Indian Strategic Studies

9 February 2015

The Postmodern Autocrat's Handbook

By Robert D. Kaplan

The concept of dictatorship is badly in need of revision. The old model of remote tyrants inflicting arbitrary, often eccentric, edicts on their cowed or indoctrinated subjects, with few constraints on their behavior and few threats to their survival, no longer applies. North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Syria's Bashar al-Assad are two of the few remaining exceptions to a positive trend that stretches from the rubble of the Reichstag and the Berlin Wall to the drainage culvert that was the last redoubt of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi. Yet large and critical swaths of the earth still feature dictatorial rulers, for whom we need a new model.

This new model must be based on a clear understanding about the rise of public opinion, which now matters more to dictators than it does even to democrats. Democratic rulers have only elections to lose if they miscalculate public opinion. Today's autocrats, on the other hand, risk their lives, their power structures, families, assets and loyal advisers if they don't satisfy their publics.

Poor information once led to self-justifying delusions on the part of dictators, who tended to assume exaggerated levels of popular support. Today, thanks to the refinement of scientific polling and the ubiquitous penetration of social media and digital devices, public mood need not be assumed; it can be known, by the day, if not by the hour. Moreover, after witnessing the fall of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring, 21st-century autocrats know all too well that they can be replaced. That combination of hard truths can be a powerful constraint on dictatorial behavior.

This dilution of authoritarianism is part of a global transition to more democracy, one that will take time. Yet there are dangers to the rise of public opinion in autocracies as well. Publics (as well as media) can be more nationalistic and more populist than those who govern them. Wars may start because of how publics push nonelected rulers to act based on nationalism and militarism, even if it is self-defeating.

Just look, for instance, at China.

Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping must contend with social media and a policy elite that are fiercely nationalistic about depredations against China by the West and Japan in the late-19th and 20th centuries. This widespread, deep-seated feeling of grievance encourages more aggressive posturing in disputes over territories in the South and East China seas.

Coffee, Wi-Fi And The Moon

By Nikolas Katsimpras

The following story by Nikolas Katsimpras was the winner of the Art of Future Warfare project “Great War” war-art challenge that called for a front-page style dispatch from the outbreak of the next major global conflict.

CLICK! CLACK! DING! After more than 40 years, the vintage thumping sound of dusty Underwood, Olivetti and Remington typewriters filled, once again, the New York Gazette editorial room. Looking down the rows of desks, the gloomy floor is filled with the flickering light of hundreds of candles bouncing off the lifeless, pitch-black computer screens.

Today is the 24th day of continuous blackouts in New York, Washington DC, Moscow and hundreds more cities worldwide. It is considered to be only the beginning of a spiraling conflict. Who could have imagined though, that the greatest escalation of the 21st century might have started with a single cup of coffee?

On that fateful morning of May 4th, Russian President Vladimir Putin passed with his entourage in front of the Starbucks located at Ohotnyy Ryad Street, just walking distance from Kremlin. Putin’s fourth term could eventually have broken the twenty year presidency mark, had he not died the minute he stepped foot inside the store. For the first time in weeks, new information has emerged shedding light to the burning questions of what has transpired since.

The initial estimations of the cause of death involved complications due to Putin’s heart operation at the Moscow Cardiological Center in 2019, about a year after the elections. However, GRU, Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate, almost instantly accused the US of having interfered with Putin’s pacemaker.

STRATCOM CHIEF: US MUST MAINTAIN SPACE DOMINANCE

By Jim Garamone

FEBRUARY 7, 2015

The space domain is changing, and the U.S. military must remain ahead of these changes to maintain the nation’s military dominance, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command said.

Navy Adm. Cecil D. Haney spoke at a Peter Huessy Breakfast Series seminar sponsored by the Air Force Association, the Reserve Officers Association and the National Defense Industrial Association.

The playing field in space is changing, and not always to the advantage of nations that are peaceful and have democratic governments, Haney said. “Today, our nation is dealing with a global security environment that is more complex, dynamic and volatile than at any time in our history,” he added.

The security environment features multiple actors operating across all domains. Many actors challenge U.S. democratic values in many ways, the admiral said.

