Moreover, pluralist politics and a decentralisation of power have helped
bring Islamist politics into the mainstream. Jemaah Islamiah, the local al-Qaeda
franchisee, responsible for the bombing in Bali in 2002 and other attacks, has
been marginalised: its most dangerous fanatics are in jail or hiding in the
jungles of Mindanao in the southern Philippines. No attacks on foreign targets
in Indonesia have been recorded since 2005. The above-ground Islamist parties
have had to become less vehement to gain power. About two-fifths of local
elections have been won by coalitions forged between Islamist and secular
parties. In the two other huge Asian Muslim-majority nations—Pakistan and
Bangladesh—extremism gained ground in the early years of this century in part
because of the suppression of political competition.

Of course Indonesia is not a paragon of Jeffersonian democracy. The parties
contesting the election (see article) are doing so largely on
the basis of their leaders’ charisma, and the quality of the packed lunches and
other handouts they provide at their rallies. And those leaders are mostly
people who thrived under Suharto, too, testifying not just to the elite’s
tenacious staying power, but also to the lack of any accountability for the
abuses of the Suharto years. One is the former army chief, Wiranto, who was
indicted by a United Nations-backed tribunal for his role in the violence that
surrounded Indonesia’s withdrawal from Timor-Leste in 1999. Another, Prabowo
Subianto, is the divorced husband of one of Suharto’s daughters, and a former
special-forces commander whose human-rights record is such that he cannot get a
visa to America.

In the short term, however, the biggest difficulty facing Indonesian
democracy is the election itself. Despite the experience of the previous votes
in 1999 and 2004 it was always going to face huge difficulties: a voting system
of Byzantine complexity; constantly evolving rules; the logistics of organising
polls in an archipelago of 17,000 islands and 240m people; and the apparent
ineptitude of the election commission. A new one was added, however, with the
exposure of the apparent rigging of a recent election for a provincial
governorship, in East Java, in favour of Mr Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party.

The scale of the errors uncovered—over a quarter of the names on the voters’
list were fictitious or repeated—seems too large for it to be simply an instance
of incompetence. But instead of helping the investigation, the police in Jakarta
intervened to downgrade it and sideline the local police chief responsible.
Since then errors have been detected in voters’ lists elsewhere. This makes it
even more likely that many losing candidates in the election will challenge the
results. Indonesia’s love affair with democracy could enter a rocky patch.

Pricking the pretext of “Asian values”

It should, however, be no more than that. The manipulation was uncovered,
publicised and is being exploited by opposition candidates: the system worked.
As governments elsewhere in the region retreat into repression, Indonesia can
still be proud of its young but vibrant pluralism. Although Malaysia’s Mahathir
Mohamad and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew did most of the talking about the “Asian
values” that justify authoritarianism, Suharto was their role model and proof.
Indonesia is now an altogether different sort of model. Like India it has shown
that democracy can work in huge, diverse and poor countries. And like Brazil,
Taiwan and South Korea, it has shown it does not need generations to strike
roots.

Gallup Polling (October 2008), before the Gaza war, found that while closing
the Guantanamo detention facility would significantly improve attitudes in the
Arab world towards the US, it did not match the level of support for US pressure
on Israel.

Significant numbers of citizens in many Arab countries (Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and Lebanon) said that increasing pressure on Israel would improve their
view of the US "very significantly".

We are quickly approaching a time when Obama can no longer say that he
"inherited" this or that "mess" - he must lead given the cards he has, and lead
now.

Obama stated that when Senator Mitchell left on his first trip as special
envoy, he told him: "So let's listen".

Obama's 'new' policy will require that the US 'listen' and work with all the
major players in Palestine, not just Fatah and Israel but Hamas, a leadership
chosen by the people of Palestine in free and fair democratic elections in 2006.

At the same time, the Obama administration cannot pursue a new paradigm
unless the primary players and regional powers are committed to its need.

The Palestinian leadership including Hamas must demonstrate that it too is
ready to negotiate for a free and secure Palestinian state and recognise
Israel's right to exist.

