(Report of the IPCS Panel Discussion held on 16 November 2006. Panelists: Prof Chintamani Mahapartra, David Temple and Alex Stolar)

Eric Gonzalves
India and America are the two largest democracies. There remains a basic truth - when an election creates a considerable change both India and the US accepts it gracefully. That is the real test of democracy. This is a cardinal similarity between India and the US. But apart from that there exists a hoarde of dissimilarities between the two democracies. One such dissimilarity is while an Indian election may effect little change in the South Asian neighbourhood, an American election can make an enormous change in the entire world because of the global impact despite the fact that American voters do not vote on foreign policy issues. Forty percent of the American voters vote on domestic issues which drives the US elections. American societies have been moving to the right for the last two decade. In the general global pattern we should not take them as ups and down but more as processes. The unipolar syndrome of the US has somewhat contracted in the aftermath of the elections and there has now emerged a global situation where the there appears restrictions on what the US power as to what it can do or cannot do in world politics. Is the latest election results a temporary check on the on the prevailing state of affairs or a cataclysmic change? What implications does the US election hold for the US as well as for the Indo-US nuclear deal some of the issues that need to be analysed.

David Temple
The international community witnessed the largest realignment of the US electorate since the 1994 Republican landslide in the recent last decade. The presentation primarily highlighted the following issues: Which are the seats that were contested? What were the basic expectations? What actually happened? What do these elections mean? What are the implications for Iraq? What are the implications for US policy towards Iran?

Which seats were contested? All the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives were contested. 1/3 members of the Senate and 36 governorships were also contested. There were also a number of ballot initiatives that were voted on around the country based on domestic policy issues like stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage.

What were the expectations? Two years ago the Democrats lost the elections very badly. In the 2004 elections there was a lot of disillusionment among the democrats since they had nominated a veteran and yet they were defeated in the elections. Looking toward the mid-term elections, gerrymandering had taken a lot of seats out of play, causing considerable disillusionment within the Democratic Party. About six months ago, the combination of the Iraq misadventure by the Bush Government and the Jack Abramoff scandal started to wear on the public, reviving Deomcratic hopes of winning the House of Representatives. A week before the mid-term elections the democrats expressed confidence that they could take control of both the Houses of the Congress although privately many members had reservations whether they could take over the Senate as well.

What happened? The Democrats swept the State Legislatures overwhelmingly and they took over six Governorships changing the Democrat to Republican ratio from 22:28 to 28:22. Significantly, the Democrats managed to pick up seats in states like Ohio and New York, and throughout the socially conservative rustbelt. This really shows an electoral shift. By winning seats in the Rustbelt and Sunbelt regions, the Democrats demonstrated their ability to re-extend their appeal to socially conservative, economically populist regions that the Republican Party had siphoned off in recent elections. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats needed 15 seats for a majority, capturing 29, and leaving the makeup at approximately 232:198, although several seats are still up in the air. In the Senate, the Democrats picked up all six seats that they needed, making the ratio 49:49 with two independent candidates who caucus with the Democrats.

What is the meaning of the elections? Almost immediately in the aftermath of the elections there is an effort to define the meaning of the outcome of the elections. This is not an objective reality but an effort to shape the collective memory of the people and the way the country will see the elections in the future when they look back on it. Elections are remembered by a few key factors, which are lessons that people take away. There several different narratives that have been suggested, including a return of moderate Democrats, and a repudiation of a political playing field dominated by wedge-issues, base mobilization and exploitation of narrow prejudices. This was a mandate against the corruption and scandal in the Republican Party. Social scientists will argue that the election was influenced by a six-year itch, in which second term Presidents always lose seats in the mid-term elections making this election more trend than aberration. Finally the Iraq misadventure is also considered as a potent factor for the outcome of the elections.

On the issue of the return of the moderates, candidates who won especially in the Senate tended to be very moderate. These were not liberal Democrats rising to power. These were people like Jon Tester, Bob Casey, Heath Schuler who ran on anti-abortion, anti gay marriage and pro gun platforms. Socially, they actually have a lot in common with many Republicans. These are basically economic populists like Jim Web, who defeated George Allen of Virginia to push the Democrats over the top in the Senate by calling upon America to shrink the gap between the rich and poor. As a result of this the United States has been increasingly closing its doors to foreign imports and free trade more and more in the coming term. Waning of the God vote is yet another factor that explains the present outcome of the elections. Some argued that the Evangelicals and the born-again Christians have abandoned Bush since he did not stand up for them. However, this is debatable as only 24 percent of the Evangelicals and the born again Christians have voted in the 2006 elections as against 23 percent in 2004. The Democrats were able to win over the Roman Catholics and white, blue-collar, protestant voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania on the grounds of economic issues.

