Posted on 05 July 2011 W.Wan, P.Finn – Washington Post 05/07/11)
At the most recent Zhuhai air show, the premier event for China’s aviation industry, crowds swarmed around a model of an armed, jet-propelled drone and marveled at the accompanying display of its purported martial prowess.
In a video and map, the thin, sleek drone locates what appears to be a U.S. aircraft carrier group near an island with a striking resemblance to Taiwan and sends targeting information back to shore, triggering a devastating barrage of cruise missiles toward the formation of ships.
Little is known about the actual abilities of the WJ-600 drone or the more than two dozen other Chinese models that were on display at Zhuhai in November. But the speed at which they have been developed highlights how U.S. military successes with drones have changed strategic thinking worldwide and spurred a global rush for unmanned aircraft.
More than 50 countries have purchased surveillance drones, and many have started in-country development programs for armed versions because no nation is exporting weaponized drones beyond a handful of sales between the United States and its closest allies.
“This is the direction all aviation is going,” said Kenneth Anderson, a professor of law at American University who studies the legal questions surrounding the use of drones in warfare. “Everybody will wind up using this technology because it’s going to become the standard for many, many applications of what are now manned aircraft.”
Military planners worldwide see drones as relatively cheap weapons and highly effective reconnaissance tools. Hand-launched ones used by ground troops can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Near the top of the line, the Predator B, or MQ9-Reaper, manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, costs about $10.5 million. By comparison, a single F-22 fighter jet costs about $150 million.
Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Chinese Views of India’s Rise
India in Transition
Dangerous Misperceptions: Chinese Views of India’s Rise
Minxin Pei 05/23/2011
The rapid economic ascendance of India as a global power is, without a doubt, a historic development that will reshape the balance of power in the world in the coming decades. Because of its democratic political system and private-sector entrepreneurial dynamism, India’s rise is warmly welcomed in the West. The West’s endorsement of India’s rise and its democratic development model is based on deeply rooted ideological affinity, mutual economic interests, and strategic considerations. India’s emergence as a great economic success story will provide an alternative, but powerful, model for the developing world, as well as a possible strategic counterweight to China.
However, India’s rise has met with far more ambivalent response inside China. At the mass level, ignorance, stereotyping, and latent hostility characterize the views of India held by a large segment of Chinese society. At the elite level, while interest in India is growing rapidly, the discourse on India is heavily polarized and politicized. As a result, the quality of analysis of India’s ongoing transformation is relatively low. Most worrisome, while elites affiliated with the government tend to discount India’s potential as a great power, they obsessively worry about India’s role as a strategic counterweight that could be used by the West in containing China. The combination of under-appreciation of India’s achievement and exaggeration of India’s role as a geopolitical rival could generate dangerous self-reinforcing dynamics that may make strategic competition between India and China more likely in the future.
Mass Ignorance and Prejudices
A quick survey of Chinese press coverage of India shows that it is limited both in quantity and quality. A search of stories on India on the Web site titled “The People’s Daily,” China’s most important official newspaper, shows that in the month of April 2011, there were only five short articles on India in the major publications linked to the site. April happened to be a month in which China hosted the third BRIC summit which Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also attended. Chinese press interest in India ought to be higher, but it wasn’t.
Several reasons explain the ignorance and lack of interest in India among ordinary Chinese people. Aside from skimpy coverage in the press, the average Chinese citizen is fixated on the West as a model and, if he thinks about India at all, his image of India is not that of a dynamic, fast-growing country, but of an impoverished, chaotic, and backward society. Such ignorance and stereotyping are further reinforced by the lack of extensive social and cultural exchanges between the two societies. Only 356,000 Chinese visited India in 2008; about one million Chinese visited Malaysia in the same year. In 2010, roughly 380,000 Indians visited China; fewer than from those coming from Mongolia. Only one non-stop commercial airline service, provided by China Eastern, connects the two countries (between New Delhi and Shanghai). Significantly, there is no direct flight between Beijing and New Delhi.
Inevitably, such barriers to mutual exchange generate distorted perceptions of each other. According to a poll released in 2010 by Horizon Research, a respected Chinese private market research firm, the average Chinese citizen views India more negatively than how an average Indian views China. The respondents of the survey were asked to rate their “friendly feelings” toward twenty-five countries. While the level of “friendly feeling” reported by Indians toward China is “average,” Chinese respondents reported a much lower level of “friendly feelings” toward India. Only Japan registered a lower level of “friendly feeling.” Chinese respondents felt friendlier toward the U.S., South Korea, and Russia. The same poll showed that more Indians viewed China as a “partner” than as an “adversary,” but among Chinese respondents, India was seen as the number three threat, behind the U.S. and Japan. Thankfully, Chinese perception of India as a threat has been steadily declining in recent years. In 2006, the last year the question was asked, only 9 percent picked India as a threat.
