Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category Defense

PROFESSOR VICTOR ASAL AN ISRAELI TRAINED ZIONIST ACADEMIC LAUNCHES PROPAGANDA AGAINST PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on June 3rd, 2012

Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?

Americans are wringing their hands about the grave threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to the United States. But the numbers tell a different story.

BY VICTOR ASAL AND BRYAN EARLY | MAY 24, 2012

Reference

 

As a contentious new round of high-stakes nuclear talks between Iran and world powers wraps up in Baghdad, it is important to think critically about how much of a threat Iran poses to the United States. According to former senator Rick Santorum, for example, a nuclear Iran would have “carte blanche to spread a reign of terror around not just the Middle East, but here in America … [and] across Western civilization.” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has argued that “if the Iranians are permitted to get the bomb, the consequences will be as uncontrollable as they are horrendous.” Several leading U.S. senators penned an op-ed in March stating that “the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to the entire world, including particularly the U.S.”

 

It is not just politicians who hold these views. A recent CNN pollrevealed that more than three-quarters of the American public sees Iran and North Korea as “serious” threats while only 44 percent feels the same way about Russia. Indeed, fear of the Iranian threat in the United States is more widespread todaythan fear of the Soviet threat was in 1985, even though at that time the Soviet Union possessed the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and today Iran doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon.

Which raises an obvious question: Does the dominant perception of the Iranian threat actually square with reality? To answer that question, we designed the Nuclear Annihilation Threat (NAT) Index — a way of systematically and empirically assessing the existential threat that nuclear-weapon states (NWSs), and potential nuclear-weapon states, pose to one another. What we found is striking: Although Israel is right to see Iran as an existential danger, the United States has blown the Iranian threat to itself all out of proportion — and Iran is unlikely to find existential security in a nuclear weapon. In addition, both Israel and the United States should be focusing much more aggressively on the threat posed by Pakistan.

Unlike any other weapon, nuclear weapons can jeopardize a nation’s very existence. We use the term “existential threat” to denote the capability of one state to completely annihilate another. In concrete terms, a nuclear attack on one U.S. city would be catastrophic, but it would not destroy the United States. A similar nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, on the other hand, would potentially kill 42 percent of the Israeli population and most likely spell the end of the Jewish state. By focusing exclusively on existential dangers, we seek to understand how nuclear weapons affect the core survival motivations that drive states’ behavior. While this may be a narrow perspective, we think that isolating this unique characteristic of nuclear weapons yields important insights.

Our NAT Index is a relational metric that draws on four factors in determining the existential threats that nuclear-armed countries pose to one another: 1) the potential damage acountry’s nuclear arsenal could cause to a target’s population; 2) the ability of a country to strike a target with ballistic missiles; 3) the presence of a strategic rivalry between the two countries; and 4) the risk ofstate failure in the country that is hypothetically attacking a target. The NAT Index can also be used to identify which nuclear-armed countries pose the greatest existential threats overalland which are the most vulnerable.

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, for example, is capable of inflicting higher levels of proportional damage to a country the size of Israel than a country the size of China because of geographic and demographic differences. Countries that are rivals of North Korea and are within range of its ballistic missiles face a greater existential threat from Pyongyang than those that are not.We factor in the risk of state failure because an unstable country’s leaders and governmental policies can change on a dime and destabilized regimes can lose command and control of their nuclear weapons, exposing the arms to theft or unauthorized use.

While our index accounts for the heightened existential risks created by rivalries, we do not assume that nuclear-armed allies pose no risks to one another. From a realist perspective, the military power of other states can never be safely ignored — especially with respect to weapons that possess such uniquely destructive power. Beyond realism’s admonishment that today’s allies could become tomorrow’s rivals, the risks of nuclear weapons accidents and misuse exist between both rivals and allies. While it may appear odd to consider Britain as a potential nuclear threat to the United States, remember that Pakistan is also a U.S. ally. In accounting for the threats that even allies’ nuclear weapons pose, our analysis reflects the view that all nuclear weapons — no matter who possesses them — present a grave international security threat.

The NAT Index suggests that American fears about the existential threats posed by Iran and North Korea being on par with those posed by Russia are misplaced. Our results in Table 1 indicate that China and Russia constitute the largest existential threats to the United States, while North Korea actually represents the smallest annihilation threat. Intuitively, this makes sense given the large size of the Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals and their advanced delivery capabilities. In contrast, the small nuclear arsenal possessed by North Korea could only threaten a small number of U.S. cities (even if Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles actually worked) but does not jeopardize the United States’ existence. When we simulate Iran going nuclear by assuming that it acquires 10 nuclear weapons (roughly the size of North Korea’s arsenal) and that it will be able to deliver those weapons via ballistic missiles, we find that Iran represents a minimal existential threat to the United States.

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, for example, is capable of inflicting higher levels of proportional damage to a country the size of Israel than a country the size of China because of geographic and demographic differences. Countries that are rivals of North Korea and are within range of its ballistic missiles face a greater existential threat from Pyongyang than those that are not.We factor in the risk of state failure because an unstable country’s leaders and governmental policies can change on a dime and destabilized regimes can lose command and control of their nuclear weapons, exposing the arms to theft or unauthorized use.

While our index accounts for the heightened existential risks created by rivalries, we do not assume that nuclear-armed allies pose no risks to one another. From a realist perspective, the military power of other states can never be safely ignored — especially with respect to weapons that possess such uniquely destructive power. Beyond realism’s admonishment that today’s allies could become tomorrow’s rivals, the risks of nuclear weapons accidents and misuse exist between both rivals and allies. While it may appear odd to consider Britain as a potential nuclear threat to the United States, remember that Pakistan is also a U.S. ally. In accounting for the threats that even allies’ nuclear weapons pose, our analysis reflects the view that all nuclear weapons — no matter who possesses them — present a grave international security threat.