The election was also a repudiation of Karl Rove's tactics. Republicans sought to attack the Democrats, calling them defeatocrats. The arrogance of the Republicans did backfire and made it easier for the Democrats. Yet another factor that backfired for the Republicans is the George Allen issue wherein he was accused of calling an Indian, Democrat campaign worker a macaca and making racial comments in the past. This election repudiated these tactics of the Republicans whereby they attempted to play on the fear psychosis of the people that they would lose their jobs. People were generally tired of such policies and hoped for a change. The trend in Arizona showed that Republicans like Randy Graf and JD Hayworth tried to exploit the immigration issue lost to the Democrats who are more moderate.

Rampant corruption and scandals further soiled the chances of the Republicans in the present elections. The Jack Abramoff scandal had hit the Republicans hard and barely had they recovered from it when Republican Mark Foley was accused of sexual misconduct. What became worse that congressional charges led back to Senate Majority Leader Dennis Hastert who knew about it and yet did not do anything? That really hit the Republicans hard. The general opinion was that Republicans are trying to cover up for each other's misconduct. Ted Haggard and Tom Delay are other Republicans that were involved in similar scandals which ultimately affected the mid-term election results. That alienated the voters substantially.

Social scientists have cited the reason of six year itch as a potential factor for the election outcome. The Republicans and President Bush have also been pushing this as the outcome of the present elections. The argument is second-term Presidents always lose seats in the midterm. Even very popular Presidents like the Dwight Eisenhower in 1958 and Ronald Reagan in 1986 lost considerable seats. Second term Presidents also gets embroiled in scandal. Bill Clinton was involved in the Lewinsky scandal, Reagan the Iran-Contra issue and Richard Nixon was impeached. Finally, the Democrats have blamed the Republicans for the Iraq imbroglio.

In the present mid-term elections the Democrats have come out and for the first time spoken on foreign policy issue. This is contrary to the general trend where in the Democrats have always so far worked on domestic issues while the national security issues have been left to the Republicans. This time the Democrats came out and attacked Bush which was very powerful and the Republicans were seen avoiding Bush.

What are the Implications for Iraq Policy? There is going to be more continuity than change; Both parties are waiting for the Baker/Hamilton Report on Iraq to come out; Will not use the power of the purse to stop the Iraq war though there will be increased oversight and transparency for the Bush administration; Dependent on debate surrounding domestic issues will have a big impact on whether the parties able to nurture feelings of bipartisanship; " It will determine whether Bush will be able to get defensive or move forward on Iraq which will give new momentum to change of course debate in Iraq

On the issue of more continuity than change, the President controls foreign policy. He is constitutionally endowed to control foreign policy issues. He makes the foreign policy and Secretary of State carries it out. Hence no matter how many Democrats there may be in the Congress, it is unlikely that they can effect any major changes in the US foreign policy. The President believes in what he is doing. He went for the Iraq war without any international support and he will be prepared to continue there without domestic support. Another reason that is in favour of President Bush on the Iraq issue is that there are no good options. The Democrats do not have a single plan for withdrawing from Iraq. They also lack a united approach in confronting President Bush on the Iraq issue. Besides, the 2008 Presidential elections looms large no Senator will take any stand that might jeopardize their prospects in the forthcoming elections.

The Democrats and the Republicans would also wait for the Hamilton Report on Iraq to come out. The sense in Washington is that this report is going to be a "knight in shining armor". There is a lot of hope that this is going to provide a golden opportunity to coalesce and pull out of Iraq without any problem left behind. When this study comes out the Democrats will call for bipartisan summit headed including notable Democrats like Carl Levin and Joseph Biden, but also Republicans like McCain and John Warner. It is hoped that this report will provide cover for the President to make some politically difficult decisions on Iraq. Unlike in Vietnam in 1974, Democrats will not cut funding for the Iraq war. This would be a political suicide. The Democrats and the Republicans have largely supported Bush's defence expenditures. Ike Slelton who heads the House Armed Services Committee has called for increased naval budget.

