June 01, 2008

Floating Guantanamos in the Indian Ocean

The Guardian is reporting something we probably should have suspected: According to the human rights watch group Reprieve the United States has been, and continues to operate floating prisons to extrajudicially interrogate and house suspected terrorists:

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped. [Link]

I think that as G.W. Bush’s term ends we will be seeing ever more skeletons (pardon the pun) fall out of the closet. Traditionally, as soon as the Democrat and Republicans have chosen a nominee, they begin to receive briefings from the CIA on a host of national security topics and current operations. This is done to assure some degree of continuity by keeping the potential president elect informed. A transition is also a time when you’d expect increased leaking of information as new people look under the hood.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans. [Link]

We have previously written about Diego Garcia here and here (where the use of the island as a secret detention center was discussed).

For anyone who has watched the CBS show The Unit, all of this may sound familiar. The third season premiere was an episode about the CIA illegally operating a floating prison for terrorists:

The woman tells Bob that “rogues” in her agency are not happy that Jonas and the boys have found their “floating prison.” “A terrorist cruise to nowhere,” Bob observes. [Link]

Some of the statistics associated with what we’ve done during our “war against terror” are staggering:

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s legal director, said: “They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

“By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been ‘through the system’ since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them.” [Link]

One of the ships suspected of being a “floating prison” is the U.S.S. Bataan. If true I find this to be slightly ironic considering the chapter in U.S. History for which the Bataan was named:

“Hell ships.” As General MacArthur’s forces approached the Philippines late in 1944, the Japanese loaded the Prisoners of War into cargo ships and sent them to Japan and Manchuria to work in coal mines and factories. The men of Bataan and Corregidor were packed into the holds of the ships so tightly that there was no room to sit or to lay down, and they had to take turns sleeping. They were given little food or water and no medical attention. The heat was so bad in the stifling, dark holds that men suffocated to death standing up. There were virtually no sanitary facilities and in some instances the Japanese would not even let the dead bodies be removed from the holds. [Link]

abhi at 10:35 PM in Military, News · 20 comment(s) · Direct link


 

May 13, 2008

Warrior-scholar falls

Last week the nation lost Michael Vinay Bhatia to the war in Afghanistan (an IED of course). To say he was a unique breed of “soldier” would be an understatement:

Michael Vinay Bhatia, 31, was serving as a social scientist embedded with troops in the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain Systems program.

HTS program manager Steve Fondacaro said, “He was an example of a brilliant scholar who could have made his job and done well in the U.S., but who of his own accord discovered our program and volunteered to participate as a team member fully understanding the risks. This makes him a hero three, four times over…”

A magna cum laude graduate of Brown University, Bhatia was a doctoral candidate at Oxford University. “He had a lot of integrity as a scholar in terms of studying conflict and its impact on civilians and he was willing to take that into an operational field,” said Sarah Havens, a former Brown classmate. “He was adamant that that was the right thing to do.”

Bhatia’s dream of making a difference also took him to war-torn East Timor. But friends said they believed Bhatia was looking forward to a peaceful life back home. “I got the sense this was the last hurrah for him,” Havens said. “He was building his nest egg and looking for academic positions in the States for when he came back…” [Link]

I first heard about the Human Terrain Systems Program in an NPR story a few months ago (worth listening to). The idea is quite brilliant, the type of idea that our disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could use more of if we want to see a real turn around. The basic purpose of the HTS teams is to learn about the people and customs of a region so that they can advise the military on how to win hearts and minds, not through bluster, but through mutual understanding:

Among the outpouring of grief and remembrance that arose on various blogs in the past week was this one by a classmate of Bhatia’s at Brown University:

“I wish to pass on some bad news: Michael Bhatia was killed in Afghanistan.”

For twenty minutes, I managed to push it out of my mind and finish my meeting. As soon as I left The Landing, I fell apart.

As the day went on, I talked to other friends and colleagues of Mike’s and gathered more information. Apparently Mike was killed by a roadside bomb in Khost. He was stationed at FOB Salerno and advising the 82nd Airborne Division as part of the Human Terrain program. It was a controversial program and Mike told me he faced some criticism from colleagues for his decision to participate, but ultimately he believed he could do some good.

Mike and I were classmates at Brown, but we didn’t know each other well then. He came back to Providence in 2006 to become a visiting professor at the Watson Institute at Brown and we reconnected. If you google Mike, you’ll read a lot about his scholarly work around the world, especially in Afghanistan. Mike was a true academic, but in many ways he was more like Indiana Jones. Mike didn’t sit around and do research. He spent his time in the field: in Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan and more. Mike was a genius. He was an Oxford scholar, his book The Gun in Afghanistan was just published and there’s no doubt he knew his stuff when it came to international relations. You can find academics and experts around the globe who will sing his praises. They can do a far better job than I can explaining exactly why Mike’s research was so important.

I knew Mike in a far different capacity. To me, he wasn’t an author or a professor or a scholar. To me, he was a friend. For about a year Mike and I hung out on an almost daily basis. Last summer, Mike would come over to my place and we’d drink scotch and play Halo 2 until three in the morning (he’d routinely kick my ass). I would listen to him complain about his job and he’d endure my endless moaning about the trials and tribulations of starting a new company. We would go to the Wickenden Pub with our friend Chris and debate religion or head to the Wild Colonial to commiserate about women. We watched Entourage and Firefly together. Mike was a guy’s guy, a partner in crime. The kind that you could call any day of the week and he’d be down to go out at a moment’s notice. [Link]

Coincidentally, the author of the blog entry above was one of my closest friends growing up.

The best way to understand Bhatia’s work, and the reason why people are mourning the loss of his intelligence as well as his friendship, is to read this photoessay of his published last year.

Another one of his friends wrote in to SM as well:

A scholarship fund was established in Michael’s memory. The purpose of the fund will be to provide opportunities for undergraduates to obtain experiences working abroad similar to those Michael was able to undertake. Although the precise contours of the scholarship will be developed in the coming months, a fund already exists in his name. Those who would like to contribute to this fund may do so by writing checks payable to Brown University, clearly indicating that the gift is in memory of Michael Bhatia, and mailing the contribution to the following address:

Brown University

Gift Cashier

P.O. Box 1877

Providence, RI 02912

abhi at 11:40 PM in In Memoriam, Military, Profiles, Science and Technology · 13 comment(s) · Direct link


 

March 19, 2008

Has the Tiger been leashed by the Dragon?

China continues to deploy troops in an effort to quell any protests in/over the “disputed region” of Tibet as the Summer Olympics, China’s coming out party, inches ever closer:

Chinese troops and police have tightened their hold on Tibetan areas in the westernmost region of the country as they work to keep anti-government protests from spreading.

Journalists and activist groups have reported large numbers of troops in provinces along Tibet’s eastern border…

Peaceful protests against Chinese rule in Tibet began last week and gradually turned violent.

China says at least 16 people were killed in riots in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa Friday. But the Tibetan government-in-exile says at least 99 people have been killed in the unrest. [Link]

Last week the nation of Nepal bent over for China by caving to a request to shut down all points on Mt. Everest higher than base camp between now and the middle of May. The beginning of May is thought to be a prime time for a summit attempt, groups having spent the few weeks before that steadily climbing and acclimating. Only a Chinese team, carrying the Olympic torch, will be allowed to proceed, without worry that they will be met by Tibetan protestors at or near the top. All those that may have spent years planning for their ascent attempt get screwed. This isn’t as trivial as it sounds since tourism related to Everest brings a large chunk of money and prestige to the impoverished nation. On the brightside, it looks like Nepal might have begun to come to its economic senses in the past few days. They are no longer “sure” about acceding to China’s original request:

“How could they do something so devastating to the economy and to a Nepalese icon?” said Peter Athans, a 50-year-old American mountaineer who has reached the summit of Everest seven times. “A country superior in size and power is grinding under foot Nepal’s small but very important tourist industry.”