Tensions With Nation States, Ungoverned Environments

“In addition to significant tensions involving nation states,” Haney told the audience, “we are in an environment that is flanked with numerous ungoverned or ineffectively governed areas that are breeding grounds for bad actors and violent extremist organizations.” These groups, he added, also use space and cyberspace to recruit and spread propaganda — including misinformation — in support of their causes.

“Perhaps of greater concern, however, is the proliferation of these emerging strategic capabilities attempting to limit our decision and maneuver space that ultimately impacts strategic stability,” Haney said.

Social mobility barely exists but let’s not give up on equality

by David Cameron

4 February 2015

We live surrounded by inequality. Some have wealth, health, education, satisfying occupations. Others get poverty, ill-health and drudgery. The Conservative reaction, personified , is to promote social mobility and meritocracy.

History shows this will fail to increase mobility rates. Given that social mobility rates are immutable, it is better to reduce the gains people make from having high status, and the penalties from low status. The Swedish model of compressed inequality is a realistic option, the American dream of rapid mobility an illusion.

How do we know we cannot change the rate of social mobility? One piece of evidence is what happened to social mobility rates as England moved from the pre-industrial world of squire and servant, to the modern noisy meritocracy of the rude boys of finance. What happened as the political franchise was extended in the early 19th century? What happened as mass public education was introduced later in the century? What happened as education, healthcare and pensions for the poor were financed by taxation of the incomes of the wealthier? The answer is that social mobility remained at its slow pre-industrial pace. Tracking the status of rare surnames across generations we can measure social mobility rates for wealth and education in England from 1670 to 2012. The descendants of earlier elites only become average after about 10 generations, or 300 years. Status persists as strongly in the Cameron meritocracy as in pre-industrial England. Lineage is destiny. At birth, most of your social outcome is predictable from your family history.

An illustration of the power of lineage even in modern England comes even from the first names children receive at birth. Naming your daughter Jade means she has one hundredth the chance of attending Oxford as a girl whose parents chose for her Eleanor. Similarly for Bradley versus Peter.

Is this just the survival of sclerotic olde England, where the dead hand of the past exercises an especially powerful grip? No. The modern US has rates of social mobility that are no higher than those of England. Elites and underclasses endure just as strongly as in the UK.

Moving From Axis to Access of Evil

07/02/2015

LONDON -- In the fall of 2012, aboard a retired aircraft carrier permanently docked on the west side of Manhattan, I listened as then-United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta delivered one of the most chilling speeches I have ever heard. To a roomful of leading CEOs and military leaders, Panetta spoke about the new cyber threats faced by civilized society and the many ways in which America's adversaries could use computer networks to spread panic, paralyze the country and inflict mass casualties.

"Let me explain how this could unfold," he said. "An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches. They could, for example, derail passenger trains or, even more dangerous, trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.

"The most destructive scenarios," he continued, "involve cyber actors launching several attacks on our critical infrastructure at one time, in combination with a physical attack on our country. ... The collective result of these kinds of attacks could be a cyber-Pearl Harbor, an attack that would cause physical destruction and loss of life. In fact, it would paralyze and shock the nation and create a new, profound sense of vulnerability."

Those words echoed again for me with today's news that a mammoth breach of data occurred last month at America's second-largest health insurer, Anthem. The attack, which authorities have linked to Chinese hackers, reportedly pilfered the birthdays, Social Security numbers, email addresses and home addresses of 80 million customers and employees. This comes on the heels of a series of cybercrimes that have recently ricocheted through headlines -- from the vicious attack that sought to destroy Sony's computer network to the more benign hacking of the YouTube and Twitter accounts of the U.S Central Command by somebody claiming links to the Islamic State.

While Panetta's fears have thankfully not yet been realized, it's time to acknowledge that cyberwar is a greater threat to the U.S. today than more traditional forms of terrorism. If the first 15 years of the 21st century were defined by the so-called Axis of Evil -- the phrase George W. Bush applied to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in the days after 9/11 for their support of terrorists -- the next 15 years will likely be defined by the Access of Evil, as state and non-state cyberterrorists use technology to bypass our defenses in ways that damage businesses, lives, and nations.

