A Grim Anniversary

John McCain is an avid reader and is known for rereading many works of his favorite authors. The favorite author of John McCain is Herman Wouk who has written The Winds of War, War and Remembrance, and the Caine Mutiny. Wouk served as an executive Naval officer aboard a minesweeper during War War II and used that experience in forming the character of Captain Queeg in the Caine Mutiny. Victor Henry the main character in Winds of War and War and Remembrance was a naval officer who became a confidant both to FDR and Harry Truman. FDR and Harry Truman went outside the normal channels of military command and relied on Victor Henry for straight talk advice on how to approach Russia and Germany and Japan prior and during World War II. John McCain sees himself as the Victor Henry character who was a realist in foreign policy and understood the nuances of war and foreign policy better than anyone. John McCain is a realist and more knowledgeable about foreign policy than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama due to his experiences and also just growing up as the son and grandson of Navy admirals. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have no military background between them and do not even have the background to know who to connect with to get straight back channel information. Barack Obama and Joe Biden lack the knowledge to even ask the right questions even if they could line up a current day Pug Henry commander to give them the straight scoop. It is totally inaccurate to argue that John McCain is somehow dogmatic in his approach and understanding of foreign affairs. Herman Wouk wove history into his novels. There is saying that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat history. John McCain knows history and has lived it and will use that knowledge to guide the United States through the tough challenges that we face in the war on terror, radical Islam and dealing with a resurgent Russia.

Democratic leadership under Barack Obama wanted to cut and run in Iraq today and just before our successful surge, just as Democratic leadership wanted to cut and run in Vietnam before our 650 POWs came home in 1973. John McCain realizes he would not be here today if the Democratic leadership had their way back in 1972. Because he spent early school years in Indonesia, Barack Obama may not be the Democratic Presidential candidate today but for our efforts in Vietnam in 1972. Richard Nixon a former Navy officer who served before John McCain years in the Navy understood that North Vietnam never returned any of the captured French POWs after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Only the week long bombings of Hanoi including Christmas day in 1972 with our B52 bombers finally convinced North Vietnam that we wanted our 650 POWs back now. The bombings also convinced the South Vietnamese that we would support them in the future under the Paris Peace Talks agreement. Although the United States lost in Vietnam are efforts there gave other countries time to develop their fragile democracies. Indonesia today is a democratic country today that is friendly to the United States and has a population of nearly two hundred million people, the fourth largest in the world. Barack Obama spent his early childhood in Indonesia attending school with his mother and step-father during the time of the Vietnam War. It has been reported that the former President of Indonesia stated that our efforts in Vietnam even though we lost, allowed Indonesia to fight off communism and develop as a democratic country. Our efforts in Vietnam bought Indonesia time. Barack Obama could have been caught up in a communist insurrection in Indonesia during his early childhood if the United States had cut and run and had not tried to slow or stop a rapid North Vietnam takeover of South Vietnam. All of Southeast Asia including Indonesia could have rapidly gone Communist if the United States did not at least make a stand to resist the rapid expansion of communism and stand by our ally South Vietnam. Ironicallly both John McCain and Barack Obama would not be the men they are today and John McCain would not be here if we had followed Democratic leadership to cut and run in Vietnam before our POWs were returned.

This article is an insult to journalism. All the statements are superficial and lack even primary research. With this piece, Michael Hirsh must be trying to meet a deadline to cash his paycheck, but too lazy and arrogant to do any background study.

The primary fact about this nuclear deal is that it is only for civilian power generation and nothing to do with nuclear arms race. This deal helps make a significant reduction to the global energy demand and thus, reduce funding for islamic terrorism originating from the middle-east.

In this article, Michael Hirsh???s primary logic is that - if you want financial-aid and attention of a super-power, send suicide bombers and kill their civilians; the more civilians you kill, the more severe is the problem, and the more funding you will get.

It is this kind of irresponsible journalism that has brought the world to this dangerous state. Over the last few generations, while every nation in the world was focused on creating productive world citizens in the form of engineers and doctors, one nation was building universities to attract and produce suicide bombers.