Disconcertingly, the popular negative feeling toward India is matched by an under-appreciation of India’s economic importance. Of the four BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – the Chinese public viewed India as the “weakest” country. Only 1 percent saw India as the strongest BRIC today. In contrast, 70 percent of the Chinese respondents believed China to be the strongest today. As a consequence of such lack of appreciation of India’s rising influence, the average Chinese citizen surveyed did not see India as a major international actor. When asked which country will play a leading role in international affairs in the next five to ten years, 51 percent picked China and 36 percent gave the nod to the U.S.; only 0.2 percent chose India.
Dangerous Misperceptions: Chinese Views of India’s Rise
Minxin Pei 05/23/2011
The rapid economic ascendance of India as a global power is, without a doubt, a historic development that will reshape the balance of power in the world in the coming decades. Because of its democratic political system and private-sector entrepreneurial dynamism, India’s rise is warmly welcomed in the West. The West’s endorsement of India’s rise and its democratic development model is based on deeply rooted ideological affinity, mutual economic interests, and strategic considerations. India’s emergence as a great economic success story will provide an alternative, but powerful, model for the developing world, as well as a possible strategic counterweight to China.
However, India’s rise has met with far more ambivalent response inside China. At the mass level, ignorance, stereotyping, and latent hostility characterize the views of India held by a large segment of Chinese society. At the elite level, while interest in India is growing rapidly, the discourse on India is heavily polarized and politicized. As a result, the quality of analysis of India’s ongoing transformation is relatively low. Most worrisome, while elites affiliated with the government tend to discount India’s potential as a great power, they obsessively worry about India’s role as a strategic counterweight that could be used by the West in containing China. The combination of under-appreciation of India’s achievement and exaggeration of India’s role as a geopolitical rival could generate dangerous self-reinforcing dynamics that may make strategic competition between India and China more likely in the future.
Mass Ignorance and Prejudices
A quick survey of Chinese press coverage of India shows that it is limited both in quantity and quality. A search of stories on India on the Web site titled “The People’s Daily,” China’s most important official newspaper, shows that in the month of April 2011, there were only five short articles on India in the major publications linked to the site. April happened to be a month in which China hosted the third BRIC summit which Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also attended. Chinese press interest in India ought to be higher, but it wasn’t.
Several reasons explain the ignorance and lack of interest in India among ordinary Chinese people. Aside from skimpy coverage in the press, the average Chinese citizen is fixated on the West as a model and, if he thinks about India at all, his image of India is not that of a dynamic, fast-growing country, but of an impoverished, chaotic, and backward society. Such ignorance and stereotyping are further reinforced by the lack of extensive social and cultural exchanges between the two societies. Only 356,000 Chinese visited India in 2008; about one million Chinese visited Malaysia in the same year. In 2010, roughly 380,000 Indians visited China; fewer than from those coming from Mongolia. Only one non-stop commercial airline service, provided by China Eastern, connects the two countries (between New Delhi and Shanghai). Significantly, there is no direct flight between Beijing and New Delhi.
Inevitably, such barriers to mutual exchange generate distorted perceptions of each other. According to a poll released in 2010 by Horizon Research, a respected Chinese private market research firm, the average Chinese citizen views India more negatively than how an average Indian views China. The respondents of the survey were asked to rate their “friendly feelings” toward twenty-five countries. While the level of “friendly feeling” reported by Indians toward China is “average,” Chinese respondents reported a much lower level of “friendly feelings” toward India. Only Japan registered a lower level of “friendly feeling.” Chinese respondents felt friendlier toward the U.S., South Korea, and Russia. The same poll showed that more Indians viewed China as a “partner” than as an “adversary,” but among Chinese respondents, India was seen as the number three threat, behind the U.S. and Japan. Thankfully, Chinese perception of India as a threat has been steadily declining in recent years. In 2006, the last year the question was asked, only 9 percent picked India as a threat.
Disconcertingly, the popular negative feeling toward India is matched by an under-appreciation of India’s economic importance. Of the four BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – the Chinese public viewed India as the “weakest” country. Only 1 percent saw India as the strongest BRIC today. In contrast, 70 percent of the Chinese respondents believed China to be the strongest today. As a consequence of such lack of appreciation of India’s rising influence, the average Chinese citizen surveyed did not see India as a major international actor. When asked which country will play a leading role in international affairs in the next five to ten years, 51 percent picked China and 36 percent gave the nod to the U.S.; only 0.2 percent chose India.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The radicalization of Pakistan’s military
This is a brutal article by Fareed Zakaria. His columns and views matter in USA. The write up also includes excerpts from a talk by the Pakistani Ambassador to USA to the National Defense University.