Both the Palestinians and the Israelis must be ready to recognise that both
have legitimate claims, that a military solution is no solution and that
diplomacy and negotiation are the way forward.

Given the current realities, divisions and leadership in Israel and
Palestine, and the realities of American politics, the road to peace will be
difficult.

Senator Mitchell's credibility and effectiveness as a mediator will heavily
depend on whether Obama (and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) can transcend
the fears of most American politicians and the pressures of groups supporting
hard-line Israeli policies.

America's policy of 'Israeli exceptionalism' would have to be supplanted by a
more even-handed policy that held Israel to the same standards as other states
in the international community.

This would include compliance with United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding the return of Palestinian territory taken in the 1967 war
and subsequent annexation of land and the building of 'illegal' colonies.

The future direction of the Obama administration remains unclear as does that
of the newly elected Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership.

That Obama has the desire, vision and intelligence to reach out to the
broader Muslim world is without doubt. But will he be willing to take the
political risk at home and resist pressures from the Israel lobby, described by
Freeman as "a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of
a foreign government", and its supporters in Congress and the media? Only time
will tell.

Dr John Esposito is Director of the Centre for Muslim-Christian
Understanding and co-author of Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims
Really Think.

It has also announced five countries known to be secretive. But this scarcity
of solid information concerning wealthy individuals' personal affairs doesn't
deter Forbes for ranking their billionaires based on so-called informed
guesstimates. It seems its philosophy is when in doubt let's make it up.

Who's not on the list is even more telling.

Can you believe that there isn't a single Rothschild and only one Rockefeller
- the family patriarch David? He ranks at number 305 with $2.2 billion (Dh8.09
billion), yet the Rockefeller family fortune has been estimated up to $100
billion. What's happened to the rest of them?

Can you believe there are only seven nationals from the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) featured and only five Saudis in the top 100, few of whom are
members of the royal families?

Moreover, the wealth of those from the region whose names do appear is
grossly underestimated. UAE businessman Abdullah Al Futtaim ranks at number 397
with a supposed wealth of $1.8 billion. Setting aside his substantial automotive
and retail franchises, his real estate projects that include the $15 billion
Dubai Festival City, are worth substantially more than that.

Similarly ridiculous is the number 647 ($1.1 billion) ranking of Dubai's
Khalaf Al Habtoor, Chairman of the Al Habtoor Group, which is involved in the
hotel, automotive, construction, real estate, education, insurance and
publishing sectors. The value of his share holding in Habtoor Leighton in itself
worth more than $1.1 billion. What about the numerous hotels, automobile agency,
real estate etc he owns ??

Prior to the list's publication, a Forbes spokesperson admitted this ranking
involved "some estimation and assumptions" while attributing the low ranking to
"the global recession". Doesn't sound very scientific to me!

Shouldn't the media investigate the methodology on which the billionaires
list (and others) is based before eagerly marketing it to the rest of us? Take
one example. In 2004, Forbes 'reported' that Cuba's former leader Fidel Castro
was among the world's richest with a net worth of $900 million, ranking 7th
among the wealthiest heads of states.

When challenged, Forbes admitted this was an assumption based on Castro being
a probable recipient of profits from state-owned companies. Castro took this as
a slur on his socialist credentials accusing Forbes of "lies and slander". Cuban
author and journalist Luis Sexto maintains that the magazine's publisher Steve
Forbes, a staunch Republican with an eye on the White House, was "a voice and a
gesture in the US secret and public war for a transition of the Caribbean island
'towards the American way of democracy'."

This year, according to Forbes, the number of billionaires worldwide has
shrunk from 1,125 to just 793, eliciting a measure of glee in sections of the
press, which haven't thought out how the vanishing of $1.4 trillion may affect
the overall economy and jobs. That's if it were true.

This year's list is patently flawed with Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman, a
notorious Mexican drug lord, coming in at number 71 as a new billionaire worth
$1 billion. Yet, on Forbes' own website is an article quoting an analyst with
the global intelligence firm Stratfor, who pegs Guzman's net worth at $12
billion.