An expedition leader who has a group of 14 clients arriving next week said: “We just want to climb. But suddenly we have this other priority. We don’t need the Chinese intimidating us.” The Nepalese Ministry of Tourism backed away from its ban yesterday, with a spokesman insisting that the season’s 25 Everest expeditions would proceed as planned. “You can go any time to Everest,” he said. [Link]

What about India and its role as related to the protests in Tibet? In Dharamshala this past week, India too decided to suck up to China:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said he “appreciated” the steps taken by Indian authorities in handling protests by Tibetan refugees in the country.

More than 100 refugees were detained in India while attempting to march to the Chinese border last week.

They were marching as part of the global pro-independence protest.

India has in the past been sympathetic to the Tibetan cause but in recent years Delhi’s relations with Beijing have improved.

India has not allowed large-scale public protests for fear of embarrassing Beijing. [Link]

Let me understand this. The world’s largest democracy won’t allow peaceful protests because it may embarrass its authoritarian neighbor? That’s an interesting interpretation of democracy. The relationship between India and China is of course a complex one and the issue of Tibet goes back a long ways. The following is an excerpt from a great article in The Hindu Business Line which puts India’s response in a historical context:

When the Chinese People’s Liberation Army occupied Tibet in 1950, the Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Patel, wrote to Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru on November 7, 1950 saying: “The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intentions. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to install into our Ambassador (academic K. M. Panicker) a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means.”

Sardar Patel added: “(Throughout history) the Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier for any threat from the North. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble…Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side, but also include the important part of Assam… Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers, which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national and historical claims”. [Link]

Sumit Ganguly, writing for Newsweek, sounds pissed about India’s blatant appeasement:

India does itself a disservice by not standing up to China over its treatment of Tibet. If India wishes to be considered a great power, it needs to display a greater degree of independence and not kowtow to Beijing. With rapid economic growth, a substantial military establishment and robust political institutions, India should stop behaving in a subservient fashion and forthrightly stand up and defend certain inalienable rights of the Tibetan minority in its midst—rights that should obtain in any humane and democratic state.

New Delhi’s reluctance to challenge China over Tibet goes back to Beijing’s brutal repression of the Khampa revolt 50 years ago, when the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal head of the Tibetans, fled to India. Although China sharply reproved India for providing refuge to the Dalai Lama, India stood its ground. Shortly thereafter, following a breakdown of negotiations over a disputed border, China attacked and defeated India in October 1962. Even though India’s army has since been modernized and prepared for mountain warfare, the memory of this rout still haunts Indian military planners and policymakers. That’s why, when the Chinese army periodically crosses the border, India responds with anodyne criticism. And why India has been willing to publicly and abjectly reassure China that the Tibetan exiles will not be allowed to engage in any meaningful political activity.

Appeasement might not be a bad policy if it actually succeeded in keeping Beijing satisfied, but it doesn’t. There is not a shred of evidence that it has ever moderated Chinese behavior. Whenever Tibetan exiles have engaged in minor protests, Beijing has sternly rebuked India for allowing them to engage in political activities. Faced with Beijing’s continued expressions of discontent, New Delhi has rarely missed an opportunity to genuflect before the Middle Kingdom. The Tibetan crackdown is only the latest example.

This humiliating deference undermines India’s national interests as a rising Asian power and corrodes its credentials as a liberal democracy.[Link]

By the way, if you are curious as to what law in the Indian Constitution allowed India to scoop up these protestors, it is known as “Preventive Detention”:

The Fundamental Rights have been criticised as inadequate in providing freedom and opportunity for all Indians. Many political groups have demanded that the right to work, the right to economic assistance in case of unemployment and similar socio-economic rights be enshrined as constitutional guarantees,[27] that are presently listed in the directive principles of state policy.[46] The right to freedom contains a number of limiting clauses and has been criticised for failing to check government powers[27] such as provisions of preventive detention and suspension of fundamental rights in times of emergency. The phrases “security of State”, “public order” and “morality” are unclear, having wide implication. The meaning of phrases like “reasonable restrictions” and “the interest of public order” have not been explicitly stated in the constitution, leading to frequent litigations.[27] The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1975) was strongly criticised for giving then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi the authority to arrest opposition leaders following the declaration of emergency in 1975. [Link]

In any case I, like the Dalai Lama, hope there is no more violence against peaceful protestors.

abhi at 09:45 PM in History, Military, News, Politics, Religion · 68 comment(s) · Direct link


 

December 24, 2007

Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai 2007

India and China are just about to wrap up joint military exercises, 45 years after the border war which put an end to the phrase which serves as the title of this post. The CSM reports:

The decision to hold joint Army exercises, ending tomorrow, in China’s Yunnan Province, is admittedly a small measure. But it is the first time the two armies have cooperated in such a way, and it comes on the heels of rapidly expanding Sino-Indian ties in business and politics…

This being the first Army exercise between the two countries, it has been small. Only 95 Indian soldiers have traveled to Yunnan Province, where they are participating in counterterrorism drills. But the joint exercise is expected to become an annual event, helping each side become better acquainted with the other.

“These are building blocks being put in place,” says Rahul Bedi of Jane’s, a London-based military analysis firm. “It’s a part of the learning process…” [Link]

And what did they name these exercises? Operation Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Sadly, no. That would have been the name if only I were in charge. Instead, the name given to these joint training exercises was “Hand-in-Hand 2007.” Hand-in-Hand? These are supposed to be warriors not playmates. For your viewing enjoyment I have posted some of the most exciting pictures from the the last several days:

Chinese soldier teaches Indians that the best way to defend against a sledge hammer to the head is by using the nearest pile of bricks for protection. They swear it works and that Indians should try.

All the Indian soldiers agree to look “hard” for the camera. Except the one dude who promised to smile for mom.

“Those two. I swear bro they were totally checking us out. Can we switch up this time though? You talk to the Chinese one and I’ll talk to the Indian one. She so fine.”

This looked much easier when Demi was doing it in G.I. Jane

Chinese soldier teaches Indians how to fly (like in the Kung Fu movies when they fly over tree tops). Damn…no wonder 1962 didn’t go well.

“I know I’m supposed to fall back and trust them to catch me. But was I popular enough the last few days? Oh please, oh please, oh please let them catch me and not just move out of the way like when I was in grade school.”

Because of a lack of funding, soldiers learn skydiving by jumping in to a mud pit

abhi at 09:21 PM in Humor, Military, News, Photos · 21 comment(s) · Direct link


 

December 19, 2007

The Indian Army in WWII Italy

For many folks, the most widely recognized pop culture image of Desi soldiers in WWII was Naveen Andrews’ portrayal of Kip, the Sikh soldier, in the film version of Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient. Kip was a combat engineer / bomb removal expert for the British army in Italy and his love affair with Hana, the gorgeous nurse played by Juliet Binoche, formed one of the central plot lines of the movie.