The Democrats will use the Senate as a platform to push the Bush administration to confront tough issues. Congressional oversight has been non-existent for the last six years. Bush has so far faced only Republican Congress. In 1996, President Clinton faced 140 hours of congressional testimony on the use of Christmas card mailing list for his campaign donations. In contrast, Bush faced only 12 hours of congressional testimony on the issue Abu Graib. Bush perceives the Congress as weak and this would be a major test for the future when the fist subpoenas come before President Bush asking administrative officials to appear before the congressional committee to testify. The real test would be how Bush reacts to that. If the democrats start looking retrospectively and highlight the mistakes committed by the Bush administration, it would not only affect the former politically but also stall the momentum of US withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats will push to reinstate the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction which was jettisoned by the Bush administration.

On the domestic front, the democrats will have a lot of room to shape their policies and how they do that will determine the tone of the Washington debate on Iraq. If the Democrats are able to work constructively with the Bush administration and foster a level of bipartisanship then there may be progress on Iraq.

On the Iran issue, there exist three possibilities. First, there will be more of the same. Second, the Democrats can force Bush to drop preconditions for uranium enrichment. Third, Bush could become more aggressive since he is no longer responsible to the electorate as he will not be running for the Presidential elections in 2008. The Bush administration believes that negotiations can be worked out Iran but they can never be trusted. With Donald Rumsfeld's exit the hawks on the Iran issue are gone and the new US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates firmly believe that the US must engage Iran at a diplomatic level to get out of the impasse. Gates has advocated dropping preconditions to talks in the past and argued for engagement. Similar view was expressed by Tony Blair for engaging Iran. The Democrats see the resolution of the Iraq issue as being inextricably linked to Iran. Hence Democrats like Senate Foreign Relations Committee leader, Joe Biden and the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos, argue that the US and the Bush administration must drop the uranium precondition to talks. This is a good opportunity for de-escalation because though Iran is politically empowered in the region, economically it is in a grave situation with inflation and unemployment on the rise. There is also the fear of a spillover of the Iraqi civil war over the border. According to some of the Iranian politicians, a delayed departure of the US troops would be in the Iranian interest. Tehran might thus secretly welcome the opportunity to sidestep the political impasse.

In the final analysis, there would be more continuity than change in the aftermath of the midterm elections. The election provides major opportunities for Iraq and Iran but both are dependent on Bush and Democrats working together.

Alex Stolar
The presentation primarily dealt with the following issues: Indo-US Nuclear Deal; Implications for Trade; Immigration; and Afghanistan

Indo-US Nuclear Deal
On 7 November 2006, the Democrats had sweeping victories and won majorities in the House and Senate. The Republicans will maintain control of the House and Senate through the conclusion of the current Congressional session which ends in January. Once the next session of Congress commences in January 2007, the Democrats will take charge of both the House and the Senate. On 16 November 2006, Senate passed the nuclear deal legislation by a vote of 85-12. The House and Senate have gone into Thanksgiving recess and will reconvene after 26 November 2006 to deal with the remaining specificities of the nuclear deal. It is important to bear in mind that the Congress's term expires 2 January 2006. If the nuclear bill is not dealt by January, it lapses and the legislative process must from the very beginning.

So what has happened? Where the nuclear deal now and where is it headed? The Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thereafter, it was considered by both the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The House then very quickly and overwhelmingly supported their version of the deal but the Senate waited and there were some behind the scene negotiations. At the end of the day the Senate leaders feelings got hurt and the heated elections created an environment not conducive for the Senate to complete its work.

The Senate finally voted on 16 November 2006. Several amendments were defeated like the issue on Iran, efforts to increase the Presidential waiver authority, efforts to bolster the NPT obligations to suggest that America was unintentionally assisting India's nuclear programme, and unrelated provisions about America's IAEA obligations. Two amendments that were overwhelmingly accepted included: limiting nuclear fuel transfers to exports "commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements; amendment requiring President George W. Bush to determine that India is "fully and actively" participating in international efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before Indo-US nuclear cooperation

