WAR AGAINST INJUSTICE

Anatomy of NATO Attacks on Pakistan

2012-02-01T09:30:00.001-08:00

Stop NATO

Messages In This Digest (19 Messages)

1.

U.S. War Against Iran: More Combat Fatalities Without Benefits From: Rick Rozoff

2.

Obama-Saakashvili Meeting: Iran War Base For Presidential Election S From: Rick Rozoff

3.

Anatomy Of NATO Attack On Pakistan From: Rick Rozoff

4.

Clarity On The War "Of" Terror From: Rick Rozoff

5.

Move To Strike Iran Lacks Justification From: Rick Rozoff

6.

U.S. Backs Indian Proxy In Military Encirclement Of China From: Rick Rozoff

7.

Opposition: Georgia's Future Is Decided In Washington From: Rick Rozoff

8.

Kosovo: Remaining Serb Homes Pillaged, Burned From: Rick Rozoff

9.

Obama-Saakashvili Agreement On Georgia's NATO Integration From: Rick Rozoff

10.

Syrian Troops Thwart Armed Infiltration From Turkey From: Rick Rozoff

11.

Britain To Deploy Destroyer To Falklands/Malvinas From: Rick Rozoff

12.

Pentagon Holds "Interoperability" Exercise Planning In Slovakia From: Rick Rozoff

13.

U.S. Air Forces In Europe: 70 Years Of Bombing And Strafing From: Rick Rozoff

14.

Turkey To Increase Range Of Ballistic Missiles From: Rick Rozoff

15.

Drones: CIA Judge, Jury, Executioner Violating International Law From: Rick Rozoff

16.

Hundreds Of Slaughtered Civilians Not "Huge Number" For Obama From: Rick Rozoff

17.

Former Hague Prosecutor: NATO Thwarted Kosovo Organ Trade Probe From: Rick Rozoff

18.

U.S. Drone Strike Kills 13 In Northwestern Pakistan From: Rick Rozoff

19.

Russia Warns NATO, Gulf States Against Intervention In Syria From: Rick Rozoff

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.

U.S. War Against Iran: More Combat Fatalities Without Benefits

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST)

http://english. ruvr.ru/2012/ 01/31/65019303. html

Voice of Russia
January 31, 2012

US keeps up sabre-rattling show for Iran
Andrei Ptashnikov

News from Washington proves that the US is serious about its plan to carry out a military operation against Iran.

Announcer: Washington has repeatedly threatened Iran on the highest level. US Defense Minister Leon Panetta has also publicly declared that such a development was quite realistic. In his interview for the CBS TV company he said:

"The United States - and the president's made this clear - does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us, and it's a red line obviously for the Israelis, so we share a common goal here. If we have to do it we will deal with it. If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it."

Panetta almost literally repeated US President Barack Obama's message on the situation in the country which he sent to Congress several days ago.

Obama also declared that America would not stop at anything to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons. Given all these belligerent declarations, one gets the impression that a military solution to the Iran problem seems most likely to Washington. Israel, a loyal US ally, holds the same view. It seems that even Tehran's readiness to resume talks on its nuclear programme with six international intermediaries is not taken into consideration any more. Tough economic sanctions are being introduced against Iran and more and more US combat ships are patrolling the Persian Gulf.

One would like to hope that all these are only methods of political and economic pressure on Iran and no military actions will follow. But what if they do follow, like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At that time we also doubted that America would venture on an armed invasion, but it did venture on an invasion, though without any special accomplishments. The same scenario may be repeated this year, especially ahead of the forthcoming presidential election in the US.

It is common knowledge that a short victorious war usually raises the country's leader's popularity to the skies. The current US president needs this badly as his rating is rather low at present. However, a war against Iran is unlikely to be short and victorious. Iran is a much stronger enemy than Iraq or Afghanistan, where the wars have already lasted for 10 years. Incidentally, the US invaded Iraq on the same charges it is using against Iran now. No nuclear weapons have been discovered in Iraq, so Washington has to think again.

Leon Panetta gave a touching detail in his TV interview.

"The toughest thing in this job, frankly, is writing the condolence letters to the parents of those young men and women who are killed in action. But I also say to them, 'Your son or daughter is really a true hero and patriot, because they were willing to give their life for their country. And that means that they'll never be forgotten.' And I hope that's some measure of comfort for them - because, in the end, the only comfort I have is to know that these kids, when they put their lives on the line, are helping America be strong for the future."

We can only say one thing definitely in this respect. America will not grow stronger in the war against Iran and the head of the Pentagon will have to sign many more mournful letters.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.

Obama-Saakashvili Meeting: Iran War Base For Presidential Election S

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST)

http://english. ruvr.ru/2012/ 01/31/65011147. html

Voice of Russia
January 31, 2012

Georgian-American homage
Natalya Kovalenko

====

[A] reason to befriend Tbilisi is a possible military aggression against Iran. In this case, the US could use Georgian territory for the deployment of US aircraft. The US would not even have to ask Georgia, as experience shows that Georgia is a voluntary participant in all US military operations.

If Saakashvili's candidature is approved in Washington he as good as having the presidential post in his pocket already.

====

Talks between the US and Georgian presidents have taken place in Washington. Mikhail Saakashvili did not manage to enumerate definite agreements they reached but called the meeting productive. Experts believe that the presidents talked about a possible attack against Iran and US support for Saakashvili in the presidential election in Georgia in 2013.

Announcer: The Georgian leader had advertised his first official visit to Washington long before the meeting with Obama. He said that American-Georgian relations were achieving a real breakthrough in the fields of security, defence, trade, tourism, energy supplies, science, education, culture, etc. However, his expectations must have been overrated.

The meeting was only a ceremonial event, at least that part of it where journalists were allowed. The presidents exchanged stock phrases about their adherence to the development of relations in the fields of security and strategic partnership. Following the meeting, Obama called Georgia a responsible player in the world arena, promised further US support for Georgia in its bida to join NATO and declared further consolidation of trade relations between the two countries, including a possible free trade agreement.

Speaking frankly, it was hardly worthwhile crossing the Atlantic to hear these generalities but Saakashvili is in no position to decline an invitation from Washington.

President of the Politika Foundation Vyacheslav Nikonov says:

"Georgia is a country that the US has been granting great support to in recent years. If we look at the figures, Georgia always either came second after Israel or third after Israel and Egypt, according to the amount of money invested in its support by the US. Georgia constantly receives US military assistance and American instructors train the Georgian army."

On the other hand, relations between the US and Georgia cooled down in the last couple of years. Washington could not have failed to notice Tbilisi's outrageous violation of human rights and freedoms. However, to stop Saakashvili from impeding Russia's joining the WTO, Washington had to compromise. For this reason, Obama declared that the US appreciated the model of democracy and transparency that Georgia had set up in its region.

Another reason to befriend Tbilisi is a possible military aggression against Iran. In this case, the US could use Georgian territory for the deployment of US aircraft. The US would not even have to ask Georgia, as experience shows that Georgia is a voluntary participant in all US military operations.

Political scientist, St. Petersburg University Professor Valery Ostrovsky says:

"If we take the Afghan war, Georgia takes first place among coalition countries in the number of servicemen sent there as against the percentage of its population. Georgians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and this policy seems to persist."

On his part, Saakashvili needs support from abroad ahead of the 2013 presidential campaign. He can very well manage the domestic opposition but his position is too shaky to withstand reproaches for violating democratic values on the part of overseas human rights protectors. If Saakashvili's candidature is approved in Washington he as good as having the presidential post in his pocket already.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.

Anatomy Of NATO Attack On Pakistan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST)

http://pakobserver. net/detailnews. asp?id=138080

Pakistan Observer
January 31, 2012

Review of NATO attack
Asif Haroon Raja*
Edited by RR

It will be recalled that in order to multiply pressure on Pakistan, the western border was deliberately heated up by Pakistan's strategic partners sitting in Kabul.

Between May and September 2011, tens of deadly raids had been conducted by Waliur Rehman- and Maulvi Faqir-led militants based in the safe haven of Kunar and by Fazlullah-led militants based in Nuristan duly backed by the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS), RAAM, the Afghan regime and NATO. Levies employed on border duties and villagers were cruelly killed by militants. Kabul and ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] HQ were repeatedly requested to control cross-border terrorism and to close down the sanctuaries of anti-Pakistan militants in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, but no heed was paid. Perforce, General Headquarters deployed regular troops in Mehmand [Mohmand] and Chitral and cleared the restive areas of the presence of undesirables. The 7 AK Regiment was deployed in the Mehmand Agency closer to the Afghan border. It established several border posts to keep a watch over possible infiltration routes.

Two posts, Volcano and Boulder, were set up ahead of a village in the Mohmand Agency on a barren ridgeline about 8,000 feet in height in a manner that they leaned forward on the forward slope so as to effectively cover the valley running from east to west. The two posts, each comprising about a platoon strength of 34 soldiers, were so deployed as to cover the northwestern and northeastern approaches. Weapons were sighted in a manner as to be able of bringing down an enfilade and spraying fire in the valley. One post covered the exit point of the valley in the west; the second post covered the eastern edge at the entry point. Company HQ with a platoon was in depth. The posts located on a dominating salient enjoyed excellent line of sight and arc of fire. The two posts also acted as the screen for the battalion.

The valley was frequented by TTP [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan] militants together with Afghan National Army-trained Afghan militants based in Kunar. This route was the shortest and safest from Kunar and led straight to heart of the Mehmand Agency wherefrom the infiltrators had multiple choices to either strike within that tribal agency, or Bajaur, or Upper or Lower Dir. Deeper targets in Malakand, Buner, Swat or even Chitral and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa could also be reached via Mehmand.

As a consequence of the deployment of the two posts, several attempts by militants to sneak through the valley were successfully blocked. As a result, cross-border movement had ceased from mid-October onwards. Blockage of the main passageway resulted in the assembling of large numbers of militants belonging to the TTP in Kunar who were getting desperate to enter Pakistan. The Karzai regime, NDS [National Directorate of Security] and Afghan National Army (ANA) were also boiling with anger after attacks on NDS HQ and murder of Prof Rabbani in Kabul and wanted to settle scores.

In order to seek assistance from NATO, NDS and RAW [India's Research and Analysis Wing] passed false information to the CIA that Pakistan-sponsored militants were using the Salala-Kunar route to create unrest in Kunar and other regions of Eastern Afghanistan. It was also conveyed that the two Pakistani posts at Salala were not only providing cover to the infiltrators but also preventing the movement of their fighters into Mehmand. Based on this input, a comprehensive plan was hatched in Kabul to provide covering fire to the batch of over 100 militants and ensure their safe entry. It was also planned to destroy the two posts so as to remove the irritants for good.

As a cover-up, plan, a mockup operation by the ANA was conducted in Kunar province from 25 November onwards. NATO air cover was made part of the operation. The area was well away from the Salala area and deep inside Afghan territory and the Pakistan Army was informed about it in advance. Just before dawn on the night of 25/26th, when all the soldiers were fast asleep except for the sentries on duty, two Apache helicopters suddenly crossed the border and started firing at the two posts indiscriminately. The helicopters remained at a safe distance for fear of being hit by an ack-ack gun or a surface-to-air missile. The helicopters were backed by four other combat helicopters and close air support was provided by F-18s. No sooner had fire came on the posts than a field officer commanding the two posts instantly contacted the ISAF and informed it that Pakistani posts were being attacked and that the fire must cease. But firing continued for one hour.

During this period, the bulk of the infiltrating force along with donkeys laden with ammunition and explosives moved past the valley. By that time, urgent messages had been sent by GHQ on a hotline and the helicopters turned back. When the helicopters went away and the dust settled down, the defenders detected movement in the valley. The stragglers had still not gone past the valley and as such were brought under coordinated fire. On receipt of a distress signal from the militants, the helicopters returned and plastered the two posts with ATGMs [anti-tank guided missiles] with a vengeance for the next thirty minutes. 24 soldiers including one major and one subaltern died and 16 soldiers received serious injuries.

In order to obfuscate the facts NATO has taken urged a plea as an afterthought that the helicopters responded to hostile fire coming from the posts. There was no reason for the defenders to open fire at the helicopters without any provocation. If one agrees with NATO's preposterous contention for argument sake, the fast-moving and highly maneuverable helicopters with anti-armor and anti-aircraft protection could have easily moved away out of range of the weapons deployed on the ground.

If it was unintentional, as claimed by NATO leadership, why couldn't the helicopters equipped with night-fighting capability see a Pakistani flag fluttering on top of a post and soldiers dressed in uniforms, particularly when each flying helicopter/jet/ cargo plane carries marked maps showing the border and border posts? If the helicopters came in response to the call made by the ANA, how come the attackers attacked the static posts atop a ridgeline? In these ten years NATO should have learnt that Taliban never take up static defences and that too on hilltops. They prefer caves and valleys. If the helicopters made a mistake once, why was the mistake repeated? If the map reference of Salala posts was marked wrongly by the Border Coordination Centre, or passed on wrongly by a NATO liaison officer, why did the massacre continue for ninety minutes after NATO HQ was frantically informed on a hotline at multiple levels including GHQ to get the fire stopped
forthwith?

Since the real purpose was to give covering fire to the infiltrators, heads of the troops manning the posts were pinned down to facilitate the unobserved and unhindered movement of infiltrators carrying their extra baggage on donkeys. It would be a sheer underestimation of NATO power to take nearly two hours to destroy posts made of cement blocks and strengthened by sandbags. It was a willful massacre and it didn't end on 26 November. The terrorists that managed to sneak in on that night are now busy carrying out terrorist attacks in Kyhber Pakhtunkwa, Khyber Agency and other nearby areas.