Either Forbes or Stratfor are way off mark. Probably both, since how on earth
can anyone know the material worth of a cocaine trafficker? For all they know he
may have warehouses packed with gold, safes stuffed with diamonds or a complex
web of seemingly legitimate offshore companies?

Shouldn't the media investigate the
methodology on which the billionaires

list
(and others) is based before eagerly marketing it to the rest of us?
Take

one
example. In 2004, Forbes 'reported' that Cuba's former leader Fidel
Castro

was
among the world's richest with a net worth of $900 million, ranking 7th


among the wealthiest heads of states.

When challenged, Forbes admitted this was an
assumption based on Castro being

a
probable recipient of profits from state-owned companies. Castro took this
as

a slur on his socialist credentials accusing
Forbes of "lies and slander". Cuban

author
and journalist Luis Sexto maintains that the magazine's publisher Steve


Forbes, a staunch Republican with an eye on
the White House, was "a voice and a

gesture
in the US secret and public war for a transition of the Caribbean island


'towards the American way of
democracy'."

This year, according to Forbes, the number of
billionaires worldwide has

shrunk
from 1,125 to just 793, eliciting a measure of glee in sections of the


press, which haven't thought out how the
vanishing of $1.4 trillion may affect

the
overall economy and jobs. That's if it were true.

This year's list is patently flawed with
Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman, a

notorious Mexican drug lord, coming in at
number 71 as a new billionaire worth

$1
billion. Yet, on Forbes' own website is an article quoting an analyst
with

the
global intelligence firm Stratfor, who pegs Guzman's net worth at $12


billion.

Either Forbes or Stratfor are way off mark.
Probably both, since how on earth

can
anyone know the material worth of a cocaine trafficker? For all they know
he

may have warehouses packed with gold, safes
stuffed with diamonds or a complex

web of
seemingly legitimate offshore companies?

Perhaps they injected someone undercover or sent a reporter to sidle up to
'El Chapo' in his local watering hole with the aim of innocently whispering,
"How much have you stashed away and where do you keep it?" If so, I'm surprised
he or she lived to tell the tale.

Come to that, unless Forbes employed an army of investigators, undercover
operatives, and accountants, it can't possibly know the real worth of anyone
apart from the likes of Bill Gates who has two lifetime partners: his wife
Melinda and the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Moreover, Forbes has little
insight into people's fiduciary deposits, over-leverage, debts, stakes in
private companies, or personal investments - especially those in countries such
as Russia, China, South America and the Middle East.

Furthermore, how does Forbes account for the high-ranking billionaire
newcomers, who have sprung out of nowhere? They weren't in last year's list,
which means their fortunes must have descended upon them overnight like manna
from heaven unless, of course, they were inherited.

The Billionaire list has more holes than Swiss cheese. Old money billionaires
generally consider it a yawn. Russian oligarchs find it embarrassing. Members of
the nouveau riche are honoured to be on it in the same way Hollywood movie stars
aspire to the Oscars' red carpet. For most of us the only thing it's good for is
a laugh.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs.

This is the story of one's man choice - and its consequences - set against a
war that defies easy solution. But it begins before most Americans had ever
heard of the Taliban, or could place Afghanistan on a map.

In his first week at Brown in 1995, Mike Bhatia hung a United Nations flag
across his dorm room wall. That winter, he and friend Chad Stockham took a road
trip to Dartmouth College, where Bhatia pretended to be a Kazakh exchange
student.

"He created the Borat character 10 years before Sacha Baron Cohen did,"
Stockham said.

There weren't many students quite like Bhatia. Friends admired his smarts,
the way he'd run his hand through dark, wavy hair while discoursing on the
Middle East or the military. Walk past a used bookstore with Mike and there was
no escaping a trip inside that could last for hours.

At Brown's Watson Institute for International Studies, director Jarat Chopra
was taken with the young man whose interest in international conflict went
beyond research.

