Take the war to gates of the Enemy!!!

New Delhi continues to fumble while India burns.
Pakistan's superior psychological warfare machinery further tied down the already overstretched Indian security forces in knots. Airports and railway stations are the new fortresses that are heavily guarded. Next will be Metro stations or shopping malls. The list is endless. This is what the enemy wants -- tire and dull the edges of the security forces of India by making them run hither and thither.
This remains the single important reason why intelligence and police machinery of the Union and the states have collapsed. Perpetual red alerts, 24x7 for the past three decades have reduced them to dysfunctional entities with no declared objectives to achieve. The ease with which Parliament or Mumbai were attacked stands witness to the fact. Worse, our leadership's response to the threat posed was too shameful to comment upon.
New Delhi is walking into the trap by superficially trying to guard every inch. Neither feasible nor a method recommended. The Indian leadership that inducted them in a marshy land of insurgency and terrorism for more than two decades without any clarity in political or military objectives is adding to the confusion of the security forces.
Forces that are inducted into battles always need clarity of purpose, military objectives spelled out and swiftness in conduct of operations to avoid demoralisation. Otherwise, battles cannot be won and there is the likelihood of the forces landing in disarray. It appears to be now happening to the Indian security apparatus on the ground.
Imagine if ten trained terrorists from Karachi can hold the financial capital of India to ransom for days, what will happen if 500 pour in from different points in to the country? They can literally bring the entire nation to its knees.
To say that the threat from radical Islam was not known despite the collapse of the intelligence machinery is not true. The very fact that the prime minister and his colleagues for many years are forced to move under heavy security blanket within their own capital city with roads lined up with policemen is a shameful declaration of the existing threat to the Union. Couple this fact with the increasing frequency of attacks by the Islamic terrorists in recent times and the entire threat perception becomes crystal clear.
To tie up security forces in knots internally to deal with the externally sponsored, trained, and petro-dollar financed terrorism exported by the Pakistan army[Images] and the Inter Services Intelligence will deaden their morale and will to fight. While there is definitely an internal dimension to security, to put the forces within on a self-destructive directionless path is exactly what the enemy wants!
Either the political set up in New Delhi has not understood this raw truth in war fighting or is too scared to take the war back to enemy territory. This war must be fought decisively in Pakistan before it engulfs the Union of India in its entirety.
Pakistan is in cahoots with other dictatorial regimes on our borders. China wants to tie down India to retain its top dog status in Asia. Maoist Nepal favours China. Bangladesh, another laboratory of radical Islam, is in connivance with these dictatorial regimes. The subtle alliance of China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal Maoists pose a combined threat to the territorial integrity of India. Of course, overtly these regimes pretend to work in isolation of each other so as not to alarm New Delhi.
To avoid destruction of our forces by deployment in unending internal circuses and before war fatigue sets in, we need to take the war imposed by radical Islam to the enemy territory. Unless the source of supply is disabled, this war cannot be won. The core group orchestrating this drama is the Pakistan army and the ISI. These external links are required to be put in disarray. This can only happen if the war is re-exported to Pakistan.
If the poisonous flow from the external links is not stopped, Indian Muslims will be radicalised, which is the primary aim of Pakistan. Similarly, a backlash from the majority that is responsible for the liberal philosophy of India can wreck the democratic set-up. Non-governance is not really an option available to the prime minister. Mumbai and other attacks mounted by terrorists on Indian cities, could not have taken place without local support. For the police or intelligence agencies to profess otherwise is untruthful.
Another falsehood perpetuated by the eternally helpless breed of Indians is that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. It is not, stable or otherwise. Pakistan is a failed State. It is on the brink of disintegration. It simply needs to be helped to remove itself and the map redrawn. Otherwise, the cost to India will keep increasing disproportionately.
To take this war to the enemy, New Delhi needs a deliberate, graded and escalating response with a clear political and military objective to help Islamabad [Images] disintegrate:
• Snap diplomatic relations immediately.
• Declare Pakistan a terrorist State.
• Discontinue all trains and bus services as well as trade and business transactions.
• Announce renegotiations of the Indus Water Treaty as the terms unduly favour Pakistan.
• Begin a process to regulate the water supplies and build new mechanisms to activate water flow controls.
• Cancel permissions for over flights.
• Seal the Nepal and Bangladesh borders on a priority basis.
• Build a grand alliance of democracies by increasing their stakes in the burgeoning economic pie of India, to leverage their support against authoritarian regimes on our border including Pakistan.
• Increase immediately FDI in the defence sector from 26 percent to 49 percent. This will help India to emerge as the most modern technology driven defence industry hub in Asia while making it profitable for Western companies to invest.
Instead of fighting at cross-purposes with Asia's largest media, harness its resources to conduct unprecedented psychological warfare. In times of war, the media is a weapon, a platform to be used intelligently to secure the national interests without attempting to hinder its freedom.
Equip the intelligence agencies with clear directives and resources to conduct deniable acts in enemy land similar to Islamabad's terrorist acts. Thus raise the cost to the enemy and make it prohibitive for Pakistan. This will also fuel the disintegration of this tottering State. The game can be played by equal finesse by us.
To defend the taxpayer's millions of dollars invested in Afghanistan's reconstruction programme, move two integrated divisions with substantial air element in the area, in consultation with Kabul. Let Indian pressures build up from the east and west on Pakistan so that our embassy or similar establishments are not targeted in the future.
The Bush administration's strategy that Western forces without India's support will win in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is misguided and counter-productive. They cannot win without New Delhi's direct involvement. The incoming Obama [Images] administration urgently needs to change this policy in Washington's interest. Similarly, New Delhi should learn to fight its own war instead of expecting others do its dirty work.
Simultaneously equip and marshal the military forces on a war footing, removing all deficiencies including the human resources as war at an appropriate time of our choosing remains an open option.
We should stop tying up our forces internally in an endless mind-boggling game. This will result in disintegration and ineffective security instruments available to the State. The helplessness of the under-trained and under-equipped police was on display during the attack in Mumbai. Therefore, instead of permitting our forces to disintegrate in the long term, it is sensible to take this war to Pakistan and make them pay the price.
It is time, India woke from its slumber.

