Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in Pakistan Army on September 28th, 2013
‘We cannot afford to confine Army appointments to persons who have excited no hostile comment in their careers …. This is a time to try men of force and vision and not to be exclusively confined to those who are judged thoroughly safe by conventional standards’. Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Sir John Dill, Chief of Imperial General Staff, 1940
Pakistan army is a major player on national scene therefore change of command generates unusual interest both in the country as well as the outside world. Two top positions are Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) and Chief of Army Staff (COAS). Theoretically, CJCSC is senior but practically this position is ceremonial and real power holder is COAS. Main reason is that COAS controls the army with promotions and postings. CJCSC can be selected from any of the three services but this post has been used to placate or reward some senior army officers, therefore for the last seventeen years this post is held by a senior army officer. Last time when an air force or naval officer held the position of CJCSC was in 1997. Current CJCSC General Khalid Shamim Wayen will be retiring on October 06, 2013 and COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani on November 28, 2013.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will be deciding about next appointment of COAS. His two close civilian advisors are his younger brother and chief minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif and interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. He consults with these two about all important issues. On military matters, he gets limited input from few retired officers. These include retired Lieutenant General Khwaja Ziauddin, retired Lieutenant General Abdul Qadir Baloch, retired Lieutenant General Abdul Qayyum and Brigadier Javed Malik (for brief profile of these officers see Appendix: I below). The role of these officers is very limited regarding advice about selection of new COAS. Their relationship is that of an acquaintance and not close confidant. In my view, advice from his close civilian associates will carry more weight than any army officer. In general, there is no culture of reading serious material or informed debate. Civilian leadership including Nawaz Sharif is not known for reading or soliciting advice from informed individuals about critical issues. I don’t think that country’s top ten decision makers have read a complete book in the last one year. A small group around Nawaz Sharif tries to whisper in King’s ears and general style is more close to a sixteenth century princely state with sycophancy and intrigues of Byzantine proportions.
Selection of army chief is essentially a political decision and in addition to qualifications, ability of the individual to work with government on important issues is considered. COAS tenure is three years and in case of Pakistan many army chiefs got extensions to the detriment of the institution. I’ll review the tenure of General Kayani and his decision making process, challenges of the next three years for new chief and brief overview of career and my opinion about each potential candidate.
General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani was appointed by outgoing COAS General Pervez Mussharraf when he was forced to give up his post after nine years. Mussharraf’s choice was between Kayani and Lieutenant General (later General) Tariq Majeed. Majeed was more assertive compared to Kayani who played more safely keeping his thoughts to himself. Mussharraf may have felt Kayani will work with him better as Musharraf was to remain President after shedding his uniform. Kayani became close to Musharraf when he was given the charge of investigating assassination attempts on Musharraf’s life. Kayani was then commanding Rawalpindi based X Corps and his diligent work brought him close to Mussharraf and paved the way for his future rise. He was appointed Director General of Inter Services Intelligence (DGISI) where he served for three years. In November 2007, he was appointed COAS.
Kayani’s attempts to create circumstances for his own extension of service severely undermined his credibility inside the army. He gave extensions to some senior officers creating an impression that somehow extension is a norm rather than exception. When his unprecedented three year extension was announced, it caused lot of resentment. In the aftermath of the U.S. raid that killed Osama Bin Ladin, Kayani’s stock hit the lowest point. Pasha and Kayani duo successfully diverted the attention when Pasha cursed Americans in a briefing to parliament with thunderous applaud from the audience. They also turned their guns on President Zardari and Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington Hussain Haqqani and vetted their anger by hanging poor Dr. Shakil Afridi (it was alleged that he tried to get blood samples from the residents of Bin Ladin compound for CIA) by his thumbs. Government’s own credibility was so low due to utter incompetence and corruption that in comparison to civilian leaders, Kayani looked like an angel and he recovered quite quickly from these set backs.
There are already rumors that Kayani may be given a one year extension or sent as an ambassador. Both options are bad and should be avoided. Previous three year extension had much more negative impact on all areas and I can not see anything positive and fruit of another extension will also be bitter. Senior army and police officers involved in operations against militants have been targeted and many have been killed. In some cases, army sent officers involved in operations as ambassadors and some privately departed for Dubai after retirement. This has severely undermined army’s reputation on the street. Police officers now make fun of their army colleagues privately. Sending Kayani as ambassador immediately after retirement will strengthen this impression as every one will rightly conclude that this is being done due to threat to his life. Army should be able to provide security to its own former chief in his own country. Many mid-level officers are concerned about their security and the least Kayani can do is to stay put for at least a year or two in the country. Once things settled down and people forget then if he wants, he can go into the safety of a comfortable diplomatic sojourn.