Oh bury me at Cassino
My duty to England is done
And when you get back to Blighty
And you are drinking your whisky and rum
Remember the old Indian soldier
When the war he fought has been won!

-Indian 8th Infantry Division
War Song from the WWII Italian Campaign

When I saw the flick, I recall many a female audience member shuddering at Kip’s “hair scene” - much to my progressively follicle-challenged chagrin…

Still, Ondaatje’s use of Kip in such a significant role is laudable not just because Kip is a strong, attractive & clearly desi male in a leading romantic role but also because it implicitly frames the presence of folks like him as relatively commonplace. I recently stumbled across a fascinating, slick, Indian-produced documentary that goes into much more detail on the “real Kips” who participated in the Allied offensive in Italy. Thanks to the magic of YouTube, it appears the entire documentary is online and available for your viewing pleasure after the fold.

Naveen Makes It Look Easy

The facts, sights, and sounds of the video are an impressive testament to an often overlooked chapter in history. Desi losses in the multi-day assault on the Gustav line, for example, numbered over 1000 - a figure comparable to US losses on D-Day. An Italian countryside scene shows a field of Hindi-inscribed tombstones that hits you in the gut. The UK’s highest military honor, the Victoria Cross, was awarded to its youngest WWII recipient during these battles - 19 yr old Kamal Ram. As is common in these sorts of documentaries, snapshots of soldier’s daily lives provide poignant color - such as the Sikhs making Naan on makeshift ovens. Local Italians, some of whom were barely teenagers at the time, discuss their impressions of these “handsome” soldiers from afar who’ve come to fight for their liberation and attend modern day memorial services to commemorate their sacrifice.

The most powerful scenes, of course, are the interviews from the living veterans themselves. While contemporary folks occasionally see Desi history through a giant “British Colonialism was the Root of All Evil” lens, these veterans were clearly and deservedly proud of their role in “the last Good War”. They’re an apt example of the saying that “support the troops” is supposed to mean respecting them as fighters, rather than pitying them as victims. Amongst them, a place on the front line was an opportunity volunteered for & earned rather than just a place to become “cannon fodder” for the man. The Indian 8th division, having proved itself in Africa, earned Crack status as “the river crossing division” and became the theater’s recognized experts at one of the most difficult combat operations in all war across all time. And through all these things, they left their mark on the world in ways big and small.

So hopefully, while the debate about the significance and meaning of War will remain with us till the end of Time, perhaps we can put aside those contentious words for a bit and respect the warriors & their deeds profiled in the following videos -

Part 1 -

Part 2 -

Part 3 -

Related - Previous SM Coverage of the Battles of Kohima and Imphal

vinod at 04:34 PM in History, Military · 29 comment(s) · Direct link


 

October 28, 2007

J. Ashwin Madia - Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District

My cousin Manan (who is also an Iraq War Vet) just forwarded me the news that 29-year-old Marine Corps veteran Jigar Ashwin Madia just announced his candidacy for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives:

U.S. Marine Corps Iraq veteran J. Ashwin Madia announced his candidacy to represent Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District Tuesday.

Madia will seek the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party endorsement.

While serving as a Marine, Madia was also a prosecutor, defense attorney, and legal advisor to a Marine Corps commander.

Madia graduated from Osseo Senior High School. He went on to graduate from the University of Minnesota and New York University School of Law. [Link]

First thought (albeit very shallow)? It isn’t going to hurt him that he looks that good. I have a feeling that the comments section in this post is going to have a lot of female commenters leaving onomatopoeic words like “Rrrrrrr.” But does Jigga-man got the necessary skills to go with those looks? He is currently working at attorney at Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi LLP in Intellectual Property Litigation.

Drawing on his experience in Iraq, Madia plans to make the war a major issue in his campaign. He also hopes to focus on balancing the budget and fighting global warming. What he stressed most frequently, however, is his desire for this campaign to be a real dialogue between the candidates. Madia says he wants as many debates and candidate forums as possible, noting that open congressional seats don’t come around very often.

With no elected experience and no history with party regulars, Madia certainly has an uphill climb. He’s seeking to break into politics in a congressional race that is likely to be among the most competitive in the country - and a race that already has an excellent DFL candidate. There is no question that he is an underdog in this race.

“The three issues that I care about most and that form the basis for my campaign are: 1) Ending the Iraq War without leaving behind a catastrophe; 2) Balancing our budget and returning to “pay as you go” principles; and 3) Creating and implementing a comprehensive solution to address global warming. I also want to talk more generally about the direction of our country, and what kind of nation we want to be post 9/11. I don’t believe that we need to have torture chambers, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and spying programs on American citizens in order to be secure. In fact, I think that when we do those things, we tear at the fabric of our country” - said Madia. [Link]

Let’s also take a look at the 3rd District and see what the battlefield terrain looks like:

Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District is one of the most affluent in the state, encompassing the suburbs of Hennepin County to the north, west, and south of Minneapolis. With blue collar Brooklyn Park to the north, middle-income Bloomington to the south, and higher-income Eden Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Plymouth and Wayzata to the West, it features a mixed characteristic. The district leans slightly Republican with a CPVI of R + 1.[3] It is currently represented by Jim Ramstad, a Republican, scoring 79% conservative by a conservative group[4] and 20% progressive by a liberal group.[5] People of the district voted for George W. Bush in 2004, but with only 51% of the votes cast. On September 17, 2007 Ramstad announced he would not seek reelection in 2008. [Link]

So it is an open seat in a district that, although has leaned Republican in the past, is ripe for the picking by an anti-war Democrat that will have some street-cred with the stay-the-coursers. That’s a powerful combo. Who might his chief challengers be?

State Sen. Terri Bonoff, a Minnetonka DFLer, already has announced her candidacy. State Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Eden Prairie, has hired campaign staff and filed the federal paperwork needed to raise money. [Link]

He will face a stiff challenge from Bonoff but I think he has a shot, especially if the DailyKos’ers get behind him.

As we get a little closer to the election I will try and line up an interactive interview with Madia on SM like we did with Raj Bhakta (and like we will be doing with a few other candidates soon).

Madia’s campaign is accepting contributions now.

abhi at 02:01 PM in Military, Politics, Profiles · 29 comment(s) · Direct link


 

August 19, 2007

Will "Clergy Response Teams" be inclusive enough?

Louisiana’s local news station KSLA had a rather intriguing headline last week. In a television news report they made the claim that the Department of Homeland Security is currently training members of local clergies to help out is some capacity should the Executive Branch ever declare Martial Law within the United States:

Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA News 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us…

If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie “The Siege”, easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical. And that’s exactly what the ‘Clergy Response Team’ helped accomplish in the wake of Katrina.

Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff’s Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team’s mission, “the primary thing that we say to anybody is, ‘let’s cooperate and get this thing over with and then we’ll settle the differences once the crisis is over.’”

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, “because the government’s established by the Lord, you know. And, that’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture…” [Link]

It should be noted that KSLA was just the latest to reveal information/rumors about this program. A few other websites on the internet (of varying authority and reliability) mention other details:

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency… It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that “this is for their own good.”

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance. [Link]

I just want to state for the record that I am all in favor of preaching subservience to the government after some horrible attack, and the idea of a department in the Executive Branch empowering a army volunteer corp of religious soldiers counselors seems like a reasonable and practical idea to me (if this is all true). Faith-based initiatives rock! Can I just request though that we get some Hindu priests into the ranks of these Clergy Response Teams? I mean, I’m sure that Romans 13 kicks ass and all but how about a little book called the Bhagavad Gita that centers around proper conduct during an actual battle. It even explains when it is OK to kill someone. Let’s stop being politically correct and just shoot straight here. Hindu priests have had a couple of millenia more experience quelling the masses than Christian priests have had. Have you ever seen how subservient ABD brides and grooms are at weddings? The priest could just make shit up on the spot and they’d do it.