Is Unrestricted Internet Access a Modern Human Right?

BY DAVID ROTHKOPF

FEBRUARY 2, 2015

National constitutions are supposed to enshrine fundamental rights for everyone — and for generations. Such documents are also products of moments in time and reflect perceptions of life in those moments. That’s why the best of them, like the U.S. Constitution, contain the seeds of their own reinvention. Indeed, the secret to a sustainable constitution is that it both captures what is enduring and anticipates the need to change.

Over the years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times — the first 10 being the Bill of Rights, of course — to ensure that it stays current with prevailing views of what is fundamental or best for the United States. Among the finest examples of the Constitution’s adaptability to shifting and maturing norms are the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery, and the 15thand 19th amendments, which guaranteed voting rights for everyone, regardless of race or gender, respectively.

Because it is meant to be malleable, the original Constitution included references to very few technologies. In fact,  America’s founders were so sure that technologies would evolve over time that they even included protection of the rights of innovators in Article 1, Section 8 (the Copyright Clause). The technologies that were mentioned were ones that by the late 1700s had become so ingrained in day-to-day life that they were seen as natural to the course of human existence, or at least critical to the functioning of government: money, for instance, and a military. In at least two cases in the Bill of Rights, the unfettered use of technologies was seen as necessary for citizens’ freedom — those technologies being the press and arms. The press was more than three centuries old when the Constitution enshrined the right to freedom of expression. Meanwhile, the arms referenced were not specified, but no doubt included the firearms of the day that were essential to the upkeep of a militia, which was the express rationale (even if today it is generally overlooked) for the right to bear arms in the first place.

12 Tips For Surviving A Pentagon Post

Jake Turner

February 6, 2015

Here are the 12 biggest takeaways from an Army major's experience on how military members can thrive in a Pentagon post.

After nearly a year on the Joint Staff, I finally feel comfortable in my job. It took longer than I thought. The transition from tactical to strategic is quite the leap. Truth be told, it’s a chasm. The Pentagon can be a daunting place for Army majors. You are the junior officer in every room. Everyone is more experienced and senior to you. However, the experience is a great opportunity, not simply a difficult challenge to overcome. Here are the 12 biggest takeaways from my experience on how military members can thrive in a Pentagon post.

1. The system is slow. Accept it, move on, and find peace.

Everyone complains about how long it takes decisions to be made in the Pentagon. Tough. The sooner you accept things move slow, the sooner you will stop banging your head against the wall. The bottom line: Strategic-level decisions should take time. Accept the bureaucracy and find peace.

2. Civilians are the continuity.

Civilians in the Pentagon are the continuity much like senior noncommissioned officers are at the tactical level. They have been around awhile and seen it all. Green suiters come and go, but the civilians remain. Use them, ask them for advice, and avoid the big mistakes.

3. Learn the vernacular. Fast.

Words matter, words have meaning. A chop and an input are different. We don’t “dig into things” on the Joint Staff, we “pull the string.” Minimize your daily “Hooahs.” The sooner you sound like everyone else, the sooner you get taken seriously.

The Future of War

By Earl Tilford

Feb. 6, 2015

“We have tried since the birth of our nation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly.” –Gen. George C. Marshall, 1945

War remains, as a Prussian general defined it nearly two centuries ago, the use of force to compel the enemy to do your will. Strategy connects ways and means to achieve an objective. The basics of strategy apply to war whether regular, irregular, guerrilla warfare, nuclear war, or insurgency. Terrorism is a tool. It can underlay strategy but it also involves applying ways and means to achieve a goal. The same can be said for counter-terrorism. Victory depends on strategy. An inappropriate strategy cannot be redeemed by heroism, effusive bloodletting, or abundant force.

Since the American Civil War, the United States has excelled at warfare by bringing overwhelming power to bear in clearly defined campaigns where strategy reflects and implements policy. More complicated conflicts such as Vietnam and the current “war on terror” are troublesome because our enormous technological and material advantages seemingly obviate the need for in-depth strategic analysis. Additionally, the separation of policymakers from military leaders discourages the dialogue needed to obtain what President Ronald Reagan brought to fruition by clearly identifying the “Evil Empire” and corralling Congress to fund a military buildup the Soviets could not match.