COAS is just one player on the scene and country is facing challenges on many fronts. The challenges for new army chief for the next three years include;
– Coordination with civilian leadership on three crucial issues of containing militancy, reorienting policy towards Afghanistan and continue to keep eastern border with India quite.
– Leading armed forces in a state of war providing clear mindset, strategic roadmap and operational guidance. He will be responsible for promoting next line of officers and this is the most important task.
– Taking lead, immediately halting kill and dump policy in Baluchistan and start reconciliation with Baluch nationalists.
Five Senior Most Lieutenant Generals in Order of Seniority are:
Lieutenant General Haroon Aslam is from 52nd PMA course and commissioned in October 1975. He is currently Chief of Logistics Staff (CLS) after commanding XXXI Corps based in Bahawalpur. He spent good part of his career in Baluchistan where he first served as Chief of Staff (COS) of Southern command and later commanded an infantry division based in Quetta. He commanded operations against militants in Swat when he was General Officer commanding (GOC) of Special Services Group (SSG). He is an average officer with some experience of fight against militancy. However, in my view, if selected he will not be better than Kayani. It is possible that being senior most, he is appointed CJCSC as Nawaz Sharif in his manifesto stated that he will adhere to the principle of seniority.
Lieutenant General Rashad Mahmud is also from 52nd PMA course and commissioned in October 1975. He is currently serving as Chief of Staff (CGS) after a stint as Corps Commander of IV Corps based in Lahore. He is Kayani’s preference as his successor. He is also an average officer. He was DAPS to army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg at the rank of Major under then Brigadier Khwaja Ziauddin who was Personal Secretary to Chief – PS (C). Later, at the rank of Brigadier, he served as Military Secretary (MS) to President Rafiq Tarar. His general career pattern and service in staff positions suggests that if selected he will be more formal with no inclination for any new ideas. In my view, if selected, he will be no better than Kayani. Only positive thing is that he had served as Counter Terrorism (CT) Director at ISI. Some see this as an asset while for others this is a liability in view of relationship of ISI with some militant groups. In my view, he would have been good enough for a peacetime army but not a wartime army. He is a better candidate for CJCSC position rather than COAS.
Lieutenant General Raheel Sharif is from 54th PMA course and commissioned in October 1976. He is currently serving as Inspector General of Training & Evaluation (IGT&E) after commanding XXX Corps based in Gujranwala. He is from a military family and his father, two brothers and a brother-in-law served in the army. His brother Major Shabbir Sharif is one of the most decorated soldiers of Pakistan army who was killed in action in 1971 war. Life of sons or brothers of heroes is a difficult one as expectations are very high. Shabbir was General Pervez Mussharraf’s course mate. Shabbir was everything that Mussharraf wanted to be. When Mussharraf became COAS, he was instrumental in grooming Raheel for higher ranks. In fact, Raheel was selected as personal secretary to army chief but Mussharraf later changed his mind and instead sent him to prestigious Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) course in London. Raheel was COS of XXX Gujranwala Corps under Lieutenant General Abdul Qadir Baloch. In major reshuffle in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Qadir was sent to Quetta based XII Corps and he took Raheel with him as COS. Mussharraf promoted him to major general rank and gave him prized postings as GOC of Lahore based 11th Infantry Division and Commandant of Military Academy at Kakul. Raheel is a gentleman but almost all agree that for a peacetime army, it would make no difference but probably he is not suited to lead army engaged in a war. I think Raheel himself knows it but Lieutenant General ® Abdul Qadir may whisper some good words about him in Sharif’s ears.
Lieutenant General Tariq Khan is from 55th PMA course and commissioned in April 1977. He was best cadet winning coveted Sword of Honor. He is currently commanding Mangla based I strike corps. He is a Pushtun cavalry officer and his father was also a cavalry officer. Tariq is from an aristocratic family and from the breed that didn’t join army for a secure job. After a brief stint of commanding an armored division, he first commanded infantry division in Waziristan and later as Inspector General Frontier Corps (IGFC) transformed a shattered FC. In my view, he is the only officer among the contenders who has the qualifications for leading the army in the coming turbulent three years. He is head and shoulders above his peers. His straight forward and professional approach is sometimes construed as ‘hard headed’. He has earned the nick name of ‘bulldozer’ for nothing. I don’t know any other officer who has so much red ink in his file and that he made it so far is only due to his professional competence which even his detractors admit. He was one of only two major generals highly regarded by Kayani for their professional competence (the other being Ahmad Shuja Pasha).