Now I know that some of our Muslim readers are like WTF Abhi? Why is SM always so pro-Hindu? Why aren’t you advocating that we include Imams as part of the Clergy Response Teams also? Let’s just be honest. After the U.S. declares Martial Law they will all probably be hiding.

See Related Posts: Lord I never drew first, but I drew first blood,

abhi at 08:44 PM in Humor, Military, News, Politics, Religion · 23 comment(s) · Direct link


 

August 11, 2007

Rainbow Six

On Friday, CNN carried an alarmist headline that read, “Sources: U.S. assessing Pakistan nukes if Musharraf falls.” The implication here is that Musharraf’s grip on power is beginning to wane and is cause for concern all around. From the article:

U.S. military intelligence officials are urgently assessing how secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be in the event President Gen. Pervez Musharraf were replaced as the nation’s leader, CNN has learned…

Three U.S. sources have independently confirmed details of the intelligence review to CNN but would not allow their names to be used because of the sensitivity of the matter…

The current review is a result of recent developments in that country, including the prospect that Musharraf could still declare a national emergency that would give him sweeping powers…

The United States has full knowledge about the location of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, according to the U.S. assessment.

But the key questions, officials say, are what would happen and who would control the weapons in the hours after any change in government in case Musharraf were killed or overthrown. [Link]

Although this sounds like an escalation or something truly new and fantastic, it’s not. In the month following Sept. 11th, 2001, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker wrote a provocative article titled “Watching the Warheads.” In THAT article there were many more revealing details (if his sources were reliable) than are revealed in this newest blurb by CNN.

… an élite Pentagon undercover unit—trained to slip into foreign countries and find suspected nuclear weapons, and disarm them if necessary—has explored plans for an operation inside Pakistan….

…operating under Pentagon control with C.I.A. assistance, whose mission it is to destroy nuclear facilities, past and present government officials told me. “They’re good,” one American said. “If they screw up, they die. They’ve had good success in proving the negative”—that is, in determining that suspected facilities were not nuclear-related…

The American team is apparently getting help from Israel’s most successful special-operations unit, the storied Sayeret Matkal, also known as Unit 262, a deep-penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations, the theft of foreign signals-intelligence materials, and the theft and destruction of foreign nuclear weaponry

A senior military officer, after confirming that intense planning for the possible “exfiltration” of Pakistani warheads was under way, said that he had been concerned not about a military coup but about a localized insurrection by a clique of I.S.I. officers in the field who had access to a nuclear storage facility. “The Pakistanis have just as much of a vested interest as we do in making sure that that stuff is looked after, because if they”—I.S.I. dissidents—“throw one at India, they’re all cooked meat…”

Intelligence officials told me they believe that, in case of an imminent threat, the Indian military’s special commando unit is preparing to make its own move on the Pakistani arsenal. [Link]

Reportedly, one of the ways in which Pakistan has previously helped to reassure the West is by keeping their nuclear weapons in non-assembled form (although it wouldn’t take much to finish assembly):

Pakistani authorities claim that their nuclear weapons are not assembled. They maintain that the fissile cores are stored separately from the non-nuclear explosives packages, and that the warheads are stored separately from the delivery systems. In a 2001 report, the Defense Department contends that “Islamabad’s nuclear weapons are probably stored in component form” and that “Pakistan probably could assemble the weapons fairly quickly.” However, no one has been able to ascertain the validity of Pakistan’s assurances about their nuclear weapons security. [Link]

And where would an elite Pentagon unit go to exfiltrate Pakistani nuclear warheads? Ras Koh (see image), Kahuta (see image), and Khushab (see image) might be logical places to hit.

Hopefully now we all know more about this issue than what was in the CNN blurb. Also, hopefully a government hit squad doesn’t take me out for talking about this stuff on SM. Ok fine. I did see the Bourne Ultimatum this week. So what.

abhi at 02:28 PM in Military, News · 25 comment(s) · Direct link


 

July 24, 2007

Realpolitik with Burma

While I do not hold a naive and idealistic view of the Indian government, I was still saddened to recently hear about the extent to which the GOI has gotten into bed with the odious dictators of Burma. Is this really much different from US-Pakistani relations? Both are justified by realpolitik, national interest, and claims that the end justifies the means.

In this case, India is circumventing the EU arms embargo on Burma by selling them attack helicopters made from EU parts:

Last week, India sparked fresh cries of outrage from human rights groups when a report surfaced saying that it plans to sell an unknown number of sophisticated Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) to Burma (also known as Myanmar).

According to a report by Amnesty International and other international organizations, the helicopters should be covered by the embargo because they are made with components from at least six EU countries and the United States… the Advanced Light Helicopters include rocket launchers from Belgium, engines from France, brake systems from Italy, fuel tanks and gearboxes from Britain. [Link]

Nor is it the first time - India has made several weapons sales to Burma in the last few years. [Note - India has neither confirmed nor denied the helicopter sale] The Burmese government is the kind of government that is perfectly willing to attack and kill its own civilians to maintain its grip on power, so selling weapons to the Burmese junta is serious business.

What does India get from this? Just like the USA, India arms and supports dictators so they can help India with its security problems:

India says it needs Burma’s help. There are at least 20,000 guerrillas from five major militant groups in India’s northeast - all fighting the Indian government for sovereignty or independence - who have training camps in the dense jungles of Sagaing in northern Burma. New Delhi has been deliberating with Yangon over plans for a military offensive against such groups.

Counterinsurgency operations in India’s northeast, says an official from India’s Ministry of Defense under conditions of anonymity, cannot succeed unless neighboring countries refrain from supporting the separatist groups based on their territories. [Link]

And of course, trade in general between India and Burma is increasing, as is Indian investment in Burmese gas even though the Burmese government is notorious for using forced labor when building pipelines and other infrastructure.

The problem with getting into bed with dictators to improve security is, as we’ve seen in Pakistan, the dictator has every incentive to let the security problems continue so as to extract future concessions:

in a bid to continue extracting favors from India, the Burmese junta might want to keep the insurgency alive in the northeast. [Link]

It might also lead to pressure within the EU not to export the parts to India that India is then selling to Burma, in violation of the EU embargo. Lastly, of course, it leads to a loss of the moral high ground vis-a-vis other countries making similar dirty deals that India dislikes.

I don’t know much about the security situation in the NorthEast of India, but I would like to think that there is a better way to deal with the situation than this. The costs to innocents are high, and the security payoff seems dubious.

Related sources: State Department report on human rights in Burma, Human Rights Watch on Burma, Amnesty International Report on the helicopter sale, Saferworld

ennis at 10:10 AM in Health and Medicine, Military, Politics · 51 comment(s) · Direct link


 

July 23, 2007

The Northwest Frontier is Getting Flatter

StrategyPage has always had great coverage of all things military in South Asia. With all the ink and pixels being spilled about all the things going wrong on Pakistan’s unruly border with Afghanistan, Stratpage has this report of one of the tactics that’s working relatively well -

Pakistani soliders are faced with suicide attackers who “love death more than you love your 5,000-rupee salary, nude pictures of Indian actresses and liquor.” [link]; But that’s part of the plan.