 

 

* Signifies Iran’s threat if we simulate its possession of a small nuclear arsenal.

Israeli fears of Iran going nuclear, on the other hand, are well-justified. In the current strategic environment, captured in Table 2, Pakistan represents the greatest existential threat to Israelbecause of its nuclear capability, domestic instability, and hostility to Israel (not to mention the greater hostility that violent jihadi groups in the country harbor toward the Jewish state). India and North Korea, meanwhile, constitute the smallest annihilation threats. When we include Iran in our rankings, however, it emerges as Israel’s greatest existential threat.

 

  • Signifies Iran’s threat if we simulate its possession of a small nuclear arsenal.

 

 

We can also look at the overall threat each NWS poses by averaging its annihilation threat scores vis-à-vis other nuclear-armed states.When we do this, we find that Pakistan — because of its high risk of state failure and its central location relative to other nuclear weapons states — poses the greatestannihilation threat to other members of the nuclear weapons club. North Korea, by contrast, poses the smallest annihilation threat to other nuclear weapons states. When we integrate Iran into the analysis in Table 3, it poses a similarly small annihilation threat to the other NWSs in aggregate despite the significant threat it poses to Israel. This may explain why countries such as Britain and France view the prospect of Iran going nuclear as more of a policy concern than a major threat.

 

Looking instead at the average vulnerabilities of NWSs, the consequences of Iran going nuclear are even more striking. The rankings in Table 4 indicate that, in the current strategic environment, Russia faces the greatest existential threat, while Britain and France face the lowest threats. Israel does not face a major existential threat under existing conditions.

Yet if Iran goes nuclear under our scenario, Israel will become one of the most vulnerable nuclear-armed states. Iran, for its part, will actually become the most existentially vulnerable NWS if it goes nuclear. This does not necessarily imply that acquiring nuclear weapons would negatively affect Iran’s national security, but it does suggest that Iran would be joining the nuclear weapons club as one of its weakest, most at-risk members.

 

 

So what do these findings tell us about the current strategic environment and the potential fallout from Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? First, they indicate that the primary existential threat to the United States emanates from China and Russia — not rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. This supports the notion that nuclear arms reduction agreements like New START offer the United States significant national security benefits.

Second, our findings suggest that more U.S. and international attention should be given to the existing nuclear threat posed by Pakistan than the still-hypothetical threat posed by Iran. Stabilizing Pakistan to prevent its collapse and using strategic trade controls to limit its access to ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technologies should be priorities in the international community.

Third, our results help explain the relative passivity of some NWSs about allowing Iran to march ever closer to obtaining nuclear weapons — and Israel’s horror at the proposition. That said, Iran would become the world’s most existentially vulnerable NWS if it went nuclear. Nuclear weapons would not enhance Iran’s security as much as some may think, and that should make its leaders think twice about acquiring a nuclear capability.

Our findings underline the challenges that a nuclear Iran poses for the United States. On the one hand, it is clear that Iran would not pose an existential threat to the United States any time soon, even if it obtained nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a large existential threat to one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East. It could also fundamentally alter the relationships that Iran has with its non-nuclear neighbors and drive some of those countriestoward proliferating. Similarly, North Korea poses a minimal existential threat to the United States but a serious threat to U.S. allies in Asia. North Korea, in fact, may represent even more of a policy conundrum for the United States because it is in more serious danger of state failure than Iran.

Today’s myopic focus on Iran, moreover, is distracting many (but clearly not all) from paying closer attention to the serious nuclear threat posed by Pakistan. In Foreign Policy’s Failed States Index, Pakistan is ranked 12th in terms of the risk of state failure and is the only nuclear-armed country labeled in “critical” condition. One recent Nuclear Threat Initiative study noted that the country faces “immense threats, both from insiders who may be corrupt or sympathetic to terrorists and from large-scale attacks by outsiders.” For the United States and its allies, a more sustained focus on Pakistan and its extant nuclear weapons is imperative even as the United States and Israel try to neutralize the Iranian threat while avoiding a war.

 

Victor Asal is an associate professor in the political science department at the University at Albany — SUNY and Bryan Early is an assistant professor in the political science department and public administration & policy department at the University at Albany — SUNY.

No Comments

PTT ARCHIVES: Indian Army Chief’s Outrageous Admission of Armoured Debacle Stuns The World

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on June 1st, 2012

(Additional reporting by Ajay Mehta in New Delhi & Hina Kayani in Rawalpindi)

While the Indians celebrate 62nd Army Day, country’s Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor, just after a couple of weeks of announcing a new war doctrine of Indian army to eliminate Pakistan and China in matter of hours even if it has to fight on simultaneous fronts, outrageously admitted Indian Army’s Armoured debacle and expressed concern about the force’s ‘night blindness’ in the area of Armoured Corps and mechanised infantry. ‘My major concern is that night blindness of the army is removed so we are able to fight in the night as in the day,’ Kapoor said at New Delhi Yesterday, an admission that stunned the world in the back drop of his two weeks old remarks. The situation also forced Indian Defence Minister Antony to chew his own buts as he had been endorsing and projecting General Kapoor’s announcement regarding the new war doctrine for Pakistan and China Earlier, when his attention was brought to the fact that the Indian Army’s tanks have a night vision capability of 20 percent, Pakistan’s have 80 percent while China has 100 percent, General Deepak Kapoor admitted this outrageous military debacle by saying: ‘You are right.’

‘Projects are already in the pipeline to ensure that we have the night vision capability that our adversaries have. It may take three-four years,’ Kapoor added. The lack of night vision capability of the Indian Army has affected its fighting capability during the night. The deficiency has been persistent since the Kargil conflict.

On a query about the obsolete artillery of the Indian Army, the army chief said that successive bans have delayed acquisition of new guns for long. ‘Artillery is a cause for concern. We need to have better guns. Trials for towed guns are underway. Because of bans the process got delayed. We are now acquiring (ultra light) guns through FMS (Foreign Military Sales) route (from the US),’ Kapoor added.

