0230 GMT March 14, 2006

0230 GMT October 31, 2007

Turkey Again Threatens The US as it continues operations against separatist Turkish Kurd rebels. If the US does not help Turkey by moving against the rebels in Northern Iraq, says the Turkish Prime Minister, relations with the US will suffer.
Frankly, we are getting a bit irritated at this constant Turkish posturing. So it was okay for Turkey to sabotage the US in Gulf II? That action did not hurt US-Turkey relations? The US has nothing to do with the Turkish Kurd rebels. They are not America's responsibility. The US is not obligated to act against every terrorist group in the world. This is Turkey's problem. Let it handle the problem as it sees best, and let it pay the price of choosing a military rather than a political solution.
But while we are irritated at Turkey, we are downright scornful of the pathetic American response to the constant stream of abuse that is emanating from Ankara these days. Where Iran or Cuba or some third rate jerk somewhere in the world is concerned, the US sends in the flatulence-generating battleships, that bombard enemy positions with salvoes of 16-inch of fart gas. But when it comes to Turkey, the US is walking around with a large "Kick My Sorry Butt" sign pinned to its far behind, and every time Turkey complies, the US goes "Ooooh, that felt so good, kick me again".
Come on, Washington, why don't you get some courage and tell the Turks exactly where they can go? So the Turks say they will end use of their bases by the US. The US should tell the Turks the US will end the supply of all parts and equipment to that country's armed forces. So Turkey says it will leave NATO. Washington needs to gently take Ankara's hand, point it in the direction that says: "Exit NATO here", and plant its useless size 18 boot firmly on Turkey's rump to expedite matters.
Its a good thing for Washington most Americans don't take any interest in international news. Otherwise the American people might just hold Washington to account for the humiliation Turkey is showering on America.
Another US Navy Destroyer In Pirate Incident In a second incident unrelated to the one we noted yesterday, the US destroyer James E. Williams intercepted a pirated DPRK ship 110-kilometers northeast of Mogadishu. when it ordered the pirates to give up their weapons, the DPRK crew attacked the pirates, killing 2 and capturing five. Three wounded crew were evacuated to the US destroyer. Feisty lot, these DPRK merchant mariners.
The US destroyer Arleigh Burke is still searching for the pirated Japanese beneze ship.
This is all jolly good fun and so on, and we're glad the US Navy is getting some good publicity, but we're a trifle uneasy about $1-billion + destroyers hunting pirates operating in motorboats.
Talking about Expensive Ships Norman Polmar, the leading expert on the US Navy, says the new US CVN-71 class aircraft carriers look like they will come in at $12-billion for the first plus $12-billion for R & D. Gulp.
When you add the airwing, the escorts, and the pro-rata share of replenishment ships, you're looking at $25-billion for a battlegroup excluding the R & D. Of course, later ships will cost less, but still.
US Navy has a $11-billion/year shipbuilding budget, and at this rate there is no way it can maintain its strength.
Also of course, the land/air equivalent of a carrier battle group is an army division or a fighter wing. An F-22 wing will certainly cost around $25-billion; we don't know what an army division costs these days, but it should not be anywhere near that much. While the army is looking to field 12 divisions, the Air Force cannot afford 12 F-22 wings, and there seems no way in which the Navy can afford the 12 CV-71 and CV-followup battlegroups it wants.

0230 GMT October 30, 2007

A Personal Statement

A spokesperson of the Government of Pakistan has expressed concern at the expose by an Indian TV company of government complicity in the Gujarat 2002 communal riots. In India, the word "communal" is pejorative and is applied to problems that arise between people of different religions.
The background to the riots is that a train with Hindus returning from a pilgrimage was attacked by Muslims at a station and 60 Hindus died. Subsequently, Hindu mobs attacked Muslims in several districts of Gujarat state. In more limited numbers, Muslim mobs attacked Hindus.
According to official figures, 250 Hindus were killed, mainly in police firing to halt attacking mobs, and 800 Muslims were killed. Some say the numbers were higher. 150,000 Muslims were forced from their homes and into refugee camps by the disturbances.
There is absolutely no doubt that the government of Gujarat played a major role in inciting violence against Muslims. But there is absolutely no doubt that many police officers did their duty and tried to stop the violence - the Hindu death toll is testimony to that. A judicial commission is hearing evidence and at some point it will issue a detailed report, but frankly, we have no interest in details such as who did what and when.
In other words, we do not dispute the facts of the matter as already known or as alleged. Our concern is the Government of Pakistan's statement.
Let us make very clear we in no way condone violence by any community against any other. There was no moral call for Muslims to have attacked the train, nor was there moral call for Hindus to retaliate however "natural" this might have been. After the train incident, it should have been left to the government to investigate, arrest, and punish the perpetrators. While one could say people are people and emotions were running high, there is absolutely no call for the government of Gujarat to have in any way incited violence and to not have done its utmost to prevent violence from spreading.
The important point to us is not that Hindus killed Muslims or Muslims killed Hindus. It is that citizens of India were killing each other, and it was the duty of the Gujarat government to protect all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity, or other factors.
We believe everyone has a right to criticize the Gujarat government and the Government of India for not taking immediate an decisive action against the state government. Yes, it is very hurtful when westerners stick their fat noses into our business and when India has to be subjected to the platitudes of the US/Western human rights community. But human rights is a universal concern, and India is a signatory to every major international human rights convention by reason of its membership in the UN. So if we Indians have not done the right thing, we have to suffer criticism, however unpleasant.
But there is one conspicuous exception to the right to criticize in this particular matter. And that exception is the Government of Pakistan.
In 1947, Hindus made up 30% of the population of West and East Pakistan. By 2007, sixty years later, Hindus make up 1% of Pakistan, formerly West Pakistan, and 10% of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan.
Hindus were systematically forced out of both West and East Pakistan in the largest cumulative ethnic cleansing in history. In both Pakistans, the expulsion of Hindus was done under the aegis of the respective governments.
Further, the Government of Pakistan has organized, trained, equipped, financed, and guided terrorists who systematically forced Hindus out of Kashmir in the period 1987 to the present.
The people of Pakistan have every right to express concern about the treatment of Muslims in India - we cannot visit the sins of the fathers on the children, and Hindus have been long gone from Pakistan. Pakistan human rights groups have every right to express concern. Non-government Pakistan media has every right to express concern.
But the Government of Pakistan has no right to express any concern.