Must read.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen
Fareed Zakaria
Opinion Writer The radicalization of Pakistan’s military
By Fareed Zakaria, Published: June 22, 2011
Whatever their strength, American troops will not determine success in Afghanistan. Nor will the newly formed Afghan National Army. As U.S. forces are gradually withdrawn over the next three years, it is Pakistan’s 600,000-strong army that will become the dominant military force in the region and will try to shape its future. But that military is undergoing a deep internal crisis of identity, its most serious since Pakistan’s founding in 1947. How it resolves this crisis will determine its future, the future of the Afghan war — and much else.
This week’s news that a Pakistani brigadier general has been arrested for his ties to a radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is only the latest in series of events that have rocked that nation. In the past year, two senior Pakistani officials have been gunned down, one by his own security guard. Last month, well-armed militants attacked a key naval base in Karachi, an operation that required inside assistance. Also last month, a brave Pakistani journalist, Syed Saleem Shahzad, who detailed the growing extremist presence within the Pakistani military, was tortured and killed, almost certainly by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (which denied the allegation). And then there is the case of Osama bin Laden, who was for years comfortably ensconced in an army town.
Pakistan’s military has traditionally been seen as a secular and disciplined organization. But the evidence is now overwhelming that it has been infiltrated at all levels by violent Islamists, including Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers.
There is also strong evidence of a basic shift in the attitude of the Pakistani military. Last month, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, was invited to speak at the country’s National Defense University. Addressing a large gathering of officers, Haqqani asked the audience, “What is the principal national security threat to Pakistan?” He offered three categories: “from within [Pakistan],” “India,” and, “the United States.” A plurality voted for the third option.
The vote is consistent with a WikiLeaks document, a 2008 cable from Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, expressing shock at the rising levels of anti-Americanism in the next generation of leaders of Pakistan’s military elite. Last November, Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, described a military briefing in which a senior military officer explained to a handful of top columnists that the Pakistani military viewed the United States as a hostile force trying to perpetuate a state of “controlled chaos” in Pakistan and determined to “denuclearize” the regime.
Islamist ideology is replacing strategy. For 60 years, Pakistan’s military has focused obsessively on its rivalry with India. Large elements within that military appear to be switching obsessions, and the United States is replacing India as the organizing principle around which Pakistan’s military understands its national security interests. If this happens, not only is the Afghan war lost but Pakistan itself is also lost. (It does not have that far to fall; it made its annual appearance this year on Foreign Policy magazine’s “Failed States” list, coming in 12th, above Yemen.)
Ambassador Haqqani explained to his audience, “If [the threat] really comes from the United States then we’ve already lost, ladies and gentlemen, because you can’t beat the United States in a military confrontation . . . [L]et us be honest, we do not have the means to take on the one military power in the world that spends more on defense technology than the next 20 nations in the world. So that is where I think we sometimes end up having what I call an ‘emotional discussion.’ ” Haqqani was gently pointing out the incoherence of these attitudes, but they persist.
It’s more than emotional. It is an indication that radical Islamist ideas — with America as the great Satan — are now reflexive for many in Pakistan’s military.
After the bin Laden raid, Pakistan’s military dispatched Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani to Beijing to try to cozy up to the Chinese. “We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar,” said Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, Pakistan’s defense minister, and Gillani returned claiming triumphantly that he had secured the deal. The Chinese, however, were too savvy to play this anti-American game and humiliated the Pakistanis by publicly contradicting the story.
Pakistan is drifting into a strategic black hole. Does the country really think its best path forward is as an adversary of the United States, currying favor with militants and becoming a vassal of China? Are its role models North Korea and Burma? Or does it want to crush the jihadist movements that are destroying the country, join the global economy, reform its society and become a real democracy? These are the questions Pakistan has to ask itself. The United States, for its part, having disbursed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan in the past decade — most of it to the military — needs to ask some questions of its own.
comments@fareedzakaria.com
Fareed Zakaria Opinion Writer The radicalization of Pakistan’s military
Must read.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen
Fareed Zakaria
Opinion Writer The radicalization of Pakistan’s military
By Fareed Zakaria, Published: June 22, 2011
Whatever their strength, American troops will not determine success in Afghanistan. Nor will the newly formed Afghan National Army. As U.S. forces are gradually withdrawn over the next three years, it is Pakistan’s 600,000-strong army that will become the dominant military force in the region and will try to shape its future. But that military is undergoing a deep internal crisis of identity, its most serious since Pakistan’s founding in 1947. How it resolves this crisis will determine its future, the future of the Afghan war — and much else.
This week’s news that a Pakistani brigadier general has been arrested for his ties to a radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is only the latest in series of events that have rocked that nation. In the past year, two senior Pakistani officials have been gunned down, one by his own security guard. Last month, well-armed militants attacked a key naval base in Karachi, an operation that required inside assistance. Also last month, a brave Pakistani journalist, Syed Saleem Shahzad, who detailed the growing extremist presence within the Pakistani military, was tortured and killed, almost certainly by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (which denied the allegation). And then there is the case of Osama bin Laden, who was for years comfortably ensconced in an army town.