The army can defeat the tribesmen in battle, but it’s guerilla warfare where the tribes have always had an edge. But that edge as disappeared as the tribes became more dependent on outside goods, moved by truck over a few roads. For thousands of years in the past, the tribes were self-sufficient in their mountain valleys. Now, the tribes suffer when the army sets up checkpoints on those roads, and forces the tribesmen to attack the better armed and disciplined soldiers…

When Thomas Friedman turned the memorable phrase, The World is Flat, he was popularizing trends in globalization that many have observed for decades. First, that in modern capitalism, economic transactions now span a larger and larger portion of the world - Pakistani tribals might not be able to place Finland or Korea on a map but they are probably getting accustomed to the convenience of a cellphone. Second - and to the consternation of the Arundhati Roy’s, Naomi Kleins, et. al., the mutually beneficial, non-violent, uncompelled transaction inherent to economic exchange necessarily impacts the cultures on both sides. Certain shared cultural norms are necessary to support a transaction and it’s nearly impossible in the long run to get the benefits of a transaction without being at least partially infected by the new culture.

Thomas Barnett, in analyzing the 21st century faultlines, placed them not between Civilizations but rather between those successfully Integrating and those Not Integrating into the global rule set - namely economics & globalziation. The activities of the Pakistani military along this faultline thus paint a great picture of what multifaceted war can / should look like. Trade has clearly run through the region for centuries but only recently does it involve such day to day pedestrian and yet inherently global goods like AA batteries, gasoline, and the like…

vinod at 12:58 PM in Military · 55 comment(s) · Direct link


 

May 30, 2007

Gurcharan Das on Hydaspes River

As usual, biz has me on the road accumulating airmiles… and the usual upside is some unbroken reading time — most recently with Gurcharan Das’s India Unbound. The book is well written and covers a wide span of Indian history and issues both from Das’s direct (and apparently quite privileged) experience as well as his clearly thorough research. Emotionally laced with optimism for the future and regret for the past, this nonfiction book struck a chord in a way I imagine some find in escapist lit. Call it Bridget Jones for the econ-minded. Amartya Sen’s comments on the book are particularly interesting.

Das tackles the age old, highly politicized question of “Why was India rich, why is it poor, and when will it be rich again?” In the dozens of cases Das presents, one particularly unique example is a famous battle of antiquity and the first large scale military interaction between Desi’s and the West - the Battle of Hydaspes River in 327 BC.

The battle pitted Alexander the Great’s Macedonians against Porus (the Hellenic version of “Rama Puru”), leader of the Kingdom of Paurava in what is now the Pakistani section of ancient Punjab. Beyond the general intrigue and war narrative - feints, maneuver, logistics, and so on - Das finds a nugget of explanatory wisdom to his question - Teamwork.

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do - Samuel HuntingtonDepending on your proclivities, Hydaspes may have marked the beginning of Western colonialism in India and thus the beginnings of all that ailed its 20th century history. In Samuel Huntington’s famous aphorism — “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do” — Alexander was perhaps the capstone ancient example. Thus, the Battle of Hydaspes River may have set the imperial template for hundreds more, longer lasting incursions over later millenia.

Colin Farrell Encounters an Indian War Elephant… Would India ever be the same?

Alternatively, the interpretation that both Das and moi come down on, connects “organized violence” to “ideas or values” far more directly. One favorite writer of mine, Victor Davis Hanson, presents this opposing view and has this to say about the cultural significance of the Greek Phalanxes facing Puru -

…the phalanx was more than a singularly deadly infantry unit or a psychological weapon of terror. Its dense columns also reflected the solidarity of free men, who willingly donned heavy armor under the Mediterranean sun, crowded with one another in cumbersome rows, marched in unison — and defined courage as following orders, advancing on command and in rank, and protecting one’s comrade on the left. Aristotle thought the city-state — the very beginning of Western civilization — was identified by the emergence of such a strange way of fighting. Indeed, the polis arose, he wrote, when a new class of farmers — Europe’s first middle class of free property owners — began to fight in unison in these serried ranks, armored columns that other men, whether aristocrats, the poor, or those outside the Greek world, could not or would not emulate.

In this world view, the a priori choice for mankind over the long arc of history isn’t between violence and non-violence per se but rather between organized (law & military) and disorganized (crime, corruption & melee-style battle) violence. Cultural principles in turn determined where on this continuum a society lay — for the Greeks, the principles embodied in their style of organized violence were Equality + Teamwork. The Greek’s way of war, life, and governance were inextricably interlinked.

Battle of Hydaspes River: The Symptom or The Cause of India’s Troubles?

Folks who saw Oliver Stone’s Alexander may remember an, er, apparent portrayal of the Battle of Hydaspes River towards the end of the movie (alas, Stone devotes more filmtime to Alexander’s homosexuality vs. the specifics any particular battle). In some of the more visually arresting scenes of the movie, fish-out-of-water Macedonian phalanxes clash with monstrous elephants in a Vietnam-like jungle setting. A scene from the trailer shows a blood-spattered, wide-eyed Alexander (portrayed by a golden locked Colin Farrell) galloping down a jungle hillside on his noble horse Bucephalus to be challenged by a rearing war elephant….

Now, contrary to the Stone’s implicit portrayal, history generally considers Hydaspes River a decisive, brilliant victory (albeit possibly Pyrrhic) for Alexander — one that marked the furthest eastward expansion of his empire and perhaps the highpoint of an already legendary career. Wikipedia has a fine entry on the battle but for pure narrative power, I prefer this, more colorful take or this one for tactical analysis.

Although the initial order of battle may have tipped raw manpower in Alexander’s favor, Puru still had significant advantages in other, crucial areas —

Defeated but not dishonored… Porus was believed to have towered at well over 6 feet tall - a giant in those times. Note his far larger stature in this Le Brun painting than even the victorious Alexander.

But… Puru lost. Though with tremendous honor and courage. Unlike Alexander’s nemesis Darius, Puru fought at the front with his men. And… -

..unlike the king of Persia, Puru did not flee nor surrender. Despite losing the battle, he kept fighting and goading his men to keep their honor. Alexander’s forces were impressed by both his size and his courage. It was only when he was hit by a dart on his right shoulder that, wounded and tired, he turned his elephant to safety… Soon, two envoys from Alexander came up to him. Loss of blood had made him intolerably thirsty. He halted his elephant and got down. Alexander’s envoys honored him and gave him water to drink and he commanded them to lead him to their king

As Puru neared the Macedonian lines, Alexander came galloping out to meet him. He was filled with admiration for his brave and proud adversary and asked Puru how he wished to be treated. “Treat me, Alexander, as you would treat a king,” replied Puru. Alexander was confused and asked him to be more precise. “When I said ‘a king,’” repeated Puru, “everything was said.” [Das, 39-40]

Conventional arguments for “why this outcome?” focus on the superiority of Alexander’s generalship — a factor which no doubt played a significant role and particularly in cases where Alexander found numbers working against him. Alexander clearly targeted his enemy’s logical rather than physical center of mass and lined up his strengths against his enemy’s weaknesses. Das, although “wary of cultural explanations”, puts forth a rather cultural explanation - “it illustrated for me an important weakness in the Indian character — our lack of teamwork“It illustrated for me an important weakness in the Indian character — our lack of teamwork”.” [Das, pg 36]

While militaries throughout history have had their class distinctions - heck, officer commissions were “purchased” by upper class Brits until the 20th century - they ran far more deeply in Puru’s army with far more significant tactical implications -

… beneath the surface, there were important differences between the two armies.. [such as] divisions in Indian society , which resulted in poor coordination in Puru’s army. Puru’s cavalry refused to aid the infantry. On the soggy banks of the [Hydaspes] that morning, Puru’s chariots got stuck and charioteers were unwilling to double up as infantry…

Puru’s upper-caste mounted cavalry did not sufficiently support the lower-caste soldier who was on foot. Jadunath Sarkar, an authority on ancient and medieval military affairs said that although “the Indian defenders of the Punjab were brave, each man fought to death in isolation.” The solders were “unable to make a mass movement in concert with their brethren of other corps.”