In the 21st century the United States must prepare for three kinds of warfare: Standoff war, Hands-on war, and Cyber war. Each presents unique challenges but the strategic approach of tying policy to desired outcome generally applies. Get that wrong and we lose.

Standoff war involves major powers. Armies, air forces, and navies will clash. Controlling space matters. The threat of nuclear holocaust is real. Losers will pay a heavy price. Deterrence is key but that requires strategic acumen as well as heavy economic investment. The challenge for the United States is to upgrade its nuclear arsenal, invest in missile defense, and maintain air, sea and land forces second to none.

WEEKEND READING: FEBRUARY 6-8

February 6, 2015

This time of year, the weekend means hibernating under lots of blankets, with a bottle of good bourbon, and some good reading. Here is one of those three things to get you started.

Why we shouldn’t mess with Russia. Over at the Brookings blog “Up Front,” Jeremy Shapiro poses the question, “what will the Russians do in response to America’s provision of arms to its enemy?” in response to aWashington Post op-ed arguing that the U.S. should provide Ukraine “lethal assistance” against Russia. Ultimately, Shapiro concludes that the “Russian regime has defined the struggle in Ukraine as part of an existential battle against American imperialism, in which the United States eventually seeks to impose its will on Russia itself. American provision of arms would lend credence to that view and increase the Russian government’s freedom of action at home.” In other words, it’s not worth it.

Want more? At War on the Rocks, Sean Kay argues that while what Russia has done to Ukraine is unacceptable, now is not the time for the United States to take the lead in escalating the situation through military force.

Women rising. This week, five women out of 26 passed the Ranger Assessment Training Course at Fort Benning, Georgia — the prerequisite course to go to Ranger School — leading up to the Army’s planned gender assessment in April. The Truman Project and Center for National Policy has launched a campaign called “No Exceptions” to build support for full combat inclusion. Follow the Facebook page for updates on how you can help.

Where are the Hemingways and Orwells of the 21st century? Cicero magazine has a great piece that on one hand celebrates the rise of veterans who are writing about their military experiences and sharing their war stories, such as Phil Klay, but on the other hand, laments the lack of fictional literature generated out of the last 14 years of war. While out of wars of previous eras came great works such as Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse Five, Sarah Stodola writes, “The relative lack of literary interest in Iraq reflects a culture that does not come up against the topic in any direct way very often. Writers write what they know, and today most Americans, writers included, do not know this war very well.”

For China, Army Has New Troops. But No Funds

Nitin Gokhale

India's Mountain Strike Corps, announced with much fanfare in late 2013 to augment the army's strength along the border with China, is in trouble, thanks to a 'sanction' that was not really a sanction under the UPA II government.

According to sequence of events pieced together by this writer after talking to sources in the know, the Manmohan Singh government sanctioned the raising of new Corps -40,000 soldiers- meant as a deterrent against China along the northern frontier without catering for its funding.

The Corps, which was on the drawing board for some years, apparently acquired a momentum in the summer of 2013 after Chinese PLA troops intruded deep into Indian territory in the Depsang plains of Ladakh and camped there for more than a fortnight, exposing the gaps in India's defences along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The intrusion crisis was resolved after hectic diplomacy but the political leadership, under pressure of hostile public opinion, sought a remedy from the Army.

Sensing the chance to get the long-standing proposal to strengthen India's defences along the LAC cleared, the then army Chief Gen Bikram Singh personally pushed for creation of the Mountain Strike Corps. The proposal included integral air assets and necessary armoured and artillery elements.

According to the proposal, the new Corps would have 40,000 troops and would cost more than Rs. 64,000 crores to be spent over a seven or eight year period. It was expected that the new Corps would augment India's defence along the LAC stretching from Arunachal Pradesh in the east to Ladakh in northwest.

As the proposal gathered steam, two notes were prepared for the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), India's highest-decision making body on matters of security. One file contained details of the overall concept and justification for raising the Mountain Strike Corps and the other, file sought additional funding, over and above the sanctioned defence budget to equip the new Corps.

In an inexplicable move, the CCS under UPA II gave its approval for raising the Mountain Strike Corps but withheld clearance for additional or specific funding!

