
The debate on the Iraq war has been flattening out in the capitals of Europe. But it has visibly perked up again in Washington. Suddenly, the agonising over 8216;8216;time-tables8217;8217; and demands for measurable 8216;8216;exit strategies8217;8217; fills the air.
The discussion in the US media has flared at a delicate moment: in America, Bush8217;s popularity ratings are said to have touched new troughs after the US military death toll topped 2,000 and mid-term elections are due in 2006. In Iraq, a crucial election on December 15 is expected to yield the first Iraqi government, not yet another interim arrangement. The third anniversary of the American occupation of Iraq is within sight.
So, just a bad case of anniversary-itis? Or is it a more serious bellyache?
The New York Times attacked Bush8217;s speech to the US Naval Academy at Annapolis 8212; dozens of 8216;Plan for Victory8217; signs strategically fluttering behind him 8212; for the insistence on staying till 8216;8216;total victory8217;8217;. In the Washington Post, columnist Jim Hoagland wrote that the president needs to acknowledge that the war in Iraq must be fought 8216;8216;first of all on Iraqi terms, by Iraqis, for Iraqi reasons.8217;8217;
Basically, the suddenly brimming criticism of Bush8217;s Iraq strategy boils down to the increasingly bald question: When will American troops come home? Or when will the promised 8216;8216;Iraqification8217;8217; of Iraq8217;s security take place? These questions received their last popular outing when antiwar sentiment seemed to coalesce a few months ago around Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who staged a dramatic month-long protest outside Bush8217;s ranch in Texas.
Meanwhile, in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh confirmed that the administration was seriously considering drawdown plans. A key and controversial element of these, he wrote, that is not being officially mentioned, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. 8216;8216;The danger, military experts have told me, is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what8217;8217;.
Do something, fast!
As the Conservative party gets ready to elect its new leader on December 6 in Britain, commentators are asking whether the leadership change can make that party interesting again to the British people. Close behind the question of the Tories8217; search for winning ways, is the larger poser: What will it take to make the people interested in politics again?
The worry in western nations increasingly is that the people are withdrawing from politics. As electoral politics simply targets the 10 per cent or so of swing voters who decide the outcome of elections, and as politicians recede behind coteries and spinmeisters in between elections, people8217;s alienation from the political game is a palpable thing.
The Economist advised Tory leader-to-be David Cameron to do something eye-catching quickly. Because, it said, there may be only two chances to catch a disinterested people8217;s attention: 8216;8216;in the countdown to a general election and immediately after Mr Cameron becomes leader8217;8217;. The magazine suggested the Tory leader make some bold moves right away.
In Italy, a columnist in the Corriere Della Sera recommended another set of impatient measures to revive the people8217;s interest in yet another waning political idea: the European Union. The time for legal-constitutional nitpicking is over, wrote Ernesto Galli della Loggia. 8216;8216;Good sense is killing Europe. What Europe needs is politics on a grand scale and leadership on a grand scale.8217;8217; The columnist suggested 8216;8216;If only 100,000 Italian citizens were to vote in French elections, or 50,000 Dutch citizens voted in Belgium8230;8217;8217; Also, 8216;8216;governments involved could appoint a single commander-in-chief for all their armed forces8230;8217;8217;.
And in the Guardian, a columnist advised politicians to update their language. Politicians need to retire ancient cliches to have any hope of getting their message to the young, wrote David McKie.
That last could just as well be a useful tip for politicians in India. Even though there are fewer signs of people8217;s interest in politics flagging here, the communication gap between the average politician who is 50 and above and a much younger electorate will only deepen.
Language wars
English, reported the Guardian, is well on course to becoming the first true global language 8212; 8216;8216;bar a late bid from Mandarin or Arabic8217;8217;. It is already spoken by close to 1 billion people. And efforts are afoot to make the rest of the 5 billion learn it as well as governments around the world encourage English teaching programmes in their schools and universities. But far from revelling in the success of their greatest export, said the paper, native English speakers are seized with embarrassment: 8216;8216;We feel partly to blame that somewhere in the world a language dies every two weeks.8217;8217;
If a report in the same paper is to be believed, though, the situation is less grave than it looks. There is a backlash of sorts, said the paper, in countries like India, where in the past few years, Hindi8217;s reach is lengthening.
The Guardian pointed to telltale indicators: the biggest selling newspapers are those printed in Hindi; nearly 70 per cent of all news broadcasts are transmitted in Hindi; publishing houses are printing more novels in Hindi.