The Daily mail’s investigations into the matter reveal that despite a numerical strength of tanks over Pakistan, Indian army otherwise armoured and infantry capabilities are even below average if compared with Pakistan Army. According to these findings, Indian armoured corps comprises around 4, 059 tanks with a backup of 1, 133 as reserve while Pakistan Army’s Tank strength is 2,401 with a backup of 270 as reserves. However this numerical supremacy of Indian army is outraged with the fact that Indian armoured corps relies mainly on its Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun which emerged as a big failure while Pakistan Army’s armoured corps’ main strength has become Al-Khalid MBT which is a great success story, endorsed across the world. But the latest admission of Indian Army Chief about failure of its armoured corps to fight a battle in the night time is an additional and a rather huge disadvantage to the Indian Army and crystal clearly negates the claims of Indian Army Chief regarding smooth victory in case Indian army has to fight a war with Pakistan or China or even both at the same time.

The Daily Mail’s findings further disclose that India’s MBT Arjun is more flab than brawn. More a heavyweight than a performer. A potpourri really, with a French engine, and German seals fitted into an Indian hull and turret. And transporting this heavyweight is going to be another problem, which could limit its operational performance.

These findings further indicate that Arjun has indeed suffered throughout its development, from confusion and inexplicable delays and by imbalances between the Army, the DRDO and the bureaucracy. Pakistan by contrast, has drawn a lesson from the Indian experience and avoided the trap of over lasting her R&D’s indigenous know-how in the development of its MBT Al-Khalid.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that Arjun mounts a 120mm rifled gun deadly in lethal power but wanting in accuracy. Its performance in various trails was reported to be anything but up to the mark. It is believed that during in March 1990, General V. N. Sharma, the then Army Chief of Staff and an armoured expert, was “quite wild” when only three of the five rounds hit the 5X5 meter target and no hit was scored against a moving target.

According to Major General M. L. Popli (retd.) of the Indian Army, Arjun’s production was basically planned as an ambitious project with complete indigenous components and assemblies but it was later revealed that the Arjun’s sub-systems were all imported except for the hull and the turret. The imported assemblies include all major sub-systems such as engine, transmission, track-suspension, gin and fire control. Our experts are of the view that their integration, “leaves much to be desired”. The auxiliary power unit from France did not perfectly fit in the tank, with the German seals not meeting the General Staff qualitative requirements of withstanding temperatures up to 150 degree Centigrade. The barely measured up to 120 degrees. Arjun is therefore quite a “fuss” with the French engine, with German seals fitted into the Indian hull and turret mounting a not very accurate 120mm gun.

Armoured experts say that another problem thrown up by the heavyweight is its transportation. Arjun could present a lot of problem for transportation by railways particularly through certain portions of the system. This imposes very serious limitations on the Arjun’s operational performance. In most of the field armies, the tank transporters and assault bridges are not usually designed to take such heavy weights. These aspects mostly highlight the engineering and operational problems.

According to The Daily Mail’s findings, global military analysts say that Pakistan adopted a step-by-step approach towards the manufacture of its MBT-2000 Khalid, and this is the single most important reason for having stolen a march over India. They are of the opinion that the Indian project was too ambitious, whereas Pakistan’s approach was more systematic comprising the following phases and that was why Pakistan Army got a well prepared MBT while the Indian Armoured Corps was equipped with huffing, overweight and inaccurate Tank system.

The Daily Mail findings indicate that clear technical and professional edges of Pakistan Army’s Armoured Corps over Indian Army’s Armoured Corp are valid reasons to make General kapoor a really apprehensive Chief of Indian Army. These findings indicate that Pakistan’s MBT-2000 Khalid mounts a 125mm gun with thermal image converter. Maximum efforts were devoted to getting the machine souped up as possible mainly to cut down weight. Just compare the 60 tons Arjun with the maximum 44 tons Al- khalid.

It is essential to mention that Al-Khalid is equipped with 105mm gun with a more powerful engine, special armour for increased protection in the indigenously built laser range finder and thermal image sighting system to maximize the gun range even in the hours of acute darkness, enabling Pakistan Army’s armoured Corps to enjoy a complete technical and professional Supremacy of over Indian Armoured Corps; a fact that now worries Indian Army Chief the most. Further more, Al-Khalid MBT has an integrated fire control system for reducing engagement time and increasing accuracy, along with the automatic fire support system. This tank’s most lethal component, the penetrater ammunition called Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS), is also being indigenously produced. This project has been designated P-87. Currently, a series of such closely related projects to manufacture hull, turret, gun barrels and engines are in various stages of planning-execution. All these will finally merged into a tank manufacturing factory that will produce MBT-2000 Khalid.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that despite the disgraceful admission of the Indian Army Chief regarding Indian Armoured Corps’ inability to combat a battle in the night, the Indian Army is already going through a very depressed and dejected phase and many of the missile systems, given to the Indian army have also emerged as seriously faulty and rather super-flops battle tools. These investigations indicate that many of the tests of Missile systems, carried out by Indian DRDO and declared officially as successful, have actually got a highly dubious result history.

The Daily Mail’s investigations reveal that the failure in rapid succession of Astra missile system, a satellite launcher and a new ballistic missile have shown up the technological and budgetary difficulties faced by India’s space establishment, both civilian and military.

These investigations indicate that India’s intermediate-range ballistic missile “Agni III” that was launched by the secretive Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO) failed soon after liftoff and crashed into the Bay of Bengal, less than 1,000 kilometers away from the launch site.

The failure of the Agni III was a very serious matter because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

Earlier, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the then Indian Defense Minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

However, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military, visited India and declared that “I do not see it [a test] as destabilizing” or upsetting the regional “military balance” since “other countries in this region” (read, Pakistan) have also tested missiles.Following this “facilitation” or clearance, and after indications of favorable votes in US Congressional committees on the nuclear deal, India’s stand changed. A week later, the DRDO announced it was ready to launch Agni-III.