What are the electoral ramifications? One important lesson was that compromises in the US don't take place before elections. The deal was bogged down in a heated electoral environment. When the elections ends, the compromises are reached and the work gets done. However, it is important not to overstate the role of elections. The Indian Express (16 November 2006): "Most amendments are being moved by Democrats, clearly indicating that after the success in the Congressional elections, the non-proliferation lobby has got emboldened." However, the American press would not suggest that the elections emboldened the non-proliferation lobby. Many of the amendments that were proposed were suggested as early as last September. The nuclear deal is not a partisan issue in the US. It enjoys broad bipartisan support. Out of 44 Democrats 36 voted in favor of the deal. The Indian Express (3 October 2006): "Surely Democrats understand how crucial the nuke deal is for Indo-US relations? ?the Democrats have indulged in brinkmanship that may ultimately push Indo-US relations back by decades." This is not how the issue is viewed the US. This is not a Republican vs Democrats issue in the US. The Democrats are by and large in favour of the deal.

Where are we now? Where is the deal headed? The electoral implications are smaller than what is being suggested in the Indian papers. So what will happen is that a Conference Committee will reconcile the bill. Senior lawmakers from the House and Senate will meet to draft a final, identical version for consideration by the House and the Senate. However, reconciliation is not a sure thing. There can be disagreements-if this happens that can prove to be a setback.

Will the deal be acceptable to India? There will be discussion on reporting requirements. How many reports? The subjects might range from issues like Iran, fissile material production, India's ability to produce nuclear weapon production, India's participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative and other subjects.

The Senate Bill has export prohibitions on Uranium Enrichment, Reprocessing, and Heavy Water Technologies. The US government has said they will not transfer these items but President has also said that he does not want this language in the bill. The Senate bill has End-Use Monitoring, the house bill do not. How will that will that be reconciled? On the Safeguards Requirements, the Senate Bill says that India follow the Model Safeguards or whereas New Delhi calls for India specific safeguards. How is that going to be reconciled?

Other issues of reconciliation deal with how strong is the language on requirement that determine that India is "fully and actively" participating in international efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before U.S.-India nuclear cooperation could proceed. Whether the limit to nuclear fuel transfers to exports "commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements" is binding or not? Whether that has strengthened or weakened? There also exists the Nonbinding Sense of Congress Provisions.

Assuming that the two Houses of the Congress will reconcile on the bill, it has to be voted by the House and the Senate. If it gets at this stage the votes will be quick. But before after this stage there can be several hurdles. There are additional steps that have to be crossed. After the law is passed, negotiations on the 123 agreement will begin.

India's negotiations on the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol will also have to be dealt with. The Nuclear Suppliers Group has to express their consensus decision in favor of the bill. There are also new developments of China and Pakistan entering into anew deal. There are obvious ramifications of the Chinese-Pakistan Nuclear Deal. Again if Congress does not finish its work by 2 January the process will start anew.

Looking at Hanoi, The US entered into a trade deal with Vietnam. It was expected to be a "sure thing." It required a 2/3 majority. The deal got a 57 percent vote but was eventually defeated by a coalition of Democrats and 60 Republicans. The US and EU are expected to make one more attempt at striking a deal with developing nations to advance the Doha trade round before June but Democratic pressure will make striking this deal even harder.

Another key issue is the immigration. There lies a lot of uncertainty on this issue. Immigration is an explosive hot button political issue in America. There are racial implications and the House Republicans had been pushing very stringent immigration laws. The elections make it unlikely that the most stringent immigration laws will be enacted. The immigration issue is not on the Democrat's list of immediate priorities. But, if the US reforms its immigration laws, they won't become more onerous. The immigration reform may make it easier for Indians to enter the US. However, it is most likely that The Democrats will take no action on this matter.

On the issue of Afghanistan there will be more continuity than change. On 15 November 2006, the Senate held a hearing on Iraq and Afghanistan. It is interesting to note the way the Bill was introduced. The senior Democratic Senator in a three page report spent literally one word on Afghanistan and the rest on Iraq. Hence, it is expected more scrutiny of the administration's approach to Afghanistan though the main focus will remain on Iraq.

Chintamani Mahapatra
Since the Vietman war, the foreign policy issue has been dominant in US campaign but this is not unique. There have been so many elections in US at the time of war where similar questions were raised. Presently the US is facing a similar situation in Iraq.