About me

Some might say it's along the lines of being an "acquired taste." Others might more correctly classify it as, "the asshole some people are willing to tolerate." Most likely, I am just inimitable, like many others. But I'll do the best I can to describe myself with words. 

I'd say that I am an eclectic amalgamation of many seemingly paradoxical things. This can be exemplified in both my seemingly endless persistence on many topics and arguments, as well as my careful cautiousness on other topics and arguments. This is largely due to how astute I am of the topic: more knowledge, more persistent; less knowledge, obviously more cautious. I also have times of obsessive compulsions regarding certain things (mostly just my books, however). 

Many could qualify my way of talking and thinking about things as prosaic, pithy, or terse. This is both a combination of my feelings that if you're going to say something, say it plainly, simply, and honestly and to not just over-flower everything without really saying anything. It can of course come off sometimes as being angered, mean-spirited, callous, or me just being a malcontent or even a misanthrope. I do try to limit those reactions as much as possible. I just follow the feeling that if I am asked my opinion on something, people will be able to handle hearing it since they are asking me after all. I am not a misanthrope, at least not totally. Just that some people, while I'm sure they live lovely lives and probably have great characteristics, I just cannot tolerate. 

I know that I am quite a smart person on most things, and also am exceedingly imaginative. I do feel that I am funny, though surely not everyone is funny all the time. My humor would probably best be labeled very wry and sarcastic, though it is quite fun to just plain laugh at the silliness of things lots of times. 

I am a radical atheist. I don't say that to mean that I am trying to subjugate all religions of the world (though I do think it would be a good start, I'm not actively doing it). I simply say this underscore that when I say I am an atheist, I mean just that: I am an atheist. I'm not an agnostic. I'm not a disgruntled Hindu. I'm an atheist. Or I guess a bright. Because of my rejection of religion, I tend to treat many things with what people might call an irreverent perspective. This just by extension can very easily carry over into other areas of life -- notably politics -- making me into quite the active cynic. And while I am new to politics, and growing more engaged into it as time goes on, I already know that I am almost surely a liberal (as in progressive -- as in Democrat). 

And I feel that I am largely incorrigible in my ways

Gas prices have gone down but Commodity prices are still up. Let's doodle are heads why?

I FOUND THIS ARTIClE ON ONE OF THE WEBSITE I FOLLOW. HOPE THIS HELPS TO ANSWER BUGGING QUESTIONS RUNS THROUGH EVERYONE' MIND THAT WHY IS EVERYTHING NOT GETTING CHEAPER. LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE.

Worries about a global recession have pushed the price of oil to its lowest in over a year. Don't expect the same for a bottle of beer, a tube of toothpaste, or a box of cereal.

 You can blame "sticky" prices.

That's what analysts call it when companies slap higher prices on products and keep them there even though the rationale for the price hikes -- such as soaring oil prices -- is gone.

The falling cost of oil could help companies pad their profit margins as they pay less to make and transport goods. But it won't mean a break on the average grocery bill.

The price of consumer goods typically lags behind the price of key inputs like oil and wheat, said Chris Lafakis, an economist with Moody's economy.com.

"Consumer prices don't change near as fast, because they are set by companies," Lafakis said. "Commodity prices are set every day on an open market."