Some label him as ‘rash’ and ‘pro-American’. I can understand why some label him as ‘rash’. Tariq is frank to the point of bluntness and not hesitant to speak his mind which invariably results in some friction. He is a hard task master and in operations, he took decisions and many times clashed with his seniors while as Corps Commander he is training his formation hard. In time of war, I’ll pick a so-called ‘rash’ officer anytime compared to someone who was busy opening restaurants and bakeries in cantonment or planning for expansion of defense housing schemes. Some consider Tariq as ‘pro-American’ and I think this is due to his views about militancy. He was one of the few senior officers who comprehended right from the beginning that menace of militancy is an existential threat to Pakistan. It took several years for General Head Quarters (GHQ) to get this point. He was at the forefront of many operations against militants. He commanded an infantry division in South Waziristan and later as IGFC, he transformed a demoralized and broken formation into a credible fighting force. U.S. provided funds for FC modernization and a handful of U.S. Special Forces soldiers provided limited training in some special skills. This very limited interaction is exaggerated due to lack of information. In the last ten years, in addition to FC, Washington also supported intelligence agencies in technical matters as well as Pakistan’s Special Forces. In view of deteriorating relations in the last two years, most of these relations have been terminated.
In the last ten years, there has been increased military to military interaction between United States and Pakistan and a number of officers at different ranks visit U.S. for training and attend various seminars and conferences designed for senior officers. Tariq has not done any course in United States nor attended any conference or seminar designed for senior officers. His only American connection is stint as liaison officer at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa at the rank of Brigadier (since 2001, a small team of Pakistani officers commanded by a Brigadier rank officer serve as liaison with CENTCOM). In fact, in 2008, Americans had serious misgivings about his approach in Bajuar. American military had embraced the counterinsurgency by that time and with the zeal of a new convert, they viewed Tariq’s approach as faulty and viewed it as scorched earth policy. In Bajuar, years of neglect had resulted in hardened militant positions especially tunnels that needed heavy fire power. Later, some Americans were content that at lest some Pakistani officers were doing that was needed to clear the badlands. It was confluence of interests and not any special affinity of Tariq for Americans or vice versa. In fact a professional and proud officer will work on common interests but will assert himself when needed. When Tariq was IGFC, cross border fire resulted in death of two FC soldiers. He put his foot down and pushed GHQ for a tough line. Washington was forced to agree to a joint inquiry at Bagram and admit mistake. General David Petraeus was forced to publicly apologize to Pakistan. I can not recall when the last time Washington agreed to a joint inquiry during war and offered a public apology.
Tariq is the kind of officer to lead army in war time. If selected, he will be a significant improvement from Kayani. However, one needs to be realistic that even selected, he does not have the key to success. He can be an important lever to contain and push back militancy but a true national effort will be needed to bring country back on tracks. Taking territory from militants is a vital first step but in such kind of war you can not shoot your way to victory. At some point, de-radicalization and re-integration especially of foot soldiers will be an important part of the strategy and there is concern that an officer who has spent so much time in fighting may ignore this important aspect.
Lieutenant General Zaheer ul Islam is also from 55th PMA course and commissioned in April 1977. He is currently Director General (DG) of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). He had an earlier stint as Director at ISI prior to his elevation to lieutenant general rank and posting as Corps Commander of Karachi based V Corps. He is from a military family and belongs to the traditional military recruiting area of Salt Ranges near Rawalpindi. He is an average officer who has done usual command and staff stints but nothing exceptional in his professional career. He is not likely in the race and even if selected, he will be about same as Kayani as far decision making is concerned.
No army including Pakistan army has any Rommel or Guderian among its ranks. There is no ‘knight on white horse’ that will be the savior. It is a hard road ahead for Pakistan and collective effort will be needed to steer the ship to calmer waters. There will be difference of opinion but civil and military leaders should remember the basic fact that they are on the same team. Criteria of selection of a senior officer for a peacetime army and an army at war should be different. Simple fact is that Pakistan is at war and therefore officers with sound judgment, initiative, innovative ideas and very high professional standards should be considered for senior positions rather than docile and presumably ‘loyal’ who will not likely stir any discussion or debate at the decision making table.