The inquest carried out by ISAF's Brig Stephen Clark apportions equal blame on both sides and wrongfully maintains that the fire was in self-defence. The US accepts several omissions made by the attackers but terms all of them coincidental and affixes partial responsibility on Pakistan. It is inconceivable that the ISAF, with the best technology, was unaware of the existence of two posts. US officials consistently stated that the attack was unintentional before and during the course of inquiry, thereby influencing the investigating team. The US wants the Pakistan Army to accept this factually incorrect report based on half-truths. Mercifully, the Army and the government are on one page. Not only has the report has been rejected, the government has taken bold and appropriate steps to checkmate America's bellicosity and aggressive unilateralism.

*The writer is a retired Brig [brigadier commander] and a defence analyst.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.

Clarity On The War "Of" Terror

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST)

http://www.dailytim es.com.pk/ default.asp? page=2012\02\01\story_ 1-2-2012_ pg3_4

Daily Times
February 1, 2012

Clarity on the war 'of' terror
Isfundiar Kasuri

====

[T]he US chose to make Pakistan its first client state in the region. Since its inception Pakistan has overwhelmingly been the recipient of military aid. As a direct consequence, efforts at democratisation were continuously stymied and whatever civilian leaders emerged did so due to military patronage. Not surprising then that, as in Chile, Venezuela, Panama, Vietnam, the Philippines, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and a host of other countries the US has intervened in, widespread corruption has manifested itself amongst the nations' past and present cadre of civilian and military leaders.

Across the border in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Reagan and Zia followed through on Kennan's inspirational words and gave birth to a new breed of warriors, one that would not be too enamoured by concepts like democracy and human rights.

It is indeed a strange country where the alien imperial power is on the verge of accepting the futility of continuing these gross violations of international law (acts of murder) but where its so-called 'liberal elite' is hell-bent upon a continuation of these attacks that, for all their alleged pinpoint accuracy, resulted in the deaths of no less than 780 civilians of whom 175 were children.

====

Imran Khan's critics complain that he incorrectly lays the blame for the war on terror's negative effects on Pakistan to its alliance with the US. Firstly, Imran Khan does not believe the US and Pakistan have any sort of an 'alliance'. The more appropriate word to describe the relationship would be one of Pakistani 'subservience' to its imperial overlord.

As George Kennan, the State Department's Head of Policy Planning, wrote in a top secret memo (Policy Planning Study 23) back in 1948, "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population.. .Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming. We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratisation. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans (in reality) the better."

In keeping with the strategy suggested by Kennan, a major figure in shaping the post-war world, the US chose to make Pakistan its first client state in the region. Since its inception Pakistan has overwhelmingly been the recipient of military aid. As a direct consequence, efforts at democratisation were continuously stymied and whatever civilian leaders emerged did so due to military patronage. Not surprising then that, as in Chile, Venezuela, Panama, Vietnam, the Philippines, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and a host of other countries the US has intervened in, widespread corruption has manifested itself amongst the nations' past and present cadre of civilian and military leaders.

Across the border in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Reagan and Zia followed through on Kennan's inspirational words and gave birth to a new breed of warriors, one that would not be too enamoured by concepts like democracy and human rights.

Thirty years later, the Taliban are still in business, thanks to unlimited funding from the US and Saudi Arabia and the logistical support of 'subservient' Pakistan. It is important to note that while Saudi funding and Pakistani 'deep state' support remains in the spotlight, the news that even the Pentagon has acknowledged payoffs by their contractors to Taliban bureaucrats for protection of its convoys (everything from toothpaste to pizzas to assault rifles) to Forward Operating Bases in Kandahar in the hundreds of millions of dollars remains an unimportant fact to most observers. Not to Imran Khan, though, who has consistently referred to this war as one 'of terror'; a war that serves to increasingly radicalise the populations on whom it is being waged.

Imran Khan's clarity on the war of terror was further illustrated when in 2011 the White House itself began to use words like 'negotiations' and phrases like 'political integration' with reference to the Taliban; something Khan had been suggesting since 2004.

He is also opposed to drone strikes. However, it is argued by Pakistan's few supporters of drone strikes that casualties are being exaggerated and that the tribal folks wholeheartedly support the use of WMDs in their own villages. Clearly Colonel David Kilcullen, a leading expert and top US adviser on counterinsurgency, did not have all the facts when back in 2009, he testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, "...If we want to strengthen our friends and weaken our enemies in Pakistan, bombing Pakistani villages with unmanned drones is totally counter-productive."

Perhaps he had not consulted with the fellow who ran the drone strike campaign on behalf of the Americans for years, Dennis Blair. Oh, wait. After years of having run the programme he called them 'counterproductive' too. That is unless, as Noam Chomsky suggests, your purpose is to foment radicalism and 'shock and awe' terror for Wall Street profits. Putting it even more succinctly, using his superior intellect he arrived at the not so difficult conclusion that "you tend not to like people (US and its Pakistani sycophants) if they bomb your homes...no matter who lives next door".

This truth, while unacceptable to Pakistan's proponents of drone strikes, was perfectly clear to CIA Director Michael Hayden who, according to Bob Woodward's book Obama's Wars, informed the incoming president that the Bush administration understood these drone strikes could never end the terrorist threat in Pakistan. Obama ignored the advice, only to be told later by his own Intelligence Director Dennis Blair that "hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan" because of the strikes.

This is exactly the point Imran Khan was making when he argued in Davos at the World Economic Forum last year that the war on terror is not just a disaster for the US but an even bigger disaster for Pakistan, where "it is causing more radicalisation, more polarisation in society" then ever before.

Pratap Chatterjee, of the London-based Bureau of Investigative Reporting, confirmed that he had personally met with over three dozen family members of drone victims and elders from Waziristan who reject the claim that civilians are not being killed in large numbers. It is indeed a strange country where the alien imperial power is on the verge of accepting the futility of continuing these gross violations of international law (acts of murder) but where its so-called 'liberal elite' is hell-bent upon a continuation of these attacks that, for all their alleged pinpoint accuracy, resulted in the deaths of no less than 780 civilians of whom 175 were children.

While it is fair to be optimistic that the US will have no reason to extend these strikes into Pakistan's major metropolitan areas, one cannot help but be curious about how the 'local dog, foreign bark' brigade will feel regarding 'collateral damage' at their own doorstep. Of course, as stated earlier, even the authentic 'foreign bark' is starting to sound local. In the face of unprecedented unpopularity and gross negligence, Khan's view - that the drone strikes increase radicalisation and that Pakistan's subservience to US interests is detrimental to its own - continues to be legitimised not just by those who always agreed but now by those who have conducted the war itself.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.

Move To Strike Iran Lacks Justification

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST)

http://gulfnews. com/opinions/ columnists/ move-to-strike- iran-lacks- rationale- 1.973011

Gulf News
January 30, 2012

Move to strike Iran lacks rationale
By Adel Safty

====

More than 40 years after the NPT was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force two years later, it is an indisputable fact that the nuclear powers are no closer today to achieving nuclear disarmament than they were 40 years ago.

The public relations campaign for war against Iran is starting to acquire an eerie resemblance to the one that made the war against Iraq possible. It is fuelled by disregard for international law, a low priority for the role of diplomacy, dismissal of inconvenient facts, and a disturbing accommodation of Israeli militaristic designs in the region. Furthermore, the covert war of subversion inside Iran and the growing sanctions suggest that the undeclared goal in Iran is regime change.

====

Much of the debate taking place in the American and Israeli media on whether to go to war against Iran to put a stop to its development of nuclear weapons justifies sanctions and even war by arguing that Iran breached its international obligations.

Sanctions, in the form of a ban on oil purchases from Iran, were imposed by the European Union. Last week, the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany declared in a joint statement: "Iran has so far had no regard for its international obligations. .."

A nuclear Iran, the argument goes, would be a danger to its neighbour, and a threat to peace.

What exactly are these international obligations? Iran is being accused of developing nuclear weapons in breach of its treaty obligations under The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran rejects that accusation.

But an argument can be made that those countries that are harassing Iran with sanctions and threats of war have also failed to meet their international obligations.

The NPT obligates the nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to negotiate in good faith an end to the nuclear arms race and a date for achieving complete disarmament. The non-nuclear weapon states who are signatories of the treaty undertook not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. More than 40 years after the NPT was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force two years later, it is an indisputable fact that the nuclear powers are no closer today to achieving nuclear disarmament than they were 40 years ago.

And judging by the number of countries that have since achieved nuclear status (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) the NPT has also failed in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This does not relieve Tehran from its obligations under the treaty and of its responsibility to fulfil these obligations, if indeed it were to be objectively established that Iran is breaching these obligations. At least as long as the NPT maintains a sense of credibility.

But imagine the blow to the credibility of the NPT and indeed to international law in general if the US or Israel or both were to launch a war against Iran to destroy nuclear facilities that are recognised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ostensibly in the name of enforcing respect for international law.

Even if the IAEA were to establish that Iran had diverted nuclear material to military use, a violation of the NPT treaty, this in itself does not justify war against Iran.

The use of force by the US against a fellow UN member will have to be legally justified. And under international law it can only be justified in two cases: First, when used in self-defence. But the argument of self-defence requires a threat that is imminent and leaving no time for reflection.

No one can convincingly argue that Iran poses an imminent threat to the US. And not even the twisted logic used by the Bush administration to claim that it had a right of pre-emptive defence, can remedy the defect in the self-defence argument.

The second case of justifiable use of force is when resort to force is authorised by the UN Security Council. But such authorisation can only be accorded if it was found that Iran posed a threat to peace because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. There are many states that have developed nuclear weapons or pursuing the capacity to do it; yet they are not considered a threat to peace.

Indeed, Israel, the leading advocate for war against Iran, is a nuclear power itself that has steadily refused to allow international inspection of its nuclear facilities.

But you would be hard pressed to find someone in the influential American media even suggesting that an Israel armed with nuclear weapons, given its record of repeated assaults against its neighbours, is the real threat to peace in the region.

Still, it is remarkable that the American defence and intelligence establishment has reached the conclusion that war against Iran is impractical and likely to bring about that which it seeks to prevent. Former CIA director General Michael Hayden was recently quoted in the press as saying that during the Bush administration. "When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret."

Nonetheless, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, described as the most militaristic candidate on Iran, continues to advocate an all-out war against Iran including a ground invasion to try to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. Typical of the Santorum logic, his plan for invading Iran would not constitute war against a sovereign country. It would be, he said, an operation designed to "prevent war".

It is worth noting here that Santorum is defending his indefensible logic as part of his overall identification with the hardliners in Israel. In fact, Santorum's recent statement that there were no Palestinians in the West Bank, only Israelis, went beyond the claims of the most dogmatic hardliners in Israel.

The public relations campaign for war against Iran is starting to acquire an eerie resemblance to the one that made the war against Iraq possible. It is fuelled by disregard for international law, a low priority for the role of diplomacy, dismissal of inconvenient facts, and a disturbing accommodation of Israeli militaristic designs in the region. Furthermore, the covert war of subversion inside Iran and the growing sanctions suggest that the undeclared goal in Iran is regime change.

Adel Safty is author of From Camp David to the Gulf (Montreal); Democracy and Governance (Istanbul); Leadership and Democracy (New York); Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine (England).
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.

U.S. Backs Indian Proxy In Military Encirclement Of China

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:50 pm (PST)

http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com/2012/ 02/01/u-s- backs-indian- proxy-in- military- encirclement- of-china/

India's Military Adventure against China
By Sajjad Shaukat*

====

[T]he Indian government is planning to increase the strength of the Indian Army by almost 100,000 soldiers over the next five years. It would also be the largest increase in deployment along the Chinese border since the aftermath of the 1962 war. It will also focus on Indian islands with the larger view of securing maritime routes crisis-crossing the Indian Ocean.

As regards the Indian military build-up against Beijing, on May 31, 2009, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 kilometers south of the Chinese border-Aksai China area. New Delhi has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads on the Sino-Indian frontiers.

With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008 India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an undersea platform after completing its project in relation to air, land and sea ballistic systems.

[U]nder the pretext of the China factor, New Delhi and Israel, with the tactical support of the sole superpower, are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.

====

Although India and China agreed to avoid flare-ups along their border on January 17 this year, yet despite 15 rounds of talks the issue still remains unsettled owing to Indian obstinacy. The countries had fought a bloody war in 1962 over a disputed border.

Indian hegemonic designs to dominate the region can well be judged from its plans to spend huge amounts on a military build-up and purchases of sophisticated arms and weapons from France, Germany, Israel, Russia and the U.S. Indian leaders openly state that India will defend its national interests beyond South Asia. On the one hand, Indian rulers assertively advocate regional peace, but on the other they mislead the world by cunningly projecting their threat perceptions. These are certainly a source of concern, especially for China and Pakistan, which are particular targets of India's duplicity.

In this regard, in November, 2011 the Chinese media hit back at India's proposed military build-up on the border and its recent relationship with East Asian nations such as Japan and Vietnam at the cost of Beijing. In this respect, China's official newspaper People's Daily recently reported: "East China Sea and South China Sea issues continue to expose some countries' envious, jealous and hateful attitude towards China...India has begun to consider Beijing as an opponent." While China's state-run news agency Xinhua warned, "if India intends to antagonise its neighbour by taking China as an imaginary enemy and gets unwisely involved in affairs which fall within others' backyards, it would hold its national strategies as hostage and put at stake its own national interests."

Today, China is India's biggest trading partner with which New Delhi has signed a number of agreements in various fields, but with American support it is playing a double game with Beijing. In this context, in the middle of October, 2011, as part of its second phase of military expansion against China, the Indian government has given the go-ahead for the deployment of BrahMos cruise missiles in Arunachal Pradesh along the Chinese border. With a range of 290 kilometers, these missiles are being deployed to improve India's military reach into the Tibet Autonomous Region. The three BrahMos missile regiments raised so far have also been deployed in the western sector to counter the presumed threat of Pakistan. India's new scheme has coincided with the revival of a propaganda campaign that China has allegedly been deploying troops in Pakistan's areas of Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and FATA. Both Beijing and Islamabad have denied this false
accusation.