It is not clear what assurances were given about funds to be made available at a later stage, but the Army went ahead and 'raised' or announced or inaugurated the Corps at the temporary Head Quarters at Ranchi on January 1, 2014.

Morality and leadership: Balance is required

Thomas E. Ricks

February 5, 2015

Reading Tom Ricks’ blog post titled “Against Morality Equaling Leadership” has provoked me to think hard about its implications.

From my childhood I was taught by my parents to be a person of character and this was done by a strong Christian upbringing. This transfer of Christian teaching and parental character training was reinforced by my drill instructors during Marine Corps boot camp, where they imparted upon me the core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. It is my belief that in order to be a good leader it is important also to be morally grounded. Easy to say but much harder to live out. Should our personal conduct matter to others?

I am of the belief that personal conduct should matter, especially in the military, where personal example is placed rather firmly on a high pedestal. If a military member is not morally grounded in their personal life the chances of character flaws surfacing at work become exponentially higher.

Tom Ricks gives two examples to spur critical thinking amongst his readership. First, he provides a quick comparison of two former presidents; George W. Bush and Bill Clinton where the first is considered to be the more moral man of the two while the latter is considered to have been the better president overall. If economics trumps morality in this particular case then I can fully understand why Clinton would get the approval of so many even in spite of his moral failings. I only wish we did not have to make such a choice. Tom Ricks raises the question of what we as a society should tolerate in personal behaviors of our politicians. This very topic should be debated long and hard. It should be a very frank conversation. In the military we are instilled with values that must be upheld in order to maintain the discipline and cohesiveness required of a professional military. The civilian leaders should in my opinion be held to a similar standard of conduct in order to set a strong example for society to follow. Taking this theme even further,

Green Beret officer's Silver Star revoked as Army cites investigation

By Dan Lamothe

February 4, 2015

WASHINGTON — Capt. Mathew L. Golsteyn was leading a Special Forces team in Afghanistan in 2010 when an 80-man mission he assembled to hunt insurgent snipers went awry. One of their five vehicles sunk into mud, a gunshot incapacitated an Afghan soldier fighting alongside the Americans, and insurgents maneuvered around them to rake the soggy fields with machine-gun fire.

Golsteyn, already a decorated Green Beret officer, responded with calm resolve and braved enemy fire repeatedly that day, according to an Army summary of his actions. He received the Silver Star for valor for his actions on Feb. 20, 2010, during a 2011 ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C. Top Army officials later approved him for an upgrade to the prestigious Distinguished Service Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor in honoring heroism in combat by U.S. soldiers.

In a rare reversal, however, Golsteyn, now a major, no longer has either award. The Special Forces officer was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military's rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bombmaker, according to officials familiar with the case. The investigation closed last year without Golsteyn being charged with any crime, but Army Secretary John McHugh decided to not only deny him the Distinguished Service Cross, but to revoke his Silver Star, too.

McHugh cited a provision in Army regulations that state that if facts become known that would have prevented a medal from being awarded, it can be revoked. The Silver Star was approved by a top commander in Afghanistan — Gen. David Rodriguez, then the three-star deputy commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan — according to Golsteyn's lawyer, Phil Stackhouse.

"I firmly believe that had he known about the derogatory information that was founded by the aforementioned investigation, he would have never awarded Major Golsteyn the Silver Star," McHugh said in a Nov. 17 letter to Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R.-Calif., who has advocated on Golsteyn's behalf. "Accordingly, I have decided to revoke the interim Silver Star that Major Golsteyn received for this action."

8 February 2015

Cut according to his cloth - The self-love of the great Indian male

Ramachandra Guha

After Narendra Modi's recent meeting with Barack Obama, there was some criticism of his wearing a suit whose stripes spelt out his own name. The criticism was not unmerited; it was a tawdry, tacky, thing to do. Yet Modi's expensive display of self-love was entirely characteristic of how powerful and successful Indian males tend to behave in public.

