& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

'Mexed missages'

M.J. Akbar
FOUR years in power and two years of war have improved George Bush. The last time he discussed foreign policy with a presidential opponent on television, he couldn't quite remember the name of the guy from Pakistan. More to the point, he didn't really care. This time the phonetics department of the Oxford English Dictionary could have advertised his mastery of the syllables in the name of the Polish Prime Minister.
Bush also caught a potential fumble just in time. He was halfway through accusing John Kerry of sending a "mexed missage" when he drew away from the spoonerism and returned to "mixed message". At one point Bush did claim that he was "fighting vociferously" against terrorism, but Jay Leno and David Letterman are not going to be able to have as much fun with that. They would have put "mexed missage" on a slow fire and tortured it to death.
The problem, alas, is not Bush's mexed missage but his fixed message. While Iraq burns on every television screen, the leader of the free world whistles in the dark. His recipe for the colossal mistake (Kerry's phrase) is to condemn anyone with an alternative view, as unpatriotic or confused or possibly in secret dalliance with Osama bin Laden.
The first of the three debates between Bush and Kerry was not really a debate but a statement of partisan positions. In theory, this suited Bush fine because he has danced successfully to old tunes before and seemed to be swinging back to the White House again.
Kerry seemed, in contrast, to trip over every phrase. Moreover, Bush can be dogmatic even when there is no dogma to lean on. That always energises his pre-programmed base.
Bush chose the dogmatic way out. He did not answer most of the questions that Kerry raised. It is possible that he was surprised at the main thrust of the attack. He may have convinced himself that Kerry could never be direct. Kerry however had all the clarity of a man staring at a noose.
When you have nothing more to lose you can be honest. Kerry asked Bush why he had declared war on Iraq when Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, a conclusion reaffirmed by the 9/11 enquiry commission. Kerry asked why Bush had taken his eye off Osama bin Laden still nestling in some corner of the mountains of Afghanistan and still plotting forms of revenge against the United States. He wanted to know why Osama had been allowed to escape after he had been surrounded at Tora Bora and offered an answer that must have made Bush wince: because the war in Afghanistan had been "outsourced" to the warlords whose loyalty shifted with the breeze. He wanted to know why elections had been postponed thrice and why Afghanistan still provided 75 per cent of the world's opium. He demanded to know why Bush had rushed to war in Iraq without a genuine international alliance and dismissed claims that there was an alliance by the simple statistics that America was taking 90 per cent of the casualties and paying 90 per
cent of the cost, now estimated to be around $200 billion.
He pointed out tellingly that more American soldiers had died in June, in a single month than ever before, and more in July than June, and more in August than July. Was this the meaning of "mission accomplished"? He wanted to know why American troops had been ordered to protect the oil ministry building after the fall of Baghdad, rather than the nuclear programme offices that might have provided a clue to the ostensible reason for the war, the
weapons of mass destruction that would now never be found. He demanded to know if American troops had gone to free Iraq or occupy it. If the reason was freedom, then why were 14 permanent military bases being constructed? He challenged the President on Saddam saying bluntly that the dictator had never attacked America while the man who had was free in Afghanistan. He accused Bush of using 9/11 as an excuse to make war on Iraq. He took on the big boys, whether Halliburton or the chemical industry. But the central charge was one that will probably resonate best with the security moms who have become a defined category of this election: why had Bush launched a hasty war without a plan to win the peace?
Good stuff and better late than never.
It is ever so dangerous to be ahead in the polls. Bush was smarter when he was trailing Kerry. Complacency is such a coma as you can check with the BJP in Delhi. The Republicans have spent nearly $200
million in one way or another caricaturing Kerry as a seesaw. They became victims of their own advertising. Bush had clearly come to debate a waffler. He was baffled by facts. At one point he began to blink rapidly, an image caught by the cameras. Democrats should turn that image into an advertisement.
Kerry only raised questions that the world has been asking ever since the Iraq crisis began, but which have been screened out of the highest levels of American discourse either out of fear of being labelled
"soft" on Saddam or terrorism. Even balanced media has been reluctant to push towards the obvious. As I write, CNN reports that American troops have launched a major offensive to retake the city of Samarra from insurgents. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not recall being told that a city as important as Samarra had fallen to insurgents. The New York Times reports this week that "Over the past month (September) more than 2,300 attacks have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population centre outside the Kurdish north..." So there is no "Shia-Sunni divide" anymore, just a Kurdish-Iraqi divide. The attacks stretch from "Nineveh and Salahuddin provinces in the northwest to Babylon and Diyala in the centre and Basra in the south ... (through) car bombs, time bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, small-arms fire, mortar attacks and land mines". It adds up to an average of 80 attacks a day. If you know of any other definition of
chaos do write in.
Bush tried to defend his record. He might have been briefed better. He claimed that he had "brought to justice" the godfather of a "network of terror", Dr A.Q. Khan. Pardon and retirement in mother country is not quite living in Guantanamo Bay as Kerry forgot to mention, but as someone else certainly will.
Kerry has facts on his side, Bush has sentiment. Facts should win; alas, virtue is variable asset in elections. The Iraq war was born in a lie and has slithered into a septic
morass because the oil-and-ideology lobby is more interested in its own welfare than either America's or the world's. It is a measure of the contempt with which Bush treats the rest of the world that he has seized a remark by Kerry, on the need for a global perspective for war, as his post-debate campaign theme. (America will not take orders ... etc etc etc.)
Kerry returned to the race by testing the tensile strength of the conservative definition of American patriotism. He threw away the blanket of "safe" positions into which he had been wrapped by advisers who had no more to lose than their consultancy fees. He challenged Bush with a left hook and sent the champion of the right reeling.
So what gives? The election isn't over till the fat chads of Florida sing. The Bush team has time for one last pony trick, and that trick could lie in South Asia. Welcome, Osama bin Laden.
I have no idea whether Osama has a TV set that picks up BBC and
CNN in his customised mountain cave or not, but his deputy and spokesman Ayman Zawahri was among the first to respond to the debate. In a tape delivered to Al Jazeera he urged the faithful to continue the "holy war" against the United States even if the top leadership was caught. He realised that the Bush team will now seek, perhaps with an element of desperation, to offer Osama as a pre-poll gift to the electorate.
Welcome, Pervez Musharraf. You can put away your jokes now. This is getting serious. Islamabad's official position is that Osama is in Afghanistan which is why they cannot find him. The CIA position is that Osama is in Pakistan which is why they cannot find him. However, no one really doubts that the epicentre of the Osama quake is in the mountains that straddle the borders of the two countries. The pressure on Musharraf must have multiplied ever since Bush slipped in Miami. Will the Pakistan Army deliver?
I wonder if Mullah Omar, who is certainly in Afghanistan, would do, but I rather doubt it. He has not been built up sufficiently as a monster. The American voter is looking for a tall Arab with a beard, not a short Afghan with a single eye.
Osama was safe as long as Bush was safe. Trouble for Bush means trouble for Osama. So it might be a good idea for Osama to switch off that TV set for a while and throw that satellite phone away. An electronic signal is the perfect guide to your destination.
The fate of the world's empire builders has hinged on the rocks of Afghanistan before. History, that mischievous little imp, threatens to repeat itself.
MJ Akbar is Chief Editor of the Asian Age.