After graduation, Bhatia travelled to East Timor with Chopra as UN observers
and to Kosovo, to supervise elections.

Bhatia first travelled to Afghanistan in 2001. He kept going back, logging
one to four months at a stretch. Sometimes he walked alone. Others, he hired a
translator, interviewing 350 combatants for research on the roots of
Afghanistan's history of conflict.

In 2006, the military ordered a test, pairing military specialists and social
scientists. The Human Terrain teams would work like anthropologists,
interviewing Iraqi and Afghan tribal leaders and villagers to decipher the
tensions and fears that might build support for enemy fighters.

The programme - which has deployed 27 teams - mirrored a shift in military
thinking, reinforced by two prolonged wars.

In July 2006, Bhatia returned to Brown as a visiting scholar. That fall,
Bhatia attended an Air Force University conference where the military's interest
in culture was "coming to a tipping point," said Tracy St Benoit, an
anthropologist who had already signed on with Human Terrain.

St Benoit had heard about Bhatia's work in Afghanistan and sought him out.
They talked for hours about defusing insurgency by putting social science to
work in the war zone.

"Why don't you come and do the same thing I'm doing?" St. Benoit recalled
telling Bhatia.

By late 2006, Human Terrain was training its first recruits.

Soon, Bhatia's mind was made up. Driving to a family gathering, he told his
mother he felt an obligation to use his knowledge. He left for Kansas' Fort
Leavenworth that September. Two months later, he finished training just as St
Benoit, the anthropologist who introduced him to the programme, returned from
Afghanistan. Bhatia would replace her on AF-1, the first Human Terrain team.

In November of 2007, Forward Operating Base Salerno was home to the 82nd
Airborne Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team.

In Khost and surrounding provinces, the 82nd, hailing from Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, was devoting much of its manpower to patrols and reconstruction of
schools and roads, trying to build support in areas that might otherwise be lost
to insurgents.

The Human Terrain team found its place by asking questions about subjects
soldiers normally overlook.

A week before Thanksgiving, Bhatia joined the team in his first mission, to
neighboring Paktika Province.

Team leader Lt Col Pat Cusick had served in Paktika as deputy commander of a
reconstruction team. It was not an easy place to read, Cusick knew. In meetings,
the villager who spoke was frequently acting as mouthpiece for a silent
elder.

But it became clear Bhatia already understood that. Villagers, initially
sceptical, opened up to the new arrival who spoke to them of Paktika's
history.

On April 30, Bhatia and Garcia got a long-awaited clearance. The next
morning, they'd finally get out from behind the wire.

Sabari District lies less than 16km from FOB Salerno. But by Humvee, the
journey took Bhatia and Garcia four hours, rumbling over the rough tracks that
pass for roads and into volatile territory.

By Tuesday night, May 6, Bhatia and Garcia had reached Zambar, a distant
village built of mud bricks, and met with a group of about 20 tribal elders.

"Michael was very psyched," Cusick said. Bhatia and Garcia were unearthing
details of a long dispute between tribes over which had rights to the timber
covering a nearby mountainside.

The following morning, the last full day of the mission, they joined a patrol
of 17 soldiers in four up-armored Humvees. Garcia had been travelling in the
lead Humvee, together with the convoy commander. But the lieutenant called
Garcia over. Could Bhatia ride up front today?

The convoy set out for a bazaar called Makhtab, less than 3.2km east.

The day was hot, the Humvee's engine emitted a numbing drone, and Garcia was
feeling drowsy.

A deafening thump jolted him wide awake. Air shot down the Humvee's
turret.

Garcia squinted into a cloud of smoke.

Soldiers spilled from their vehicles. Garcia grabbed his M-4 and bolted into
the smoke.

As he ran, the settling dust revealed Bhatia's Humvee, spun around 90 degrees
by the bomb's force, its doors blown off.

"I've got to find my brother," Garcia said.

When he reached Bhatia, the academic's bearded face was frozen in a
smile.

"It should've been me," the veteran soldier told the scholar. "I'm going to
take you home."