Pakistan’s military has traditionally been seen as a secular and disciplined organization. But the evidence is now overwhelming that it has been infiltrated at all levels by violent Islamists, including Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers.
There is also strong evidence of a basic shift in the attitude of the Pakistani military. Last month, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, was invited to speak at the country’s National Defense University. Addressing a large gathering of officers, Haqqani asked the audience, “What is the principal national security threat to Pakistan?” He offered three categories: “from within [Pakistan],” “India,” and, “the United States.” A plurality voted for the third option.
The vote is consistent with a WikiLeaks document, a 2008 cable from Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, expressing shock at the rising levels of anti-Americanism in the next generation of leaders of Pakistan’s military elite. Last November, Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, described a military briefing in which a senior military officer explained to a handful of top columnists that the Pakistani military viewed the United States as a hostile force trying to perpetuate a state of “controlled chaos” in Pakistan and determined to “denuclearize” the regime.
Islamist ideology is replacing strategy. For 60 years, Pakistan’s military has focused obsessively on its rivalry with India. Large elements within that military appear to be switching obsessions, and the United States is replacing India as the organizing principle around which Pakistan’s military understands its national security interests. If this happens, not only is the Afghan war lost but Pakistan itself is also lost. (It does not have that far to fall; it made its annual appearance this year on Foreign Policy magazine’s “Failed States” list, coming in 12th, above Yemen.)
Ambassador Haqqani explained to his audience, “If [the threat] really comes from the United States then we’ve already lost, ladies and gentlemen, because you can’t beat the United States in a military confrontation . . . [L]et us be honest, we do not have the means to take on the one military power in the world that spends more on defense technology than the next 20 nations in the world. So that is where I think we sometimes end up having what I call an ‘emotional discussion.’ ” Haqqani was gently pointing out the incoherence of these attitudes, but they persist.
It’s more than emotional. It is an indication that radical Islamist ideas — with America as the great Satan — are now reflexive for many in Pakistan’s military.
After the bin Laden raid, Pakistan’s military dispatched Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani to Beijing to try to cozy up to the Chinese. “We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar,” said Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, Pakistan’s defense minister, and Gillani returned claiming triumphantly that he had secured the deal. The Chinese, however, were too savvy to play this anti-American game and humiliated the Pakistanis by publicly contradicting the story.
Pakistan is drifting into a strategic black hole. Does the country really think its best path forward is as an adversary of the United States, currying favor with militants and becoming a vassal of China? Are its role models North Korea and Burma? Or does it want to crush the jihadist movements that are destroying the country, join the global economy, reform its society and become a real democracy? These are the questions Pakistan has to ask itself. The United States, for its part, having disbursed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan in the past decade — most of it to the military — needs to ask some questions of its own.
comments@fareedzakaria.com
Fareed Zakaria Opinion Writer The radicalization of Pakistan’s military
Friday, July 1, 2011
In Pakistan, denial is easier than heartbreak
Christian Science Monitor
In Pakistan, denial is easier than heartbreak Reuters
By Nzaar Ihsan Nzaar Ihsan – Tue Jun 21, 11:11 am ET
Doha, Qatar – Ever since Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the western media have been wondering why Pakistanis refuse to accept the truth and instead believe in wild conspiracy theories. As one particularly scathing article in a Canadian paper puts it, “This is the salve that now comforts millions of Pakistanis at a time of fundamental crisis. They choose the magical world of conspiracy.”
As an expatriate Pakistani, I’ve also been asked by confused Britons, Arabs, and Indians: “Why don’t you guys admit that things are out of control? Why is everything that goes wrong in Pakistan always a CIA conspiracy?”
Let me explain. In the 1980s, every 5-year-old in Pakistan wanted to become a commando or a pilot. Nobody wanted to become an accountant or an architect or a civil engineer. Ever wonder why? It’s because the army was awesome.
Pakistan's national heroes.
One of my earliest memories was waking up early in the morning each Sept. 6 to watch the Defense Day Parade on TV. It was amazing. There were planes, commandos, and missiles: everything that makes up the fantasy toy world of a young boy.
As we watched the tanks roll by, my mom told me that Sept. 6 is celebrated to commemorate the valiant defense of the country against an Indian attack in 1965. The Pakistan studies book in school later taught me that India attacked Lahore in the dead of the night, without any provocation or formal declaration of war – a “cowardly attack.” We won the war and caused major losses to the Indian military machine. Maj. Shaheed Aziz Bhatti was my hero.
The next chapter talked about 1971. We learned that India created a terrorist group called the “Mukti Bahini,” which terrorized the population in Bangladesh. While a massive conspiracy engineered by the Indians misled the East Pakistan population and eventually led to partition, our army still won the war and the Indian army was left licking its wounds. Shaheed Rashid Minhas was the hero this time.