When will you get it into your lame brain that you will never win the hearts and minds of a country with extremist religious suicidal views? The more you try to appease them, the worse their demands grow. The more money you provide them in the name of ???winning hearts and minds??? the longer these suicide-bomber universities will flourish and more deadly their blasts. It is unfortunate that one terrorist nation has held USA, and the remaining world, hostage with mass manslaughter. Another fact is that, for decades, this failed nation-state was provided military and economic aid by USA, and their intelligence agency trained by CIA. Now, this is how it is being repaid. The only way forward is to starve these abominable human-terrorists. The more you give them to eat, the longer they will keep harming us.

what an incredibly simplistic, patronizing article, putting forward the exact same childlike, short term point of view that the Bush administration has kept up over the last eight years. Who would you rather make friends with, Mr Hirsh, a secular country with a 150 million muslims, 800 million Hindus and a 100 million Christians as India, albeit with their occasional tensions but still living together? Or a country with a history of coups, parallel governments lead by the Intelligence wing and whose next military dictatorship will come as sure as night follows day? Or a China - who has no real friends internationally, only economic vassals and rival who fear them? Wouldnt you rather be friends with a country which is nuclear capable, yet with a spotless history of non proliferation? More than can be said of China whose technicians helped build your todays Pakistani arsenal and which the US knew about all along. One makes friends not just because the time is right, but because of shared values of live and let live, secularism, freedom of speech and the rule of common law regardless of color, sex or economic status. Nobody says that the present situation in any country in the world is ideal, but the idealogy of the country is important. It is very necessary that while we all may be in the gutter, we continue to look at the sky and not down into the gutter.

This time Michael Hirch is completely wrong and out of line. As I have said before you have to be one of them ( either a Pakistani or an Indian) to understand the double game pakistani leaders play to make a fool of America. Musharaf did for the last 7 years. Musharraf; taliban; and Al qaida are the same thing with the same religious goals. They will never kill each other. Just to get aid US aid ,they will show they have killed taliban here and there.. Who knows all these news of killing militant are lies too. Bush has wasted 7 years thinking Pakistan is a friend. The sooner you wake up better you are. Sheroo, Mryland

Pakistan sucking money from America will never want Al-Qaida defited. Infact they encourage Terrorist. Its commen sence $ 25 million on Osama Bin Laden head where as Pakistan gets Billions of dollars America. The only way to beat Al-Qaida Amercian Troops should operate in Pakistan which Pakistan will never allow because after killing the Hen which lays Golden eggs on more Gold for Pakistan.

Mr. Hirsh,
Your artcle, " A Grim Anniversary" is a very inaccurate recolation of events. Pakistan supported Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban long before 9/11. Pakistan has been fighting with India since it's inception, mainly over Kashmir. In India, Muslims and Hindu's have been at war with each other for decades. Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Pakistan have been training Muslim terrorists to fight all over the world long before 9/11. So lets be fair and not put all of this on the shoulders of the Bush administration. Before 9/11, they wanted as little to do with the Middle East as possible. Clinton's efforts to create a peace deal between the Israel and Palistine was sabotaged by Ariel Sharon's knowingly controversial visit to a shrine and Yasser Arrafat's inability to control the terrorists in Palistine and hence inabilty to commit to a peace deal. The Bush administration recognized this and referred the matter to the Arab League and the UN. The US did all it could do; Clinton exhausted every resource. Remember the attacks, by the Taliban on the WTC while Clinton was working feverishly on a peace deal? Remember the US bombing Yugoslavia until Slobodan Milosevic "Butcher of the Balkins" for his genocidal attacks against Muslims?
The only logical reason reason I can think of for not invading Pakistan after 9/11 is that we worked out a deal with Musharef. One that provided loads of intel and I suspect some sort of supervision over their nuclear arsenal. Now that Musharef is out, I'm very concerned about our control over Pakistans nuclear arsenal and these attacks may be a way of forcing the new government in Pakistan to give us that control back. What the discussion should be about is Bin Laden or Pakistans nukes? Get Bin Laden and Pakistan may go into civil war, possibly putting it's nuclear weapons in the hands of radical extremists. Securing Pakistan's nukes may mean giving up on Bin Laden in order to provide stability for the government. THe scary thing is we may be preparing for both. If the new government isn't giving us access to their nuclear arsenal we may be left with no choice but to go after them and the nukes. I pray that Musharef helped us smuggle the nukes out of Pakistan before he stepped down. Or at least put the Army personel in place to help us do so if needed. If that is the case then Osama Bin Laden is fair game and we should do everything possible to get him. Pakistan has always hated American values, our friendship with India, and our support for Israel. Nothing has changed, nothing is going to change. To think so is naive and unrealistic.