|
Appendix: I
Lieutenant General ® Khwaja Ziauddin: A mild mannered gentleman and average officer. There was no history of any problem between Mussharraf and Ziauddin. Ziauddin was from Engineers Corps and their paths have not crossed during their professional career. In September 1998, when Mussharraf was appointed COAS, he immediately settled down in Armor Mess (General Jahangir Karamat was still in Army House) and started shuffling the senior brass. Ziauddin then serving as Adjutant General (AG) was with him. Two days later, Sharif announced appointment of Ziauddin as Director General Inter Services Intelligence (DGISI) without consulting Mussharraf. He was now viewed by Mussharraf as Nawaz Sharif’s man and thus kept out of the loop. Some of Ziauddin’s subordinates directly reported to army chief. After Kargil conflict, the gulf between Sharif and Mussharraf widened over a very short period of time. In October 1999, Sharif appointed Ziauddin as army chief when Mussharraf was out of country setting the chain of events that ended in fourth army take over. (For details of 1999 coup see Hamid Hussain. Count Down). Ziauddin was arrested and sacked from the army.
Lieutenant General ® Abdul Qadir Baloch: He is an ethnic Baloch and one of the first Baloch to become lieutenant general. He is an average officer not known for any professional excellence. Once he reached Major General rank, it was probably thought appropriate to promote him one step further for public relations efforts to announce that a Baloch had reached such a high rank. He is a gentleman but has some rough edges and can be a bit difficult in personal relations. He had the confidence of General Mussharraf who sent him as Director General (DG) Rangers of Sindh. After promotion to Lieutenant General rank, he was given the command of Gujranwala based XXX Corps. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, with angry U.S. bull breathing down their necks forced military leadership to hastily change course. There was some disagreement in the inner circle consisting of Corps Commanders and Principle Staff Officers (PSOs). There was some concern on Mussharraf’s mind in view of a number of senior officers expressing doubts. In October 2001, several senior officers were removed from key positions (Rawalpindi, Lahore, Quetta and Bahawalpur Corps commanders, DGISI and CGS were removed) and in this shuffle Qadir was moved from Gujranwala Corps to Quetta based XII Corps bordering Afghanistan. The manner in which things were moved suggests that all was not well at the top. Qadir was flown in an ISI plane to Quetta to immediately take charge. After retirement, Qadir was appointed governor of Baluchistan province. He developed differences with Mussharraf and resigned. In an interview, Mussharraf passed some derogatory remarks about Qadir and this ticked him off. He had no inclination for politics but after this incident, he contested 2008 elections as independent candidate and despite many hurdles finally entered the parliament. He won his seat in 2013 elections, joined Nawaz Sharif’s faction of Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and appointed Minister of State for Tribal and State Affairs.
Lieutenant General ® Abdul Qayyum: He is a gunner officer who served as military secretary to Benazir Bhutto when she was prime Minister. He had an extended tenure with Benazir and served both at Brigadier and Major General rank which is unusual. He was on personal friendly terms with General Pervez Mussharraf who promoted him to lieutenant general rank and appointed him Chairman of Pakistan Ordnance factory (POF). After retirement, he was appointed Chairman of Pakistan Steel Mill. He developed some differences with government on privatization matters and removed from his post. In view of his past association with Benazir, he was probably hoping that if she returned to power, he may get the coveted governorship of Punjab. After Benazir’s assassination, he drifted towards Nawaz Sharif. He is a gentleman but an average officer not known for any professional excellence.
Brigadier ® Javed Iqbal Malik: He was military secretary to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the time of 1999 coup. He sided with newly appointed army Chief Khwaja Ziauddin and he was the only officer who took some action. In fact, Sharif had taken a pip from his shoulders and pinned on Ziauddin’s shoulders making him a four star general. Javed quipped to Ziauddin that ‘Sir; you have been promoted General but I have been demoted to Colonel’. When coup was set in motion by generals loyal to Mussharraf, a small team of soldiers under the command of Major Nisar went to television station and stopped the broadcast of appointment of new army chief. Javed took an armed escort of elite police to television station to check what was going on. Javed had a heated conversation with Major Nisar at television station control room and finally, Javed drew his handgun on Nisar, forcing him to order his men to disarm. The army soldiers were locked in a room and the news of Mussharraf’s removal was re-broadcasted. Later, a larger contingent of soldiers arrived at television station and pulled the plug. After the coup, he was sacked from the army and went in exile to Saudi Arabia with Nawaz Sharif.
|
No army in the world wants to engage in fratricidal counter-insurgency operations; pitching its firepower against its misdirected countrymen who for whatever misconceived motivations may choose to turn their guns on their compatriots and the armed forces.
Before the Twin Towers in the Manhattan district of New York came crashing down in the early morning hours on September 11, the prospects of Pakistan Army entering the Fata and taking on an insurgent threat were nowhere on the horizon.
Arrival of the elements of al-Qaeda and foreign protégées of the Taliban flushed out by the US onslaught in Afghanistan in Oct 2001, blew away this lackadaisical, time tested milieu.