School books told us that India never accepted the creation of Pakistan and that its army would invade Pakistan the first chance it got; we would then be forced to lead terrible lives, just like Muslims in India lived a life of servitude and backwardness.
A career in the army was a dream. Regardless of economic background, if a young man made it into the Pakistan Army as an officer, it was guaranteed that he would have a nice house, a decent car, and access to the prestigious Services Club. His children would study in good schools and he would be eligible for discounts on everything from groceries to airline tickets.
Never again would the police harass him, and petty burglars would think twice before trying to break into his house in the military cantonment. He would get to play golf and polo. When he retired, he would end up with a couple of plots of land in prime neighborhoods, allowing him to grow old in peace.
The army was everything good and reliable. Over the years, we observed that everything that was good, pure, and reliable in the country was associated with the army. The state infrastructure was corrupt, inefficient, and lazy, while the army was honest, disciplined, and efficient.
Policemen in the street were overweight, unshaven, and unkempt – they traveled in banged up pickups. Soldiers, on the other hand, were lean, well groomed, and smartly dressed. They drove around in Land Cruisers and big shiny army trucks. Army officers wore Ray Bans. Girls dreamed of getting married to dashing young lieutenants.
The army was awesome. The army was also obviously successful in the pursuit of Pakistan's strategic interests. In addition to the fending off the Indians, the army had now also saved us from the wrath of the Soviet juggernaut. The creation of the Taliban and a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan was a success in our effort to achieve "strategic depth".
We had a highly skilled, extremely powerful, and deadly efficient military. We were a nuclear-armed nation that basked in the glory of our military strength – we were the world’s most powerful defenders of Islam. Allahu Akbar.
With new information, disillusionment :
Then the 21st century happened and things started going wrong. Information that was locked up in books that nobody read, was suddenly available on TV and in people’s email boxes. Internet articles told us that Pakistan started the 1965 war on Aug. 5 by sending soldiers into Kashmir (and that the Sept. 6 attack from India was a retaliation). Wikipedia showed us a news item from the Los Angeles Times that referred to our beloved Gen. Tikka Khan (the martial law administrator for East Pakistan) as “The Butcher of Bengal.” Googling “Operation Searchlight” gave gory details of the mass atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army in Bangladesh during 1971, including mass murder and rape.
The previously classified Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, a post-fact investigation by a Pakistani judicial commission on the causes of the 1971 disaster, was leaked on the Internet for all to read.
Its findings accused the Pakistan Army of arson and excessive use of force. It also recommended courts-martial for much of the top brass for criminal neglect of duty, premature surrender, corruption, incompetence and for being power hungry. We learned that no action was ever taken on the recommendations of the report. President Pervez Musharraf was blamed in 2001 for hastily jumping into bed with the US after 9/11. Books were written on the multi-billion dollar businesses owned by the Army. Bomb blasts started happening. Was the Army still awesome?
Answers to tough questions? Denial :
Fast forward to 2011. The “war on terror” has killed 35,000 Pakistanis. Taliban have shown they can take over small towns. Terrorists have shown they can take over the Army general headquarters and one of Pakistan’s largest naval installations. Mr. bin Laden has been found and killed by a covert US raid, which the Pakistani air force couldn’t detect. Bin Laden’s long-time residency in Abbottabad raises serious questions about Pakistan’s intelligence agency.
The air force has admitted that the airbase in Balochistan is not actually under their control, as it was constructed by the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, Wikileaks has proven that our top general secretly asked for drone strikes and lied in public.
Suddenly, 187 million people are forced to come to terms with the possibility that their armed forces might not be as awesome as they thought.
Pakistanis are now asking difficult questions: Is the Army incapable? Is it corrupt? Has it really been the savior of the country for the past 65 years? And the most dangerous question of all: Are sections of the Army supporting the terrorists? In a world where the Army is the only thing in Pakistan that is reliable and true, this is a fundamental shock to the nation’s value system.
Denial is a natural reaction when everything that you believed in is suddenly taken away from you. That’s why I agree with most Pakistanis that it’s all a conspiracy. It’s a plan by the CIA to malign our armed forces and take over our nuclear assets. Maybe it’s an effort by India’s intelligence agency to hurt our defense capabilities. In fact, it’s probably an evil scheme by the Israeli Mossad to destroy the world’s most powerful Muslim army. The Army isn't corrupt. The Army is still awesome.
Nzaar Ihsan is a Pakistani expatriate currently living in Qatar, where he works in the banking sector.
In Pakistan, denial is easier than heartbreak
In Pakistan, denial is easier than heartbreak Reuters
By Nzaar Ihsan Nzaar Ihsan – Tue Jun 21, 11:11 am ET
Doha, Qatar – Ever since Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the western media have been wondering why Pakistanis refuse to accept the truth and instead believe in wild conspiracy theories. As one particularly scathing article in a Canadian paper puts it, “This is the salve that now comforts millions of Pakistanis at a time of fundamental crisis. They choose the magical world of conspiracy.”