News

8 Kidnapped Shia Sheikhs Released Eleven sheikhs were kidnapped as they returned from a reconciliation meeting in Baghdad. A twelfth was killed resisting the kidnappers; Iraqi police say 4 kidnappers were also killed.
US blames a rouge faction of Al-Sadr's militia.
Eight sheikhs, all Shias, have been freed: the Iraq Army says it was responsible, but a leader in their home province of Diyala says they were released.
Israeli Attorney General Rejects Power Cut Plan while he studies the ramifications, says Jerusalem Post. The military has imposed a 15% cut in fuel supplies to Gaza, and has announced that for each rocket attack it will start with a 15-minute power cut, going up to two hours for each incident.
Israel directly supplies 63% of Gaza's energy needs; 28% additional is paid for by the EU in the form of oil which is supplied by an Israeli company.
Turkey Launched Another Operation against Kurd insurgents on its own territory.
Pakistan Government Crackdown In Swat Continues with local media saying thousands of villagers are fleeing their homes.
The security personnel involved are not Pakistan Army but the paramilitary Frontier Corps.
USS Arleigh Burke Pursuing Pirated Ship reports CNN. A Japanese tanker loaded with benzene was seized by pirates near Socotra. The USS Porter responded to a call for help and sank two pirate skiffs tied to the Japanese ship's stern. At that point it was not known the ship carried benzene, which is highly flammable.
Without providing further details, CNN says the Burke then took up the chase and has entered Somali territorial waters with permission from the government. Generally if pirates make it inside Somali waters, international warships turn back.

0230 GMT October 29, 2007

News

THAAD ATBM Goes 4 for 4 The Theatre High Altitude Air Defense system went 4 for 4 with another successful interception. The system is designed to counter tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, but since it's maximum altitude is 150-km, it clearly has utility in interception longer-range missiles as well.
THAAD is one of the 4 components of US ABM defense: you have the heavy long-range interceptor which is already deployed though it is in Beta version - some reports say recent rains have damaged silos at Ft. Greely, the main base, beyond repair; Standard SM-3 is the sea-based boost-phase interceptor; THAAD is the ground-based area defense interceptor; and upgraded Patriot is the ground-based point-defense interceptor.
US plans to deploy two THAAD battalions with 36 launchers each (4 batteries of 9); a launcher carries 8 missiles and reloading from a 10-tube support vehicle takes 30-minutes. The system is fully mobile. Approximately 1400 missiles are to be procured. The US seems to be prepared to allow the system to be exported to select countries: observers from 3 foreign nations were present at the latest test.
Given the increasing proliferation of missiles of all sorts we would expect that THAAD will eventually be ordered in larger numbers.
10 Iraqi Sheikhs Kidnapped After Reconciliation Meeting The US proposes, the enemy disposes. Reconciliation is a big American theme as part of the surge, and unsurprisingly, AQI has been targeting reconciliation-minded leaders.
Seven Sunni and 3 Shia sheiks were captured as they left a meeting with Iraqi officials in Baghdad. They planned to return to Baquba, north of the capital.
There is no evidence as to who was responsible; there may be clues in the circumstance they were proceeding through al-Sadr controlled territory.
In other news, US claims to have eliminated a rogue al-Sadr commander. We suppose it will be too much to expect this ungracious, bad-tempered runt to say "thank you," to the States. It also shows how complex is the situation. US is actually helping its chief enemy in Iraq by going after breakaway commanders.
Israel Cuts Gaza Fuel Supplies When you run out of ideas, turn the screws on the civilians. That has been the traditional gambit for occupiers through the ages, and Israel is now even running out of gambits.
It says it will keep the fuel to hospitals flowing. However you want to present it, this is a savage collective punishment. The Israelis say they have to stop the rockets. Well, strangely, every time they up the pressure the rockets increase. If Israel was suffering from the rockets it might have a case of some sort. But for every Israeli killed by a rocket the other side seems to lose 20, 30, 50, a hefty proportion of whom are civilians.
Israel seems to have a major commitment to violating human rights. Nothing to worry about, folks: Uncle backs Israel till death do them part. The world will go into fussbudget mode of indignation and outrage, American columnists will rush to protect the Israelis, a few who criticize the Israelis will get smeared, and life will go on.
Mogadishu Another round of fighting between Islamists and Somalia/Ethiopian forces is underway. The Islamists love to fight from civilian areas, they seem less ready to take on the government forces/Ethiopians outside Mogadishu.

0230 GMT October 28, 2007

News

AQI Routed In Baghdad: General Petraeus The general says this does not mean AQI has been eliminated in the capital. He named neighborhoods where it is still active. But he believes its hold in Sunni Baghdad has been broken.
Meanwhile, there is no progress by Iraq in utilizing the time the surge was supposed to buy, and according to the US government, did buy.
Could it be because the US came up with the surge for its domestic political imperatives which have no relevance to Iraqi political imperatives?
5th Battle for Musa Qila in Afghanistan leaves 80 insurgents dead, the majority when aircraft bombed a Taliban trench line. This brings Taliban dead to 250 this year for the Musa Qila campaign. This district town is in Helmand Province and sits in the middle of a major opium growing area. NATO made wresting back control of the area a key priority for 2007; earlier it had been yet another area that had quietly slipped back under Taliban control without much attention.
Our question is: doesn't the simple reality that five battles have been fought for this town and its surrounding area, in just one year, show that the new Taliban has remarkable staying power?
Turkey Makes 24 Incursions Into Last Week We don't quite understand why everyone is talking about Turkey's "restraint" and why Turkey keeps saying "we will act when we need to". Turkey has been engaged in large-scale operations on its own territory and against rebel positions in Iraq the whole of this past week. Just because a deep incursion hasn't occurred doesn't mean full-scale retaliation is not underway.
Just another example of Mideast smoke and mirrors: the other day the Iraqi prime minister said he had ordered the office of the Turkish Kurd rebels in Iraqi Kurdistan shut down. Apparently the Iraqi Kurds are a bit baffled by the statement. They say the Turkish Kurd rebels do not constitute a recognized organization in Kurdistan and that there are no offices to be shut down.
While Iraqi Kurds may have their issues with the Turkish Kurd rebels using Iraqi territory and creating problems for their Iraqi brothers, there seems to be a belief that Turkey is only using the rebels as an excuse to snuff out the growing independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. Readers will recall that earlier Turkey was threatening to invade if a referendum in Kirkuk succeeded in joining this city to Iraqi Kurdistan. Kirkuk is deep inside Iraq, ~300-km from the Turkey border and has nothing to do with Turkish Kurds. Kirkuk is an oil production center and the area is populated by a large number of Turkamen people, the ostensible excuse for Turkish intervention. The real reason is that the accession of Kirkuk to Iraqi Kurdistan will be one of the last steps to independence. The referendum was put off for various reasons, the Turkish threat being one.
Pakistan Army Gains In Swat Valley in the third day of fighting against an Islamic leader who had seized control of 60 villages. The army says it is about 7-km from the town which is the center of the mullah's power.
We'd said earlier that 3000 Pakistani troops were involved in the fighting, but Jang of Pakistan says it's 2000.