The TTP with its Pakistan specific terrorist agenda took shape in the early 2000s and ever since the threat scenario has been incrementally getting vicious, radiating pain and bloodshed in the farthest reaches of Pakistan.
An area that once served as the buffer on Pakistan’s western flank is now terrorists’ hornet nest calling upon Pak Army to undertake a challenging and pain intensive counter insurgency campaign to defeat the liberty of action desired by terrorists who want to implement their detestable agenda in Pakistan and elsewhere.
At such junctures of national upheaval, the unequivocal national support is the sheet anchor that lends moral and emotional strength to the soldiers who serve their nation to the peril of their lives.
There is no room for confusion. The resolve that drives the soldiers is the just and clear articulation of the national cause that justifies the ultimate sacrifice. In this context the recent publication of an article “Pakistan Army and its War on Terror” by Musa Khan Jalazai comes across as an uninformed and distorted reflection of facts that tends to underrate the national achievements in the ongoing counter insurgency campaign and takes vicious swipes on the army as an institution. He is entitled to his warped opinions but by propagating his unfounded views on mainstream media, he is only imparting further impetus to the forces of obscurantism which want to engulf Pakistan.
The author has tried to mitigate the Pakistan Army’s sterling achievements in the counter insurgency campaign, which on all accounts are undeniable. Swat once deemed to have been hopelessly lost to forces of terrorism, is now back to normalcy and bustling with normal economic and routine activities associated with an at-peace civil society. This winter the trout from the Swat’s once demolished farms was back on sale in supermarkets and the luscious peaches from its verdant fruit orchards are abundantly available, underscoring the return to normalcy to this once terrorism-ravaged heaven on earth.
A similar success story is reflected in the South Waziristan Agency, where after annihilating the TTP’s strongholds in Kotkai, Srarogha, Kunigram, Makeen, Shrangrawari and Ladha, the army is busy in bringing about a radical change in the lives of the locals who are thronging back to pick up the threads of their interrupted lives by setting up communication infrastructure as well as economic projects, including vocational schools, to generate economic activity and wean away locals from the clutches of terrorists.
Notwithstanding Musa’s jaundiced assertions, the army’s success against militancy couldn’t have been possible until its doctrine, strategy and training were not fine-tuned to resonate in step with the changed threat perception whereby the internal security has risen to the top of priority list. Jalazai’s misperception that Pak Army is ill equipped and untrained for low intensity conflict only shows his detachment from the ground situation. It is insightful to read what Brian Cloughley has written on this aspect in his book, “A History of Pakistan Army”. “The (Pakistan) Army had to retrain almost from scratch to meet the new challenge and it has done remarkably well in completely altering the training priority and emphasis in such a short period,” he says.
Likewise his observation that the US priorities were compelling the Pak Army to take on the TTP is spurious. There are no grounds to suggest that Pakistan’s fight against forces of obscurantism, extremism and terrorism is not our national fight and through no strand of logic can be dubbed as an American war, as the writer wishes it to portray. This aspect was recently emphatically explained by the COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani who articulated that operations against an enemy that defied the Constitution of Pakistan and the democratic process and considered all forms of bloodshed justified, could not be considered someone else’s war but our own. Nowhere else is Musa Khan manifestly more out of his depth, than while making observations on the mindset of the rank of file in the army.
His preposterous reference to the non-existent sectarian and ethnic rifts being visible in the army is only a poor reflection of his ill intent and reeks of malicious bent towards the armed forces. Despite his self-contrived authority on military matters, it is obvious that he has probably never worn the Khakis nor had the honor to lead men or to be in combat situations. He has simply not fathomed the espirit de corps and ethos of the fighting men of the Pakistan Army which is such an effective melting pot of all sectarian and ethnic identities creating deepest of respect for the personal beliefs yet turning these into irrelevant side distractions in execution of the assigned mission. Once the bullets closely whiz by and shrapnel begin to fly, there is no time for reflecting on such obnoxious divisive thoughts. What matters is to fight effectively, prevail and let the other guy across the sights bite the dust.
The Pakistan Army’s fight against terrorism is a campaign in progress. The objectives of this campaign are clear; foreign fighters have to leave, terrorists of all ilks, including the TTP have to forsake terrorism and lay down arms and the writ of the state has to be established. On all accounts we have done well.
Swat and South Waziristan are two major success stories, yet the fight for the soul of Pakistan is far from over. The nation and its armed forces have given a sacrifice of 50,000 casualties and the people of Pakistan are solidly behind the Pak Army.