…Puru may have lost to the greatest general of his time, but the theme of poor teamwork runs throughout Indian history. Babur’s victories at Panipat and at Khanwa (against the Rajput confederacy, led by Rana Sangha) were partly a result of the same deficiencies. Although the Marathas had more cohesive armies, they too suffered because some subcastes armed themselves against others. [Das, pg 41]

And thus, as the ancient world gave way to a more modern world, and a “strange way of fighting” emerged where courage meant roles, teams, and tactics rather than heroic individual warriors. Along with it, the basis of wealth and governance shifted from artisans, kings and subjects to employees, officials, and citizens. And somewhere along the way, India fell behind… (Per the taxonomy in this article, India remained mired in a type of “limited access” society vs. “open access” warfare of the West).

But, all is not lost. Das’s book is fundamentally optimistic and hopeful and sees the basis for change all over India. On teamwork in particular, he readily draws the connection between competitive necessity and cultural transformation -

I believe that with more competition in the Indian market, we will get better teamwork in the business world. When companies fight for survival, there is less luxury for egotistical behavior; we sink or swim together. Since the 1991 reforms Indian markets have become more competitive, cohesion should gradually increase…. [Das, pg 43]

I readily share Das’s optimism and the seeds not just for Desi progress but actually greatness. The rise of large, efficient Indian corporations like Wipro and Infosys readily indicate that for at least one bleeding edge of society, the teamwork problem is being licked.

vinod at 04:51 PM in History, Military · 109 comment(s) · Direct link


 

February 06, 2007

I’m not a Cop, I Just Play One on TV

In the annals of teaching, there’s an old saying that things start getting twisted when the metric becomes the goal rather than simply the metric. Sadly the warning holds in both the classroom and the field of conflict with tragic results. Stratpage reports on the bizarre case of a staged Islamic militant sting operation in Kashmir -

February 6, 2007: In Kashmir, police investigators uncovered a strange incident of murder and resume building by ambitious, and amoral, police. Two police commanders have been arrested for killing innocent Kashmiri Moslems, and claiming that the dead men were Islamic militants. The policemen enhance their promotion prospects as a result of successful encounters with Islamic militants. But new security measures on the border (Israeli night vision equipment, new sensors, UAVs) have made it much more difficult for the Islamic terrorists to get from their training camps in Pakistan, into Kashmir. The shortage of terrorists to kill led some police to go after innocent civilians. This is a publicity disaster for India, which had been gaining more support from most Kashmiris for a peace deal. The accused police will have to be prosecuted honestly and vigorously in order to calm down Kashmiri public opinion. So far, four police, including two commanders, have been arrested for three murders. There may have been many more.

Other press accounts color in more of the details -

The dead were a carpenter, a Muslim priest and a street vendor who went missing last year and, according to police, were killed in the Ganderbal area on the outskirts of Srinagar, summer capital of Indian Kashmir.

“Based on evidence, we were able to arrest the former senior superintendent and deputy superintendent of Ganderbal,” said Deputy Inspector-General Farooq Ahmad.

Two policemen were arrested last week for killing the carpenter, a father of five, after they staged a fake gun battle claiming he was a militant.

…The Hindu newspaper has claimed to have official documents showing that “at least three separate Indian army units in Jammu and Kashmir participated in a series of cold-blooded murders of innocent civilians organised by a group of rogue officers in Ganderbal”.

Writing in The Hindustan Times yesterday, leading columnist Barha Dutt said that by the most conservative official estimates more than 1000 men had “disappeared” in Kashmir in the past decade.

Predictably, reaction from the Kashmiri public was immediate and violent -

Srinagar, Feb. 6(AP): Police fired tear gas and used batons to control hundreds of stone-throwing demonstrators in Indian Kashmir on Tuesday who were protesting alleged slayings of civilians by security forces, an official said.

SM / Stratpage had some previous coverage of similar shenanigans a few years ago here.

vinod at 02:21 PM in Military · 36 comment(s) · Direct link


 

January 14, 2007

Emerald City Burning

When the topic of Iraq comes up in conversations with my friends and acquaintances these days (which is sadly increasingly rare) I generally encounter one of two types of attitudes. The first one, from people on the political left and center, is one of utter exasperation and hopelessness. Not only have we lost, we’ve failed so badly that we may as well leave the stadium and get to our cars as fast as possible to avoid the traffic jam and the inevitable rowdiness soon to be displayed by the opposition. The second attitude, from those who still inexplicably cling to the right-of-center view on Iraq, is one that features mindless tu quoque utterances: “Well, at least it is better than Saddam.” What I fear, however, is that both sides are so frustrated that they no longer care what is going on over there. Even as Bush’s poll numbers plummet, more American soldiers die, and death squads roam Baghdad’s streets (something that even laymen easily predicted two full years ago), the conflict is ever evolving. It is imperative that we recognize that evolution and not think that it is simply business as usual over there. It is in fact getting far worse every day, and in historically predictable ways.

Three articles published on Sunday collectively do a fine job of bringing us all up to speed on where things stand at the present and why adding 20,000 additional troops is nothing but the final desperate maneuver of a man who was always ten steps behind. The first article comes to us from Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City. In it he describes how the Bush administration is rounding up all the people that it originally thought didn’t understand the situation in Iraq, and is now asking them to salvage what little they can of the mess.

Timothy M. Carney went to Baghdad in April 2003 to run Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Minerals. Unlike many of his compatriots in the Green Zone, the rangy, retired American ambassador wasn’t fazed by chaos. He’d been in Saigon during the Tet Offensive, Phnom Penh as it was falling to the Khmer Rouge and Mogadishu in the throes of Somalia’s civil war. Once he received his Halliburton-issued Chevrolet Suburban, he disregarded security edicts and drove around Baghdad without a military escort. His mission, as he put it, “was to listen to the Iraqis and work with them.”

He left after two months, disgusted and disillusioned…

Desperate for new approaches to stifle the persistent Sunni insurgency and Shiite death squads that are jointly pushing the country toward an all-out civil war, the White House made a striking about-face last week, embracing strategies and people it once opposed or cast aside. [Link]

Now that the Neocons and “swamp drainers” have been discredited, it is time for the pragmatic adults to clean up their mess. These are the same pragmatic adults who were accused of not understanding the real threat of terrorism by the idealogues who lost their reason to fear, post 9/11. Part of the new plan for Baghdad is what the people worth listening to were saying all along. That is what makes the present bloodshed even harder to witness:

The plan unveiled by Bush last week calls for many people who lost their jobs under Bremer’s de-Baathification decree to be rehired. It calls for more Sunnis, who were marginalized under the CPA, to be brought into the government. It calls for state-owned factories to be reopened. It calls for more reconstruction personnel to be stationed outside the Green Zone. It calls for a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes providing security to the civilian population over transferring responsibility to local military forces.