0230 GMT October 27, 2007

Did Israel Bomb A Syrian N-Reactor?

Lets approach this a step at a time First, there's no reason to suppose Syria does not want N-weapons. Since Gulf I it's been clear you cannot stop the US from ruining your day by any other means. Since Gulf II it's been clear the US is ready to draw and plug anyone between the eyes simply because they looked at the US wrong. So if you don't want to simply roll over and be an American dog, you have to have N-weapons.
Second, while N-weapons are not a simple business under any conditions, just about the simplest way of getting fissile material is a graphite-moderated reactor. The technology is ancient and inefficient, but if you can't do better, graphite-moderated is the way to go. ISIS, the Washington think tank that broke the story on the likelihood Israel bombed a Syrian reactor, makes this inference because the building looks much like the DPRK reactor, now in the process of being decommissioned.
Now, a box shaped building can contain anything inside, and the presence of a water-pumping plant feeding off a river nearby means nothing, because just about any heavy industrial process needs water. So people have been cautioning against jumping to conclusions.
We, on the other hand, see nothing wrong in making the inference because if - for argument - we say Syria was constructing a civilian facility, we can reasonably assume the Syrians would have had the world press there the next day.
Obviously Syria could have been constructing either a chemical weapons facility or a missile-propellant facility and then it wouldn't be so keen to show the site. But what we're saying is, for the sake of argument, let's say Syria was constructing an N-reactor.
But what about the US-DPRK deal? Clearly it would make no sense for DPRK to be helping Syria build an N-reactor when DPRK has just managed to bamboozle the US by levering its fake N-bomb into major American concessions. But the collaboration could have started before the US-DPRK agreement, and while it would be ended when the agreement started becoming a reality, presumably Syria could continue on its own.
That said, let's approach this another way First, neither Syria nor the US has adduced the slightest evidence that Syria was up to no good. Both countries are skilled master propagandists, and common sense dictates that they would have built up a case well before swatting Syria.
Instead, with no warning, Israel goes "Pow!" and then refuses to say a word.
So what, you can say: Israel wants to avoid the opprobrium attached to another preemptive strike and so is keeping quiet deliberately. The thing is, you are either for Israel or against it. If you are for Israel, you will cheer. If you are against Israel, you will condemn. It would help Israel/US if some evidence was presented, because then those who are sitting on the fence and even some who don't like Israel will say: "Well, they have to think of their security." And evidence would boost the case of Israel's supporters who right now have only slippery straws to grasp in justifying their boy.
Next, since when has Israel refrained from boasting? If you are Israeli or an American supporter of Israel, when it comes to things military, you boast. You boast even when you fail, as Israel did against Hezbollah in 2006 and as happened against the Arabs in 1973. Boasting about its military prowess is as Israeli as whatever-the-Israelis-have-as-apple-pie.
But this time, no boasting of any kind. Not a word. The other side is mocking you, saying you made holes in the desert, and you are not showing one shred of evidence to the contrary. we think this peculiar.
Far from evidence, we are treated to a series of different stories one after another, like a lying child who desperately hopes one story will stick. First it was a shipment of missiles from Iran to Hezbollah. Then it was a test of Syria's air defense system. Then it was a shipment of DPRK missiles. Then it was a chemical weapons plant. Then it was fuel-rods from the DPRK plant. When all that failed, it became an attack against an N-reactor. This does not help Israel/US's credibility one bit.
The reality is if Syria was constructing an N-reactor it was so many years from succeeding that the strike was meaningless. It is likely that there was nothing of significance to hit.
Why bother preempting and showing your hand when there is nothing as yet to preempt? Why bother signaling to the other guy "we will whack you" when he had nothing to lose and next time he'll be more careful, making your job that much harder?
Perhaps we're wrong, but we don't think the US/Israel are that stupid Okay, so we're going out on a limb with reference to the US, because the US has taken to doing some amazingly stupid things, but come on folks, there has to be some point where even the US wouldn't be so stupid.
Look at the statement: Deterrence is restored This is the only thing the Israelis have said, and it's a rather peculiar thing to say. People say Israel sent a message to Iran by attacking Syria. Hmmmm. This is like being up against a serious opponent who can hurt you badly, and you send him a message by punching a paper bag. What message was it Iran was supposed to get? That Israel can hit Iran's N-facilities?
But how does going next door and bombing Syria prove anything? Hitting Iran is a very different proposition. Incidentally, we looked at this problem years ago and concluded contrary to popular belief, Israel can set Iran's N-program back by years without the US.
Further, what deterrence was threatened to begin with? No one doubts Israel's will to act, and deterrence is about will as much as capability.
To us it seems Israel/US are being cryptic and deliberately misleading because they failed at whatever their purpose was. Our guess, backed by some evidence, was that this was a provocation. Had Syria retaliated, US/Israel would have gone all-out to level Syria - something US wanted Israel to do during the 2006 Lebanon war, but as they say in Russia, don't teach your grandma to suck eggs. The Israelis lead the US by the nose, and the Israelis have never, ever done a darn thing for the US that wasn't 100% in their interest.
And what would the point of leveling Syria at this time be? It would knock one leg off the anti-US/anti-Israel coalition Iran is building. Israel is convinced war with Syria is coming. if the US strikes Iran war with Syria will come, but from what we hear, the Israelis are worried that Iran regardless, a Syria war is set to explode.
Anything that weakened Syria would greatly help Israel. The US too gains because of Iran's alliance with Syria. And if taking Syria out ended Syria's interference in Lebanon, both US/Israel would gain a good deal.