Besides, as part of its military adventure against China, the Indian government is planning to increase the strength of the Indian Army by almost 100,000 soldiers over the next five years. It would also be the largest increase in deployment along the Chinese border since the aftermath of the 1962 war. It will also focus on Indian islands with the larger view of securing maritime routes crisis-crossing the Indian Ocean.

As regards the Indian military build-up against Beijing, on May 31, 2009, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 kilometers south of the Chinese border-Aksai China area. New Delhi has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads on the Sino-Indian frontier.

On April 20, 2008 The Times of India had written, "By having a full-fledged airstrip at DBO, India will be able to rush in troops and supplies to the region during emergencies." The paper quoted Western Air Command Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora revealing, "Yes, we also have plans to land our AN-32 transport aircraft at DBO. It is part of Indian Air Force plans to improve air maintenance at the far-flung posts in the region".

In this connection, Defence Ministry planners are working on building additional airfields and increasing troops, raising two new mountain divisions to be deployed along the 4,057-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC).

With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008 India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an undersea platform after completing its project in relation to air, land and sea ballistic systems.

Notably, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta had disclosed that New Delhi "will soon float tenders to acquire six submarines." Mehta also accused Beijing, saying, "The Indian Navy would keep a close watch on the movements of Chinese submarines which are operating out of an underground base in the South China Sea" and "wish to enter the Indian Ocean." However, under the pretext of the China factor, New Delhi and Israel, with the tactical support of the sole superpower, are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.

It is worthy of mention that in October, 2011 India hosted the leaders of Vietnam and Myanmar, highlighting its intentions it is following regarding its 'Look East Policy' as it is building close security and economic relations with these two nations in East and Southeast Asia. In fact, New Delhi designed this policy to establish its influence in the region, while the main aims behind it are to sabotage the interests of Beijing.

During her trip to New Delhi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 20, 2011 urged India to be more assertive in Asia, saying that the country should play more of a leadership role. She explained, "India has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific." Clinton further said, "India should play the role as a US ally in regional forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)."

It is noteworthy that on October 15, 2010 Indian Army Chief General VK Singh had openly claimed that China and Pakistan posed a major threat to India's security, while calling for an upgrade of the country's defences. Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had also raised similar allegations. So, under the pretext of presumed threats from China and Pakistan, New Delhi, which signed an agreement on civil nuclear technology with the US in 2008, has been acting upon the direction of the latter to counterbalance China and destabilize Pakistan along with Iran.

Particularly, US clandestine aims could be judged from the fact that on November 2, 2011 America agreed to sell India the most expensive — the new - F-35 fighter jets. In a report to the US Congress, the Pentagon said, "We believe US aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)...to be the best in the world", referring to the radar-evading F-35 jet.

Unlike India, Pakistan mostly prefers to develop its own arms, equipment and aircraft with the joint cooperation of China. For example, the JF-17/FC-1 is designed as a co-operative venture between Pakistan and China to replace the Chinese A-5C (massively modified MiG-19), F-7P (MiG-21+), and French Mirage 3/5 aircraft. In this connection, defence analysts opine that unlike the US F-35 fighter jet, the JF-17/FC-1 fighter is better due to its quick system of surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition.

Nevertheless, recently, India also decided on a major purchase of US F-16 and F-18 fighters. The Pentagon's government-to- government program of foreign military sales to India has included C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons and specialised tactical equipments. Besides acquisition of arms and weapons from other western countries, America, which emerged as a potential military supplier to India, has lifted sanctions on New Delhi in order to import nuclear technology.

In fact, Pakistan's province of Balochistan, where China has invested billion of dollars to develop Gwadar seaport, infuriates both the US and India. With the help of India, the US desires to control Balochistan as an independent state in containing China and restraining Iran. It is due to these reasons that Washington and New Delhi are creating instability in Pakistan by backing Baloch separatists to complete their hidden strategic agenda. In this regard, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) gets logistic support from India, while another separatist group, Jundollah (God's soldiers), is also harming the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years their militants kidnapped and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan, while committing other subversive acts in the province and in Iran's province of Sistan-Baluchistan. Tehran directly implicated the American CIA for patronage and funding of that type of
terrorist attack.

It is of particular attention that in May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then-Defense Minister George Fernandes declared publicly that "China is India's potential threat No. 1." India, which successfully tested the Agni-111 missile in May of 2007, has been extending its range to target all the big cities of China.

Nonetheless, with the support of the US, India's military adventure against China is likely to destabilse the whole of Asia because of its chain reaction.

*Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@ yahoo.com

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.

Opposition: Georgia's Future Is Decided In Washington

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST)

http://rustavi2. com/news/ news_text. php?id_news= 44509&pg= 1&im=main& ct=0&wth=

Rustavi 2
January 31, 2012

Labour Party comments on Obama-Saakashvili meeting

`Georgia`s future is decided in Washington,` the leader of the Georgian Labour Party Shalva Natelashvili announced at a briefing today while commenting on the meeting of the Georgian and U.S. presidents. Natelashvili disapproved of the agreement between Saakashvili and Obama. The opposition leader does not like the agreements on free trade relations and military cooperation with the United States.

`This is the answer to the cynics - why we hold rallies in Washington against the dictatorship - not because we want fun or have spare time, but because, all the misfortune that we face afterwards are planned there,` Natelashvili said.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.

Kosovo: Remaining Serb Homes Pillaged, Burned

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST)

http://www.b92. net/eng/news/ crimes-article. php?yyyy= 2012&mm=01& dd=31&nav_ id=78556

Tanjug News Agency
January 31, 2012

Serb homes robbed, set on fire in Kosovo

GNJILANE: Two houses owned by Serbis in the village of Cernica near Gnjilane were robbed and set on fire last night, it has been confirmed.

A Kosovo police (KPS) spokesperson told Tanjug news agency that nobody was inside the buildings during the incident.

But Ismet Hasani "could not say what caused the fire", adding that it was promptly put out by firemen.

The spokesperson however noted that KPS units investigated the scene "and opened the case".

Local Serb media in that part of the province are reporting that the homes belonged to Ljubiša Spasić and Stanko Stanojević, who currently live and work in Switzerland along with their families.

Cernica resident Srđan Menković said the homes were first robbed, while the fire "most likely came later and was the work of arsonists".

"Almost everything was taken from the houses, they stole everything. It is getting worse by the day, robberies are ever more frequent, while police either cannot or will not do anything about it," said Milenković.

Some 150 Serb families lived in the village prior to the war in 1999, while only about 30 remain today.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.

Obama-Saakashvili Agreement On Georgia's NATO Integration

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST)

http://rustavi2. com/news/ news_text. php?id_news= 44513&pg= 1&im=main& ct=0&wth=

Rustavi 2
January 31, 2012

Prime Minister hails Obama-Saakashvili agreement

Members of the Cabinet of Ministers commented on the meeting of the Georgian and U.S. presidents held in Washington yesterday. The government assembled at the session in the Government`s Chancellery today.

...

Prime Minister Nika Gilauri...hailed the statement by the U.S. president to continue support to Georgia`s defense sector, reinforcement of its defensibility, which is very important for the region.

`The last factor, which should be emphasized, is the support to Georgia`s NATO aspirations. This is particularly notable prior to the Chicago NATO summit, where the support of the United States will be very important,` Nika Gilauri said.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.

Syrian Troops Thwart Armed Infiltration From Turkey

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm (PST)

http://www.plenglis h.com/index. php?option= com_content& task=view& id=473459& Itemid=1

Prensa Latina
January 31, 2012

Syrian Troops Thwart Armed Infiltration from Turkey

Damascus: On Tuesday Syrian troops prevented another infiltration attempt by an armed group from Turkey in the northwestern province of Idleb, the second in three days, according to authorities.

The action took place in the border area of al-Janoudieh, in the context of an offensive against those bands, launched by Army troops in several places, particularly in the province of Hama, in areas of the countryside of Damascus and in Idleb, said the national media quoting official reports.

According to the sources, Army troops killed one of those trying to infiltrate and arrested another while the rest managed to flee back to Turkey, where armed men are being trained in two camps to be infiltrated into Syria, as regional politicians have denounced.

It was also reported that a group of unidentified armed men this morning attacked a bus carrying workers of the Maaret al-Numan spinning mill, also in Idleb. The driver was shot and three passengers were wounded.

Also in Idleb, men wearing masks kidnapped the head of the Palace of Justice executive board as he was heading to his office, while armed men opened fire at people attending a police funeral in Sarakeb and killed two officers and wounded another two.

Idleb province and the city of Homs are currently the worst-hit areas of terrorist violence in the wake of the dismantling of armed groups in the outskirts of Damascus, where they had been operating for the past few weeks.

the SANA news agency reported from Homs that one of those armed bands blew up an oil pipeline in the al-Sutaniya area, causing a big fire that was put under control by firefighters and by turning off fuel pumps.

This is the second such attack after a bomb damaged a gas pipeline between Homs and Banyas, near the town of al-Rabieh in the Tal Kalakh municipality on Monday, causing a spill of 460,000 cubic meters of gas.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.

Britain To Deploy Destroyer To Falklands/Malvinas

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:23 pm (PST)

http://www.plenglis h.com/index. php?option= com_content& task=view& id=473325& Itemid=1

Prensa Latina
January 31, 2012

UK Warship to Be Deployed on Falkland Islands



London: After increased tensions with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, the United Kingdom will send one of its most modern warships to this archipelago in the coming months, said the Ministry of Defence.

The destroyer HMS Dauntless will be deployed in the coming months in the South Atlantic Ocean to replace the frigate HMS Montrose.

While London called the sending of the ship as "routine measure" of a patrol boat replaced by another, the move exacerbates frictions with Argentina after a verbal escalation between the two states due to controversial British oil exploration in the area.

Argentina's claims are based on the British exploitation of natural resources in the South American platform, whose starting point is the Falkland Islands, seized by the UK in 1833 and the cause of a military confrontation between the two nations in 1982.

UK forces in the South Atlantic archipelago include four modern Typhoon aircraft, an air base with radar, a patrol frigate, and a garrison of 1,700 soldiers, almost equal in number to the local population.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

12.

Pentagon Holds "Interoperability" Exercise Planning In Slovakia

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:38 pm (PST)

http://www.eucom. mil/article/ 23057/combined- endeavor- 2012-planning- begins-in- slovak-republic

U.S. European Command
January 30, 2012

Combined Endeavor 2012 planning begins in Slovak Republic

BRATISLAVA, Slovak Republic: The week-long initial planning conference for exercise Combined Endeavor 2012 (CE12), U.S. European Command's largest communications interoperability exercise, began today with more than 250 participants attending to begin planning.

During the opening ceremony, Robert Ondrejcsak, PhD, State Secretary of the Slovak Republic Ministry of Defence, welcomed national representatives and planners from 35 countries and organizations, while highlighting the exercise's value to the Slovak Republic.

"Slovak Armed Forces have participated in Combined Endeavor since 1995, the very beginning of the exercise. Combined Endeavor exercise was, is and will stay one of the main tools for testing interoperability of our new Computer Information Systems equipment... with our NATO and Partnership for Peace allies. We believe that Combined Endeavor has promoted the development of our CIS capabilities in the right direction."

Combined Endeavor is a EUCOM-sponsored, multinational initiative intended to encourage interoperability and information exchange among nations...

During the IPC, participants will begin developing network architecture that supports the exercise's operational construct and provides pathways for testing interoperable capabilities of the combined systems.

...

CE12 will take place in Grafenwöhr, Germany, Sept. 6-20.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

13.

U.S. Air Forces In Europe: 70 Years Of Bombing And Strafing

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:38 pm (PST)

http://www.usafe. af.mil/news/ story.asp? id=123287633

U.S. Air Forces in Europe
January 27, 2012

U.S. Air Forces in Europe turns 70
By Charles Newell
U.S. Air Forces in Europe History Office

-With the command now marking its seventh decade of active service, USAFE continues to provide combat ready forces, maintains vital access to three continents, and assures friends and allies while building their operational capacity. During 2011, these unique attributes came to the forefront during U.S. support to operations in Libya.

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany: Jan. 28, 2012 marks U.S. Air Forces in Europe's 70th birthday. Throughout the year USAFE and Team Ramstein will honor its mission, people and heritage by reminding everyone of USAFE's accomplishments - then and now - from the Second World War, through the Cold War, and in today's expeditionary era.

Born out of necessity during the World War II, the command is the second oldest major command in the Air Force. Throughout its history, USAFE has remained a critical element of U.S. policy, strategy and presence in Europe.

The War Department originally designated the command as Headquarters, Eighth Air Force, Jan. 19, 1942, as United States Strategic Air Forces Europe, from Feb. 22, 1944, and as its current designation, United States Air Forces Europe, on Aug. 7, 1945. Each redesignation represented a change of mission and responsibility; from the buildup of forces and initial operations in the United Kingdom, to the command of daylight strategic bombing, to follow-on operations in Germany after the war.

...

The Cold War era, 1946-1991, witnessed continual modernization and expansion in direct response to the...Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Soon after the Cold War began, the command directed the Berlin Airlift...and validating the newly created U.S. Air Force. The Korean War, the erection of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan all challenged USAFE's mission...

[C]ombat readiness in direct support of NATO was USAFE's top priority in those year...

The command fought its second war in 1991 as part of the coalition opposing Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. USAFE provided critical en route support to units deploying to Persian Gulf-hosted forward bases for B-52s and KC-135s, and contributed vital logistics and maintenance support for those deploying forces. The bulk of Joint Task Force Proven Force, which opened a second front against Iraq from Turkey, came primarily from USAFE's ranks. The command deployed 15 percent of its people, 55 percent of its planes, and 33 percent of its munitions to Proven Force to join the fight, where its people fought as an integral part of coalition forces. USAFE pilots accounted for 15 of 33 coalition air-to-air victories before the ceasefire in April 1991.

...

Closer to home, USAFE reached out to the new Central and Eastern European democracies, paving the way for NATO's 1993 "Partnership for Peace" initiative and the acceptance of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as new members in 1999.