Consider this. India's most famous and highly decorated scientist is C.N.R. Rao, a Fellow of the world's most prestigious scientific academies, and a recipient of his country's highest honour, the Bharat Ratna. Some years ago, an admirer decided to lobby the Bangalore Municipality to name the circle outside the Indian Institute of Science (of which Rao had been director) after the great man. Now circles and roads are normally not named after living people. But here was C.N.R. Rao in the flesh, actually present when a circle named after him was being inaugurated.

Next only to Rao in the hierarchy of Indian science is R.A. Mashelkar. Mashelkar is a former director general of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and much else. He has not, so far as I know, had a circle or building named after himself. Yet his conduct in public is scarcely less boastful, as witness his editorial in a recent issue of the journal, Current Science. Entitled '"Indovation" for affordable excellence', it is mostly about the author himself. In a mere couple of pages we are told of a paper by Mashelkar in the Harvard Business Review which "provoked worldwide discussion" and was the subject of a "special session" at the World Economic Forum; that a TED lecture he gave "has received more than half a million views and has been subtitled in 23 languages"; that Mashelkar is the president of something called the Global Research Alliance; that the European Union invited him to give a talk to "an audience of around 2000"; that when he was director general of the CSIR he set up "a public-private partnership called New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative".

Mashelkar's article runs so contrary to the spirit of science that I wonder how it was accepted for publication. How did the editor of Current Science allow the essay to pass without major cuts and changes? Either the editor is plain incompetent, or, what is more likely, too intimidated by Mashelkar's reputation and influence to have asked him to revise his essay.

Domestic, foreign demand set to boost scope for def biz for

February 6, 2015

The annual opportunity for Indian domestic companies, including public sector firms, in the defence and aerospace sector is expected reach USD 41 billion by Fiscal Year 2022 driven by domestic and external demand, according to a report.

The report, entitled 'India -- Aerospace and Defence', prepared jointly by industry body FICCI and financial services firm Centrum Capital, also projects a USD 620 billion defence budget between FY14 and FY22, of which 50 per cent would be on capex.

The sector would offer USD 168 billion of cumulative opportunity during this period to domestic companies, it said.

"We expect India to expand its defence budget as it seeks to maintain a semblance of geo-political balance in Asia as the US is likely to withdraw to repair its financials and narrow the large gap that has developed with China militarily.

"Massive modernisation undertaken as 50 per cent of current equipment is obsolete due to less than adequate spend on defence in the past and also reasonably comfortable funding position on the back of healthy tax revenues and comfortable debt/GDP ratio relative to other nations and India's own history," the report said.

The report observed that the fiscal strain on the balance sheets of developed countries will pressure defence spends and global players will start looking out for cheaper sourcing (products and services) from other countries.

In that respect, it said, "We believe India has the key ingredients (large and relatively low-cost engineering talent pool along with comfort of western nations with India from a geo-political perspective) to deliver on the opportunity.

Pakistan Wants 'Battlefield' Nukes to Use against Indian Troops

Zachary Keck

February 6, 2015

Pakistan is continuing to develop tactical nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield against India, a senior U.S. intelligence official said this week.

In providing a worldwide threat assessment to the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, discussed Pakistan’s expanding nuclear delivery systems.

“We anticipate that Pakistan will continue [its] development of new delivery systems, including cruise missiles and close-range ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons to augment its existing ballistic missiles,” Stewart said during his opening statement, according to an official transcript.

Tactical nuclear weapons are low-yield, short-range nuclear missiles designed for use against opposing troops on the battlefield, rather than against enemy cities like strategic nuclear weapons. Both the U.S. and Soviet Union deployed them in Europe (among other places) during the Cold War, and Washington and Moscow continue to deploy them today. They are not covered in existing U.S.-Russian arms control treaties like New START.

In April 2011, Pakistan first tested the Hatf-9 (Nasr) missile, which it called a “Short Range Surface to Surface Multi Tube Ballistic Missile.” In the official statement announcing the test, Pakistan’s military said the Hatf-9 missile was nuclear-capable and had been developed to be used at “shorter ranges.”

“NASR, with a range of 60 km, carries nuclear warheads of appropriate yield with high accuracy, shoot and scoot attributes. This quick response system addresses the need to deter evolving threats,” the statement said. It added that the “test was a very important milestone in consolidating Pakistan’s strategic deterrence capability at all levels of the threat spectrum.”