0230 GMT October 26, 2007

We could not update on October 25. Our apologies.

Pakistan Sends 3000 Troops To Swat which is one of the semi-autonomous regions of the North West Frontier Province. A fanatic Islamist has imposed his control over a part of Swat and the government wants to reassert itself. Of course, he is only one of many fundamentalists that are eroding government control all over the NWFP, but he seems to be particularly important.
The militants replied by using a suicide bomber to attack a Pakistan military convoy. An ammunition truck was blown up and 21 people killed.
Washington Think Tank Says Syria Razes Target Building The International Science and Security Institute, headed by Dr. David Albright, a former IAEA inspector, has published satellite photos that first identified what ISIS believes was a Syrian N-reactor under construction and then showed the building had been removed. ISIS believes this building was Israel's target in the September airstrike.
We will have comment on this story tomorrow; in the meanwhile, we congratulate Dr. Albright for his most excellante detective work.
Turkey-Kurdistan Agencies reported October 25 that 300 Turkish troops crossed 10-km over into Kurd territory and withdrew after killing 34 insurgents. Turkish aircraft and attack helicopters have been attacking targets up to 20-km inside Kurd territory.
There is a report that Peshmerga soldiers were heading for the border. It is unclear to us if they are to help fight Turkey or if they are going after the rebels. The Kurds have repeatedly said they will fight if Turkey invades, but at the same time they have made it clear they want the Turkish Kurds to fight from within Turkey and not within Iraqi Kurd territory.
Iraqi and Turkish representatives are meeting to reduce tension, and Iraq's president says his country may extradite rebel Turkish Kurds to Turkey.
Oil at $92 which brings it closer to the 1980 inflation-adjusted high of $101. Four factors are driving the market: options traders, the weakening US dollar - expected to fall further if US Fed cuts interest rates again, a likely action, rebel attacks on Nigerian oil, and increasing tensions with Iran as the US moves to impose further sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard and other Iranian agencies.
Rebels Attack Sudan Oil Field and warn China to leave Sudan. The attack does not seem to have done any damage, but rebels are increasingly targeting Chinese workers in Sudan. What effect this will have is unclear.

0230 GMT October 24, 2007

Turkey-Rebel Kurds

Turkish Kurd Rebels Offer Ceasefire which Turkey has rejected. The Turks are not exactly happy campers right now. Turns out the attack which killed 17 soldiers and saw 8 captured was made by a group of 200 rebel fighters. We don't know enough about the insurgency to say definitively, but from where we're sitting that the rebels can put together a single operation that big does not portend well for Turkey.
Ankara has repeatedly said it will take action at places/times of its own choosing. It is exercising restraint, even if it is doing so because it has only bad options. Whether the rebels will exercise restraint is another matter, particularly as there are also splinter groups. Now that the region has seen the potential of IEDs - cheap, relatively easy to make, a breeze to plant, difficult to detect, and bam, you can kill a dozen soldiers at a go particularly if a soft vehicle is hit - we assume the rebels are going to get busy.
The restraint does not extend to shallow cross-border strikes conducted with artillery, aircraft, and special forces. These are taking place right now.
Uncle has sat on Iraq and Iraq, feeling quite squashed, has said it will take action against the rebels and their funding. Pardon us while we titter behind our lace hankies. Saddam couldn't take out the rebels, Turkey hasn't been able to take them out, how is the government of Iraq which controls maybe 2 kilometers of the main Baghdad thoroughfare - on good days - to take out the rebels?
All that our readers need to keep in mind right now is that the matter is in the hands of no one except a few hundred rebels. They'll script the play, not Turkey, Iraq, or the US.

The Head Grouch Of Takoma Park

A Good Friend Expressed Concern the other day that the editor has been becoming more and more grouchy. Well, wouldn't you, considering?
"Progress" In Iraq Six, seven, or eight hundred billion dollars later - who's counting and who cares - the US has brought down the killing to the point its possible to think in terms of reducing it further to the level before the 2006 Samarra Mosque bombing. This is progress?
1 in 3 Indians Go Hungry despite the world's largest public food distribution system that feeds 400-million. The reasons are corruption and inefficiency. People tell us more food is lost to mishandling and pests every year than is actually distributed. Even if there is an element of hyperbole in this assertion, why in heaven's name 60 years after independence should any Indian be going hungry? And why does every Indian not have access to clean drinking water and a modicum of health care? It's not rocket science, all it takes is some money and a lot of organization.
JK Rowling not content with the billion odd smackers she has made on Harry Potter, and unable to come up with a follow-on now that the series has ended, cannot quietly fade away. She has become addicted to publicity, so now she announces the Hogwarts headmaster is gay. Point the first: who cares? Point the second: if this was a genuine part of the story and not a post-facto exploitation, why didn't she say it in the books? Here she has her characters squashed between the covers of her books, and instead of letting them rest she is whipping them to get herself more attention. And then she claims she respects her characters.
The Editor's Moped The editor was saving for a moped and really excited about getting one: he loves nothing better than racing along at a smashing 40 klicks an hour with the wind in his hair - at least in his hypothetical hair. The last time he had a 2-wheeler was in 1988 in Delhi. So not only does Mrs. Rikhye take away his money for herself, we are leaving a restaurant after taking a relative for dinner, and outside is a bright red moped exactly the model he wants, and the relative says: "it's so cute, is it yours?" Insult to injury. Before anyone asks how Mrs. Rikhye manages to take away the editor's money when she and he live in different houses and have complete separate accounts and lives, let it be said you do not want to know. At least the editor does not want you to know because you will lose the iota of residual respect you might have for him. When the editor moaned and whined to Mrs. Rikhye about the money and the moped after the dinner, she simply gave a tinkling laugh and said it was better to give than to receive. Before the editor could say anything more she said she had thought about buying a moped for him for Christmas, but it was more than her budget could afford. Does anyone care about the editor's budget before taking away his money, dash it?