At such a juncture articles like one written by Musa Khan hardly make a sense. These only serve to create confusion and sow seeds of division and acrimony. Notwithstanding his outlandish assertions, as a soldier would know; no fault lines exist within the Pak Army and there are no prospects for one to emerge and enlarge.
The writer is a retired brigadier of Pakistan Army
Courtesy:
Posted by admin in Defense, Foreign Policy on September 9th, 2013
Ramifications of military adventurism in Syria
Asif Haroon Raja
Patrick J. Buchman, an American political commentator stated on March, 24, 2003, “There is a memo at the Pentagon that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off Iran.” George W. Bush also talked of axis of evil in which North Korea was the only non-Muslim country. Joint Forces Staff College Norfolk, Virginia suggested threatening Saudi Arabia with starvation, reducing Islam to cult status and Mecca, Medina destroyed. Out of seven target countries, three have been destroyed and one divided, one is being destroyed and after its destruction it will become easier to destroy the remaining two. Emphasis is on piecemeal destruction.
Consequent to non-resolution of Palestinian issue and the ongoing Arab Spring, the Middle Eastern countries that have remained in the iron grip of US backed authoritarian rulers for many decades are in revolt. The old order of subservience to US dictated policies has been replaced by hatred and defiance. The US for all practical purposes has lost its moral authority in the Middle East, as has been amply confirmed by Robert Fisk. Egypt which had remained a secure base of USA and CIA since the times of Anwar Sadat has become insecure in the aftermath of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in February 2011 by the people, followed by democratically elected Muhammad Morsi and his Islamic regime in July 2013 by Egyptian military.
Lebanon which was in control of CIA and Israel is now dominated by Iran backed Hezbollah which is connected with Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Hamas which was democratically elected in 2011 holds on to Gaza Strip despite being hounded by Israel. Iran refuses to roll back its nuclear program despite tough sanctions and recent regime change. Pakistan refuses to roll back or hand over its nukes to USA in spite of massive covert war launched since 2002 and defiantly stands up to external challenges.
Having forcibly changed Qaddafi’s regime in Syria, the US and its western allies are now fully focused towards Syria since early 2011 to bring down Assad’s regime. Billions of dollars are being pumped in in-support of the Syrian rebels to keep the civil war inflamed. In April 2012 Summit held in Turkey and attended by 70 nations, a total of $ 100 million was pledged by Saudi Arabia, Qatar Kuwait and UAE to pay salaries to rebels Free Army. The US pledged $12 million and London $800,000 including satellite communication and night vision goggles. NATO military advisers based in Syria have been providing guidance to the rebels. High salaries provided to the rebels were a bait to lure government soldiers to defect.
Almost 30-month old civil war in Syria which has cost over 100,000 lives including 40,000 civilians and resulted in displacement of seven million including two million fleeing to other countries has suddenly become explosive because of use of chemical weapons in Ghouta near Damascus on August 21 killing 1400 people including children. Syrian President Assad categorically denied the charge, but international imperial alliance forged between NATO and but Arab client states seeking perpetuation of violence within Syria has a fixed agenda of his forcible removal.
Truculent Obama tied his hands by impulsively blurting that if Syria crosses the red line, it will face military action. He is now pumped up and wants to strike Syria irrespective of the consequences. While the US Senate has approved military action, Obama is now seeking Congress approval for strikes against Syria. Although US officials insist that US limited military intervention in Syria in which no boots will be used on ground is not aimed at regime change, but to deter Assad from reusing chemical weapons; however, the fact remains that support to Syrian rebels is being extended by the US to bring down Assad regime which is anti-US and anti-Israel and pro-Russia and install pro-US regime. This change in US-Israel-Arabs view would weaken and isolate both Iran and Hezbollah and help in attacking Iran at a later date.
British PM David Cameron, eager to emulate disgraced Tony Blair hastened to state that there was no doubt about the use of nerve gas by Syrian regime. British lawmakers however tripped him and passed a resolution that UK wouldn’t support military action. This move has raised the image of Britain but has caused a setback to both Cameron and Obama. France however, is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with USA but has now modified its stance by saying that UNSC approval is necessary. John Kerry is carrying out intense lobbying to win over allies.
Like in case of Iraq in 2003 when millions protested in Europe and in USA against intended invasion, the Europeans and Americans weary of war and suffering the impact of economic depression have once again come out on the streets, protesting against contemplated use of force in Syria. Both the US and British leaders have lost their credibility after their big lies to justify interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and false promises of restoring peace and democracy. The people are not prepared to get duped again since the two misadventures resulted in destruction of two sovereign countries and loss of over two million lives together with displacement of millions. They now know that the dramas were enacted to serve selfish interests of the elites only. The common people had no share in the loot.