This was the ninth missile in the Agni series (named after the Sanskrit word for “fire”) to have been tested. The first was tested in May 1989. The last test (Agni-II) took place in August 2004.

The Daily Mail’s investigations indicate that unlike major powers including the US, Russia or China, which test the same missile 10 to 20 times before announcing that it is fully developed, India considers only three or four test flights to be enough for both producing and inducting new missiles and thus ended up with inaccurate results and the success story was announced in a hasty manner.

These investigations disclose that this was not the first time that the test of an Agni series missile failed. As earlier, some tests of the shorter range Agni-II (range 2,000 kilometers-plus) also proved unsuccessful. However what made the Agni-III’s failure significant was that unlike its shorter-range predecessors, it was a wholly new design, developed with the specific purpose of delivering a nuclear warhead.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’s brand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The causes of the failure of the test flight are not clear. Scientists at the DRDO, which designed and built the missile, have been quoted as saying that many new technologies were tried in the Agni-III, including rocket motors, “fault-tolerant” avionics and launch control and guidance systems. Some of these could have failed. Other reports attribute the mishap to problems with the propellant.”The DRDO isn’t the world’s most reliable weapons R&D agency,” Admiral L Ramdas, a former Chief of Staff of the Indian Navy, told The Daily Mail. “The Indian armed services’ experience with DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they would somehow work in the battlefield,” he added “The figure of the budget of DRDO is extremely high for a poor country like India, with a low rank of 127 among 175 countries of the world in the United Nations Human Development Index,” said Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. “Yet the DRDO has delivered very little.”

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that none of the three major projects assigned to the DRDO were completed on time or without huge cost-overruns. These include the development of a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear power plant for a submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), all involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“The primary reason for these shocking instances of underperformance and inability is lack of public accountability and oversight of the DRDO,” says M V Ramana, an independent technical expert attached to the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

“The DRDO, like all of India’s defense and nuclear service establishments, is not subject to normal processes of audit. It has used ‘security’ as a smokescreen or shield and refused to be held to account,” he adds.

The Daily Mail’s investigations disclose that Pakistan, in sharp contrast, has always accorded high priority to its air defence management, with its multi-tier surveillance cover, air defence fighters, quick-reaction, short-range missiles and an integrated control and reporting system.

The Indian Armed Forces, however, continues to make do with its obsolete air defence systems, The IAF, for instance, has aging Pechora, Igla-1M and OSA-AK missile systems, and that, too, in woefully inadequate numbers. While Trishul was to replace its OSA-AK weapons system, Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora.

The Daily Mail’s findings reveal further that But both the Trishul and Akash air defence missile systems, which are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched as far back as 1983, have been dogged by development snags in their “command guidance and integrated Ramjet rocket propulsion” systems.

Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.

Trishul’s repeated failure, in fact, forced the Indian Navy to go in for nine Israeli Barak anti-missile defence systems for its frontline warships, along with 200 Barak missiles, at a cost of Rs 1,510 crore during the 1999 Kargil conflict.

The Daily Mail’s investigations reveal that India’s missile scientists are on record to have said that the country’s indigenous missile programme is flagging and needs foreign assistance to revive it.

The embarrassing admission came amid claims by Indian analysts that Pakistan’s missile programme had proved to be more robust and surefooted than India’s. The Mail Today, an Indian newspaper is on record to have quoted the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as announcing that it would scrap its 25-year Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) very soon.Talking about the Trishul surface-to-air missile that has now been termed a technology demonstrator, former Indian Naval Chief Sushil Kumar said:”It was a national embarrassment. DRDO made fake claims for 25 years. In the 1999 Kargil conflict, the Navy was vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s Harpoon.

“Finally the project was scrapped when the Navy went in for the Israeli Barak missiles. The Prithvi’s naval variant, Dhanush, is also flawed and ill-conceived, which is being inflicted on the Indian Navy. Former Air Chief S. P. Tyagi said:”Akash was to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Both missiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.

The IGMDP, which was aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in missile development and production, comprises five core missile programmes; the strategic Agni ballistic missile; the tactical Prithvi ballistic missile; the Akash and Trishul surface-to-air missiles and the Nag anti-tank guided missile.

Indian newspaper, The Mail Today quotes S. Prahlada, Chief of the Control Research and Development, DRDO, as saying that development and production of most of the futuristic weapon systems would henceforth be undertaken with foreign collaboration.

With regard to the nuclear-capable Agni series, comprising I and II, the newspaper quoted army sources as saying while they had been tested five times each “a handful of tests are not enough to prove a missile’s worth”. There were different problems with other systems too.

“Pakistan has always been one step ahead of India in its missile programme,” the newspaper said, adding that Islamabad has “a much more robust missile force than India, one capable of launching nuclear weapons to any part in this country.” Unlike Indian missiles, which were declared “inducted” after a few tests, the Pakistani projectiles have always been thoroughly tested.

With this state of affairs in the direction of the missile systems, coupled the Armoured Corps’s inability to combat a night vision battle, one should must salute the Indian Military leadership to have come up with the announcement of evolving an innovative war doctrine to crush Pakistan as well as China and that too in hours’ time.

 

Reference

No Comments

National Day of Argentina celebrated-Las Islas Malvinas son Argentinas (‘Malvinas belong to Argentina’)

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on May 26th, 2012


Saturday, May 26, 2012

Islamabad

To celebrate the 202nd anniversary of the May Revolution and National Day of his country, the ambassador of Argentina, Rodolfo Martin-Saravia hosted a reception at his residence, which was very well-attended by his numerous friends both from the diplomatic community as well as the local. The lawn had been covered with a large ‘shamiana’; it was nice and cool with the naval band entertaining the guests with some popular music as well as playing the national anthems of both countries. Photographs of Pakistan fabulous Northern Areas taken by Argentinean Tommy Heinrich were displayed around the venue. The guest of honour was Federal Minister of Petroleum, Dr Asim Hussain, but there were a number of other prominent political personalities present.