Letters

Afan Khan On South Asia and Field Armies I must disagree with Rohit Vats when he says armies are not needed in the S Asian context, the last deployment proved that it is not true. The Indian buildup on Pakistan's borders resulted in Pakistani troops being concentrated in two main sectors, the Kashmir-North Punjab sector (X Corps, FCNA, XXX and XI Corps from Peshawar) and what we call "South of Sutlej", South Punjab and Sindh, (II, XII, V and XXXI Corps).
Central Punjab was pretty much the responsibility of IV Corps, with I Corps available for attacks in Ravi-Beas (Central Punjab) or Ravi-Chenab (Jammu).
It would be unrealistic to expect GHQ to oversee two very different battles (in fact different wars), one a fairly static one in the North of mountains and rivers, and the second an armour heavy and mobile, mechanised one in the south.
Indeed if war has come an ad hoc Army HQ would have been raised rather quickly in both areas (rather as Tikka Khan was put in charge of 4 divisions at Chawinda in 1965). India is far better in this regard, since they already have an HQ in place and they can be converted into far superior HQ than Pakistan's ad hoc arrangements.
Also as for Indian deployment, I have always agreed with you that it is not exactly offensive capable. But I think you and others have missed what seems to be a developing capability for Pakistan in the south, it has three armoured divisions and 4 powerful corps available. Defiantly something GHQ could exploit, as the Indians seems to be expecting a thrust towards, the Jammu or Pathankot (or even Madhopur).
Editor As readers will gather, Mr. Afan Khan writes from a Pakistani perspective.
Anthony Paulsen III On Closed Military Trials As a lawyer and a soldier, I'm really curious what DOD expects to get from holding closed trials.
Editor Mr. Paulsen refers to an article by William Glaberson writing in the October 12, 2007 New York Times "Claim of Pressure for Closed Guantanamo Trials". We were unable to get a link for the article: The first 3 paras read:
The former chief military prosecutor for the planned war-crimes trials of Guantánamo detainees said yesterday that he had been pressured by military officials to rely increasingly on classified evidence, which would require that long trial sessions be held behind closed doors rather than in open proceedings.
“Who ever said we had to have open trials?” the former chief prosecutor said a military official, Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, told him in September.
The former prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis, described the dispute in an interview yesterday. Colonel Davis said it was part of an internal disagreement over whether war-crimes trials at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are to be largely public, displaying evidence against terrorism suspects, or largely closed, which could increase criticism of Guantánamo.
Chris Raggio On Oil Prices The rise in the price per barrel of crude is probably more about the weakness of the dollar than anything else. As you said the price of crude oil isn't that bad if you look at it in other currencies. The Federal Reserve deserves most of the blame for devaluing the dollar. It started on August 17 with the surprise discount window rate cut. The 50 basis point federal funds rate cut on really weakened the dollar. By the time the cut was implemented on Sept 18 the dollar was already weakened severely. The price of everything, not just oil, is now rising rapidly. It's a monetary policy that will produce pretty severe inflation. A lot of people are recommending precious commodities and energy as investment vehicles.
Editor We learned from Pravda that foreigners sold more US Treasuries than they purchased for the first time since 1998. The following is from http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/kirby/2007/1019.html as we didn't think Pravda as a source would inspire confidence. The figures are for mid August - there is a 60-day reporting lag. The sources says the US Treasury reported a net capital outflow of $163-billion for the period.
We are being told that the US dollar is still overvalued to the extent of at least 10%.

0230 GMT October 23, 2007

Field Armies In The South Asia Context

by Rohit Vats

This is with reference to your argument that India needs to raise 5-6 field armies instead of territorial Command structure presently in place. I have views to contrary based on following arguments:

Field armies as independent of geographical considerations are desirous in situations where the Army envisages fighting deep into the enemy territory ala the German offensive during Operation Barbarossa or the Soviet counteroffensive.
Another example is the organization of Soviet forces during cold war with Military Districts responsible for administrative & logistical part and Field Armies being the maneuver elements. China also maintains the Military region for grouping forces on regional basis for administrative, logistical & training ease.
Second consideration for having such Filed Armies is the nature of terrain, geography and lines of communication. It is important that there is contiguity in terms of terrain with lateral lines of communication to allow for switching of field Armies. For unless one is disposed favorably with respect to geography, two or more Filed Armies cannot be organized on same lines. Each will have to be equipped to fight in its terrain of operations and switch from one theater of operation to another cannot be undertaken
A very big “if” for all this to happen is “if” the nation has multiple field armies like the erstwhile USSR or to an extent China, the same can be shuffled across different fronts for both offensive as well as defensive purposes.

Now coming to India, the following points stand out:

The Indian Sub continent has to be geographically the most varied Theatre of operation in the world. The level of thrust achieved during Barbarossa or as hoped to be achieved by USSR in case of WWIII, simply cannot be compared with the Indo-Pak scenario or Indo-China for that matter of fact.
So comparatively, the thrust Indians need to achieve is limited, which itself is further limited by way of Geo-political considerations and the level of firepower available to Indian Corps (apart from the Strike Corps). Today, no one talks of dividing Pakistan into two or reaching Hyderabad in Sindh like Operation Brass-tacks
As stated in point one above and point three of proceeding paragraph, geography is a great determinant in terms of what one can achieve. Let’s assume a hypothetical scenario where India instead of having Six Commands ( Northern, Southern, Western, South-Western, South, Central & Eastern) had 6 Field Army HQs with some Military Region kind of setup for Administrative, Logistical & Training purposes. These field armies would have to be equipped according to the terrain of AOR. So, the field army responsible for operation in Kashmir & Ladakh (let’s call it Northern Army) will invariably be equipped with Mountain Division. As it is, there is not much one can achieve in the said sector unless Indians invest in still more manpower to achieve 1-7 superiority and be prepared for slugfest or come up with some brilliant tactical plan involving heliborne/airborne operations to take the Northern Areas. Also, neither can the Northern Army be switched between two sectors because it has been equipped for fighting in a specific theatre. The best it can do is to give away a division worth of troops or some Ind. Bde. The formation as whole cannot be moved.
Now let’s look at the no of Corps available to India (Western Sector-excluding Northern Command). 6 in all including the 3 Strike corp. Of these, I’m assuming 4 (11, 12, 1, and 2) will be with Western Command and other 2 (12, 21) will be with South Western Command. Now if these were to be instead held by a Field Army instead of Commands, what difference will it make? The Western Command (assuming it’s a Field Army) cannot switch sectors to reinforce the South Western Command. Because if it does, what happens to its AOR. The most they can do is switch Divisions between corps/commands (if I remember correctly, you had highlighted the shift of Armored Div to Fazilka-Abohar-Ganaganar sector and the panic it created in Pakistan Army in 2002 standoff). The real difference will come into picture if India were to have 4-5 more strike corps level of formation organized into Field Armies, giving it the opportunity to reinforce any particular sector for either offensive or defensive operations with a Field Army level of maneuver formation. The Western or South Western Armies could have been reinforced by another Army composed of 2 Strike Corps level formations giving it real thrust. Given the present structure and no of troops available, the same is simply not possible. It is the corps which is senior most maneuver element and once they get committed, the Army does not have further reserves to fall on
I think the dual nature of Commands as administrative and Field Armies serves India well. Given the level of troops not warrant separate admin and operational structures. The same will apply to Pakistan also.

Editor's Comment

We did note that given India's defensive strategy, the present territorial command system works. India, however, needs to have an offensive strategy or else it will get nowhere when required to go to war.
India officially has 34 divisions, but actually it has 45-division equivalents plus the equivalent of 90 standard light infantry battalions (66 Rashtriya Rifles battalions of 6 rifle companies each). This enormous army has very little offensive capability in any theatre because of the way it is organized. For example, India has only 3 armored divisions, but it has sufficient armor even right now for 10 armored divisions. When we mentioned field armies, we should have said offensive armies: forces for defense can still be adequately handled by the territorial commands.
The 1-7 superiority for offensive success in the mountains is a notational figure for superiority at the point of the main attack for a rapid break in. A skillful army - the German in World War II were, of course, the masters - manages superiority at the point of attack even while being outnumbered as a whole. In World War I they left Eastern German almost undefended for the sake of concentrating against France.
And if the Germans couldn't manage local superiority, as was the case all through the North African campaign and most of the Russian war, they still attacked, relying on their tactical skill to win. No one is expecting the Indians (or the Americans for that matter) to get to that level of competency, of coruse.
Failing that yes, Mr. Vats is right, you get a slogging match. And most wars are slogging matches. Nothing wrong with that.

Please, Sir, May I Have More?

This is one of times where our admiration for Mr. Bush exceeds our irritation with him for messing up Iraq/Afghanistan. Right after asking for $141-billion for the wars - on top of a record $505-billion or whatever regular military budget, he put in a bid for another $6-billion. Neither supplemental has been approved, but he is right back with a third request, for $42-billion, bringing the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental for 2008 to $200-billion.
If we'd been in the President's position, with nothing except a big mess to show for the going-on-to $700-billion spent on the wars, we'd be wearing a clown suit to disguise our appearance. Not Mr. Bush: he remains unfazed and as convinced he is right as he ever was.
Meanwhile, the President said he can't approve an extra $35-billion over 5 years to subsidize health care for children whose families cannot afford insurance. We have to keep a lid on spending, he said with a straight face.
His attack dogs were set loose, and we heard stuff like: "Median American family income is $48,000, the bill helps families with up to the median to buy health insurance, so how are they poor families?" This from George Will of the Washington Post, who of course has employer-paid insurance and makes a wee dram over $48,000 (try six times as much) counting his various gigs (that's our estimate, we're likely low-ball, as Will is one of the most successful columnists in the country).
Then you have people saying: "New York sets its qualification level at $80,000, how is that poor people?" This from various sub-IQ congresspersons.
Well, let's do the math as they love saying in the US. Your editor makes a gross $60,000, well above the median. His net is $40,000 - federal tax, state tax, county tax, medicare, medicaid, forced deduction towards pension, forced deductions for union dues, and forced deductions for the life insurance his employer gives him.
That does not include medical insurance - Mrs. Rikhye's employer picks that up for her family. Now, the editor's spending profile is different from many families', but not that different from many families in the Washington area where housing costs are very high. He pays $21,000 for his mortgage, which leaves him $19,000 for everything else. He manages the mortgage by economizing on every single other expense, a trade-off he chooses to make.
Okay. Now suppose he had to pay for health insurance for a family of four. He would fork out $12,000 annually.
Could he afford the insurance? No.
That is on a median of $60,000/year. That sum of money is equal to $80,000/year in New York City or Los Angeles.
Meanwhile, the Congresspeople who oppose the insurance bill are paid around $150,000 - with very good health insurance, and that's extra in addition to their other gigs. They have to guard the nation's money from spendthrifts, they say. So how about them paying the country for the privilege of serving in Congress? After all, they make not-a-few bucks on the side and unless they are total morons, they parley their time in Congress into nice jobs when they leave.
Where has the $650-billion spent on the wars, the $200-billion requested, and the likely $1-2 trillion in future and long-term costs to come from? From the government's credit card. The editor's kids - and yours - will be paying that money off. Your editor won't be around, but if the next generation decides to repudiate that debt, he's not going to blame the kids.
The US government default on its debt? Impossible! Think again, people, think again. There is a point beyond which no government can go on printing money, and there is a point beyond which foreigners will not accept more IOUs for the debt they hold.
And here we are at Orbat.com, worrying about minor stuff like GWOT. Talk about La La Landers - we may have become one of them.