By the mid-1990s, the command was heavily involved in Yugoslavia, which had erupted into civil war in the summer of 1991. USAFE C-130s flew relief supplies into Sarajevo...

When NATO began Operation Deny Flight to enforce a United Nations no-fly zone over Bosnia in April 1993, USAFE was there. Its pilots fired NATO's first shots, downing four Krajina Serb aircraft violating the no-fly zone on Feb. 28, 1994. A year and a half later, USAFE was a mainstay in NATO's Operation Deliberate Force that...enforced a NATO heavy-weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo...

USAFE, as part of the newly expanded NATO, went to war once again on March 24, 1999 when the alliance launched air attacks on Yugoslavia.. .In the 78-day campaign known as Operation Allied Force, USAFE people and aircraft flew a significant number of the nearly 35,000 sorties that forced Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to ask for a cease-fire, evacuate his forces from Kosovo, and permit an international peacekeeping force into the province...

After the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, USAFE responded to the Global War on Terrorism. The command played a key role in...the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom. USAFE people and aircraft also made critical contributions to the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The command also contributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, which toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in the spring of 2003.

With the command now marking its seventh decade of active service, USAFE continues to provide combat ready forces, maintains vital access to three continents, and assures friends and allies while building their operational capacity. During 2011, these unique attributes came to the forefront during U.S. support to operations in Libya...USAFE was able to...provide on-hand combat forces as part of a coalition of European and other partner nations...After NATO assumed responsibility for operations in Libya in April 2011, USAFE continued its support.

...

Happy 70th USAFE!
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

14.

Turkey To Increase Range Of Ballistic Missiles

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:01 pm (PST)

http://www.hurriyet dailynews. com/turkey- aims-to-increase -ballistic- missile-ranges. aspx?pageID= 238&nID=12731& NewsCatID= 345

Hürriyet Daily News
February 1, 2012

Turkey aims to increase ballistic missile ranges

ANKARA: Turkey aims to build ballistic missiles with a range of 2,500 kilometers within the next two years, Turkish officials have said...

Professor Yücel Altınbaşak, head of Turkey's State Scientific Research Institute (TÜBİTAK), recently told reporters that the decision to build the ballistic missiles was made at a recent meeting of the High Board of Technology and in line with a request from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Altınbaşak said TÜBİTAK had already produced and delivered a missile with a range of 500 kilometers to the Turkish military and added that the missile had displayed a mere five-meter deviation from its target in field tests. In the next phase of the program this year, TÜBİTAK will first test the 1,500-kilometer missile before heading for the final goal of 2,500 kilometers.

Altınbaşak said building missiles with a range of 2,500-kilometer was a "realistic target for Turkey."

...

A Middle East political expert said Turkey's decision to produce cruise and ballistic missiles may mark a change in threat and security design perceptions.

"Why would the Turks need these missiles? Where will they use them? Against which threats? It is also intriguing that Turkey, which seeks a modern air force with deterrent firepower, is going along the path many rogue states with no modern air force capabilities have gone," the specialist said.

...
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

15.

Drones: CIA Judge, Jury, Executioner Violating International Law

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:03 pm (PST)

http://tribune. com.pk/story/ 330198/analysis- the-us-is- acting-over- and-above- the-law/

Express Tribune
February 1, 2012

Analysis: The US is acting over and above the law
By Niaz A Shah

While drone attacks might have some tactical advantage against al Qaeda and its affiliates, as is being argued, they are against the UN Charter, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the "threat or use of force" against another state. The Charter allows for the use of force in only one form, ie, under Article 42, wherein the Security Council may allow the use of force as an enforcement measure when all peaceful means are exhausted.

There, however, is one exception to this rule: States are allowed to use force in self-defence against an armed attack. This is a temporary right, ie, until the Security Council is activated to respond to an armed attack – an issue of international peace and security.

The US has traditionally relied on the argument of the right of self-defence. However, al Qaeda and its affiliates are non-state actors – hence three conditions must be satisfied before the use of force against them can be justified.

The first condition is that there must be an 'armed attack' against the US which necessitates the use of force in self-defence. The key question here is: What constitutes an armed attack? The severity and scale of damage done by the attack of a non-state actor must be such that it would amount to an armed attack had it been carried out by the regular forces of a state.

The second condition is that there must a link between the non-state actor and the host state. In Nicaragua v. USA, 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the host state must exercise an "effective control" over the non-state actor to trigger the right to use force in self-defence.

The ICJ reaffirmed the test of "effective control" in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 (paragraphs 399 and 401). Article 8 of the 2001 International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, reflecting customary law, states that the "conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct". The factual link between the host and non-state actor must be established before resorting to use force.

In addition, the host state shall either not be willing or unable to control the non-state actor. Once these two conditions are met, then proportionate use of force is permitted – which is the third condition.

Let us turn to the US claim of self-defence against al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan. First, Pakistan does not have effective control over al Qaeda or its affiliates. On the contrary, al Qaeda and its affiliates, such as the Pakistani Taliban, are banned under the terrorism legislation in Pakistan. The security forces of Pakistan are actively engaged in fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates. Pakistan clearly does not have "effective control" over al Qaeda and its affiliates and their acts cannot be attributed to Pakistan. The argument that the Pakistan is not willing to do enough to suppress armed groups inside its borders is not convincing: Hundreds of Taliban fighters and Pakistani troops are killed in the ongoing armed conflict.

Evidence also suggests that, very often, civilians were killed and property destroyed in access of "concrete and direct military advantage", i.e. violating the customary principle of proportionality. The law of armed conflict allows killing and being killed in the battlefield by combatants – but the CIA, a civilian organ of the state, targets individuals away from the battlefield who they regard either as terrorists or supporters of terrorism. The CIA has virtually become a judge, a jury and an executioner violating international human rights law.

Let there be no doubt: Drone attacks violate the UN Charter, the principle of proportionality and international human rights law.

The author is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Hull, United Kingdom.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

16.

Hundreds Of Slaughtered Civilians Not "Huge Number" For Obama

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:38 am (PST)

http://rt.com/ usa/news/ drones-civilian- death-obama- 187/

RT
February 1, 2012

Hundreds of slaughtered civilians isn't a 'huge number' for Obama

On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama became the first president to host a virtual town hall live on the Internet.

While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world.

Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn't all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation's biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America's ongoing drone missions aren't really all that bad.

If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise.

Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. "For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in," the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes.
Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don't do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties" and he added that it's "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash."

How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they'll tell you it is in the hundreds.
But what's a few hundred civilian deaths, right?

Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18.

If you don't take the word of foreign reporter's, even American intelligence can confirm that the "not a huge number" statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with.

In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Pakistan. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians.

When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.

Which, if you ask President Obama, is not a huge number.

If 775 isn't a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That's the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration.

"Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many," responded Unicef to the news at the time.

In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. "There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes," Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011.

In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes.

Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that "for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died."

In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes.

"My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," said Khan. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban."

A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us," counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute.
Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians.

"We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists," 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. "Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext."

Under the Pentagon's new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States' not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It's not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties.

Don't worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone's, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the "signature" strikes that account for most of the CIA's drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20.

Which really isn't that big of a number either.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

17.

Former Hague Prosecutor: NATO Thwarted Kosovo Organ Trade Probe

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:38 am (PST)

http://www.b92. net/eng/news/ crimes-article. php?yyyy= 2012&mm=02& dd=01&nav_ id=78571

Tanjug News Agency
February 1, 2012

NATO "thwarted" organ trade investigation

BELGRADE: Former Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has stated that NATO thwarted the investigation into the human organ trafficking in Kosovo.

She added that the real truth could be revealed only in an UN-led probe.

"The international community had to react after the report by (Council of Europe Special Rapporteur) Dick Marty, but the real truth about these allegations could only be revealed in an UN-led probe," Del Ponte told Belgrade-based weekly Nedeljnik.

She added that there was a lack of political will to resolve this case because the situation in Kosovo was still very fragile.

When asked whether she felt responsible for the destruction of evidence from the yellow house late in 2005, Del Ponte said that this was a big mistake and that it was done without previous consultations with her.

"I was really shocked when I learned from the media that the evidence was destroyed. However, I do not feel responsible as I was not authorized to lead the investigation," the former prosecutor was quoted as saying.

Del Ponte said that she knows who ordered the destruction of evidence as she was in constant contact with her successor Serge Brammertz, but that this information should now be investigated by the office of the Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor.

When asked about the fact that she had an insight into the UNMIK confidential report on crimes in the yellow house back in 2004 but the investigation was suspended, Del Ponte said that the prosecution was not able to continue the probe due to numerous obstacles.

"NATO and UNMIK did not allow us to see important files, while Albania did not let us enter its territory and inspect graves," she noted.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

18.

U.S. Drone Strike Kills 13 In Northwestern Pakistan

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:53 am (PST)

http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/ world/2012- 02/01/c_13138629 8.htm

Xinhua News Agency
February 1, 2012

13 killed in U.S. drone strike in NW Pakistan


ISLAMABAD: At least 13 people were killed when a U.S. drone launched three missile strikes in the Orakzai region of Pakistan's northwest tribal belt on Wednesday, local media reported.

According to a report by local TV channel Geo, the attack was launched in the wee hours of the morning when a U.S. drone fired three missiles at a militants' hideout in the Darand Shekhan area of the upper Orakzai agency...

Wednesday morning's drone strike came just one day after Foreign Office Spokesperson Abdul Basit stated that drone attacks are unacceptable to the Pakistani government because they are unlawful and counterproductive.

This is the fourth strike of its kind in the northwestern tribal area of Pakistan and the first of its kind in the Orakzai agency since the beginning of 2012. To date, 27 people have been killed and several others injured in 11 missile strikes launched by U.S. drones.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

19.

Russia Warns NATO, Gulf States Against Intervention In Syria

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Wed Feb 1, 2012 9:10 am (PST)

http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/ world/2012- 02/01/c_13138515 7.htm

Xinhua News Agency
February 1, 2012

Russia warns against foreign forces meddling in Syria's internal affairs

====

"We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force."

"We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council's toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future."

The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a "political transition" in the Middle East country.

====


UNITED NATIONS: Russia on Tuesday warned foreign countries against meddling in the internal affairs of Syria, saying that "the Syrian crisis can only be resolved within the Syrian-led political process."

The statement came as Vitaly Churkin, the Russian permanent representative to the United Nations, was addressing an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the current situation in Syria.

"The solution to the crisis can be found only through a Syrian-led, inclusive political process," Churkin said. "If all key players of the international community were to concentrate their efforts on implementing these provisions we are convinced that the crisis would long be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case."

"We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force," he said. "No, it should be fostering dialogue so as to seek an optimally effective and smooth resolution with a view to a cessation of violence and establishing a Syrian-led inclusive political process."

"Russia, which has enjoyed close, friendly contacts with the Syrian people and the Arab world from the very beginning, fought to ensure that the Syrian people would be able to decide for themselves without bloodshed and violence and set a course, a format for necessary social, economic, and political reforms," he said.

Russia has asked representatives of the Syrian government and opposition to enter into peace talks in Moscow to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, which broke out in March 2011.

"We appeal to the Syrian government and all opposition groups to send their representatives to Moscow on an agreed-upon timeline to conduct informal contacts without preconditions, " he said. "This would allow for the Syrian parties to discuss many issues on the national agenda without any limitations, in particular the task of preparing an inter-Syrian dialogue under the LAS (League of Arab States) aegis."

"Moreover, we suggest that in drawing up its decision the council be guided by the principle of non-imposition, " he said. "We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council's toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future."

"But this is not the matter at hand, the council cannot impose the parameters for an internal political settlement," he said. "It simply does not have the mandate to do so under the (UN) Charter."

The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a "political transition" in the Middle East country.

Moscow voiced its strong opposition to the Arab-European draft resolution, which was tabled at the Security Council by Morocco on Friday, saying the draft resolution was not conducive to a proper settlement of the current Syrian political crisis.

The draft resolution, jointly drawn up by Arab states, Britain, France and Germany, wants the Security Council to back an Arab League plan which calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy so that new elections can be held.

The United States, France, Germany and Britain asked the Security Council to take urgent actions to address the current situation in Syria.

Damascus has accused foreign and terrorist elements of being behind the months-old turmoil in the country.

On Tuesday, Churkin told the Security Council that consensus among the 15 council members is possible and necessary.

"We found some of the elements of our text in it, and this gives rise to hope," he said. "We hope that the council will come to a consensus on the Syrian issue, as that is not only possible but also necessary."
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ==
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/stopnato/ messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff. wordpress. com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity

3

New Members

Visit Your Group

Share Photos

Put your favorite

photos and

more online.

Dog Groups

on Yahoo! Groups

Share pictures &

stories about dogs.

Y! Groups blog

the best source

for the latest

scoop on Groups.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web

Messages | Database | Polls

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___

Russia Warns NATO, Gulf States Against Intervention In Syria

2012-02-01T09:27:00.001-08:00

Russia Warns NATO, Gulf States Against Intervention In Syria

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-02/01/c_131385157.htm

Xinhua News Agency
February 1, 2012

Russia warns against foreign forces meddling in Syria's internal affairs

====

"We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force."

"We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council's toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future."

The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a "political transition" in the Middle East country.

====

UNITED NATIONS: Russia on Tuesday warned foreign countries against meddling in the internal affairs of Syria, saying that "the Syrian crisis can only be resolved within the Syrian-led political process."

The statement came as Vitaly Churkin, the Russian permanent representative to the United Nations, was addressing an open meeting of the UN Security Council on the current situation in Syria.

"The solution to the crisis can be found only through a Syrian-led, inclusive political process," Churkin said. "If all key players of the international community were to concentrate their efforts on implementing these provisions we are convinced that the crisis would long be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case."

"We are convinced that in a time of extreme internal political crisis, the role of the international community should not be one of exacerbating conflict nor meddling by the use of economic sanctions or military force," he said. "No, it should be fostering dialogue so as to seek an optimally effective and smooth resolution with a view to a cessation of violence and establishing a Syrian-led inclusive political process."