Testing continued throughout 2012 and 2013, and Pakistan’s Strategic Forces arebelieved to have inducted the missile into service following an October 2013 test. Pakistan has continued periodic testing since that time, most recently in September of last year. However, it is unclear whether Pakistan is capable of building nuclear warheads small enough to use on the Hatf-9.

Competing with India

Kaiser Bengali

February 2, 2015

US President Barack Obama’s visit to India as chief guest for the country’s Republic Day celebrations has evoked amusing reactions in Pakistan. Of course, there is peeve at the fact that the US president has chosen to visit India and bypass Pakistan. However, gone are the days when the world treated India and Pakistan on a par and foreign dignitaries considered it a diplomatic necessity to visit Islamabad when visiting New Delhi and vice versa.

Islamabad has accepted the situation as a fait accompli; however, American presidential visits remain an exception. Earlier, when former president Clinton visited India, Pakistani diplomats moved heaven and earth to implore him to add Pakistan to his itinerary; and he obliged with a four-hour visit.

Currently, the Pakistan Foreign Office has adopted a responsible position and refrained from any comment. A section of the media has, however, gone overboard with hysteria and exaggerated pique, particularly by overnight-born experts — ex-generals, stand-alone politicians, news analysts, etc. — who are smarting the most on account of President Obama’s India visit sans Pakistan.

Pakistan has to realise that world affairs are not carried out according to the figments of imagination of the country’s officially-sponsored intelligentsia. The nations of the world are engaged in serious relationships based on trade and security. No world leader will visit Pakistan if there is nothing substantial to talk about. No one has the time to add a day to their route merely to pander to Islamabad’s pretensions about parity with India.

Pakistan will have to accept hard facts and introspect the actual situation. And the fact is that Pakistan has little weight in the international arena, politically and economically. Politically, it is viewed as a nuisance at best and a threat to international security at worst. Economically, it is considered a basket case and a seemingly eternal candidate for bailouts. And it has little international sympathy for its claims of terrorism victimhood, as it is viewed as being bitten by the snakes it has itself bred in its backyard.

Pak will take action against Lashkar, says its ex-NSA Durrani

Saikat Datta

Feb 04, 2015

It is rare for a visiting former Pakistani National Security Adviser (NSA) to claim that action would be taken against the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the architect of the 26/11 terrorist attack on Mumbai, and even rarer for him to admit that the ISI needed a course-correction. But Maj Gen Mahmud Durrani did just that at a discussion in Delhi on Tuesday.

The reason for this “change” within Pakistan, Durrani says, has been caused by the horrific attack on a Peshawar school that claimed 145 lives, majority of them children, in December last year. Durrani minced no words in saying that things had changed for Pakistan. “(The attack on the school) was an attack by the TTP to punish the Pakistan army.

This can become a crisis of identity for us,” said Durrani at a discussion on the attack at the Observer Research Foundation in Delhi on Tuesday.

On a private visit to India, Durrani also met the Indian NSA, AK Doval, on Monday evening. It is believed that Durrani was carrying a message from the Pakistani establishment which is keen to begin bilateral talks with its neighbour. Talks were suspended after the Pakistani High Commissioner to India met Kashmiri separatists last year. While Durrani did not divulge any details, it is understood that Durrani conveyed these sentiments to Doval.

“I don’t think a change of name (from Lashkar-e-Toiba to Jamat-ud-Dawa) should make any difference. A bad man (Hafeez Sayeed) is a bad man,” Durrani said while replying to a specific question on Pakistan’s policy on the LeT and its leader Sayeed.

Durrani admitted that Pakistan’s policy of creating strategic depth in Afghanistan has not worked. “Pakistan is paying for its mistakes and the ‘strategic depth’ of ensuring a friendly Afghanistan has been a failure,” Durrani admitted. Its main intelligence agency, the ISI, Durrani admitted, needed to shift its focus. “The ISI should be corrected and improved but not destroyed. (We can) look at the direction of ISI and correct it, if necessary,” he said. Durrani served as the Pakistani ambassador to the US when Gen Pervez Musharraff was the President and was then appointed as the NSA between 2008 and 2009 when the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) was in power.