As an expatriate Pakistani, I’ve also been asked by confused Britons, Arabs, and Indians: “Why don’t you guys admit that things are out of control? Why is everything that goes wrong in Pakistan always a CIA conspiracy?”
Let me explain. In the 1980s, every 5-year-old in Pakistan wanted to become a commando or a pilot. Nobody wanted to become an accountant or an architect or a civil engineer. Ever wonder why? It’s because the army was awesome.
Pakistan's national heroes.
One of my earliest memories was waking up early in the morning each Sept. 6 to watch the Defense Day Parade on TV. It was amazing. There were planes, commandos, and missiles: everything that makes up the fantasy toy world of a young boy.
As we watched the tanks roll by, my mom told me that Sept. 6 is celebrated to commemorate the valiant defense of the country against an Indian attack in 1965. The Pakistan studies book in school later taught me that India attacked Lahore in the dead of the night, without any provocation or formal declaration of war – a “cowardly attack.” We won the war and caused major losses to the Indian military machine. Maj. Shaheed Aziz Bhatti was my hero.
The next chapter talked about 1971. We learned that India created a terrorist group called the “Mukti Bahini,” which terrorized the population in Bangladesh. While a massive conspiracy engineered by the Indians misled the East Pakistan population and eventually led to partition, our army still won the war and the Indian army was left licking its wounds. Shaheed Rashid Minhas was the hero this time.
School books told us that India never accepted the creation of Pakistan and that its army would invade Pakistan the first chance it got; we would then be forced to lead terrible lives, just like Muslims in India lived a life of servitude and backwardness.
A career in the army was a dream. Regardless of economic background, if a young man made it into the Pakistan Army as an officer, it was guaranteed that he would have a nice house, a decent car, and access to the prestigious Services Club. His children would study in good schools and he would be eligible for discounts on everything from groceries to airline tickets.
Never again would the police harass him, and petty burglars would think twice before trying to break into his house in the military cantonment. He would get to play golf and polo. When he retired, he would end up with a couple of plots of land in prime neighborhoods, allowing him to grow old in peace.
The army was everything good and reliable. Over the years, we observed that everything that was good, pure, and reliable in the country was associated with the army. The state infrastructure was corrupt, inefficient, and lazy, while the army was honest, disciplined, and efficient.
Policemen in the street were overweight, unshaven, and unkempt – they traveled in banged up pickups. Soldiers, on the other hand, were lean, well groomed, and smartly dressed. They drove around in Land Cruisers and big shiny army trucks. Army officers wore Ray Bans. Girls dreamed of getting married to dashing young lieutenants.
The army was awesome. The army was also obviously successful in the pursuit of Pakistan's strategic interests. In addition to the fending off the Indians, the army had now also saved us from the wrath of the Soviet juggernaut. The creation of the Taliban and a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan was a success in our effort to achieve "strategic depth".
We had a highly skilled, extremely powerful, and deadly efficient military. We were a nuclear-armed nation that basked in the glory of our military strength – we were the world’s most powerful defenders of Islam. Allahu Akbar.
With new information, disillusionment :
Then the 21st century happened and things started going wrong. Information that was locked up in books that nobody read, was suddenly available on TV and in people’s email boxes. Internet articles told us that Pakistan started the 1965 war on Aug. 5 by sending soldiers into Kashmir (and that the Sept. 6 attack from India was a retaliation). Wikipedia showed us a news item from the Los Angeles Times that referred to our beloved Gen. Tikka Khan (the martial law administrator for East Pakistan) as “The Butcher of Bengal.” Googling “Operation Searchlight” gave gory details of the mass atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army in Bangladesh during 1971, including mass murder and rape.
The previously classified Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, a post-fact investigation by a Pakistani judicial commission on the causes of the 1971 disaster, was leaked on the Internet for all to read.
Its findings accused the Pakistan Army of arson and excessive use of force. It also recommended courts-martial for much of the top brass for criminal neglect of duty, premature surrender, corruption, incompetence and for being power hungry. We learned that no action was ever taken on the recommendations of the report. President Pervez Musharraf was blamed in 2001 for hastily jumping into bed with the US after 9/11. Books were written on the multi-billion dollar businesses owned by the Army. Bomb blasts started happening. Was the Army still awesome?
Answers to tough questions? Denial :
Fast forward to 2011. The “war on terror” has killed 35,000 Pakistanis. Taliban have shown they can take over small towns. Terrorists have shown they can take over the Army general headquarters and one of Pakistan’s largest naval installations. Mr. bin Laden has been found and killed by a covert US raid, which the Pakistani air force couldn’t detect. Bin Laden’s long-time residency in Abbottabad raises serious questions about Pakistan’s intelligence agency.