The drama of gas attack has been staged since the rebels despite being armed to teeth are not making any headway and are getting demoralized while the government forces are rapidly gaining ground. Hezbollah has helped in getting Qusayr vacated by the rebels and area north of Homs is also on the verge of falling to Syrian forces. Notwithstanding that minority Alawides under Assad rule majority Sunnis, and Assad has used excessive force against the rebels ruthlessly; he having witnessed the tragic end of Qaddafi cannot afford softness. The rebels have been no less brutal. They have been chided by Human Rights Watch for committing myriad human-rights abuses against Syrian people. They have been involved in kidnapping, detention, torture of security forces, pro-government elements and militias.
Limited strikes by NATO, which include cruise missiles, air strikes and drones, would aim at crippling the Syrian air defence, air power, rockets and artillery sites, tanks and APCs, ammunition dumps and all such military targets which have enabled the Syrian armed forces to gain an upper edge over rebels. Such a destructive exercise had been undertaken by UK-France military against Libyan regime in support of rebels. This support will be available to Syrian rebels for their final assault on Damascus. The US thinks that US intervention will help in boosting the sagging morale of Syrian rebels. The US has become more assertive after the change of leadership in Tehran under the assumption that the new Iranian President Rouhani being moderate will not act recklessly like his predecessor.
It is indeed ironic that loss of 100,000 lives has not evoked any sympathy in US led western world but loss of 1400 lives has made them grief stricken. On what moral grounds Obama and his hawkish team are huffing and puffing and trying to moralize Syrian regime when the US military is occupying Afghanistan since November 2001 and devastating the country and its people? Are drones used with impunity in FATA, Somalia and Yemen less lethal than chemical weapons? Is Sarin gas deadlier than nuclear bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Agent Orange in Vietnam, or cluster bombs, daisy cutters and depleted uranium in Afghanistan, or white phosphorous in Fallujah (Iraq)? Aren’t US and UK the biggest manufacturers of chemicals and commercializing the product in international market?
Why such a hullabaloo over poisonous chemicals when these were used by Iraq against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988 and against Iran’s military in the Iran-Iraq war in Fao Peninsula, or by Russia in Chechnya. The US and the West didn’t utter a word since at that time Saddam was a good boy being their ally and Chechnyans were Muslims. Where were their moral scruples when Israeli forces used white phosphorous and cluster bombs against Gazans? Why are US and Russia holding on to their stockpiles of chemical weapons when they were required to destroy them by April 2012? What role OIC and Arab League are playing to defuse the volatile situation? Pathetic Arab League is paradoxically egging on the UN to take measures against Syria, which implies ‘sort out Assad regime’. Saudi Arabia is more worried about Shia threat and is not inclined towards peaceful resolution of the conflict. Why Saudi Arabia didn’t object when the US pitched Shias against Sunnis in Iraq? How is it so sure that Iran and not Israel will harm it?
How does the US leadership lecture on human rights when it is the biggest violator of human rights? Blaming Syrian regime is like the pot calling the kettle black. While Syria has no record of using chemicals or other prohibited weapons, the US track record on this account is dismal. While there is little doubt that Sarin nerve gas was used at Ghouta, what is the proof that Syrian troops and not the rebels have used it? The US has no evidence to support its contention and is giving no importance to UN inspectors. There are strong suspicions that chemical weapons were provided to the rebels by their western backers in the wake of Syrian forces gaining an upper edge over the utterly demoralized rebels. Col Lawrence Wilkerson in his article appearing in Jerusalem Post suspects that Israel may be behind it.
It is surprising that Assad is unacceptable to the US and a hotchpotch future government of rebels comprising local Sunni Syrians, al-Qaeda elements and Salafis will be acceptable. Military intervention against a sovereign state and that too without UNSC approval, whether limited in scale or full scale, is illegal and condemnable. Military action will further fuel civil war and there is likelihood that it may lead to wider conflagration with dangerous repercussions for the region which is already in a flux. Any glimmer of hope for ending the conflict peacefully will die down.
Libya stood alone to face the wrath of NATO, but Syria is not alone. Russia and Iran have high stakes in Syria and both have cautioned the US that they too have options to exercise. If Israel is important for USA, so is Syria for Russia since it is its oldest and sole reliable ally in Middle East. Apart from oil interest, Russia cannot afford to lose its strategically important deep-sea port facility in Tartars in Mediterranean Sea. Loss of Assad will be a strategic blow to Iran and will make it vulnerable. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a close ally of Syria and will not sit idle. Syrian conflict has sharpened Shia-Sunni divide, which by itself has serious ramifications for the Muslim world.
