I have been rather reticent about discussing geo-politics in this blog. But, in the wake of the nightmare in Mumbai, I will reveal some thoughts that I had hitherto preferred to keep to myself. Here are some questions to consider:
What can we interpret from the Mumbai bombings?
Is it a coincidence that it takes place just as Obama is transitioning into the US Presidency?
Why would terrorists want to push Obama into a position where he may have to order stronger military action in the Indian sub-continent?
Why Mumbai?
Is it a pure terrorist action or, may there be a furtive hand of an Eisenhower-type allusion of a military-industrial complex that seeks to tie Obama's hand in continuing an aggressive military posture against Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran and, some active engagement with the politics of Pakistan and India?
Is it a show of frustration and, a reaction to Obama having confirmed that Defence Secretary Robert Gates will be retained in the Obama Administration in what the New York Times has noted as a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party.
In many respects, Obama has made the right moves like coming out almost daily with his take on the US economic turmoil and a strong albeit very insider-like crew of financial managers.
But, in other respects, Obama has been surprisingly status quo ante with his decision to re-nominate Gates as the Defence Secretary and proposing Hillary Clinton as State Secretary.
Is Obama a Manchurian Candidate for the military-industrial-financial-one-world-order-complex?
What can we interpret from the Mumbai bombings?
Is it a coincidence that it takes place just as Obama is transitioning into the US Presidency?
Why would terrorists want to push Obama into a position where he may have to order stronger military action in the Indian sub-continent?
Why Mumbai?
Is it a pure terrorist action or, may there be a furtive hand of an Eisenhower-type allusion of a military-industrial complex that seeks to tie Obama's hand in continuing an aggressive military posture against Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran and, some active engagement with the politics of Pakistan and India?
Is it a show of frustration and, a reaction to Obama having confirmed that Defence Secretary Robert Gates will be retained in the Obama Administration in what the New York Times has noted as a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party.
In many respects, Obama has made the right moves like coming out almost daily with his take on the US economic turmoil and a strong albeit very insider-like crew of financial managers.
But, in other respects, Obama has been surprisingly status quo ante with his decision to re-nominate Gates as the Defence Secretary and proposing Hillary Clinton as State Secretary.
Is Obama a Manchurian Candidate for the military-industrial-financial-one-world-order-complex?
5 comments:
or....http://tinyurl.com/5spada
http://tinyurl.com/5rk7a6
http://tinyurl.com/2etfac
http://tinyurl.com/5pwbpp
de minimis,
Interestingly, many of my friends in US did not root for Obama because of certain doubts related to what you highlighted. We are living in challenging times and need to jon the dots and fill in the blanks ourselves because no one else will do it for us!
cheers
CT,
I was wondering the very same thing when I heard of the Mumbai affair. Collateral damage - is that what they call it? I am not entirely convinced about 9/11 either.
I think Obama's intentions are good - and he offers hope to Americans, and by extention, the rest of the world. I, too, wonder if this is meant to force his hand and make him move in an entirely different direction from that stated in the mandate that got him elected.
All we can do is but wait and see. But, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And Walla,
Thank you for the Prospect magazine link. Great stuff :)
Pat
Post a Comment