Mid-term elections are generally focused on domestic policies social security and employment but foreign policy issues are also debated and discussed to some extent. In the present elections even though Iraq issue dominated the campaign, it can be argued that when an American goes to cast his vote, it is not only foreign policy issues that influence him. It is a question of multiple identity and multiple interests. In the US we find a trend of issue based politics. The same Democrat or Senator can have different vote pattern depending on the issues. Hence when the Americans went to cast their vote, it was not that Iraq dominated their minds but there were multiple issues. Hence it cannot be said that it was a failure of the Iraq policy of the administration.

To some extent, the mid-term elections are an indication of the following Presidential elections but it may not happen since two years is a long time and several things can happen. But this will definitely give indication of some trend. Studies indicate that since 1945 in every midterm elections the President who is holding the position in the White House, the party loses. There was an exception in 1998 when despite the Lewinsky case the Democrats won. While foreign policy was important domestic policies were also equally important.

What were the major issues in foreign policy? The issues ranged from Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and the non-proliferations' where the voters gave their opinion. There was also the issue of Afghanistan and the War on Terror. There also existed the issue of Israel especially the Lebanon-Israel war. The immigration issue was partly domestic and partly foreign policy because it had an impact on Mexico. As far as the war on terror was concerned there a debate on privacy vs national security. That also had a foreign policy dimension and not just domestic. Some foreign policy issues were highly external though they had an impact on the domestic front just as some issues were domestic but had an external overbearing. In a world where US is the leader and with a combination of complete power, we cannot distinguish foreign policy and domestic policy any more.

On the issue of Terrorism, Americans are united in fighting terror. There were more or less unanimous support among the Democrats and the Republicans on the policy of Israel. On the immigration issue there were significant differences within the political parties. What was perceived by one party as illegal immigrants were labeled by the other as undocumented labourers. But the major difference that existed was on the Bush's policy towards Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Democrats expressed the opinion that the Bush administration have failed miserably in these states. Despite the six-party talks, North Korea tested the bomb. Iran despite warnings from the Security Council is still going strong with its uranium enrichment programme. In Iraq, the US faces a quagmire and finds it difficult to withdraw or stay on there.

Another issue that is of crucial importance is that free trade agreement have to be approved. The Vietnam issue that was earlier defeated is now being attempted to get passed with debate and discussion. This is extremely important from the Indian point of view. About 20 percent of the Indian exports goes to the US. The same is the case of Vietnam that exports 20 percent of its goods to the US. However what worries the US is that China is coming in a very big way to Vietnam. Last China China was the largest trading partner to South Korea. Last month China was the largest trading partner Japan. If the trend continues, China will become the largest trading partner of India. In this backdrop, the Vietnam is considered to be a very important that raises the stakes for getting the Vietnam Bill passed.

There is also likelihood that before the 2008 elections, some compromise will be made on the immigration issue and a new immigration reform bill will be passed. This is so because Both the Democrats and the Republicans considering the Hispanic vote for the 2008 elections might strike a compromise. This might not happen, nonetheless it will be attempted.

One of the important factors that enhance the importance of the 2006 mid-term elections is that since the Democrats have control over both the Houses, every committee will have a Democrat heading it. Not only the Chairman but also most of the members will be Democrats. Congressional committee hearings are very important. It is quite possible that a bill can be killed at a very initial stage. Quite obviously Bush is not going to have a very easy time in getting bills on both foreign and domestic policies approved. Though the president will have the power of veto but with Democrats heading the Congress it still a matter of concern. Hence, what is going to happen in the next two years will have a direct bearing on global policies?

The Bush administration has become extremely unpopular especially in the Muslim world as a result of its pursued policies in Iraq. There are about 7 million Muslims in the US who voted for Bush and the Republicans in the last elections. However, the Bush's policy towards Iraq has greatly disappointed them.

In the next two years it is expected that the neo-conservatives agenda which dominates the US agenda is certainly going to change. On the Indo-US nuclear deal, there is nothing to be much excited about. Although the Senate rejected the killer amendments yet anything unexpected can happen to change the course of events. India has been able to cross yet another hurdle but several more lies ahead before the deal gets finally passed.

Discussion
Bush has messianic zeal in his foreign policy. It is not political expediency but a mission that has to be accomplished. He is using his presidential powers to pursue policies which he thinks are right. That is a factor that has to be taken into account.