Carney believes such measures could have been effective three years ago. Today, he worries they will be too little, too late. [Link]

A Neocon who supported the war but who has long since turned on Bush, Newsweek’s Farheed Zakaria, proclaims in his newest column: “We Might ‘Win’, But Still Lose.” Among the anecdotes in his article that are the most revealing about the current situation is this one:

Administration officials have pointed to last week’s fighting against Sunni insurgents in and around Baghdad’s Haifa Street as a textbook example of the new strategy. Iraqi forces took the lead, American troops backed them up and the government did not put up any obstacles. The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger concluded that the battle “looked like a successful test of unified [American-Iraqi] effort.”

But did it? NEWSWEEK’s Michael Hastings, embedded with an American advisory team that took part in the fighting, reports that no more than 24 hours after the battle began on Jan. 6, the brigade’s Sunni commander, Gen. Razzak Hamza, was relieved of his command. The phone call to fire him came directly from the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite. Lt. Col. Steven Duke, commander of a U.S. advisory team working with the Iraqis, and a 20-year Army veteran, describes Hamza as “a true patriot [who] would go after the bad guys on either side.” Hamza was replaced by a Shiite. [Link]

Even now, we are witnessing the removal of people who would be most effective in making any difference over there.

The last of the three articles I’d like to point out is in The Guardian. It is the MUST READ article of the three as it best explains just how much the situation in Iraq has evolved. Both sides are playing us for the upper hand in the ethnic cleansing wars that will follow our eventual departure. That is the main reason why adding 20,000 troops is an ultimately flawed strategy:

One morning a few weeks ago I sat in a car talking to Rami, a thick-necked former Republican Guard commando who now procures arms for his fellow Sunni insurgents.

Rami was explaining how the insurgency had changed since the first heady days after the US invasion. “I used to attack the Americans when that was the jihad. Now there is no jihad. Go around and see in Adhamiya [the notorious Sunni insurgent area] - all the commanders are sitting sipping coffee; it’s only the young kids that are fighting now, and they are not fighting Americans any more, they are just killing Shia. There are kids carrying two guns each and they roam the streets looking for their prey. They will kill for anything, for a gun, for a car and all can be dressed up as jihad…”

He was more despondent than angry. “We Sunni are to blame,” he said. “In my area some ignorant al-Qaida guys have been kidnapping poor Shia farmers, killing them and throwing their bodies in the river. I told them: ‘This is not jihad. You can’t kill all the Shia! This is wrong! The Shia militias are like rabid dogs - why provoke them?’ “

Then he said: “I am trying to talk to the Americans. I want to give them assurances that no one will attack them in our area if they stop the Shia militias from coming…”

This man who had spent the last three years fighting the Americans was now willing to talk to them, not because he wanted to make peace but because he saw the Americans as the lesser of two evils. He was wrestling with the same dilemma as many Sunni insurgent leaders, beginning to doubt the wisdom of their alliance with al-Qaida extremists…

Another insurgent commander told me: “At the beginning al-Qaida had the money and the organisation, and we had nothing.” But this alliance soon dragged the insurgents and then the whole Sunni community into confrontation with the Shia militias as al-Qaida and other extremists massacred thousands of Shia civilians. Insurgent commanders such as Abu Omar soon found themselves outnumbered and outgunned, fighting organised militias backed by the Shia-dominated security forces. [Link]

In Sunday night’s interview with Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes, an interesting fact was revealed. Apparently Bush is currently reading a book about France’s occupation of Algeria. It was recommended to him by Henry Kissinger. I can’t help but think how such intellectual curiosity comes four years too late.

Let’s keep educating ourselves about Iraq and not tune it all out. One day we will be the leaders that we’ve currently lost faith in and we’ll have to apply the lessons learned here.

abhi at 10:59 PM in Military, Musings, News · 33 comment(s) · Direct link


 

January 12, 2007

Turnaround at the IAF

For folks who follow these sorts of things, one depressing, ongoing set of statistics from the Indian Air Force (IAF) has been it’s horrible, almost Soviet safety record. For example, back in 1999, Rediff headlined -

IAF has one of the highest accident rates in the world

The staggeringly high number of crashes involving Indian Air Force planes, especially the MiG variant fighters, is due to the lack of advance jet trainers, inadequate maintenance and inefficient technical upgradation of the fighters, say senior air force officials. The air force has lost at least 20 fighters in the last nine months, most of them being MiG-21s flown by young officers just out of the Air Force Academy.

…Air force sources admitted that IAF has one of the highest accident rates in the world and that most of the ill-fated pilots - it has lost over 85 pilots in the last one decade - were very young officers.

When it comes to the complex relationship between a military and the underlying society & culture that support it, I’m a classicist — I don’t necessarily believe the trite aphorism that Might makes Right. And I certainly don’t agree with the reverse, victim-glorifying post-modern formulation - Might makes Wrong. But I do contend that the Right can build physical Might.

In other words, the processes and culture necessary to support a strong, effective modern military are many of the same attributes which drive economic and social success…. do folks know how to work together? accept responsibility? solve physical / technical problems? adhere to process when necessary? improvise when necessary? build durable institutions? separate productive “values” from unproductive “dogma”? put mission & institution ahead of self? and so on.

This topic can be debated at length and to be sure, many PhD’s and books have been minted on the subject. “Exceptions that make the rule” certainly abound and provide ample fodder for examining the argument’s nuances. But, supposing for a second that you buy the Romantic narrative here, I argue that the latest round of data from the IAF provides yet another reason to be optimistic about the cultural sea change sweeping India -

January 3, 2007: The Indian Air Force has not lost a single MiG-21 in an accident in the last twelve months. This is a surprise, given that Indian Air Force MiG-21s have had a very high rate of accidents in the past. The current lack of losses is no fluke, though. India has reduced its accident rate by 75 percent over the last 30 years. How is this possible? The answer lies partially in the evolution of the Indian Air Force into one of the premier air fleets in the world today….

…the MiG-21 problems were overcome in 2006…Having planes and pilots are nice, but they need to be backed up by a sufficient maintenance/logistics base.

There’s an old military rule of thumb that amateurs study strategy while experts study logistics (and it’s close cousin maintenance). And anyone who’s spent enough time in da homeland knows that back in the day, it would have been laughable to compliment India on anything “logistical” much less commend it for becoming world class. As a classicist, I take heart that the same desi cultural stock visible in the transformation of the IAF is necessarily affecting India’s presence in the world economy and it’s social / political life at home.

vinod at 05:10 PM in Military · 11 comment(s) · Direct link


 

January 11, 2007

Idli in Sulaimaniya

alencheril.jpgHere’s a military item in honor of the “surge” and courtesy of a tip from frequent commenter Maurice. It’s about the (presumably) first Indian husband and wife to both serve in the U.S. military. Sgt. Cyriac Alenchril, 35, is a supply sergeant in Iraq. Wife Fixie Alencheril, 31, recently completed basic training and is headed to Iraq as a human resources administrator. India Abroad has the story.

He says:

“I was told it would be an interesting news that my wife and I have committed ourselves to this war on terror, whereas many immigrants just enjoy only the fruits of the blessed land,” Cyriac said.