While I agree with some of the analysis in this article (which could be written by almost anyone who reads the papers), the author has tried to mix it with his distaste for India.
He conveniently forgets that Pakistan of today is a creation of the US. It has been propped up by the US since the 70s, supported the Mujahideen through the 80s and Musharraf through the rest of the years.
By the way, have you ever written referred to "Christians in US" like you refer to "Hindus in India" ? Or does your definition of a secular democracy end with the US ? I agree that India still has a way to go when it comes to treating every one equal, but then, 33% of Americans wouldnt vote for Romney as he is Mormon, and probably a good chunk wont vote for Obama as he is black. That doesnt take away from the fact that the US is the premier vibrant democracy in the world.
I also wonder about the author's apparent insistence of parity between India and Pakistan. Or maybe he believes in feeding a poodle the same quantity of food as a dog 8 times its size.
In a desperate attempt to scrape rock bottom, you trivialize the article even further by almost saying that you need to make friends with terrorists and not enrage them by making friends with India, who share similar democratic values with the US.
All in all, a classless article, showing lack of thought and deep subject knowledge. I am amazed that it wasnt thrown back in his face by the editor. So much for news nowdays.

Pakistan suckiing money from Americans want Ai-Qaida to remain in its country . Commen sence only $ 25 millon on Osama Bin Laden head where as Pakistan gets Billon of $ from American. Only to win Al-Qaida American troops should operate in Pakistan which Pakistan will never allow. War once won agianst Terroist on more money for Pakistan.

Charley Gibson cites the so-called Bush doctrine using military force when a strike is imminent when in reality it should be called the Franklin Delano Roosevelt FDR doctrine.
Four days after Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a declaration of war against Germany on December 11, 1941. Congress had passed a declaration of war against Japan the day after Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941. Germany had not attacked the United States but was allied under the Axis Pact with Japan and posed an immediate threat to the United States. Our war effort and strategy during the early years of World War II was to defeat Nazi Germany and then go after Japan. Germany was considered the stronger threat and therefore it was appropriate to beat Germany before Japan was ultimately forced to surrender. The so-called Bush doctrine is a continuation of FDR successful strategy of winning World War II.

And here we are, antagonizing Russia and mired down in Iraq.

Author saying: "enrage them by making friends with the Hindus in India" is a misrepresentation - perhaps author needed to dramatize by including the religious angle. Architect of the deal from India is a Sikh (Manmohan Singh), chief political backing coming from an Italian born Christian lady (Sonia). Understand the statement on rivalry between Pak and India ??? however bringing Hindu and Muslim into the equation is low.

The Neocons are the one who got us where we are today with the War on "Terror"?.?. Bush Sr. and Jr. are Neocons, as well as Rumsfeld, Chaney, Wolfowitz, William Cristol, Rupert Murdoc, etc. who's plans for world domination



is is one of

Hi,
I find the comparison between India and Iran juvenile. If your point is that a nuclear bomb is a bomb, no matter who possesses it, then a war is a war, no matter who wages it for what reason. So this it would put the US (under Bush) and Iraq (under Saddam) in the same pedestal. India's nuclear ambitions has to be traced back to the muddled geo-political situation of the past and the erstwhile US support to Pakistan, and not necessarily in that order. And one final point that should settle India's case (and the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement) is India's impeccable non-proliferation record and its history of extreme restraint even in the face of unwarranted agression shown by its neighbours.