Iran had fraternal relations with Israel. Afrasiabi correctly points out that "Cyrus the Great's edict in 534 BC which, after liberating the enslaved Jews in the Kingdom of Babylon, allowed them to return to their promised land." In the 7th century Omar bin Khattab, when he liberated Jerusalem also allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In the 12th century it was Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi to liberate Jerusalem and allow the Jews back into the city. The current Iranian-Israeli tiff is a historical anomaly. If Iran had the gumption to do anything about the Middle East it should have. The fact remains that it could not even remove a government in Afghanistan, nor eliminate Saddam Hussein. Making rhetorical and tall statements only exacerbates a volatile situation. Jews and Muslims fought together against the Nazis in the Battle of Bulge and the battlefields of Stalingrad to defeat Nazism. The 800-year Jewish-Muslim-Christian symbiosis in Spain, the nurturing of Moses Maimonides and the greater Jewish community in Egypt, the nurturing of Jews under the Ottomans and in the Mughal era are great historical facts that should be used to build cooperation in the present time. The government and people of Israel know the difference between an irresponsible statement and the greater world of Islam. It is important for the world to know and Israelis to know that there is no resonance of this nonsense in the world and no resonance to this balderdash in the Muslim world. Hopefully the press will not use this statement to unleash a new wave of Islamphobia and bigotry. Nothing in rejecting this bigoted statement prevents us from supporting the two-state solution in the Middle East, or objecting to the Israeli government for their bad policies towards the Palestinains. However this can be done better with engagement, rather than isolation of Israel. We still support the right of the Palestinians to statehood, even though their self-centered politicians did not even have the decency to send a single penny or even a condolence message to the [Pakistan] earthquake victims. We are part of a local group focused on building bridges of harmony and Pakistani-Americans have been overwhelmed by the support of our local synagogues in collecting relief supplies for the victims of Pakistan. We applaud this sense of community and we are thankful of this support. This is the community that we can be all proud of, not the one based on hatred and bigotry. Let us work together to throw anti-Semitism and Islamphobia into the dustbin of history.
Moin Ansari (Oct 31, '05)


Ramzy Baroud (Rolling Back Syria, Oct 29) wrote that it's "unscrupulous" to solely single out Damascus as the only likely suspect in Hariri's murder. Detlev Mehlis, commissioner of the UN-sanctioned investigation into the Feb 14, 2005 assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri and 22 other individuals, concluded that there is "probable cause" that high-level Syrian security officials, with the aid of their Lebanese counterparts under Emile Lahoud, conspired to murder Hariri. The evidence, taken as a whole, is compelling. To cite just two pieces of evidence: The bomb that killed Hariri comprised about 1,000 pounds of TNT, and created an enormous crater in the road. Lahoud, or his immediate underlings, ordered the crater to be filled the very next day! And Syrian leader Bashar Assad has stonewalled the investigation at every turn, taking a month to respond to Mehlis' initial request to interview Syrian officials, only to refuse the request. Later, he only agreed to submit a letter containing the written responses of several officials. Finally, under increasing international pressure, Assad relented to allow a few of the requested interviews (although he himself refused to be interviewed). Beyond this, Mehlis' report presents an array of strong evidence, all of which points toward the probable involvement of Syrian security officials in Hariri's murder. None of this, of course, constitutes proof of Syrian complicity. However, during all the months of Mehlis' investigation, the earlier investigation by the Lebanese, and the forensic analyses of the bomb sites by teams from Switzerland, Germany, Japan, etc, no one turned up any substantive evidence to corroborate Ramzy Baroud's implication that there are other "likely suspects". I also doubt the accuracy of Baroud's claim that Syria has "fully cooperated" in the war on terror. How could anyone other than Bashar Ashad and a few top Syrian officials possibly know such a thing? If the US State Department has ever stated that Syria has "fully cooperated" in the war on terror, I think their statement should be challenged. It seems likely that any statements that the US State Department has made in praise of Syrian actions, were directed toward specific actions at specific times, and were made in the hope that those actions would be part of a pattern of humane behavior, rather than a ruse.
Jahiliya
New York City, USA (Oct 31, '05)


Ramzy Baroud [Rolling Back Syria, Oct 29] may be on to something. We may just be dealing with a simple case of private jet envy. Whatever happened to his 777 anyway?
Sullivan
USA (Oct 31, '05)


Dear Spengler,
I'ma leader of a world super power. I got my thumb on a BIG RED botton and God keeps telling me to PUSH it. So far I have been able to just invade and brutalize another country into submission (the lesser of 2 weevils). But now that this country's neighbor says they want to Barbie-Que a whole country full of folks on the meditar-anian(Sp?). So my question is, Should we go ahead and SHAKE AND BAKE that neighbor or keep going with the standard SHOCK AND AWE thingy. Appreciate ur hep on this pardner.
Concerned at Camp D (Oct 31, '05)


Re Hidden motives in anti-corruption campaign, Oct 29, by Mark A DeWeaver: It has already been proven that corruption in China went up a thousand fold during the watch of Jiang Zemin. It has also been proven that the guilty parties were people with political power and connections. So who can these culprits be if they are not in myriad ways connected to the Jiang administration? When Hu Jintao cast his net around, who else but Jiang's men were found caught in the net? As the public is no longer satisfied with the swatting of "corruption mosquitoes", so Hu must show his commitment to the cause by tackling some voracious "corruption tigers". It is no surprise that those "tigers" turned out to be closely linked to the Jiang clique. How else could one become such "tiger" in China without the backing of political powers from the centre? Can DeWeaver then conclude that the prosecution of these men was part of the power struggle between factions in the party and that Hu needed to take the knives to these "tigers" just to consolidate his power? The facts rather showed that Hu would have to be already secure in his position before he would even dare to confront these powerful, entrenched "tigers". DeWeaver also sees Hu using the anti-corruption drive to cool down China's economy. Again he does not make the case for a motive even though one of the side effects of the anti-corruption campaign could very well have cooled the investment-driven economy. Let's give Hu a chance before ascribing unsubstantiated motives to his government. One can believe that tackling the corruption pandemic is essential to the survival of the regime and that Hu is trying to do it without adopting the recommendation of democrats for a multi-party system or a complete empowerment of the media in order to reap the power of the Fourth Estate for the supervision of the executive branch of the government.
Chan Ah Tee
Malaysia (Oct 31, '05)


I wanted to thank you all for publishing such informative articles. I am a geography Masters student who is focusing on East Asia and I am very grateful for the resource that your site provides. These thorough articles are just the sort of informed dialogue that needs to be discussed. Hisane Masaki's paper [Where Japan is heading, Oct 26] is another great article and one that brings up many serious questions. The revision of the constitution will certainly be a major issue in the near future and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out with Japan's neighbors, and at home, especially if Article 9 is overhauled. Also of great interest, and perhaps as much significance, will be the reaction to the incorporation of "love of country" references in the preamble and a possible resurgence of nationalism if, and when, that occurs. Thank you very much and keep up the good work.
Joel Stewart
Portland, USA (Oct 31, '05)

October Letters