"Russia, which has enjoyed close, friendly contacts with the Syrian people and the Arab world from the very beginning, fought to ensure that the Syrian people would be able to decide for themselves without bloodshed and violence and set a course, a format for necessary social, economic, and political reforms," he said.

Russia has asked representatives of the Syrian government and opposition to enter into peace talks in Moscow to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, which broke out in March 2011.

"We appeal to the Syrian government and all opposition groups to send their representatives to Moscow on an agreed-upon timeline to conduct informal contacts without preconditions," he said. "This would allow for the Syrian parties to discuss many issues on the national agenda without any limitations, in particular the task of preparing an inter-Syrian dialogue under the LAS (League of Arab States) aegis."

"Moreover, we suggest that in drawing up its decision the council be guided by the principle of non-imposition," he said. "We will not stand for any sanctions resolutions or using the council's toolbox so as to fuel conflict or possibly justify any foreign intervention in the future."

"But this is not the matter at hand, the council cannot impose the parameters for an internal political settlement," he said. "It simply does not have the mandate to do so under the (UN) Charter."

The Security Council met on Tuesday afternoon on the current situation in Syria, with the Arab League and Western countries urging the 15-nation council to adopt their joint draft resolution, which demands what they call a "political transition" in the Middle East country.

Moscow voiced its strong opposition to the Arab-European draft resolution, which was tabled at the Security Council by Morocco on Friday, saying the draft resolution was not conducive to a proper settlement of the current Syrian political crisis.

The draft resolution, jointly drawn up by Arab states, Britain, France and Germany, wants the Security Council to back an Arab League plan which calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy so that new elections can be held.

The United States, France, Germany and Britain asked the Security Council to take urgent actions to address the current situation in Syria.

Damascus has accused foreign and terrorist elements of being behind the months-old turmoil in the country.

On Tuesday, Churkin told the Security Council that consensus among the 15 council members is possible and necessary.

"We found some of the elements of our text in it, and this gives rise to hope," he said. "We hope that the council will come to a consensus on the Syrian issue, as that is not only possible but also necessary."

KOMINFORM
http://www.kominform.eu

Spanish Communist News

2012-02-01T06:50:00.001-08:00

SolidNet News, February 1, 2012

http://www.solidnet.org
News, documents and calls for action from communist and workers' parties. The items are the responsibility of the authors.
Join the mailing list: info/subscribe/unsubscribe mailto:info@solidnet.org .

February 1, 2012

§ People's Voice February 1, 2012
People's Voice February 1, 2012
https://docs.google.com/open?id=1-43t7NEMF-oQgWeZIBHz5Ji81qWvElBFo8-uDfljpmZ6BpwbT-4VwqgXy9AJ In Peace & Solidarity Sam Hammond

▪ CP of the Peoples of Spain, Solidarity note with the Socialist People's Front of Lithuania [En., Sp.]
The Spanish communsts salute comrade Algirdas Paleckis and the Socialist People's Front of Lithuania for the judicial victory represented by the drop off of the charges against the comrade, accused of rejecting the anti-Soviet and anti-communist falsification of your country's history

▪ CP of the Peoples of Spain, Statement of the EC on the recent agreement on wages [En., Sp]
please find attached the latest statement of the Executive Committee of the PCPE on the recent agreement on wages between the bosses and the leaders of CCOO and UGT, main trade-union confederations in Spain.

▪ CP of Soviet Union, Заявление ЦК КПСС о "Коминформе" [Ru.]
Неким г-ном Скворцовым распространяется в средствах массовой информации ложное сообщение о якобы прошедшей в Финляндии с участием Коммунистической партии Советского Союза,

▪ CP of Greece, Speech of A. Papariga at the event of the TKP [En., Ru.]
The warm greetings of communist solidarity of the CC of the KKE, of the whole party, its friends and supporters, who appreciate the joint effort,

KOMINFORM
http://www.kominform.eu

Achievements of the Half White President Barrack Hussain Obama

2012-02-01T05:58:00.001-08:00

Hundreds Of Slaughtered Civilians Not "Huge Number" For Obama

http://rt.com/usa/news/drones-civilian-death-obama-187/

RT
February 1, 2012

Hundreds of slaughtered civilians isn't a 'huge number' for Obama

On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama became the first president to host a virtual town hall live on the Internet.

While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world.

Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn't all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation's biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America's ongoing drone missions aren't really all that bad.

If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise.

Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. "For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in," the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes.
Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don't do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties" and he added that it's "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash."

How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they'll tell you it is in the hundreds.
But what's a few hundred civilian deaths, right?

Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18.

If you don't take the word of foreign reporter's, even American intelligence can confirm that the "not a huge number" statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with.

In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Pakistan. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians.

When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.

Which, if you ask President Obama, is not a huge number.

If 775 isn't a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That's the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration.

"Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many," responded Unicef to the news at the time.

In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. "There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes," Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011.

In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes.

Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that "for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died."

In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes.

"My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," said Khan. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban."

A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us," counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute.
Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians.

"We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists," 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. "Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext."

Under the Pentagon's new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States' not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It's not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties.

Don't worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone's, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the "signature" strikes that account for most of the CIA's drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20.

Which really isn't that big of a number either.

KOMINFORM
http://www.kominform.eu

Indian Arrny versus Pakistan Army in 1965 War-Any Difference

2012-02-01T05:53:00.001-08:00

INTERVIEWS

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Was there any qualitative difference between Indian and Pakistan Army

PART SEVEN-ANALYSIS CHAPTER OF 1965 WAR-FROM THE PAKISTAN ARMY TILL 1965 BY MAJOR AGHA.H.AMIN (RETIRED)-1999

Was there any difference in Indian Army and Pakistan Army in 1965 War

THE INDIAN NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY-MYTH

OR REALITY

After the war a myth was propagated that the Indians were defeated or checked by Pakistani forces who were numerically inferior but qualitatively more superior or more martial!Or that there was something special in Muslim soldiers !

Modern wars or even ancient wars were never won on the basis of numerical inferiority. Superior generalship and tactics were the most important factor while morale was only second in importance ; in a situation; where two armies with equally high morale clashed;regardless of the fact whether they were Muslim Christian Atheist Pagan or Communist !

After the invention of gunpowder and artillery however numerical superiority even became less important.

Thus well drilled and organised European armies were able to defeat numerically much larger asiatic armies.

The reason for this was not that the Europeans were more martial or possessed more valour but were better organised,doctrinally superior and more proficient in combining their infantry and artillery to produce a greater net impact on their opponents.In the second world war with the introduction of tanks as the decisive weapon numerical superiority in infantry became even less important and the Germans were able to decisively defeat the Russians with a much larger infantrycomponent by superior use of armour based on a superior war doctrine.Technically their Centurion and Sherman tanks were relatively inferior to the Patton tanks with which the larger part of Pakistani armour was equipped.

In 1965 the Indians did not enjoy any superiority as far as the offensive capability of their army by virtue of number/quality of tanks was concernedAnother major force multiplier with which most Indian attacks were defeated was the Pakistani artillery equipped with the latest US guns.

The Indian artillery had mostly WW II vintage guns.Yet another decisive organisational force multiplier for the Pakistanis was the extremely well organised type 4 Corps Artillery Brigade which the ranker type CGS General Malik SherBahadur did his best to disband,and which to Pakistan's good luck survived Sher's bias playing the most crucial role in Grand Slam and at Chawinda.

The Indians were superior only as far as their infantry was concerned but infantry was no longer the arm of decision in modern war and superiority in infantry did not give the Indians any dominant offensive edge over the Pakistanis.

In addition the Pakistani infantry was mechanised and possessed the M 113 tracked Armoured Personnel Carrier 300 of which were supplied to Pakistan by USA during the period 1955-65.In addition 10 and 15 Division possessed the highly versatile and firepower wise extremely effective R & S Battalions.

These infantry battalions were completely jeep mounted and possesses 48 106 mm US recoilless rifles.It became fashionable in Pakistan after the war to criticise their role,but there is no doubt that these units played a major part at least in the Ravi-Chenab Corridor in plugging many gaps in the exceptionally wide area of responsibility of the 15 Division.

Infantry superiority was relatively more significant in the post breakout phase;provided it was motorised and possessed cross country mobility,while the Indian infantry was lorry borne and did not possess any such capability.In any case the Indians failed to achieve a breakthrough at Chawinda,and their superiority in infantry could not be resultantly exploited .

Since the US Civil War the defensive potential of infantry was increasinv and

infantry attack as the main means of decisive warfare was becoming more and more costlier in terms of casualties.

By the time of Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 this trend was more pronounced and the defensive value of machine gun and offensive value of indirect artillery fire was a decisive factor in battle ^7°.

At Mukden Japanese superiority in machine guns i.e. approximately 254 machineguns against 54 Russian machine guns played a crucial role in the final defeat of a numerically stronger Russian Army (approximately 276,000 Russians against 207,000 Japanese) ⁷¹.

The Russian soldier is one of the most formidable infantry man in attack and is known for immense stoicism and disregard for loss of human life.

Despite this the Japanese by superior utilisation of machine guns successfully repelled a large number of most determined Russian infantry attacks during the 17 day battle fought along 90 miles frontage⁷².

By 1914-18 infantry was no longer decisive as an instrument of decisive warfare and the stalemate was broken only in 1917-18 by employment of tanks which was the major factor in the allied success against the German Army which otherwise could beat any allied infantry attack.

By WW II decisive attack without tanks was simply not possible.In1965 no such thing like a paralysing headlong infantry attack against an enemy in defence with reasonable artillery support was possible,unless tanks and that too in considerable number were in direct support regardless of the fact whether the defender was a Muslim or Hindu or Zoroastrian or Deist Agnostic or Atheist!

It is important that the Indians were able to dislodge the 16 Punjab at Dograi only when tanks had left the 16 Punjab defended area due to confusion in orders/poor navigation It is in this context that we have to view the Indian superiority in infantry as an insufficient ingredient for success.There is no doubt that the Pakistani forces being numerically smaller as far as infantry was concerned were more motivated but infantry it must be remembered was no longer the arm of decision in 1965.

To achieve any breakthrough the minimum requirement was superiority in tanks at the decisive point and this was mot achieved at any place by the Indians in 1965 War.

lt was analytically fallacious on part of many Pakistani military writers to draw wrong conclusions from poor Indian performance in 1965 which had a deeper link with poor training,numerical inferiority in quantity and quality of tanks,inferior quality of artillery and lack of operational talent.

The Pakistanis were definitely better trained and equipped and fought well,but were equally handicapped by poor leadership beyond battalion level.

Apart from insufficient armour three other factors played a major role in the reduction of Indian numerical superiority in infantry which if properly regulated may have led to a situation seriously upsetting the delicate operational equilibrium in favour of Pakistan by virtue of possession of better and morenumerous tanks.

First was " Kashmir" which absorbed some 38 out of the total of 103 infantry battalions deployed by the Indians for the war while Pakistan deployed only 15 battalions against these out of which only four were regular Pakistan Army while 11 were the Azad Kashmir Battalions well trained but not as good as the regular battalions in 1965.

In this regard Operation Gibraltar and the resultant infiltration scare was a success in the sense that it produced such a sense of insecurity in the Indians that they decided to over garrison Kashmir.Another reason why Kashmir absorbed about one third of total Indian infantry was the particular lay of the ground with bottlenecks on Pakistani side,which made defence easier, and a wide valley on the Indian side along with the fact that the Indian line of communication to Kashmir was long ,parallel to the border and required more troops for protection.

This left the Indians with just 65 more infantry battalions out of which just 29 were deployed in the Ravi-Chenab corridor while 30 were deployed in the Ravi-Sutlej Corridor and 6 south of it leaving Indians to utilise just 18 battalions out of 29 in the Ravi-Chenab Corridor to support their main 1 Corps attack.

Just imagine if 30 out of 38 battalions doing stationary guard duty inKashmir were pumped into Pakistani territory with the 1 Corps attack.In this regard Kashmir proved to be a political liability rather than of any military advantage to the Indians.

Second was the immense obstacle value of the BRB canal which reduced the actual combat potential of 30 Indian Infantry battalions hurled against it to just one fourth enabling the Pakistanis to economise on their relatively less numerous infantry and using it a little more decisively.

In this regard all credit goes to the Pakistani Government in early 1950 which initiated the excavation of this formidable (I would say in sub continental terms) water obstacle which played as crucial a role in saving Pakistan's political heartland from capture by the Indians; as the English Channel against Napoleon and Hitler!

Thirdly the Indian obsession with security rather than dynamic attack and the resultant inability to concentrate their infantry to support the main attack led to under employment of their infantry.

Thus 38 of their battalions deployed in the area north of Chenab river apartfrom those in 10 Division area hardly saw any fighting.

Their utter disregard for properly utilising their infantry can be gauged from the fact that they concentrated 11 infantry battalions in their 26 InfantryDivision sector against just 4 Pakistani battalions and three of these battalions opposite Marala Headworks remained largely inactive during the war.

One major factor which went against Indian numerical superiority was qualitative superiority of Pakistani tanks and artillery over the Indians.

The major part of Pakistani Armour consisted of M-47/M-48 tanks 400 of which were supplied to Pakistan by the USA during the period 1954-65.

This tank was far superior to the best two Indian tanks i.e. the Sherman and the Centurion.The M-47/M-48 Tank had a more powerful gun than both Centurion and Sliermans.M-48 had much greater armour protection than any other tank i.e. its frontal armour was 170 mm as against the frontal armour thickness of 152 mm of Centurion and 100 mm of Sherman.The M-48 had far superior mobility than any Indian tank by virtue of having an engine of 820 Horse Power against a total weight of 45 Tons.

Whereas the Power to Weight Ratio of Centurion was 650 Horse Power to 51 Tons and that of Sherman,450 Horse Power to 33 Tons.Both M-47 & M-48 were one of NATOs principal Main Battle Tanks in 1965.

