Rooting for normalcy

I like many others was dead against US military action against Iraq. It just was not right whether the reason was WMD or bringing democracy to the region. There was very little evidence supporting the first reason. As for democracy, I believe it may not work in some places and when people are ready for it they will clamor for it. Implementing democracy by military action is quite stupid.

After the military action there was a time when I kept tally of civilians (or, should I call it what Madeleine Albright called - collateral damage) and military personnel killed. After a while, I started feeling sorry for both. The military because I bet they never expected to be fighting this war. The civilians because back in Saddam’s days, they may not have had democracy but they knew who the enemy were. As long as they kept their mouth shut and a low profile, they had a job and life. Give me liberty or give me death sounds great but life triumphs liberty. As long as there is life, there is hope.

Now, when most of the original groups against war want the US troops to come back I feel the other way. US presence gives Iraq and the region a better chance for normalcy. There was an article in the Newsweek about how Americans are taught very early in life about cleaning up their mess - Iraq is our mess. I wonder if the folks who want the troops back now would feel the same way if things were going great in the US (economically) and /or in Iraq (politically). Going into Iraq in 2003 was wrong and leaving Iraq anytime soon will also be wrong.

A few weeks back I happened to listen to Parag Khanna, author of "The Second World" talk on Foreign Exchange (BTW, what is with desis/BBCDs/ABCDs and foreign affairs - Farred Zakaria followed by Daljit Dhaliwal?). He claims to be advising Barack Obama on foreign policy. According to him, splitting of Iraq is "inevitable." He said it with such nonchalance that it made me wonder how he would feel if his home country was attacked and broken into pieces. Of course, he like many others know that it is unlikely to happen. Afterall, there is a large ocean separating it from the rest of the land mass where the problems are. I am no expert in geopolitical stuff but if Iraq splits it is likely to involve at least Turkey and Iran in the mess. Afghanistan and Pakistan is already a mess. So, we will have instability in all countries between Israel and India. These two countries will probably see more terrorist incidents after all they do not have any buffer zone.

I had a few friends tell me - "Why bother about Iraq? After all, we did not give a damn about Rwanda. And, see Vietnam did well without us." Rwanda was not a mess that the US created. As for Vietnam war, it was a war of political ideology. Both, Vietnam and its backers were keen to prove that their way is better. So, there was a will to win even if it was to be an empty victory.

This TEA can now vote ;)

Yes, this "Third World Economic Adventurer" (TEA. I think I should copyright this) earned the right to vote in this first world country today. And, I believe that bad politicians are elected by good folks who don't vote.

The oath ceremony was short and well run - 141 people from 32 countries. The clerks at the ceremony were very warm and professional but most immigrants were either too grumpy or occupied by the weight of the occasion that they failed to respond to the normal niceties. The judge made a nice short speech on naturalization comparing it to blood transfusion. I guess that might explain some people's opposition to it. I have to fully agree with the judge that there is probably no other country where you have people from so many nations.

Morocco... where desis are welcome

During the December holidays, I went to Morocco - my first trip to Africa (if you do not count the transit through Cairo). I travelled to four cities in Morocco - part of a tour group. The country is beautiful, people are quite friendly and they love desis (more specifically desi movies). Parts of the country, the medina in Fez ... all reminded me of India.

Occassionaly, I did get mistaken for a local (possibly beacuse of my J2M172 connection). Often they would call out - "India?" and when I acknowledged they would greet - "Namaste." Most americans in the tour group were surprised by the reception I got. In one shop in Fez a staff member came to me and started listing out his favorite Hindi movies and actors. He probably has seen more hindi movies than me in the last ten years. He then said his favorite is the music guy - Anu Malik. Anu Malik - who knew? Once I went into a post office in Marakesh to get directions and the guys behind the counter took the opportunity to tell me that they loved Amitabh Bachchan. In the hotel in Warzazat there was no english channel on TV but there was one showing a hindi movie with arabic subtitles. And, when I was on my way back at the Marakesh airport an immigration official came running after me. I stopped for him. He asked me where I was from and when he saw my Indian passport patted me on my back and said - "Welcome." I must tell you I have never been welcomed so warmly in any other country for my Indian passport.

The folks running the food stalls at Djemaa el Fna blew me away with their command of Hindi - inviting me to their stalls in Hindi - all learned by watching Hindi movies.

So, who would you choose?

Let us assume that you are in the hospital for a life saving procedure. Yes, a life saving procedure for you.

The hospital tells you that you have a choice of three surgeons and two surgical teams. Surgeon A is young, charming, intelligent - when to the best schools and graduated with distinction, skilled - all his colleagues say he is good. In short, he is a hot shot. But, he just finished his residency about two years back and has limited to no experience in the procedure. Surgeon B is experienced, has a decent record - some misses and some success. Surgeon C is the silver haired veteran with lot of experience and again some misses and some success. Surgeon A can tap into members of both surgical teams. So, can Surgeon C - to a limited extent. Surgeon B can only work with one team.

You meet with the surgeons - Surgeon A is recommending a new technique that has shown lot of promise but has never been tried. Surgeons B and C are considering using things that they have been doing all these years.

Think about it...

Now, what if Surgeon A was Barack Obama, B was Hillary Clinton and C was John McCain?