India, Pakistan: War Rhetoric Growing

Mumbai was attacked by terrorists from Pakistan during a global economic meltdown.  While there was extraordinary pressure on Pakistan in the immediate days after the attack, the pressure has lessened considerably.  Now, India is accusing US and UK of not doing enough to bring Pakistan to heel.

The developed world administrations have their hands full trying to stave off a complete meltdown of their economies...extra-ordinary measures are being implemented by central banks and treasury departments while administrations try to prevent bankruptcies which may lead to millions more unemployed.  Time available for India's complaints is minimal.

India now feels there is no choice but to take on the security problems emanating from its neighbor unilaterally.  Unfortunately, this neighbor has nuclear weapons.  Pakistan is the first "irresponsible" Nuclear Weapons State the world is facing.

We must first and foremost acknowledge that one cannot win a war against a nuclear armed state..the victory would be pointless.  That is why Nuclear weapons are a "deterrent".

Then why is the developed world's behavior seemingly pushing us towards a military solution to the Pakistan terrorists problem?  I say this because:

1. Bush, Rice, Obama, Brown, Merkel etc..all agree Pakistan is home of Mumbai attackers
2. They also all agree India has right to defend itself with all its alternatives
3. They also all agree that Pakistan is not doing enough to satisfy India that attacks will stop
4. And, they all agree that Pakistan is not serious about bringing to justice the planners and financiers of Mumbai attacks

Sitting in India, I see the above attitude as one of nod, nod, wink, wink.

That is, India if you go into Pakistan and take out the terrorists (however, you choose to do so) we will not interfere.

The way out of the 1930's economic depression was the European war #2...sometimes called the second world war by the euro-centric.  There will be many conflicts arising from the current economic meltdown...any flash point could ignite a conflagration.

Economic calamities have led to wars in the past, on a recurring basis.  Let us not allow our regional conflict to escalate...during these recessionary/depression times too many have nothing to lose. 

Read more...

Regulation: Always about people

The Big Picture has an excellent piece on the Securities and Exchange Commission leadership  during the Bush administration:

His first appointment, Harvey Pitt, was a securities industry defense attorney and was wholly unsuited to the position.

The next SEC Chairman Bush appointed was William Donaldson. He is the one who allowed the net-cap rule to be exempted for the five biggest banks in 2004. Instead of 12 to 1 leverage, banks levered up 30 and even 40 to 1 after the waiver.

Then there is Christopher Cox, a stumblebum of an SEC Chair. Cox was more hapless than anything, unable to successfully navigate the fierce lobbying thrown up by Wall Street.

While the SEC is a model institution, regulation and enforcement is always about people...there is a lesson for India in this historical mess - Lee

P.S. One sentence caught my eye..

To investor advocacy groups, having Pitt as SEC chief was like putting Osama bin Laden in charge of Homeland Security.

Or like inviting Pakistan to help investigate the Mumbai terrorist attacks -Lee

Read more...