In addition the Pattons as both M-47 & M-48 were called had a range finder and night vision capability.As per Indian accounts however the penetration of the Armoured Piercing ammunition fired by this tank was not as good as that of as APDS ammunition which the Indian Centurion tank could fire .

However India had just 210 Centurions as compared to 400 M-47/M-48supplied to Pakistan by USA.The other major tank on both sides was the Sherman.180 Sherman Mark-4 were supplied to India by USA in the period 1953 while a large number of the more antiquated Sherman 75 mm version were supplied before I953.

Pakistan was supplied with at least 200 Mark-4 Shermans by USA in the period 1954-55 ⁷⁴..AMX-13 with which the Indians defended Chhamb with its thin armour of 40 mm was an apology of a tank and its lack of protection robbed its crews of any offensive or will to manoeuvre potential.PT-76 was another light tank and of little value.

Thus Shermans were of little consolation and did not give the Indians any marked advantage in the battles fought opposite Lahore.The 2⁴⁴ IndependentArmoured Brigade opposite the 1⁵¹ Pakistani Armoured Division had just one regiment of Centurions and the other of AMX-13 tanks.

The above mentioned figures are self explanatory .The best Indian antidote against Pattons i.e. Centurions consisted of just 12 squadrons as against 29 Patton Squadrons Only three of the total 12 Centurion Squadrons were in Khem Karan as against fifteen Patton Squadrons in Khem Karan.While at Chawinda the Pakistanis brought 11 Patton Squadrons by 11 September and a further six more by 13^th September as against nine Centurion Squadrons.

Thus

there is no doubt that Pakistani armour was far superior qualitatively and relatively superior numerically as compared with the Indian armour and definitely acted as a tremendous force multiplier in reducing the negative impact of Pakistani numerical inferiority in infantry and in addition providing the Pakistanis far greater offensive potential than the Indians.

At Chawinda it was superior armour as well superior artillery which provided the "Cordon Sanitaire" apart from Indian foolhardiness in repeatedly launching frontal attacks which ensured that the Indians failed to achieve a breakthrough despite significant superiority in infantry.Infantry it must be remembered becomes decisive only once armour achieves a breakthrough and mere superiority in infantry alone without relative superiority in armour cannot lead to a breakthrough.The only short cut to this situation was military talent in Indian higher commanders but this sadly although luckily for Pakistan was absent.Gul Hassan the Pakistani DMO and later C in C frankly admitted the fact that Pakistan enjoyed numericalsuperiority in tanks at Chawinda and that the Indian handling of armour was so poor that a sizeable part of Pakistani armour,which was readily available for action; was never even utilised at Chawinda right till ceasefire!Gul thus admitted the fact that the 1⁰ Pakistani Armoured Division was never fully committed at Chawinda..Gul thus wrote; "When it (1^5t Armoured Division) reached

Sialkot ,except for some of its units which were employed in panic,it remained uncommitted " ⁷⁶ .19 Lancers (except at Jassoran which was a minor affair keeping in view the casualties of 19 Lancers!) and 5 Horse were hardly utilised and the bulk of the fighting was done by just four armoured regiments!

These factors are sufficient to explode the myth that Chawinda was a miracle!On the other hand Gadgor fought on 8^th September 1965 was a miracle ;where the Pakistani 25 Cavalry under tremendous odds of nine to one and without the directions of any higher brigade or division headquarter did stop the Indian 1^° Armoured Division.This had a deeper connection with imperfection of human perception and irresolution at higher level than any superior or inferior level at squadron troop or tank commander level.The Indians fought with equal valour and the rot that led to their unheroic and disgraceful withdrawal on the fateful 8^'1'

September developed from brigade and division downwards!

Thank God that no Pakistani brigade or division was controlling 25 Cavalry in this battle I ⁷⁷

NO DIFFERENCE IN HIGHER AND MEDIUM LEVEL LEADESHIP AS FAR AS BOTH PAKISTAN AND INDIAN ARMIES WERE

CONCERNED

Leadership beyond battalion/regiment level was equally incompetent on both sides.All majorfailures on both sides had a far greater link with poor higher leadership than any enemy action.Thus the major reason for the Pakistani failure at Khem Karan was not Indian resistance but failure to concentrate maximum strength of the 1^° Armoured Division across Rohi Nala because of poor staff work and confused higher leadership.Similarly the major reason for the Indian failure at Chawinda was the fact that Commander I^° Indian Armoured Brigade lost his nerve without having employed one fourth of his available armour and meekly stopped both the Indian regiments from advancing on 8^th September and staying on the defensive on 9^th and 10'¹' September without any tangible reason!The other Indian failures at Chawinda from 11 to 18 September also had a direct link with a highly unimaginative and mediocre leadership who unnecessarily exhausted their troops in pointless frontal attacks at Chawind and surrounding villages.

Harbaksh Singh Abrar and Sarfaraz were some of the leaders who performed relatively better.Harbaksh Singh's resolution in face of demoralisation in 4 Mountain Division on 7^th and 8^th September and on 10^thSeptember when the Indian Chief asked him to readjust his position rearwards were

one of the most resolute decisions on the Indian side.Abrar's decision to stand at Chawinda despite advice to withdraw by some armour advisers was the finest operational decision on the Pakistani side for which Abrar was richly rewarded later by not being promoted! l0 Division also performed well and its counterattack on Li September was one of the

most bold feat of the war.

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF TROOPS ON BOTH SIDES ORANSWERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS ANYMAJOR INHERENT QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

INDIAN AND PAKISTANI TROOPS?

There is a myth in Pakistan that the Indian soldier was less brave because he was a Hindu than the Pakistani who was braver because he was a Muslim!The authors of this ridiculous assertion cited examples of many Indian units who disintegrated in face of fire in 1965 war or instances where the Indians performed poorly despite overwhelming numerical inferiority.The authors of these outwardly clever but essentially pedantic theories were either unaware of or simply disregarded certain essential facts of military history.Soldiering is a unique calling which asks those who follow it to put at stake the most precious or supposedly most precious fact of a man's existence i.e. human life itself!Abstract ideas like "Glory" "Heroism" "Nationalism" "Ideology" etc were employed with considerable success by kings generals leaders of all sorts on the other side aim at conditioning the human mind to regard survival of the individual as less important than collective ideals or vague concepts.The monotheistic religions brought the concept of life in the next world.Nationalism in Europe brought the concept of the state organised on ethnic lines .The French Revolution brought the concept of a secular ideology transcending race and langauge.Men fought and died for all sorts of ideas and this process has gone on since time immemorial.The essential problem of all armies throughout history has been "How to maintain an orderly military tactical formation in face of emotions of fear of death and horrible dismemberment as a result of the weapons of destruction of the post gunpowder discovery era".

"Discipline" was thus invented and this discipline based on abstract ideals including authority of civil institutions was the foundation of supremacy of the "Greek City States" and of the "Roman Republic". "Military Discipline"enabled the Roman Legions to defeat the otherwise impregnable savage tribes of east and west Europe and West Asia.

There never was an empire established for so long a period as the mighty Roman Empire!Once discipline decayed and military virtue was undermined the Romans were defeated first by Barbarians and much later by Arab Muslims when the Byzantines did not even have one tenth of the military prowess of the mighty Roman Empire.

The myth creation found in todays Pakistan was started by the early Arab Muslim historians who cited the defeat of the Romans by Arabs as triumphs of ideology!They ignored the fact that many Barbarian tribes had succeeded against the Romans long before the Arabs did and that even the Arabs could not defeat the Byzantines apart from wresting their eastern provinces from them!

Religion is an important factor in terms of morale but it is just one of the many factors among others like superior military leadership military organisation ,tactics ,equipment etc.As the lethality of weapons increased following the introduction of gunpowder as an important factor in armaments discipline in face of fire became a greater problem.Ardant du Picq not a great philosopher of war but a great philosopher of infantry combat summed the soldier's inner resolve as a feeling ; "Man does not enter battle to fight,but for victory.

He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second ".⁷⁸ Ardant gave certain basic principles like he said; "These contests generally lasted but a short time. With like morale ,the least fatigued always won ".¹⁹Ardant's principal achievement was singling out the fact that human nature at the bottom was essentially similar ; whether it was the "Calm English" "The Dashing French" or "The Russian stoicism".As modern weapons grew more destructive fighting became more expensive by virtue of much higher casualties and finally in the first world war many armies mutinied once the soldiers found that they were being aimlessly hurled against the enemy .

The reason was not that one race or men from one religion were less brave but because military efficiency was undermined by lack of faith in leaders or their tactical ability to led the rank and file to victory or at least in a reasonable manner whatsoever it was.The role of the officer in the European Armies of 18^th and 19^th Century became more important as means of destruction grew more powerful.Successfully standing enemy fire had a deeper link with good military tactics,sound leadership and intelligent utilisation of weapons than with race or religion.The same Hindus whose conduct was found by pedantic military observers like Brigadier GuIzar 'had fought much better under British officers.lf there

were inure instances of Indian units disintegrating under fire as was admitted by Indian commanders like Harbaksh Singh it was so because of situational factors and had no link with religion.

There were more such cases of units disintegrating and bolting from line of battle because the Indian Army resorted to infantry attack with much larger frequency than the Pakistanis.Units disintegrated mostly once under artillery fire and when in the open or when attacked by tanks and not yet in deliberate defence.That this happened more with Indian units was because the Indians were on the offensive on most fronts in the war and used their infantry with phenomenal inefficiency in attack.

Most of these cases occurred in the 15 Indian Division because they failed to concentrate at Dograi on 6^th September because of lack of darkness which is a pre requisite for infantry to dig in ,in order to go into deliberate defence.The best infantry of the world would disintegrate once attacked by artillery fire and when not dug in..Conversely it is literally impossible todislodge well dug in infantry supported by tanks and artillery.There were cases of demoralisation and units disintegrating of similar type in the Pakistan Army too..

According to Brigadier Z.A Khan there was a total morale breakdown in 6 Lancers when Colonel Sahibzad died and none of the other officers was willing to lead the unit.In the same area commanding officer of 24 Cavalry also collapsed because of strain of Indian shelling and his unit went out of control. ^8°

Such cases as a matter of fact had a more direct relation with human nature than with Islam or Hinduism!

Clausewitz recognised this most natural fear in man once he said ; "But wild as is the nature of War it still wears the chain of humanweakness,and the contradiction we see here,viz.that man seeks and creates dangers which he fears at the same time will astonish no one ".⁸¹

Thus troops on both sides fought equally well.Further both sides performed well in defence and poorly in attack.There were various reasons for this out of which the most important was the enormous destructive power of modern weapons .Military history proves that decisive victories or decisive breakthroughs were achieved in two broad sets of conditions .

Firstly in case of overwhelming numerical superiority and superiorairpower as was the case in allied battles against the axis powers in WW II,or because of a markedly superior way of warfare like the Blitzkrieg which enabled the Germans to win even in face of no numerical superiority or even parity.Here in the Indo Pak war none of the two conditions were present .Neither was one side having overwhelming numerical or material superiority and nor was any side having a superior operational philosophy Most attacks were defeated not by actual physical combat between the opposing infantry but by weight of artillery fire or by water obstacles .

We have the example of the Iran-Iraq war fought in between two third world countries where because of similar reasons two armies fighting for tenyears failed to achieve any decisive breakthrough but performed equally well in defence .

The reason for this phenomenon was not that one army was braver or one less brave but the fact that the immense rise in the lethality of modern munitions as well as mobility of forces made offensive operations more difficult and defensive operations easier where both sides did not have a decisive edge over each other either martially/numerically or by virtue of having a conceptually superior military organisation/doctrine.

Clausewitz the greatest philosopher of war singled out three factors which were the "Chief Moral Powers" of an army i.e. "Talents of the Commander" "The Military Virtue or Esprit de Corps of the Army" and "Its National Feeling".As far as "Talents of the Commanders" was concerned both the armies were equally handicaped.It appears that the "Military Virtue" of the Indian Army to some extent was undermined by the negative attitude of the Indian political leadership towards the army during the period 1947-62.Thus in 1962 when the Sino Indian conflict took place the Indian Army was poorly equipped specially as far as its infantry's basic weapon i.e. the rifle was concerned.After the war the Indian Army wasrapidly expanded and many units which fought the 1965 war were newly raised units.lt is incorrect to think that newly raised units are bad units.But there is no denying the fact that it is more difficult to train a newly raised unit and produce in it esprit de corps and mutual understanding than in an older unit.Some of the best units of the war on both sides were newly raised units like 25 Cavalry etc.This negative aspect may have slightly undermined the military virtue of the Indian Army as a whole.The Pakistan Army on the other hand had a smaller number of newly raised units than the Indian Army and concentration was on acquiring sophisticated equipment thanks to US aid rather than on new raisings.The typical Pakistani myth that the Hindus were less brave was false.A truer explanation which explains some Indian failures at unit level as far as military cohesion in face of fire;a case of lack of military virtue ;which was the result of a political leadership's negative attitude towards the army during the period 1947-62 and was bound to affect any army in a similarly adverse manner regardless of religion.Clausewitz offered some advice about fostering military virtue,he said; "This sprit can only be generated from two sources,and only by these two conjointly;the first is a succession of campaigns and great victories;the other is an activity of the Army carried sometimes to the highest pitch.Only by these the soldiers learns to know his powers.

The more a

General is in the habit of demanding from his troops,the surer he will be that his demands will be answered.The soldier is as proud of overcoming toil as he is of surmounting danger.Therefore it is only in the soil of incessant activity and exertion that the germ will thrive,but also only in the sunshine ofvictory.Once it becomes a strong tree,it will stand against the fiercest storms of misfortune and defeat,and even against the indolent activity of peace,at least for a time" . ⁸²

The fact that the same people qualified as martial races by many Pakistani hi storians,were ruled by the qualitatively superior Sikhs who were just a ten percent minority minority from 1799-1849 proves that martial fervour had much lesser relation with both race or religion and a much greater link with peculiar situational circumstances including the net psycho-social historical experiences of a particular community.