 

Addressing the gathering the host said he was happy to see his garden full of friends. “With your presence a dream comes true, because tonight I also want to celebrate another year as Argentina’s ambassador to Pakistan” he said. “Many friends say I’m also Pakistan’s ambassador in Argentina, so I want to tell you that I’m still the Argentinean ambassador, but I feel very happy to be considered one of you. I’ve been working hard to increase our bilateral relations and I guess that the presence of so many friends is a sign of a job well done. I want to acknowledge that my success is also because I have a wonderful team and I want to publicly thank them for their collaboration.” Listing the positive aspects of the bilateral relationship he said in times of difficulty Argentina has been present to lend a friendly hand; does not seek to sell arms nor weapons of destruction but to be present in a peaceful and humanitarian manner – donation of medicines, medical training, humanitarian aid; trade, promoting investment, sponsoring the arts, encouraging sports and multiplying people to people contacts. Last but not least, the construction of the most modern and sophisticated laboratory in Punjab that produces medicines for cancer and hepatitis, established with effort of Bago of Argentina and Ferozsons of Pakistan.

 

Declaring that there are few moments during an ambassador’s tenure, which are turning points in bilateral relations and the visit to Argentina of Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar is going to be one of them, he went on to mention Argentina’s support for Pakistan and peace efforts during the terrible days of 1971, which resulted in the gift of the beautiful Argentina Park in Islamabad as a token of appreciation, where he has been trying for the last 3 years to convince the Pakistani government to go ahead with building the annex of the Polyclinic Hospital. “Inshallah we will do it this year”.

 

In conclusion, he said a few words about the sovereignty dispute that Argentina maintains with the UK over the Malvinas Islands, quoting the Foreign Minister of Argentina Hector Timerman: “Argentina is the only South American country that has a part of its territory still in the hands of a colonial power and we cannot take this lightly.” Adding that it was unavoidable for him to mention an anachronistic colonial situation to his Pakistani friends who are familiar with colonialism, he thanked the government and people of Pakistan for their continuous support on the issue. “Thank you very much and also thank you to the Navy Brass Band for their brilliant performance of the National Anthems of Argentina and Pakistan”

 

The chief guest congratulated the host on his National Day and said that ‘Rodolfo is an old friend of Pakistan — as a matter of fact he is a Pakistani.’ Pakistan and Argentina have several projects for cooperation in the oil and gas sector and we are working in very close cooperation.

Reference

 

 

Pakistan Supports Argentina’s Claim on Malvinas
British have Illegally Occupied Argentina’s Sovereign Territory
British singer has joined a chorus of celebrities’ condemnation of London’s continuing occupation of the Malvinas (Falklands) saying the South Atlantic islands belong to Argentina.

Steven Patrick Morrissey told a crowd of audience in Cordoba, Argentina, “we know the islands belong to you.” 

Morrissey, who called the islands by their original Spanish name, the Malvinas, said he wanted the Argentinean public know that the British government’s claim to the islands is not what the public think. 

“You know of course the Malvinas Islands, everybody knows they belong to Argentina so please do not blame the British people, we know the islands belong to you,” Morrissey said. 

Before him, Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd bassist, and Sean Penn, the American Oscar-winner actor and political activist, had also attacked London for its escalation of the dispute around the islands. 

The increasing support for the Argentinean sovereignty over the South Atlantic archipelago comes ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Argentina-Britain 1982 war. 

Britain and Argentina fought a 74-day war in 1982 on the islands. 
At the time, Argentina was almost alone in its campaign to regain the territory, which Britain illegally occupied in 1833 and formally annexed as a colony in 1892. 

However, Argentina seems to have the upper hand at the present as international parties including the leading Latin American trade organization Mercusor and the US have explicitly or implicitly recognized its right to negotiate the subject with Britain. 

Argentina’s stance is also backed by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, which includes Malvinas on its list of British colonies waiting to be liberated. 

Cumbre de Río en Cancún reconoce soberania argentina sobre Islas Malvinas

02UTC23UTCMartes0128

Hace ya 27 años, el 2 de Abril de 1982, Argentina sacaba a los ingleses de las Islas Malvinas.
Pocas semanas después, Londres envió una flota a recuperar el honor y las tierras, y lo logró tras una guerra breve y vertiginosa que terminó el 14 de Junio.
Las estadísticas dicen que en el conflicto combatieron más de 12000 argentinos que lo dieron todo y 700 no volvieron a casa.
La Guerra de Malvinas fue la única guerra que libró la Argentina en el siglo XX.

América Latina y el Caribe reconoce la soberanía de Argentina sobre las Malvinas y respaldan a esta nación en el conflicto con el Reino Unido en una declaración que firmaron los participantes en la Cumbre del Grupo de Río que se celebró en la Riviera Maya mexicana.
“Hemos aprobado dos textos: una declaración de Presidentes donde las Jefas y Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno aquí presentes reafirman su respaldo a los legítimos derechos de la República Argentina en la disputa de soberanía con el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte relativa a la ‘Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas’”, dijo ayer el anfitrión del encuentro, el presidente mexicano Felipe Calderón.
El otro es un comunicado especial sobre la exploración hidrocarburífera en la plataforma continental de las Malvinas, según se supo por fuentes de la Cancillería argentina, pues las reuniones de la Cumbre son a puerta cerrada.