The US-China relationship that is going to develop also requires to be taken note of especially from the point of view of India. The Democrats are not going to be very different in dealing with China. To what extent is the china factor going to affect US-China relationship and US-India relationship. India is now part of the power equation. How will US-China relationship develop and where does India stand in this equation. Where does Pakistan stand in this relationship which stands being wooed on both sides? If India can mange to clinch the nuclear deal, China might also offer a similar deal to Pakistan. This might spiral into a competitive endorsement of the nuclear capabilities of both sides by the US and China.

The presentations did not take into account the historical aspects that play a significant role in shaping US policies. No mention was made of the blue state and the red state. The US was primarily responsible for failing to resolve the divide between the Northern and Southern states. The failure of the US to resolve these divides indicate that these issues were not adequately addressed. There still exists racial politics in the beginning of the twenty-first century. As a result we see the old confederacy is turning into a republican bastion with the issues remaining largely unresolved.

Since foreign policy is a bipartisan issue in the US politics, what is the new Congress going to do as far as arms control is concerned? In the last six years, each and every arms control agreement that has been initiated has been emasculated. What does the Sixth Review Conference on Biological Weapons Convention to be held in Geneva means so far as Kyoto Protocol is concerned? Are there likely to be any change or is it likely to be the same?

How feasible is the possibility of US dropping the precondition for Iran to give up its uranium enrichment programme?

Responses
When the American Constitution was first drafted it accepted slavery. The vibrant American democracy took one eighty-four years to give rights to the blacks and 144 years to give rights to the women. Added to this is the high corruption level in the country. Even today the US is struggling to build a good democracy. Even then there are more than 130 countries where the voting turn-out is better than the US and these countries include Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in winter the Kashmiris come out and vote in large numbers. But strangely enough even the professors of Political Science in America do not cast their vote.

From the beginning till today, one dominant objective of the US is that all arms control negotiations is to maintain superiority and edge over everybody else. The negotiations are maneuvered in such a way that whatever be the outcome of the arms control negotiations, the US should not lose it power and status. The major concern of the US today whether headed by the Republicans or the Democrats is the "rogue states" and countries of evil. Whoever assumes Oval Office in the next election, their main concern would be to check proliferation and no longer arms control. This is because the US is challenged more by the rogue states and the non-state actors than the nation-states.

On the lame duck issue, it is not as lame as the Senate is concerned because most of the members have back to the Senate. So even if the Indo-US nuclear deal is passed by the lame duck session it is still very important.

On the Kyoto protocol even if the Democratic Party dominated the Congress, ultimately the President of the US is not only the Commander-in-chief but also the chief diplomat who get things done in his own way. On the other side by virtue of the checks and balances, whatever bill the President must sign it has to approved byte senate by 2/3 majority. Thus by controlling the Senate by one or two votes the Democrats cannot do whatever they want.

Bush may be driven by messianic zeal in his foreign policy initiatives but he will be constrained by the many factors including his political advisors from his own party.

On the arms control initiative, there is shift in US strategy from arms control to US strategy. The US is less concerned with the number of warheads and more concerned with who has them and where they are. President Bush will not make substantial changes on non-proliferation in the next two years.

The US and India are in a win-win situation. On the democrat side we have Senators like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore and there are also Republicans like McCain who want to explore relations with India further. Hence it seems that India is an advantageous position. It can be presumed that is the long run instead of India, it is the United States that is ultimately going to shift the goalpost.

These elections also indicate the importance of UN peacekeeping operations. It can be expected that The US will support UN led peacekeeping operations more than only multilateral operations in the future.

Though it is Bush who shapes foreign policy but it is Pentagon who actually shapes in particularly in the Bush administration. With Robert Gates assuming charge, it is expected that US will consider dropping preconditions for Iran to give up its uranium enrichment programme to resolve the impasse.

Bush is not a crazy guy certainly not the almighty who can do whatever he wants. He is constrained by the system. On the question of US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington has intervened on an average once a year. Sometimes they have succeeded, sometimes not. Many would agree with the Democrats' stand that it was wrong on the part of Bush to intervene in Iraq. But today many countries in the world including India would not like America to leave Iraq all of a sudden. The moment US withdraws it will have dangerous consequences for Iraq as well as for the neighbouring countries.

Neoconservatives are dead but long live the neoconservatives. Although they are continuing but the implementation of their policies have miserably in the world