0230 GMT October 22, 2007

Iran Claims 11,000 Rockets

...are ready to hit enemy bases within one minute.
We assume this inventory includes bottle rockets, of the kind your editor used to buy for $4/dozen in his happy days in India. The best fun was to fire them in salvoes: a dozen bottles each with a rocket, and the trick was to see how many you could put in the air at once. Indian fireworks, which your editor indulged in during the annual Festival Of Light, used to be notoriously unreliable. The fuses burned at different speeds so very often you had rockets blowing up in your face if you didn't step back fast enough. But too fast and the fuse could go out: try igniting a rocket with a burned out fuse. Using a sparkler to light made the business less dangerous, but fun it was: rockets going everywhere and anywhere, rockets exploding before leaving the bottle, bottles tipping over so that the rockets discharged horizontally, usually straight at people in another house also letting off fireworks, the wonderful gagging smell of sulfur, and - believe it or not - the ultimate thrill, the rocket that came right back at you because of anomalies in the way the powder was packed. (Up to 1990, when your editor left home for good, Indian fireworks were handmade mostly by child underpaid and underfed child labor. Quality was understandably chancy.) Ah yes, the good old days.
More seriously, Iran needs to cool its rhetoric. All it is doing is working itself into a frenzy and has started to foam at the mouth. The cure for that does not exist as far as we know: generally once you get rabies it's too late.
What is the point of talking as it is? The US, far from being impressed by such claims is likely to laugh. Is that what Iran wants? Is the target the home base? If so, if and when the Iranian people learn the hard way that their leaders could only talk big and have misled the people about the country's military power, the consequences for the leaders will not be pretty. For a government to survive after a devastating war defeat is difficult.
The US, for whatever reason, has of late moderated its anti-Iran verbiage. Time for Iran to do the same, or else it could become just another country that thought it could militarily defeat the US. Saddam made that mistake twice, and the Taliban in Afghanistan made it too. Sure the US victories have had messy aftermaths. But Saddam is dead, and the Taliban don't have a country anymore. So the failure of US post-invasion policies can be of little comfort to the losers.
Saddam would have done so much better if, instead of standing on his ego, he had told the UN it was free to search every corner of the country. The Taliban would still be in power had they simply handed over Bin Laden.
You cannot militarily defeat the United States: any school child can tell you that. Iran may have fantasies about how it has bogged the US down in Iraq. But it isn't Iran who did that, it's the US bogged itself down. Can Iran go on counting on the US to keep messing up? That's no strategy, that's living in the land of the La-La People.
Meanwhile, a hardliner takes over as chief N-negotiator We aren't particularly concerned, as we have no reason to believe Iran has become irrational to the point it will give up its N-program. We are convinced unless it is stopped by force, it will go nuclear, perhaps in the latter part of the next decade. So it doesn't matter who is the nuclear negotiator.

Turkish Kurd Rebels Kill 17 Soldiers

While Turkey was busy posturing about attacking Kurd rebels in Iraq, the rebels acted. They have killed 17 soldiers in an ambush according to figures the Turks gave Washington. Aside from wounded, 10 soldiers are missing, so the toll may be higher.
Turkey has reacted by increased shelling of Kurd border villages and says it has killed 32 rebels inside Turkey.
Meanwhile, Iraq Kurd Government says it will fight if Turkey invades. The statement by a prominent Iraqi Kurd leader was made standing alongside Iraq's president, who is also Kurdish. At this point we have no information on if the Iraq Army is moving troops to the Turkey border, but this seems inevitable. Turkey cannot anymore equivocate, win or lose - and it will lose - it has to attack. If the Iraqi Army fails to offer battle, even if it is with just a couple of battalions, its credibility with its people is going to be in the mud.
That Shia troops may have no interest in fighting for the Kurds should be of no comfort: Iraqi troops in the north include large numbers of Kurds, and they, at least, will fight.

Teachers And Sexual Misconduct

This has nothing to do with the GWOT, military affairs, the future of the US, or any of the many topics we cover. We mention this solely because the editor is a teacher.
CNN reports that in the last 5 years, 2600 teachers have been punished for behavior "from bizarre to sadistic". This constitutes a "plague" of "sexual misconduct". CNN says "There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators, nearly three for every school day, speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims."
So lets analyze this. 3-million teachers means 15-million teacher years over 5 years. To simplify, lets assume 2500 cases. That's 1 case per 6000 teacher years. The US has about 60-million school-children, the great majority in public schools K-12 (ages 5-18). So that is 300-million student years over 5 years, or one teacher punished per 120,000 student years. Is this a plague?
Moreover, the statistic is for behavior "from bizarre to sadistic". Some of it is then not sexual misconduct.
The story says most cases go unreported, in others the teacher is not found guilty. But isn't that true of most crimes? Drinking while intoxicated is a crime. How many people get caught versus the ones who get away? Doing drugs is a crime. How many people get caught versus those who get away? Domestic violence is a crime. How many cases are reported versus actually occur?
The story expresses horror at the thought that children who are in the trust of their teachers are victims of sexual misconduct. So will CNN let us know how many children are abused within their own families, where we would expect the standard of trust required will be higher?
From http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/chapterthree.htm#child we gather in 2005 alone - one year, not five - 25,000 children were determined to be the victims of sexual abuse. When you consider teachers are very rarely alone with individual children, whereas families are very private affairs, is it not likely that as a percentage far fewer case of child abuse within the family are reported than is the case for teachers.
Where is the outrage, asks one person interviewed by CNN. Your editor would like to know where's the outrage that CNN comes up with stupid stories like this.
The reality, as anyone familiar with schools and the statistics will tell you, American children are far safer in school than they are anywhere else, and this includes all forms of violence. If parents cared for the children with the same intensity teachers care for children, we'd likely all live in a better world.
None of which is of any interest to CNN, which doubtless got many people to read its story because of the way the headline was written and the story presented.

0230 GMT October 21, 2007

New Effort To Bring Waziristan To Heel?