El aumento de las tensiones ente Argentina y el Reino Unido a causa del inicio de actividades de exploración petrolera en las aguas que rodean las Malvinas, archipiélago por el que esos dos países libraron una guerra en 1982, es uno de los temas que centra la atención en esta Cumbre que se celebra a orillas del Caribe. Calderón indicó que los países participantes instarán “a las dos partes a que se abstengan de adoptar decisiones que entrañen la introducción de modificaciones unilaterales en la situación”, en referencia a esas actividades petroleras a las que se opone el Gobierno de Argentina, que busca que el Reino Unido se siente a negociar la soberanía del archipiélago.

Incrementada Fuerza Británica

La tensión entre Argentina y Gran Bretaña aumentó en los últimos días a raíz de los planes de empresas británicas de explotar hidrocarburos en aguas que rodean al archipiélago, por cuya soberanía ambos países libraron una guerra en 1982 en la que los argentinos resultaron derrotados.
Según distintas versiones de prensa, la plataforma marítima Ocean Guardian tiene previsto empezar este mismo lunes la búsqueda de hidrocarburos al norte de las islas.
Reino Unido aumentó su presencia militar en las islas Malvinas con el envío de un submarino a ese territorio, en medio de fuerte tensiones con Argentina que reclama la soberanía del archipiélago.
De acuerdo con el Ministerio de Defensa del Estado europeo, la fragata británica HMS Cork, que aún no ha llegado a su destino, permanecerá en la región.
Fuentes cercanas al gobierno subrayan que el primer ministro, Gordon Brown, y el titular de Exteriores, David Miliband, antes de responder a Argentina esperarán el pronunciamiento de la ONU, donde Buenos Aires llevó la disputa.
En la reciente Cumbre de la Unidad del Grupo de Río, que concluyó la víspera en Quintana Roo, México, los países de Latinoamérica y el Caribe reafirmaron su respaldo a los legítimos derechos de Argentina en la disputa por el archipiélago.
También se pronunciaron contra las acciones unilaterales británicas de realizar explotaciones hidrocarburíferas en el área.
Buenos Aires emitió la pasada semana un decreto que obliga a todos los barcos que surcan aguas jurisdiccionales argentinas a solicitar un permiso para ir a las Malvinas.

En respuesta a las intenciones británicas, la presidenta Fernández firmó el martes un decreto que restringe la circulación de buques entre el territorio continental argentino y el archipiélago situado en el Atlántico sur, que fue enérgicamente repudiado por Gran Bretaña.
Nicaragua y Venezuela ya han expresado su apoyo a Argentina en este renovado conflicto con el Reino Unido por su reivindicación de la soberanía sobre las Malvinas.
Respecto de la posibilidad de hallar crudo cerca del archipiélago, que hay informes de los años 70 según los cuales todo indica que habría petróleo, pero Argentina viene desalentando la operación de las distintas empresas a partir de advertir que se van a violar normas nacionales e internacionales y seguramente pueden ser pasibles de sanciones.

HACE 27 AÑOS QUE LES DEBEMOS EL VERDADERO Y JUSTO RECONOCIMIENTO NACIONAL A ESOS SOLDADOS, QUE OBEDECIENDO ORDENES SE ENFRENTARON EN UNA GUERRA PERDIDA, EN UN DESENGAÑO Y EN UNA FRUSTRACION SOCIAL!

SOLDADO ! –
¿ JURAIS DEFENDER A LA PATRIA HASTA RENDIR LA VIDA SI FUESE NECESARIO?
…Y ELLOS …JURARON.

Publicado por medelhi
Archivado en Argentina reclama soberania de las Malvinas, internacionales, noticias, política, videos·Etiquetas: , , , , 

Los comentarios están cerrados

 

No Comments

Subdue The Enemy Without Fighting

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on May 25th, 2012

Sun Tzu

To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

古之所善戰者，勝於易勝者也
實而備之，強而避之，怒而撓之，卑而驕之，佚而勞之，親而離之，出其不意，攻其不備

Strategic Analysis of Pakistan’s Perspective on the Afghan End-Game!!

There is an old proverb, “Never let the bear in a trap fall on you”. We shall discuss the background and relevance of this quote a little later. First, lets go through some aspects of this war that has now disturbed the balance of power around the globe.

 

The Pre-Salala Scenario
Since the invasion and start of “Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan” in which Pakistan became a front line coalition partner; Pakistan has faced constant and sustained pressure, in the face of allegations and perception building against its army and security agencies. Many think-tanks, experts and military strategists seem to have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

The role of Pakistan in the Afghan-Soviet War, its support for the Taliban, its goal of strategic depth, the Khalistan fiasco, the  Kashmir freedom movement, and Kargil are just some of the events that has earned Pakistan’s forces the title of a ‘rogue’ army, as well as a state-sponsor  of terror.

Hence any expectation of a relationship built on mutual trust was poorly thought-out and unrealistic from the start. The allied forces came with the task of invading Afghanistan, toppling Taliban’s government, hunting down top Al-Qaeda leadership and flying back home under a ‘mission accomplished’ banner to live happily ever after. Staying in the Afghan battle field for over 10 years was never part of their strategy. None of the experts realized that the old ‘bear trap’ which drained out the Russians will also be effective in draining out the white elephant and its clan.

In the first Afghan war, the might of Russia was confronted by many countries around the globe leaving India and some other small countries which were under the influence of Communism. Pakistan enjoyed not only America’s stingers stocks, but also oil money of the Middle Eastern countries.

This time, the war is much more complicated and confusing. A country which was believed to be standing in the ranks of coalition forces actually is being blamed for orchestrating a deceptive warfare against its own coalition, hence becoming the prime responsible for the defeat of the coalition in Afghanistan. They are now forced to label her either ““Secret Pakistan” or “An Ally from Hell“!!!