Thus both sides performed equally well in defence in own territory and equally poorly in offence in enemy territory.Thus Pakistanis did well in defence inside own territory with the safety of BRB acting as a force multiplier or at Chawinda where parity in tanks and superior artillery led to Indian failure in achieving a breakthrough-The initial reason for success of Grand Slam was local numerical/material superiority particularly in tanks which were both more numerous and more technically superior ,at the decisive point combined with superior artillery made further more lethal by dynamic leadership of Akhtar Malik while the pace of advance slowed down later when the Indians brought in two more brigades.Tbe Indians performed well in defence at Assal Uttar but poorly when again tasked to resume offensive operations in Khem Karan after withdrawal of Pakistani 1'^tArmoured Division after 12 September.Pakistanis who did well in defence similarly performed equally poorly when in offensive role at Khem Karan during the period 7-10 September.Offensive operations required more executive competence in officers and this was lacking in both the armies-Defence was simple as an operation and thus easier to execute-Offensive operations to be successful required ,a capacity to act decisively without waiting for orders,something which was beyond the potential of the orders oriented Indian and Pakistan Armies!This was not something just peculiar to the subcontinent but a tendency found in plenty in many armies all over the world including many European armies.Thus Montgomery after Alamein,despite all the overwhelming numerical and material superiority that he enjoyed, decided in favour of cautious advance rather than quick advance because he thought that, the standard of training of the Eighth Army formations was such that he was not prepared to loose them headlong into the enemy-In words of an eminent British military analyst Captain Miller "Montgomery knew that he could not risk handling his divisions with the boldness expected of a German commander" and that "British seniorcommanders,painfully aware of the executive weakness of their staffs and subordinates,could never confidently run comparable operational risks".⁸³ If this was the condition of the army of a more advanced European country,due allowance has to be given to both the Indo Pak armies fighting a war involving tanks and quick movements with little leadership tradition in the officer rank and poor staff procedures and an unimaginative battle doctrine.

Coming back to the highly erroneous and essentially fallacious view that prevails in Pakistan that the Pakistani troops (Particularly those from north of Chenab river ) were intrinsically more brave than the Hindus!There was no racial difference racially between the two armies and religion has little connection with individual bravery or even the military virtues of an army as a group.

The races that inhabited Pakistan had no connection with Muslim invaders of India except in having a common religion.In any case India was invaded by many invaders before the Muslims who conquered India despite being non Muslim !So being Muslim was not the governing factor but being from north of Hindu Kush may be classified as a common factor!

However hard Shaukat Riza may have tried to prove that the ancestors of Pakistan's soldiers were Arab Mongol or Turkish the the fact remains all the races that constituted the Pakistan Army had no connection with invaders of India.Even the Pathans had little connection with the last predator from thenorth i.e. Ahmad Shah Abdali since most of Ahmad's army was recruited from Pathan territories outside Pakistan.

This settles the first ridiculous assertion!We have already seen how the Punjabis became a martial race or came to be classified as a martial race!This had less to do with proven fighting qualities as far as the Punjabi Muslims were concerned (The Sikhs by on ground military achievements from 1700-1849 had proved that they were the most martial race of the entire region India-Afghanistan) and more to do with reliability and availability of eligible manpower at a time when the British were challenged by the most formidable armed insurrection in India.The second question i.e. whether the Muslims of the areas inhabiting Pakistan were more brave than the Hindus or any non Muslims in the Indian Army is not difficult to resolve.In the first place individual bravery has nothing to do with race or religion.We are left with collective bravery or group cohesion in face of fire.This has to do with a large number of factors out of

which motivation based on some idea may be

Nationalism.,Ideology both based on religion or based on

other secular beliefs like socialism communism

etc,Regimental spirit etc,is just one of the many

factors.The other factors being common historical

experience,quality of

leadership,training,doctrine ,doctrine,operational

strategy,organisation etc.Man can fight for anything and

the important fact here is not whether what he is fighting

for is essentially Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or

Buddhism or Nationalism or Communism but the

intensity with which he believes in it and is willing to

sacrifice his life for it.Thus there may be the case of a

more motivated communist army against Muslims or a

more motivated Hindu Army against Muslims or vice

versa but nothing else.A simple quantitative way of

comparing relative performance of Hindus Muslims Sikhs etc

is their performance in the pre 1947 British Indian

Army.At least 50 % of the fighting arms in that army on the

average were Muslims.We will compare combat

performance at random by studying the figures of the

religious groups awarded the Victoria Cross for which the Indians became eligible from 1911.⁸⁵

It is important to keep

this year in mind since we have already discussed that by

1911 the Indian Army was a Punjabi dominated army in

with fighting arms that had at least 50 % Muslims from

Punjab and Frontier in their total strength.The contention

before us is whether the non Muslim soldier of the Indian

Army ,was less brave than a Muslim soldier and in

particular

the Punjabi Muslim who constituted three fourth of the

fighting arms of the Pakistan Army as well as the Pathan

Muslim who constituted the second largest ethnic group

in the fighting arms of the Pakistan Army.

We will examine the number of Victoria Crosses awarded

to both Muslim as well as non Muslim soldiers in the

Indian Army.We will exclude Gurkhas,who although

Hindu by religion , were a small part of Indian Army

infantry in 1965.In principle at least 50 % or 40 % of the

Victoria Crosses awarded to the Indian Army in the period

1911-1945 should have gone to the Muslims in general

since they were more than 40 % of fighting arms of Indian

Army with at least 45 to 50 % representation in the

fighting arms.Further more than three fourth of these

Victoria Crosses should have gone to the Punjabi Muslims

who were more than three fourth of the total Muslim

fighting arm component in the period 1911-45.We are

only interested in ascertaining whether these figures prove

that the non Muslims were less brave or equally brave.

The following table may enable the dispassionate reader in arriving at some conclusions:-‑

ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OFINDIAN RE

CIPIENTS OF VICTORIA CROSS FROM THE INDIAN ARMY-1911-1945 ⁸⁶

RELIGIOUS GROUP	WORLD WAR ONE	WORLD WAR TWO	TOTAL
GURKHA-HINDU	2	10	12
SIKH	1	3	4
HINDU -INDIAN	4	9	13
MUSLIM	2	4	6
TOTAL	9	26	35
NOTE:--This table may not be wholly correct but is		the result of going through various books

Note-86 Some of the figures or facts are based on the authors' approximate personal assessment.

None of these figures prove that the Punjabi Muslims or Pathans were braver than Hindus or Punjabi Sikhs.The Hindu percentage in the fighting arms in the Indian Army in WW One was approximately half of that of Muslims but Hindus got four Victoria Crosses as against two Muslim VCs and two of these were from Garhwal which was not part of Punjab,while the third was again a non Punjabi from Rajputana.

The fourth Hindu in WW One was a Punjabi Hindu Dogra.This Clearly illustrates that bravery had no connection with being from Punjab or being a Hindu or a Muslim!

Something which may be equated with blasphemy in Pakistan,but all the same true!The same is true for WW Two.It is absolutely ridiculous to equate religion or ethnic origin with valour!

To conclude and wind up this most ridiculous controversy propagated in both the countries by superficial historians and in Pakistan in particular by men like Brigadier Gulzar and Altaf Gauhar ; a closer and more dispassionate examination of the various battles reveals that the differences in unit performance in both sides had a far more closer link with situational factors than with religion or race which although relatively important were not as important as many other factors like the "particular tactical situation","personality of the higher commanders", nature of operation whether "attack or defence". Material or numerical factors like number of men ,tanks,guns and quality of equipment played a relatively significant role but again this too depended on the quality of higher leadership and doctrine.Some units like 3 Jat 25 Cavalry 7 Punjab (Pakistani) etc performed outstandingly well but their successes depended more on the situational factors listed above than on which country they hailed from.

There were some general tactical rules of the thumb which

explained all successes and failures like "Infantry Attack

against an enemy in deliberate defence whether behind a

natural obstacle or artificial obstacle reasonably well

supported by artillery and armour was a far more

difficult operation as far as likelihood of success was

concerned ; than lets say an attack mounted by one side

while both sides were in the process of advancing and

the enemy attacked was not in deliberate defence as was

the case in Khem Karan when both the Indian and

Pakistani troops were attacking each other

simultaneously on 6th September.The same Pakistani

troops found it more difficult to dislodge the same

Indian infantry division once it occupied deliberately

defended infantry positions at Assal-Uttar.Similarly the

same Indian division found it difficult to dislodge the

Pakistanis in the same area afterl2th September once the

Indians attacked Khem Karan later to evict the

Pakistanis out of Khem Karan. This explains the 4 Sikh

and 2 Mahar fiasco of 12th September.The only major

breakthrough of the war achieved during Grand Slam

can also be similarly explained.

The Pakistanis achieved

total surprise,possessed six to one superiority in

tanks ,were

well led and were not impeded by any natural

obstacle.Their failure to maintain their initial impetus

had a

far greater connection with Ayub and Musa's hesitation

out of fear of provoking India into starting a full scale war

which resulted in delaying the progress of the operation

hidden under the pretext of change of

command.Another rule of the thumb in all unit actions

was the fact that no major breakthrough was achieved

both sides once surprise was lost.Yet another rule of the

thumb was the fact that the enemy was defeated not by

direct physical assault but by mental dislocation.

Thus 3 Jat's success at Dograi ; which was well executed by an

otherwise excellent unit ; had more to do with a brilliant

plan involving attack from the flank ,and absence of

Pakistani tanks .

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61839666/Indo-Pak-Wars-A-Pictorial-History

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21686885/TALIBAN-WAR-IN-PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN-A-WRITERS-PERCEPTIONS-FROM-2001-TO-2011

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22457862/Military-Decision-making-and-leadership

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22151765/History-of-Pakistan-Army-from-1757-to-1971-PRINTING-ENABLED-Do-acknowledge-to-the-author

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22455178/Letters-to-Command-and-Staff-College-Quetta-Citadel-Journal

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150027/Pakistan-Army-through-eyes-of-Pakistani-Generals

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23701412/War-of-Independence-of-1857

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22107238/HISTORY

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21693873/Indo-Pak-Wars-1947-71-A-STRATEGIC-AND-OPERATIONAL-ANALYSIS-BY-A-H-AMIN-THIS-BOOK-CAN-BE-PRINTED-FROM-THIS-SITE

UN Report: NATOs Libya War Armed al-Qaeda

2012-01-31T21:57:00.001-08:00

http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/10694-un-report-natos-libya-war-armed-al-qaeda

__._,_.___

Let the Games Begin-CIAs War Against China Steps up !

2012-01-31T21:39:00.001-08:00

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/china-tibet-idINDEE81003I20120201

FROM MY DEAR FRIEND BRIGADIER AJAB KHAN

THE ARTICLE IS HIGHLY OVER EXAGGERATED AS FAR AS ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THESE COMMANDOS IN 1971 IS CONCERNED.

AGHA.H.AMIN

An interesting unknown or little known facet of 1971 war in East Pakistan.

PHANTOM WARRIORS OF 1971: UNSUNG TIBETAN GUERRILLAS

By Manas Paul

13 Dec 2010

Dapon Dhondup Gyatotsang (left) and Dapon Ratu Ngawang (right). (@ Amnye Machen Institute)

Forty years ago in 1971 on a cool and scary November 14 night in Chittagong a Pakistani sniper of Special Service Group perched silently on his hidden location near his camp felt he saw a 'phantom'. The days were then uncertain and nights were too risky. So, the Pakistani soldier did not take any chance and opened fire. And the shadowy creatures just melted away in the darkness. One among them was, however, dying. He was shot at fatally. The Pakistani soldier did not know that he had just killed one of the toughest and CIAtrained Tibetan guerrilla leaders- Dhondup Gyatotsang. As Gyatotsang- a 'Dapon' or Brigadier in Tibetan language- died his comrades, all armed simply with a Bulgarian AK 47 and their Tibetan knives, made radio contact with a turbaned Sikh some kilometres away and across the border. The Sikh barked at them the order : carry on with the task you are assigned to. As the order came the Tibetan guerrillas once again spread in the darkness and coiled up behind the Pakistani barracks and posts .They remained as shadow as long as they wanted and when the right time came they just struck with a lightning speed raiding the Pak positions. One after another Pakistani posts fell as the Tibetans, who by this gained the title 'Phantom of Chittagong', swept the hills and valleys of the hilly district of East Pakistan and restrained the Pakistani military movement to only small pockets. Weeks before the real War actually broke on December 3 the Tibetan guerrillas turned Chittagong virtually a free zone with pre-emptive strikes for Indian army movement. On December 16, 1971 when Pakistan army surrendered, the Tibetan commandos were only 40 kms from the Chittagong Port. By this time they had successfully accomplished their task that their chief-Inspector General- Maj. Gen

Sujan Singh Uban had assigned to them: The Operation Mountain Eagle. They had, however, lost 49 of their comrades and had 190 injured.

Ratu Ngawang (far left), former brigadier of Establishment 22, escorted the Dalai Lama (right) on his way to India in 1959. Seen here with Sujan Singh Uban (2nd from right), the first inspector-general of the regiment, in Chakrata, India, 1972. (© Hindustan Times)

'Operation Mountain Eagle' launched by RAW in East Pakistan during 1971 Indo-Pak War was, perhaps, till date the most closely guarded and top most secret operation of Indian authorities in the eastern flank of the war areas. Officially the operation could not be recognised as the Tibetan guerrilla force- known as Special Frontier Force (SFF) or Establishment-22 or simply called 'two-two'- does not officially exists. The name it got from the fact that their first commander ( at the rank of Inspector General) Maj. Gen Sujan Singh Uban had once commanded 22 Mountain brigade. Since their inception in November, 1962, the Establishment22's direct engagement in Indo-Pak war is also significant for the mere fact that it was not their 'war' at all. They were fighting for the cause of their host country and for liberation of another country- not for Tibet. But never their sacrifice was officially or publicly recognized- neither by India nor by Bangladesh till today.