With such high stakes together with presence of so many aircraft carriers and warships of USA, Britain and Russia in Mediterranean Sea, the obtaining environment in the Middle East has made the overall situation perilous. In case of US intervention in Syria, the affected countries and their allies may wittingly or unwittingly get drawn into the Syrian inferno and may trigger a 3rd World War.
The writer is a retired Brig, defence analyst, researcher and columnist and author of books. [email protected]
Capt Robert Campbell, aged 29, was gravely injured and captured just weeks after Britain declared war on Germany in July, 1914.
But after two years in Magdeburg Prisoner of War Camp, the British officer received word from home his mother Louise Campbell was close to death.
He speculatively wrote to Kaiser Wilhelm II, begging to be allowed home to visit his mother one final time.
Incredibly the German leader granted the request allowing the professional office two weeks leave – as long as he returned.
The only bond he placed on the leave was Capt Campbell’s ‘word’ as an army officer.
He returned to his family home in Gravesend Kent in December 1916 and spent a week with his cancer-stricken mother.
He then kept his promise by returning to his German prison – where he stayed until the war ended in 1918.
The remarkable example of wartime honesty was uncovered by historian Richard Van Emden, 48, as he researched his new book.
The author admitted the act of chivalry was rare even for the bygone age of the Great War.
He said: ‘Capt Campbell was an officer and he made a promise on his honour to go back. Had he not turned up there would not have been any retribution on any other prisoners.
‘What I think is more amazing is that the British Army let him go back to Germany. The British could have said to him ‘you’re not going back, you’re going to stay here’.
‘This was totally unique. I think it is such a unique example that I don’t think you can draw any parallels.’
Capt Campbell had been leading the 1st Bn East Surrey Regiment when his battalion took up a position on the Monds-Conde canal in north-western France.
But a week later his troops were attacked by the German forces and Capt Campbell was gravely injured and captured by enemy soldiers.
In 1916 he was allowed two weeks compassionate leave by the German Kaiser, to include two days travelling in each direction by boat and train.
Capt Campbell reached his mother’s bedside on December 7 and spent a week with her before returning to Germany. She finally passed away in February.
Mr Van Emden discovered the incredible story in correspondence between the British Foreign Office and their German counterparts.
The records also show the Germans contacted the British requesting German national Peter Gastreich be allowed to leave the Isle of Wight to visit his dying father – but the British authorities refused the request.
And despite his traumatising ordeal Capt Campbell was again thrust into military action in 1939 when he rejoined the 1st Bn East Surrey Regiment for the Second World War.
His role as the Chief Observer of the Royal Observer Corps in the Isle of Wight was less precarious than that thirty years earlier.
He managed to survive the war unscathed and died back in his home country in July 1966 aged 81.
Capt Campbell’s story has been told in Mr Van Emden’s new book, ‘Meeting the Enemy: The Human Face of the Great War’.
DERA BUGTI: Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani on Friday said, “Pakistan Army is playing a constructive role in the socio-economic development of Balochistan”, Geo News reported.
Addressing the cadets in Sui Military College‚ the Army Chief said there is no military operation anywhere in the province. Not a single soldier is involved in maintaining law and order situation in the Balochistan province, he said.
He said over 20‚000 Baloch students are enrolled in Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps run educational institutions including cadet schools‚ medical colleges‚ mining institutes and others.
He said Frontier Corps (FC) and police are dealing with all security related matters in consultation with Balochistan government.
Talking about mining institutes‚ the Army Chief wished for Baloch people to hold important positions in these institutions‚ instead of working as a laborer. He said during the past three years‚ Baloch representation in army has been raised from 1.7 percent to 3.5 percent. He said Pakistan Army has recruited over 12‚000 soldiers from Balochistan.
General Kayani said 760 Baloch officers are actively playing their role in Pakistan Army. He said for a national army‚ all provinces must be given their due representation.
He urged unity among Baloch tribes for the sake of development in the province and said if tribes establish peace among themselves‚ resources of Balochistan can be utilized in best public interest.
General Kayani also assured Pakistan Army’s full cooperation in the construction of Gwadar-Ratto Dero highway and Balochistan canal.
Chief Minister Balochistan, Dr Abdul Malik Baloch, in his speech appealed to the people of Balochistan to unite for the welfare and development of Pakistan. He said the people of Balochistan are attached to Pakistan and will play their role. He also called for promotion of education in the province.
© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