Post-Salala Scenario, Blockade and the Strategic edge.
At the end of the first Afghan war, there was a term coined in diplomatic circles known as ”Negative restraints”.According to this, many congressmen initially agreed on a proposal to cut all aid to the Mujahideen once the Soviet pull-out began, allowing the US to wash its hands off the conflict and leaving the Mujahideen in conflict with Najeebullah Government. On the other hand it was also obvious that Najeebullah’s government would continue to receive aid from the Soviets, resulting in further bloodshed and eventually ending in a disaster for the Mujahideen and for Afghanistan.

It was only much later and after some diplomatic pressure by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a few favorable officials in the US government, that the Americans agreed to add a clause to the Geneva accords that allowed Washington to continue to aid the Mujahideen for as long as the Soviets continued to aid the Kabul government. This was termed at the time as ‘Positive symmetry’.

However, this ‘Positive Symmetry’ never occurred. The US lawmakers, under influence from the CIA and other powerful congressmen taking Geneva accord as its refuge, cut the aid of Mujahideen at the very first day of the Soviet pull-out. The Junejo government also submitted to the Geneva accords and ignored Zia’s recommendation about keeping the Soviets ‘tied down’ so that they could not become a problem again.

The CIA however, never left Afghanistan.

In the guise of ‘Positive Symmetry’, it continued to fund the groups and warlords specially figures like Ahmed Shah Masoud who then created a chaos and civil war within Afghanistan which diverted the attention of this brilliant war machine from the Russians towards its own self-destruction. Soviets, with all their leftover troops and equipment left Afghanistan safely.

Naturally, these events not only created divisions between some Mujahideen groups and Pakistan but also ensured that Pakistan wasn’t able to achieve all its strategic objectives at the end of this conflict. Atleast not until the Taliban eventually took over and toppled Najeebullah’s government.

Fast forward to today, and we see that Pakistan doesn’t appear to be in a mood to repeat the same mistakes. At the same time the geopolitical scenario is far more complicated than the Soviet-Afghan war.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, Pakistan enjoyed many benefits, from financial rewards to the backing, material and moral support of international power players. However in the current conflict, Pakistan stands alone in trying to defend its strategic objectives and territorial integrity, while pushing back against a mighty force which seems hell-bent on destroying Pakistan by all means.

In the Soviet-Afghan war, Soviet jets regularly crossed into Pakistan airspace and fired missiles into FATA and the border areas, resulting in civilian deaths. At least one attempt to attack Peshawar was thwarted. The first time thatany terror-group in Balochistan took up arms against the state demanding separation was also when Afghanistan was under foreign occupation (Soviet) with India as its ally. India was allowed the space in Afghanistan by the Soviets to achieve the second objective of separating Balochistan from Pakistan and cutting through the province to provide access to the warm waters for the Soviets. This was the price of war that Pakistan had to pay.

This time around, Pakistan is up against a military might, which spends more than 75% of all of the world’s armed forces put together, who is trying to punish Pakistan just as the Soviets did, but in a far more organized manner. This includes supporting and arming rebels attacking Pakistani state, supporting separatists in Balochistan just as the Soviets had done, again with India’s help, and promoting sectarianism and corruption by backing failed political terrorists into power in Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan once again pays a high price in terms of civilian and military casualties, and loss to the economy and infrastructure.

Under the current military leadership, Pakistan’s strategy appears to be one of gaining a strategic edge in a post-US Afghanistan. Before the Salala massacre, the allied forces planned to leave in 2014, hoping to leave behind a potent force in the form of the Afghan National Army which the Americans and NATO hoped would take over combat duties and be able to defend the puppet regime in Kabul. The pull-out was planned to be done gradually, as there are reportedly over 100,000 containers, 70,000 vehicles, and around 100,000 armed forces personnel in Afghanistan belonging to the US and NATO. The goods and equipment alone are valued at around $ 30 billion.

The massacre at Salala however, has put those plans in jeopardy.

What has been achieved by blockade?
Let’s remember that the US military machine is stronger than the rest of the world’s armed forces put together, in terms of resources. This is what Pakistan is up against. Due to careful strategic maneuvering, Pakistan has given itself an edge as the war draws to a close. Pakistan holds all the cards. Let’s have a look at what has been achieved by the blockade.

US Exit Plan and NATO disturbed: As far as The Exit strategy of US is concerned, its point of gravity is badly disturbed in the post-Salala scenario due to supply routes blockade. The exit plan has to be rewritten now. Out of the two years remaining until the pullout deadline, the blockade has so far gone on for 1/4th of that duration, over 6 months. Due to shortage of time, the US and NATO forces will have to leave not only scrap but also a lot of their equipment behind.

Secondly there is a disturbance in the ranks and alliance itself. Australia has already declared pulling out its soldiers from Afghanistan. France’s new leader emphasized that its troops will leave Afghanistan this year and they are already talking with Pakistan for its re-treat routes and have declared that they will not discuss these issues with NATO. Canada, Germany and others are also declaring their exit plans. America’s greatest ally and partner in all crimes Britain itself is planning to pull out their troops in 2012. The disturbance is clear and there is no common voice of NATO. The outcome of the recently concluded trilateral meeting said it all. And let’s not forget, there’s still a year and a half to go before the scheduled deadline.

Another problem: The Rise of Green on Blue
“In a major milestone toward ending a decade of war in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said on Wednesday that American forces would step back from a combat role there as early as mid-2013, more than a year before all American troops are scheduled to come home”.

The disarray that the US plans are in can be gauged from the quote above. Let’s now have a look at some of the original objectives of the occupation of Afghanistan.

Winning hearts and minds – Failed on all counts. Ordinary Afghans as well as those in the puppet government and US-run Afghan national army have picked up arms and attacked Americans, aside from the mass protests at US actions including burning of Qur’ans, killing of unarmed women and children and aerial attacks on civilians in the last few years.

Bringing Democracy – The ‘democracy’ Americans brought with them in ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ couldn’t rule the Afghans outside the Green Zones. The Talibans in effect are ruling over as much territory in Afghanistan as they did before the US occupation.