Formation of top secret force, Two-Two:

At the end of the 1962 Indo-China war the then Intelligence Bureau chief Bholanath Mullick took the initiative to form a special guerrilla force from the Tibetan youths who had been sheltered in India. Some documents indicate that former Chief Minister of Orissa Biju Patnaik had first come up with the idea while he was closely working with the CIA at the behest of Indian authorities in setting up of air surveillance ARC in Charbatia in his home state. Patnaik, a daredevil pilot with vast experience in several covert operations, according to Kenneth Conboy who authored an authoritative book on CIA operations relating to Tibet, wanted to raise a resistance force by the Tibetans in Assam .However, the IB continued with the plan which ultimately materialized with the help of Chu Shi Gandruk, main organization of the Khampa rebels and CIA.

The Dalai Lama and Maj. Gen. Uban inspect the SFF at Chakrata, June 1972 (The CIA's Secret War in Tibet).

Following the green signal from the Cabinet secretariat the Special Frontier Force or Establishment 22 or was formed on November 14, 1962.

According to the plan the force would formed with the Khampa rebels from 'Chu Shi Gandruk' –and most of them would be brought from CIA run overflowing Mustang base in Nepal that housed as many as 2032 members. The force would be handled and trained by the IB at their Chakrata base near Dehra Dun. The CIA would provide all other supports for their training and related matters.

CIA had first trained the Khampa rebels in Saipan in 1957 March and then Camp Hale in Colorado for guerrilla warfare so that they could be dropped in Tibet for sabotage against the Chinese. The operation under the code name of 'ST Circus' was first headed by a US marine Roger McCarthy. They trained in several batches about 259 Tibetan guerrillas. The CIA had also dropped some of them inside Tibet for sabotage and intelligence gathering.

"A formation agreement was signed in 1962. The parties to this formation agreement were the Indian Intelligence Service, the CIA and Chushi Gangdruk. General Gonpo Tashi and Jago Namgyal Dorjee, signed this three-party joint formation agreement on behalf of Chushi Gangdruk. Our organization took main responsibility for recruiting, and an initial strength of 12,000 men, mostly Khampas, were recruited at Chakrata, Dehra-dun, UP. Chushi Gangdruk sent two of the commanders to this new outfit to be political leaders in the initial stage", said Dokham Chushi Gandruk, a Tibetan organization fighting for the Tibetan cause.

Gyalo Thondup, elder brother of the Dalai Lama met the Khampas in Mustang. Konboy said, 'Gyalo also sought four political leaders who could act as the force's indigenous officer cadre....an initial contingent of Tibetans, led by Jamba Kalden, was dispatched to the hill town of Dehra Dun'.

"Our organization took main responsibility for recruiting, and an initial strength of 12,000 men, mostly Khampas, were recruited at Chakrata, Dehra-dun, UP. Chushi Gangdruk sent two of the commanders to this new outfit to be political leaders in the initial stage. Established under the direct supervision of the prime minister, the unit was named the Special Frontier Force... the unit was meant to be air-dropped into Tibet in the event of another war in the Tibetan frontiers", wrote Dokham Chushi Gandruk.

Soon, the CIA, sent eight of its advisers on a six-month temporary duty assignment. The team was led by a veteran CIA operative in several covert and deadly campaigns Wayne Sanford who was recipient of two Purple Hearts. "He was acting undercover from US Embassy as special assistant to Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith", wrote Konboy.

The USA provided all the weaponry to them mostly M-1, M-2 and M-3 machine guns. As the covert guerrilla force was raised Maj General Sujan Singh Uban was assigned the task to command them as their Inspector General. The SFF ultimately came to be known as 'Establishment 22' or simply 'Two-two'. The name it got from the fact that Maj. Gen Uban had once commanded 22 Mountain brigade. Interestingly, the guerrilla forces cap insignia was designed as if it was '12th Gorkha' regiment-crossed khukri with '12' on top. This was a deception tactics as at that time there were only 11 Gorkha regiments, seven regiments were with Indian army and four with the British after independence. It was so decided to confuse common people, in case of meeting the guerrillas, with Gorkhas as the facial features were same.

Major General Sujan Singh Uban

For next several years both Indian army, MARCOS, IB and CIA trained the guerrillas with special focus on para-trooping and sabotage as well as intelligence collection it was kept in mind that in case of another war with China they would be pressed into service. Some of the Camp Hale trained Tibetans were also included in the Establishment 22 and they held senior positions. They ultimately became one of best ever guerrilla forces of the world efficient in both land and water campaigns. While the 'Establishment 22' was commanded by Maj. Gen Uban, the guerrillas had their own political representatives and 'Dapon'- a position equivalent to 'Brigadier'- mostly held by first generation Camp Hale trained guerrillas.

The Dalai Lama was aware of the formation of the guerrilla force since the beginning but He and his Dharamshala officials always maintained a distance from them neither supporting nor opposing the Indian initiative. But according to some, Jawhar Lal Nehru had once visited the guerrillas in Charkatha and was impressed by their training and discipline. The Dalai lama also had visited them once but it was much later.

Until late 1960 the CIA officials had kept relations with the Establishment 22 at various levels, but since 1968 their connections with the Tibetan guerrillas both in Mustang and Charkatha started thinning. CIA link with Charkatha completely died out in 1970s. The USA under Richard Nixon tilted towards Pakistan and also developed secret negotiations with China as Indo-Pakistan war seemed imminent.

Operation Mountain Eagle:

Since the RAW headed by R N Kau was created on 21 September, 1968 the responsibility of the Establishment 22 also went to the agency. But their chief Maj Gen Uban had been worried at the way the trained commandos -as many as 64 companies, divided into eight battalions having six companies each and including other support units- were gathering moss in their Charkatha camps. They were not used against China or Pakistan for any real armed combat and the IG was worried that inaction and absence of field operations might reduce the morale and capabilities.

SFF members during the Bangladesh campaign, 1971

It was at that time the East Pakistan went up in flames with Pakistan army resorting to large scale massacres and rape on March 25, 1971 as 'Operation Searchlight'. Two days later Major Zia Ur Rehman- a Bengali military officer with the Pakistan army announced 'independence' in Chittagong radio and attacked the Pakistani army cantonment. Within a day, many more military officers followed and millions of refugees poured into India to flee the Pakistani Army's massacres and rapes. India was playing the card well and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was successful in garnering massive international support, barring USA and China of course, for the brutalized East Pakistani Bengali population. By this time Mukti Bahini was formed from the refugee youths sheltered in Indian states for launching guerrilla wars and intelligence collections inside East Pakistan against the Pakistani forces. The idea was to create a pre-emptive strike force before the Indian regular army moved in after the rainy season was over.

Incidentally, Maj Gen Uban was entrusted with the overall task for training of the Bengali forces like Mukti Bahini, Mujib Bahini.

Maj Gen Uban did not miss the chance and moved New Delhi to send his Tibetan forces to East Pakistan who, according to him were already better trained and itching for an operation. After initial hesitation Indira Gandhi was agreed to use the Tibetans for a third country cause, but sent the ball to the court of the Tibetans only.

Writes Tashi Dhundup, in article titled ' Not their own Wars', " Indira Gandhi in the lead-up to the SFF's deployment, Indira Gandhi wired a message to the Tibetan fighters, conveyed through their Indian commander: "We cannot compel you to fight a war for us," Gandhi wrote, "but the fact is that General A A K Niazi (the Pakistan Army commander in East Pakistan) is treating the people of East

Pakistan very badly. India has to do something about it. In a way, it is similar to the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans in Tibet, we are facing a similar situation. It would be appreciated if you could help us fight the war for liberating the people of Bangladesh."

Following the letter the senior commanders of the Establishment 22 guerrillas discussed and agreed to help the Bengalis of East Pakistan to achieve their new nation Bangladesh.

The Operation Mountain Eagle was launched in a second cool November night, apparently avoiding the Eastern Command directly by the RAW.

It was sometime in October third week of 1971 that one of the most top secret armed campaigns against the Pakistan army in East Pakistan the Operation Mountain Eagle was launched quietly launched. More than 3000 Tibetan commandos from Establishment- 22 were dropped at an obscure and extreme border village Demagiri in Mizoram. The Indian secret services used AN 12 plane from the ARC to bring the guerrillas by night sorties. Demagiri which was located across the river Karnafulli and Chittagong Hill Tracts in East Pakistan was by that time was crowded with refugees. The Tibetan stayed incognito with the refugees for sometimes and then began small hit-and-run raids in East Pakistan. They would cross the river and, strike a Pakistani force and return to Demagiri. In second week of November, 1971, the Tibetan guerrillas led by Dapon Dhondup Gyatotsang crossed the river using nine canoes went inside East Pakistan to launch a decisive guerrilla campaign. Since the Establishment 22 or SFF does not officially exist, Indian authorities to deny any complicity in any eventuality gave them Bulgarian AK 47s instead of Russian ones. On the very first night they ran over a Pakistani post. Within hours next morning they captured one more and they kept on sweeping and then stopped- for sometime- when their Dapon was shot dead. But again, they swung into action.

The task to Establishment 22 were clear: blow up Kaptai dam, damage the Pakistani military positions and kill as many as Pak soldiers- at that time popularly called as 'Khan Sena' possible, destroy the bridges, military infrastructures, and restrain the Pakistani military movement. Divided in three columns their hit and run modus operandi and the task specified were to create a situation that when the Indian army would move , they could march through the Chittagong hills and plains without much resistance from the Pakistanis.

According to the specialists on the subject the Establishment guerrillas were extremely successful in their campaign. It that time Pakistani 97th Independent Brigade and their 2nd commando battalion of SSG were positioned strategically in Chittagong. The guerrillas successfully restrained them in their respective positions and also cut off all the routes that the Pakistani soldiers thought of opening towards Burma. In fact the Pakistani soldiers were seeing ghosts in all the shadows and they were fighting against merciless ghosts who were always on the

prowl, would swoop down from nowhere and mercilessly eliminate the humans and destroy the posts and would immediately vanish for their next target. Within one month of their operations, the Tibetan guerrillas virtually cleaned up the Chittagong and when the Indian army moved in they did not face much resistance at all.

"About one-third of its full strength was developed adjacent to the Chittagong Hill Tracts as Mukti Bahini. They captured many towns and garrisons in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in continuous fighting of about one month", according to Dhokma Chushi Gangdruk.

In fact Maj Ge Uban and his guerrillas were keen to capture the Chittagong Port. They were very close and Pakistan army were not at all in a position to stop them. But Indian military and other authorities were not ready to assign them with the task as , though it would have been easier for the guerrillas to capture the Port, to keep it under their control they would have needed heavy artillery weapons-which they did not have with them.

According to a document, when the Chittagong Port was captured by Indian military, the guerrillas were then asked to sit quiet at about 40 kms away. However, on December 16 when Pakistan army surrendered in Dhaka, the Phantoms of Establishment -22 for the first time in their history, came out in the open on the Chittagong road rejoicing the victory of India over Pakistan. Not the common people were stunned by their sudden appearance -happy and rejoicing- virtually from nowhere, even many of the Indian soldiers who were also not aware of their presence in the vicinity were taken by surprise. But soon Maj Gen Uban was informed about the public appearance of the Tibetans on Chittagong roads and he just barked them back to shadows once again. They were never seen again. Their happy moment in the public was only for some hours.

Though the Tibetan guerrillas were arguably the main force that played key role in Chittagong in 1971 war,- sacrificed 49 ( according to Tibetans' estimate 56) including one of their top leader and 190 injured, they could not be Officially awarded.

"The Indian government gave awards to 580 members of the force for their active involvement and bravery in the battles. The contribution made by Establishment 22 in liberating East Pakistan was great and the price paid by the force was also high", said Dokham Chusi Gandruk, the New York based organization.

It then added: (The fight and sacrifice) would have been of great value had it been used against communist China, the intended enemy....The SFF never had a chance of being used in operations against its intended enemy, Red China, but it was used against East Pakistan with the consent of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 1971".

It is, however, a different story that the Establishment 22 was later used in many Indian operations including in Operation Blue Star, Siachen, Kargil. They are also being used a main anti terrorist operators in many parts of the country. According to a report, in between Indira Gandhi's assassination and formation of SPG, it was these Establishment 22 commandos who were in charge of Gandhi family's close protection. But in all the cases down the decades they remained unsung heroes- the 'unknown' warriors from a different country who fought and sacrificed for others.

Post Script : PHATOM FIGHTERS OF 1971 : UNSUNG TIBETAN GUERRILLAS is virtually an untold story of a top secret mission. A very handful of people including some foreign journalists who were in touch with Tibetans are aware of the operations. Many of the military generals including Gen JFR Jacob or Maj gen SS Uban who commanded the force did not dwell extensively on them but obliquely referred. So it is virtually revisiting a mission that was intended to be kept Top secret. Picture is taken from internet.

Source: http://www.tibetsun.com/archive/2010/12/13/phantom-warriors-of-1971-unsung-tibetan-guerillas/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61839666/Indo-Pak-Wars-A-Pictorial-History

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21686885/TALIBAN-WAR-IN-PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN-A-WRITERS-PERCEPTIONS-FROM-2001-TO-2011

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22457862/Military-Decision-making-and-leadership

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22151765/History-of-Pakistan-Army-from-1757-to-1971-PRINTING-ENABLED-Do-acknowledge-to-the-author

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22455178/Letters-to-Command-and-Staff-College-Quetta-Citadel-Journal

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150027/Pakistan-Army-through-eyes-of-Pakistani-Generals

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23701412/War-of-Independence-of-1857

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22107238/HISTORY

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21693873/Indo-Pak-Wars-1947-71-A-STRATEGIC-AND-OPERATIONAL-ANALYSIS-BY-A-H-AMIN-THIS-BOOK-CAN-BE-PRINTED-FROM-THIS-SITE