After Reader Chris Raggio forwarded an article from the Asia Times saying that Pakistan was to launch an offensive in Waziristan to end the problem of insurgents in that province, we asked Mandeep Singh Bajwa what he thought.
From Mandeep Singh Bajwa The Pakistan Army and the national establishment are facing a very severe crisis of credibility. The recent events in FATA have witnessed a loss of prestige for the Army. New political alignments mean that there'll be fresh thinking leading to action. I think a strong clamp-down on supporters of militancy and a new invigorated offensive against AQ and Taliban elements is very much on the cards. The crisis and resultant setbacks have meant a virtual dilution of Pakistani sovereignty in the affected areas which now mean most of the country including the capital. Pakistani Army elements will now have to undertake bold action to wipe out the militants or themselves face irrelevancy and direct US intervention.
Of course Pakistan being Pakistan covert action groups in the ISI will ensure that secret support to the militants remains constant. The country's military rulers always hedge their bets. What happens if the US and its allies withdraw from Afghanistan tomorrow ? Pakistan will be left with no resources on the ground to influence events in this all important region. Therefore the effort to keep in place channels of communication to the militants.
Our opinion is that the contradiction of aims - support the Taliban to push the west out of Afghanistan but eliminate the Taliban that threaten the Pakistan government - will cause failure of this new effort, just as every other effort has failed.

Also, none of the structural problems that have crippled the Pakistan Army's past efforts to pacify Waziristan have been addressed. The loyalty of the troops will remain divided because a substantial number sympathize with radical Islamists. The Pakistan Army has not fought a serious counter-insurgency for a generation, and it's not clear it has the ability to invest the 10-20 years or more that will be required.

Letters and Views

From Afan Khan When you commented on the Pakistan Army's creation of regional commands, you said "when you wanted to bore the readers more than usual" you would point out the deficiencies in the Indian Command army organization. I am bored now, and I bet we all are, by Iraq, and oil and Bhutto etc. So why don't you bore us more and discuss those defects and Pakistan's too while you are at it. Much more interesting than what we are stuck with now.
The Indian Army's commands have a dual-function. They are geographically defined, and all combat, logistic, training, lines of communication troops etc. fall administratively under a command.
But they also function as field armies in wartime, controlling 1-3 corps. If you define your field armies on a territorial basis, you end up with an inflexible command arrangement where each command fights its own battle solely within its peacetime AOR.
This limitation has not unduly disturbed the Indian Army because by inclination and national ethos it a defensive force. Territorial army HQs are fine for conditions where you want to hold on to every meter of the front at all costs.
Consequently, however, you eliminate the possibility of decisive operations. This can be seen in the 1947, 1965, 1971 (western front), and 1999 wars. In all cases except 1971, India basically focused on restoring the status quo ante. The 1971 plans for the west had major strategic objectives, but India ended up merely seizing tactically important ground here and there. The 1971 eastern front was different because India outnumbered Pakistan 3-1 in ground troops and 10-1 in the air, plus had naval supremacy. The objective was the liberation of East Pakistan, which was only one province of Pakistan and as such a static field army HQ functioning from its permanent location made no difference.
The editor has argued for over 35 years that India needs to create 5-6 field army HQs that should be deployed as needed independent of territorial considerations. The inevitable response is a silent apathy. No army in the world is more satisfied with the way it works than the Indian Army, and no army is less convinced that any major changes in the way it works are needed.
If the Army was to deign to reply, it might say something like this: "since our national strategy is defensive, the Commands work fine for controlling the corps."
Your editor's response would be: "Our strategy is defensive because you, the Army, have told the government that's all you can do. The government goes by what you tell it, there is zero independent thinking on the government's part when it comes to strategy."
Pakistan's case When Pakistan announced the creation of 3 commands, we naturally assumed it had finally acted to correct the completely unwieldy command system it uses: 9 corps are controlled by GHQ along a 3000-km front, and one of the corps (X for Kashmir) has a 700-km front.
So we were quite surprised when Mandeep Singh Bajwa wrote in to say that the new commands were simply to be administrative organizations, and they would not even be the basis of a joint-services logistics system.
We hope that the commands evolve into controlling 2-3 corps each because we just cannot imagine how anyone can control 9 corps from one HQ. Of course, that will face Pakistan with the same territorial organization disadvantage the Indian commands create for India.
Scott Palter writes to say apropos PRC's refusal to revalue the yuan: "Free trade and capitalism mean different things to the US, East Asia and Europe. Each block has failed to get the other to accept their definitions most of which turn on social protection and whether goods manufacture should be favored over finance and retail. Better to stay friends and somewhat separate. No way the world can continue with the world selling the US $3 for every $2 they buy and then whining about taking dollars for it. The entire world cannot get rich running a trade surplus with the US."
Editor That PRC is engaged in mercantilism cannot be disputed. The west has gone yak-yak-yak at PRC for years and the result has been only symbolic concessions. The reason for PRC behaving as it is are clear and logical: the national interest.
But the reason the west tolerates the continued massive trade imbalances has nothing to do with national interest. The west is hurting its national interest by continuing the existing system. The gainers are individual companies, for example, Wal-Mart.
Industry after industry has been devastated in the US because America cannot possibly compete with PRC's $60-$300/month wage rates. The theory is that PRC will produce the costs it does most efficiently, whereas the US will produce the costs it does most efficiently. But if PRC keeps the yuan at 7.5 to the dollar, whereas it should be 4 or 5, then free trade is not going to operate.
After World War II, the US deliberately set the German mark at 4 to the dollar and the yen at 360. The idea was to give the defeated nations an export advantage that would help them rise, this time as US allies in the war against communism. This policy was in line with the principles on which the country was founded: enlightened self-interest. Help your neighbor because that helps you.
Of course, Germany and particularly Japan became addicted to the low exchange rates and it took many years of the US beating both over the head till the rates became market determined. But so far nothing has worked with PRC because US interest groups growing rich on the PRC trade have prevented Washington from retaliating
The odd thing about US trade with PRC is that PRC has clearly stated in about as many ways as it is possible that it intends to supplant the US as global Number 1. So the US is basically helping China to one day defeat America.
Marx would have been so happy at today's situation. He believed - among other things - that capitalism's greed was so excessive capitalism would destroy itself. Well, capitalism wont destroy itself - everyone has become capitalist except for Cuba and DPRK and a few other nut cases. But the current version of American capitalism may yet succeed in doing what no nation has succeeded in 225 years: destroy America.
And some Americans will say: "And what's wrong with that? We've become too soft, too addicted to a standard of living we cannot afford, too greedy, too selfish, too conceited, too sure that we'll always be on top. These are classic signs of degeneracy.
As far as your editor is concerned, if America is going to heck in a hand-basket, all one can do is hope other nations like PRC get there first. But that isn't much of a strategy, is it now?