Creating and strengthening Afghan Army- The Rise of Green on Blue – US planned to train a force that will take care of American interests even after it is gone. They started training a force which according to them will not only look after Afghan people after US leaves but also play its part in counter insurgency. Thus planned to leave a force that could serve the very same purpose as the force they left in Iraq and thus leave Afghanistan in the hands of Anti-Pakistan elements with a chaos and civil war at its peak. But that plan has also gone pear shaped. Not only have entire batches of newly trained recruits gone back and joined the Taliban, taking with them the advanced weapons provided by the US, there’s also a very serious problem facing the coalition forces – the phenomena of ‘Green on Blue’ attacks. According to official figures, in last 18 months, 77 allied troops have been killed by  Afghans in army uniforms. What went wrong is clearly understandable from the following passage of a report on ‘Green on Blue’ phenomenon:

“Green on Blue” killings is not a new phenomenon . And as I reported in my January 25, 2011 blog posting, General Allen’s staff earlier this year tried to suppress a 2011 report by a U.S. Army behavioural scientist named Dr. Jeffrey Bordin, who was trying to figure out why Afghan soldiers and police killed 58 U.S. and NATO soldiers between May 2007 and May 2011. Dr. Bordin’s team interviewed 613 Afghan military and police personnel in three provinces in the US operation zone in south eastern Afghanistan. Instead of finding widespread cordial and collegial relations, Dr. Bordin found that our Afghan allies harboured deep-seated anger and resentment because of the way they felt they were treated by the American troops”

The ‘weapon’ that the US crafted to save its back after US forces pulled out has turned against them. The killing machine that America manufactured to counter not only pro-Pashtun (and therefore pro-Pakistan) elements in Afghanistan but also across the border inside Pakistan are now hunting down US and NATO troops even inside the Green Zone – once the safe haven for allied forces.

The US and NATO are now left with very few options. They have to submit to Pakistan’s terms that are designed to end the war with minimum loss of life. The terms call for a speedy end to the war, limiting Indian proxy role in post-US Afghanistan, working out the retreat routes and related agreements, and bringing representatives of Afghan’s Pashtuns into a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan. With these submissions the war will end on the terms of the ‘ally from hell’.

Keeping in view the above scenario, we can definitely derive the outcomes of the trilateral meeting held at Rawalpindi which now defines the outcomes of Chicago Summit. Failure for the US to have Pakistan commit to a date for reopening the supply lines without agreeing to Pakistan’s terms first, has casted Obama in a negative light in front of his NATO counterparts and made the US look weaker than ever before. Even without Pakistan’s active participation (no military leader attended the Chicago summit or the Bonn conference from Pakistan) Pakistan’s interests seem to have been covered as the US and NATO chalk out their exit strategy in line with Pakistan’s demands.

Reopening the supply routes and Pakistan’s interests.
Why open the supply routes if Pakistan can achieve such strategic edge just by the blockade? The answer to this question can only be given in military terms, putting aside all sentiments and emotions.

Sun Tzu, a Chinese general defined some strategies in his book ‘The Art of War’ almost 3,000 years ago. The book is considered an important part of the syllabus at many of the leading military schools worldwide to this day.

In his book, he writes: “Do not the thwart an enemy retreating home. If you surround the enemy, leave an outlet; do not press an enemy that is cornered. These are the principles of warfare.”

The idea here is to avoid a head on battle with a strong enemy, and instead strike at his weakness elsewhere. In the current situation, this translates to the supply routes, which is the weakness of the ISAF alliance.

SunTzu further explains:
Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard”

Continuing to pushing the US and NATO in a corner in Afghanistan, as Pakistan has been doing by its refusal to act against Haqqanis and by cutting off the allied forces’ supply routes, runs the risk of forcing them to hit back, resulting in civilian casualties and economic / diplomatic damage. The massacre in Kandahar recently is one such example. Veiled American threats to Pakistanis another.

‘Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. To win 100 battles is not the height of skill – To subdue the enemy without fighting is’. (the height of skill).

US and NATO forces are desperate and cornered in Afghanistan. They are looking for an exit, which falls in nicely with Pakistan’s own objectives. Therefore, now that significant gains have been extracted by the blockade, if Pakistan does decide to reopen its roads for non-lethal supplies and providing a safe exit to the US/NATO forces, it may actually serve Pakistan’s interests more than a continuing blockade would. The point has been made; Pakistan army has rightly linked the reopening of the supply lines to an American apology over the Salala massacre, Pakistan’s position has been strengthened while US plans are in further disarray which would enable Pakistan to further dictate the end-game in Afghanistan. At the same time it will help ease the fears of an unnecessary and mutually destructive open conflict between Pakistan and the allied nations – allowing Pakistan to, in Sun Tzu’s words, ‘subdue the enemy without fighting it’.

Pakistan has paid a monumental price over the last decade, in this war, with losses more than any other nation. If we cannot make gains at the end of this war and reap the profits by securing our geopolitical interests, it would be catastrophic. Luckily, Pakistan’s military planners seem to have got it right this time.

No Comments

DON’T MESS WITH PAKISTAN – DON’T PLAY WITH FIRE-“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Posted by Dr. Manzer Durrani in Defense on May 25th, 2012

DON’T PLAY WITH FIRE

لوح محفوظ است پیش او لیاء
ازچہ محفوظ است محفوظ ازخطاء

In the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
I see the power of the Creator

US, Pakistan Near Open War; Chinese Ultimatum Warns Washington Against Attack

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
May 20, 2011

China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

The Shooting Has Already Started

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11

The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

References

1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms
2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=3
4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/
5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.
7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-
8 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/17/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE74G0PS20110517
9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758
10 “No US assurance on unilateral ops,” http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops
11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational
12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html
13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011
14 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43033985/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8519535/US-steps-up-face-to-face-peace-talks-with-Taliban.html

No Comments


© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.