The air force has admitted that the airbase in Balochistan is not actually under their control, as it was constructed by the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, Wikileaks has proven that our top general secretly asked for drone strikes and lied in public.
Suddenly, 187 million people are forced to come to terms with the possibility that their armed forces might not be as awesome as they thought.
Pakistanis are now asking difficult questions: Is the Army incapable? Is it corrupt? Has it really been the savior of the country for the past 65 years? And the most dangerous question of all: Are sections of the Army supporting the terrorists? In a world where the Army is the only thing in Pakistan that is reliable and true, this is a fundamental shock to the nation’s value system.
Denial is a natural reaction when everything that you believed in is suddenly taken away from you. That’s why I agree with most Pakistanis that it’s all a conspiracy. It’s a plan by the CIA to malign our armed forces and take over our nuclear assets. Maybe it’s an effort by India’s intelligence agency to hurt our defense capabilities. In fact, it’s probably an evil scheme by the Israeli Mossad to destroy the world’s most powerful Muslim army. The Army isn't corrupt. The Army is still awesome.
Nzaar Ihsan is a Pakistani expatriate currently living in Qatar, where he works in the banking sector.
In Pakistan, denial is easier than heartbreak
India has outsourced its Foreign Policy
Has India outsourced its foreign policy to US?Shobhan Saxena
29 June 2011, 06:38 PM IST
We are so proud of the techies in our little Silicon Valleys (Bangalore, Hyderabad) that we mistakenly believe that the nerve-centre of US economy is now in India and the Americans can’t do anything until a guy sitting somewhere in India presses a button.
No doubt, thousands of young Indians (with fake names and fake accents) every day tell hundreds of thousands of Americans how to make their credit card payments or how to use a toilet cleaner, but to assume that we run America is preposterous. The fact is that our economy is dependent on American companies which outsource their work to us (at the cost of poor Americans). If the Americans stop hiring our cheap labour, it’s India that will get hit, not the Americans. Every time an American leader talks against outsourcing, India’s BPO bosses begin to shiver with fear... Read more click here
Comment: Indian Foreign Policy is rudderless manned by a crew (bunch) of incompetent IFS bureaucrats who only see their Bank Balance swell in Foreign Lands! How rudderless? click here (Paid my own bill for overstay to watch Wimbledon)
29 June 2011, 06:38 PM IST
We are so proud of the techies in our little Silicon Valleys (Bangalore, Hyderabad) that we mistakenly believe that the nerve-centre of US economy is now in India and the Americans can’t do anything until a guy sitting somewhere in India presses a button.
No doubt, thousands of young Indians (with fake names and fake accents) every day tell hundreds of thousands of Americans how to make their credit card payments or how to use a toilet cleaner, but to assume that we run America is preposterous. The fact is that our economy is dependent on American companies which outsource their work to us (at the cost of poor Americans). If the Americans stop hiring our cheap labour, it’s India that will get hit, not the Americans. Every time an American leader talks against outsourcing, India’s BPO bosses begin to shiver with fear... Read more click here
Comment: Indian Foreign Policy is rudderless manned by a crew (bunch) of incompetent IFS bureaucrats who only see their Bank Balance swell in Foreign Lands! How rudderless? click here (Paid my own bill for overstay to watch Wimbledon)
Dragon Fire- China accelerates defence spending:
By LESLIE P. NORTON | MORE ARTICLES BY AUTHOR
The U.S. military is getting ready to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The next threat is much bigger.
Even the most casual observer seems to know that China's economy has been growing at a roughly 10% annual rate for much of the past decade. Less recognized and arguably more important to the state of the world is the fact that China's defense spending rose even faster than that -- 12% or more a year between 2000 and 2009.
"The accelerating pace of China's defense budget increases is driving countries in the region, as well as the U.S., to react to preserve a balance of power and stability," says Jacqueline Newmyer, head of Long-Term Strategy Group, a Cambridge, Mass.-based defense consultant. "There is a real potential for arms races to emerge," she adds. "While once we assumed we'd have access to areas to conduct anti-terrorism or anti-insurgency operations, now we're compelled to think about preserving our ability to gain access to East Asia."
Stephen Rosen, Harvard's Beton Michael Kaneb professor of national security and military affairs, agrees. "All of us are clearly moving in that direction: We, the Japanese, the Indians. The only thing stalling it now are fiscal problems in Japan and the United States," says the former advisor to one-time presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.
Highlighting one of the fastest military buildups in history was China's debut of its stealth jet just hours before the January visit to Beijing by outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The fighter will rival the U.S.'s F-22 Raptor, the world's only operational stealth fighter. Larger than the F-22, with bigger fuel tanks, it will fly higher, faster and with less chance of detection. It's one of many Chinese weapons that will impede the U.S. military's ability to roam freely in the region.