She says:

“It was not easy for an Indian woman to do all that the Caucasian or African-American women do. More than the physical struggle, the mental stress was too much. I am happy that I completed it successfully,” said Fixie…

Can’t you just hear the intonation? (I don’t mean that in a derisive way.) The article is full of other interesting tid-bits including this surreal scene of a Mallu herding Punjabis to perform for Americans in Iraq:

Cyriac said his proudest moment in Iraq was on last August 15, “when I gathered some 15 Punjabis to sing the Indian national anthem in Sulaimaniya before an American audience.”

And the taste of home:

Guarding 3,000 detainees in Sulaimaniya and training Iraqi correctional cadets are not easy tasks. But he felt at home in Iraq because of the many good curries he got to eat, thanks to the many benevolent Kerala cooks he met there.

Cyriac is a true believer. He intends to stay in the military 30 years, and he wants more Indians to emulate him:

“Currently, there are very few Indians in the army. Those who are in the services are mainly medical personnel. This needs to change,” Cyriac said.

The couple’s two young children are with Fixie’s parents back in India. Here’s hoping everyone stays safe, surge and all.

siddhartha at 08:40 AM in Military · 50 comment(s) · Direct link


 

January 07, 2007

Why the Hawks always seem to get their way

The new issue of Foreign Policy Magazine has an interesting essay by Daniel Kahneman, a former Nobel Prize winner in economics. In the essay Kahneman points to known factors in human psychology to explain why the hawkish view of a given conflict is usually viewed by leaders as more favorable than the more dovish or pragmatic view. It is interesting to consider the points he makes in light of many current conflicts around the world, including Iraq and the impasse between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

National leaders get all sorts of advice in times of tension and conflict. But often the competing counsel can be broken down into two basic categories. On one side are the hawks: They tend to favor coercive action, are more willing to use military force, and are more likely to doubt the value of offering concessions. When they look at adversaries overseas, they often see unremittingly hostile regimes who only understand the language of force. On the other side are the doves, skeptical about the usefulness of force and more inclined to contemplate political solutions. Where hawks see little in their adversaries but hostility, doves often point to subtle openings for dialogue.

As the hawks and doves thrust and parry, one hopes that the decision makers will hear their arguments on the merits and weigh them judiciously before choosing a course of action. Don’t count on it. Modern psychology suggests that policymakers come to the debate predisposed to believe their hawkish advisors more than the doves. There are numerous reasons for the burden of persuasion that doves carry, and some of them have nothing to do with politics or strategy. In fact, a bias in favor of hawkish beliefs and preferences is built into the fabric of the human mind. [Link]

This is interesting because most of us like to believe that before leaders make decisions they seek advice from a variety of smart people, reviewing all the facts, regardless of their preconceived notions. Many competent decision-making organizations even set up a red team/green team approach to pick apart opposing view points over major decisions. And yet, as many of us have seen, the use of force somehow ends up being the preferred course of action.

About 80 percent of us believe that our driving skills are better than average. In situations of potential conflict, the same optimistic bias makes politicians and generals receptive to advisors who offer highly favorable estimates of the outcomes of war. Such a predisposition, often shared by leaders on both sides of a conflict, is likely to produce a disaster. And this is not an isolated example.

In fact, when we constructed a list of the biases uncovered in 40 years of psychological research, we were startled by what we found: All the biases in our list favor hawks. These psychological impulses—only a few of which we discuss here—incline national leaders to exaggerate the evil intentions of adversaries, to misjudge how adversaries perceive them, to be overly sanguine when hostilities start, and overly reluctant to make necessary concessions in negotiations. In short, these biases have the effect of making wars more likely to begin and more difficult to end. [Link]

Take a look at the next excerpt and you’ll see that such psychological insight is quite applicable to blogs as well :)

Excessive optimism is one of the most significant biases that psychologists have identified. Psychological research has shown that a large majority of people believe themselves to be smarter, more attractive, and more talented than average, and they commonly overestimate their future success. People are also prone to an “illusion of control”: They consistently exaggerate the amount of control they have over outcomes that are important to them—even when the outcomes are in fact random or determined by other forces. It is not difficult to see that this error may have led American policymakers astray as they laid the groundwork for the ongoing war in Iraq. [Link]

I’ll admit it. When on SM I do suffer from an illusion of control. Maybe that’s why I can no longer function in the real world. I can’t ban people in the real world.

This essay will be especially interesting to consider in light of the coming decisions over Iraq, as well as Kashmir, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and the list goes on. Will the doves ever fly? Not if our brains have anything to say about it apparently.

NPR also has a good audio summary.

abhi at 05:32 PM in Issues, Military, Politics · 16 comment(s) · Direct link


 

October 31, 2006

U.S. Marines in India for intensive kabaddi training

Most of us recognize that the growing strategic relationship between the U.S. and India is necessary to counter the increasing influence of China and also to help combat the terrorists that seek to do both our nations harm. In pursuit of such an unstated policy, a contingent of Marines is in Belgaum in northern Karnataka right now for some hard-nosed training:

The joint exercise saw around 160 troops from India and the US train in sharing of intelligence, communication, weapons and equipment.

After a joint anti-terrorism exercise with the Indian Army at the Commando Training Centre here, US soldiers will take back not just experience of rigorous commando training but also a quintessentially Indian sport — kabaddi…

Kabaddi fascinated them, one of the American platoon commanders, Lt Lee, said. “My troops are playing kabaddi in barracks too. They are impressed with the game and the agility of the Indian troops.”

The only hitch — as an Indian officer put it tongue-in-cheek — is that the Americans pronounce kabbadi as “cup of tea”. [Link]

Hmmmm. Not as hard-nosed as I assumed at first, but agility is important. What other skills will they learn? Jungle warfare? Hand to hand combat?

Snake charming course (part of jungle warfare).

The “Shatrujeet 06-1” scenario is set in an urban insurgency environment and will cover the development of drills and techniques for use in joint counter-terrorist operations, including survival training, combat shooting, rock climbing, navigation and unarmed combat techniques.

Planners hope that the operation will enhance interoperability of both the armies.

The American contingent will consist of approximately 160 Marines, who will work together with and an Indian army battalion. [Link]

“Urban insurgency environment?” Hmmmm.

These exercises were code-named “Shatrujeet,” or “Victory over the Enemy.” I have no doubt that the skills learned here will deliver us victory.

On a closing note, take a look at another picture below from the training exercises. The “targets” that the Indians bring out look an awful lot (to my eyes at least) like…well, Marines. Isn’t that a little disturbing? We are learning counter insurgency techniques by firing on pictures that the Indians use that resemble our own troops. I wonder who the targets that we use here in the U.S. resemble.

Does it count as friendly fire if the Marines hit their mark?

abhi at 04:56 PM in Humor, Military · 54 comment(s) · Direct link


 

October 20, 2006

Draconian -- Even By Israeli Standards

Between the radioactive elucubrations of the Dear Leader, the accumulation of tortured and executed bodies in Iraq, the tawdry revelations of the Foley affair, and the growing murmur of a supposed Democratic sweep in the midterm election (I’ll believe that one when I see it), there has been precious little front-page consideration of the signing, earlier this week, of the Military Commissions Act.

As you may have heard, the act drastically changes the legal landscape for foreigners in the United States, whether here legally or illegally. It allows the government to deny a foreign suspect the right to challenge his or her imprisonment (habeas corpus), to employ evidence obtained by a wide and ambiguous range of coercive methods, and to use classified evidence whilst withholding it from the defense. Small things like that.

I wil