The opposite is also true: Companies hesitate to hike prices because it might push consumers to into the arms of a competitor, or to cheaper alternatives.

Meat companies like Tyson Foods Inc., for example, have swallowed losses this year as ingredient costs rose because executives were fearful consumers would abandon their products if prices jumped too fast. Tyson's profit plunged 92 percent in the third quarter and the company said it didn't expect a rebound soon.

But once a price hike is in place, it virtually never goes away, Lafakis said. The one factor that can drive prices down is a drastic drop in demand, but few economists expect the global economic downturn to be so severe it would cause widespread deflation, he said. More likely is that inflation will slow or possibly flatten.

That was the case last month, when consumer prices were essentially flat, even as oil prices plunged.

The core Consumer Price Index, which eliminates food and energy prices, rose 0.1 percent, according to U.S. Labor Department figures. That was only about half the jump economists had expected, but it still lagged far behind the drop in oil prices. Crude oil has plunged more than 53 percent from its record high of $147.27 between July and October.

Companies also tend to price their products based on what their competitors are charging and not necessarily on what it costs to make them, said Lars Perner, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business.

Coca-Cola is more interested in what Pepsi is charging for a six-pack than the cost of its ingredients, such as high fructose corn syrup, he said. Neither Coca-Cola Co. nor Pepsico Inc. would comment on possible price cuts in the future.

That means consumers are in a fix these days. Prices have been going up broadly across whole categories of products, meaning competitors have been hiking prices in unison. For example, both Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. and SABMiller's U.S. unit have been raising the price for beer, with neither one too worried that the price hikes will push customers to their competitor.

"They may be upset about it, but you really have fairly limited options as a consumer," Perner said.

For prices to drop, consumers have to hope that companies' competitive juices start flowing again. The drop in oil and ingredient prices is creating a high-stakes game of chicken in the shopping aisle, Perner said.

If companies keep their prices at current levels, they can reap higher profit margins. But if one company starts cutting prices to lure customers away from competitors, it could start a price war.

"As soon as the first [company] in a category reduces prices, the others will follow suit. But they're all hoping the other one doesn't" cut prices, Perner said.

Nobody wants to be first, for reasons made in clear in 1996.

That's the last time cereal makers broadly reduced prices, prompted by a 20 percent price cut by Post cereal. When competitors were forced to follow suit, it hurt profitability across the sector and reduced sales, according to a recent research note by Deutsche Bank analyst Eric Katzman.

Kellogg responded to Post's move by slashing prices 19 percent, and the company's profits tumbled 8 percent to $502 million in 1998, and another 33 percent to $338 million in 1999. Kellogg launched the Country Inn Specialties line of higher-end cereals to try creating a niche market, and hiked domestic cereal prices nearly 3 percent in 1998 and later returned to growth.

"It took many years until profit levels for cereal players returned to the level once enjoyed before Post's actions," Katzman wrote. "With this historical precedent, we highly doubt manufacturers will lower prices on the back of lower agricultural commodities."

That's certainly the case with Omaha-based ConAgra Foods Inc., which makes a variety of products from Chef Boyardee soups to Banquet frozen dinners and Orville Redenbacher's popcorn.

Food makers like ConAgra are hardly out of the woods when it comes to paying more for ingredients and transportation, said spokeswoman Stephanie Childs. ConAgra paid an extra $190 million for inputs last quarter when compared to the same period a year before. The company expects that figure to be smaller during the current quarter -- but costs will still be up, Childs said.

The same is true for General Mills Inc., said Chief Executive Ken Powell.

General Mills hiked prices this year on products like Cheerios, Pillsbury and Betty Crocker dessert mixes to compensate for the high commodity costs -- up 7 percent last year and an expected 9 percent this year.

Last year net pricing was up 2.5 percent and though commodities are moderating, those prices won't be coming back down because the company expects this new era of inflation to stay.

"We think we're in for a period of moderate inflation and that's the scenario we've got to be ready for," Powell said.

There will be a bright spot for consumers this season as retailers offer selected, high-profile discounts to lure hesitant shoppers, said retail consultant George Whalin.

The motivation to cut prices was reinforced Wednesday when the U.S. Commerce Department reported overall retail sales dropped 1.2 percent in September, about twice the drop expected by analysts. The decline helped heighten fears the economy was headed into a deeper recession than many economists had already been expecting.

Retailers are expecting one of the most dismal holiday seasons in years, Whalin said, and are promoting big sales, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s decision to cut the price of 10 hot holiday toys to $10 each.

But the big promotions don't mean that retail prices will fall across the board, Whalin said. Most retailers ordered their current merchandise three months ago. With their costs locked in, they will keep most prices as high as they can to recoup as much profit as possible from the slower customer traffic.