Nelson Ching/Bloomberg News
An Asian arms race is getting under way, driven by China.
The investment implications for China's military modernization are only starting to take shape. But some U.S. companies like Lockheed Martin (ticker: LMT) and United Technologies (UTX), facing big budget cuts as President Obama withdraws the U.S. from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, should get some offset from a new spending cycle worldwide. Like it or not, U.S. investors also are likely to hear more about Chinese companies such as Xi'an Aero-Engine (600893.China) and China Shipbuilding Industrial that are helping arm the country.
There's likely to be a steady stream of new IPOs for Chinese defense companies that some Western investors may choose to avoid. The effects go beyond equities. The sounds of new sabers rattling will stir both the bond and currency markets.
Dragon Fire
The U.S. military is getting ready to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The next threat is much bigger.
Even the most casual observer seems to know that China's economy has been growing at a roughly 10% annual rate for much of the past decade. Less recognized and arguably more important to the state of the world is the fact that China's defense spending rose even faster than that -- 12% or more a year between 2000 and 2009.
"The accelerating pace of China's defense budget increases is driving countries in the region, as well as the U.S., to react to preserve a balance of power and stability," says Jacqueline Newmyer, head of Long-Term Strategy Group, a Cambridge, Mass.-based defense consultant. "There is a real potential for arms races to emerge," she adds. "While once we assumed we'd have access to areas to conduct anti-terrorism or anti-insurgency operations, now we're compelled to think about preserving our ability to gain access to East Asia."
Stephen Rosen, Harvard's Beton Michael Kaneb professor of national security and military affairs, agrees. "All of us are clearly moving in that direction: We, the Japanese, the Indians. The only thing stalling it now are fiscal problems in Japan and the United States," says the former advisor to one-time presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.
Highlighting one of the fastest military buildups in history was China's debut of its stealth jet just hours before the January visit to Beijing by outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The fighter will rival the U.S.'s F-22 Raptor, the world's only operational stealth fighter. Larger than the F-22, with bigger fuel tanks, it will fly higher, faster and with less chance of detection. It's one of many Chinese weapons that will impede the U.S. military's ability to roam freely in the region.
Nelson Ching/Bloomberg News
An Asian arms race is getting under way, driven by China.
The investment implications for China's military modernization are only starting to take shape. But some U.S. companies like Lockheed Martin (ticker: LMT) and United Technologies (UTX), facing big budget cuts as President Obama withdraws the U.S. from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, should get some offset from a new spending cycle worldwide. Like it or not, U.S. investors also are likely to hear more about Chinese companies such as Xi'an Aero-Engine (600893.China) and China Shipbuilding Industrial that are helping arm the country.
There's likely to be a steady stream of new IPOs for Chinese defense companies that some Western investors may choose to avoid. The effects go beyond equities. The sounds of new sabers rattling will stir both the bond and currency markets.
Dragon Fire
Pearl Harbor- Japan made 3 big mistakes!
Always look for the Silver Lining
Tour boats ferry people out to the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii every thirty minutes. We just missed a ferry and had to wait thirty minutes. I went into a small gift shop to kill time. In the gift shop, I purchased a small book entitled, "Reflections on Pearl Harbor " by Admiral Chester Nimitz. Sunday, December 7th, 1941 - Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington D.C. He was paged and told there was a phone call for him. When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the phone. He told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet.
Admiral Nimitz flew to Hawaii to assume command of the Pacific Fleet. He landed at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve, 1941. There was such a spirit of despair, dejection and defeat--you would have thought the Japanese had already won the war. On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters every where you looked. As the tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?"
Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice. Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make or God was taking care of America. Which do you think it was?"
Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?" Nimitz explained.
Mistake number one: the Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two: when the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow everyone of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America . And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three: every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply. That's why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could make or God was taking care of America.
Pearl Harbor- Japan made 3 big mistakes!- click here to read more...
Tour boats ferry people out to the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii every thirty minutes. We just missed a ferry and had to wait thirty minutes. I went into a small gift shop to kill time. In the gift shop, I purchased a small book entitled, "Reflections on Pearl Harbor " by Admiral Chester Nimitz. Sunday, December 7th, 1941 - Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington D.C. He was paged and told there was a phone call for him. When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the phone. He told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet.
Admiral Nimitz flew to Hawaii to assume command of the Pacific Fleet. He landed at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve, 1941. There was such a spirit of despair, dejection and defeat--you would have thought the Japanese had already won the war. On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters every where you looked. As the tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?"
Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice. Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make or God was taking care of America. Which do you think it was?"
Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?" Nimitz explained.
Mistake number one: the Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two: when the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow everyone of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America . And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three: every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply. That's why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could make or God was taking care of America.
Pearl Harbor- Japan made 3 big mistakes!- click here to read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)