Is China About to Declare War Against ISIS?

Simone van Nieuwenhuizen

February 6, 2015

Despite China's long-standing diplomatic principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, Beijing cannot completely control its citizens' involvement in terrorist activity abroad. Whether China likes it or not, it is being drawn into the conflict against ISIS.

China's state media recently reported that three Chinese ISIS militants were executed in 2014 following their attempted desertion from the terrorist organization.

Quoting an unnamed Kurdish security official, a reporter for the Global Times wrote that one militant was killed in Syria in September after becoming disillusioned and trying to return to the Turkish university where he had been a student. The other two were beheaded in December along with 11 other militants from six different nationalities.

In response to the report, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson simply stated: “China opposes all forms of terrorism. China is willing to strengthen cooperation with the international community to fight together against terrorist forces, including the ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM),’ in order to protect regional and global security and stability.”

This standard statement effectively summarizes the Chinese Government's thinking on counter-terrorism: the emphasis is on the international community's cooperation with China in its fight against the threats of domestic terrorism and separatism (ETIM is an Islamic terrorist organisation founded by Uyghurmilitants in western China), while China's cooperation with the international community in its fight against international terrorist organizations remains limited.

Islamist Politics in the Shadow of the Islamic State Memos

Islamist politics have been in a period of tremendous change since the Arab uprisings began in late 2010. After decades on the margins of political life in many Arab societies, Islamist parties were suddenly thrust into the center of post-uprisings politics. Yet, in 2014 two major developments reshaped Islamist politics on the ground and challenged long-standing assumptions: the rise of the Islamic State, and the Egyptian and regional repression of the Muslim Brotherhood. On January 23, 2015 POMEPS brought together a group of international scholars to discuss these developments and how they are compelling academics and Islamists themselves to rethink Islamist politics.

Each participant in the “Islamist Politics in the Shadow of the Islamic State” workshop contributed a thematic memo, which will be available here individually, as well as in an upcoming POMEPS Studies collection. This year’s workshop builds on the success of the January 2014 workshop, the memos from which are featured in POMEPS Studies 6 “Rethinking Islamist Politics.”

Memos

“Jihadi-Salafi views of the Islamic State,” by Joas Wagemakers, Radboud University Nijmegen

“Brotherhood activism and regime consolidation in Egypt, ” by Steven Brooke, University of Texas at Austin

“The ISIS-ification of Islamist politics,” by Khalil al-Anani, George Washington University and John’s Hopkins University SAIS

“Yemen’s Houthis and Islamist republicanism under strain,” by Stacey Philbrick Yadav, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

“What I talk about when I talk about Islamists,” by Ahmed Khanani, Indiana University

“Why Tunisia didn’t follow Egypt’s path,” by Sharan Grewal, Princeton University

“How much of a state is the Islamic State?” by Quinn Mecham, Brigham Young University

From the Monkey Cage:

“The Islamic State’s model” by Aaron Y. Zelin, King’s College London

How much of a state is the Islamic State?

Quinn Mecham

February 5

The group now commonly known as the “Islamic State,” which controls vast amounts of territory in Eastern Iraq and Western Syria, is unlike most Islamist militant groups in its demonstrated ability to control territory and establish a regularized system of governance. The growing aspiration for the creation of “Islamic” state institutions is reflected in the evolution of the group’s name, from al-Qaeda in Iraq, to the Islamic State of Iraq, to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and then simply to the Islamic State, with the June 2014 announcement of the formation of a caliphate.

The Islamic State group has many of the attributes of a new “start-up” organization that is entering the wider market of Islamist thinking around statehood. The group has attracted a great deal of attention because it has brought disruptive innovation into Islamic political thought, both in terms of ideology (using common Islamist concepts in new ways) and what it is doing on the ground (taking and holding wealth and territory). Incumbent Islamist actors have been rattled by the Islamic State’s material success and the group’s attraction for emergent jihadis. Much of this attraction is not due to the group’s “Islamic” ideology, which is bitterly contested, but because of its demonstrated success at building institutions and creating prosperity for a select group of its patrons.

Rather than assessing the “Islamic” qualities of the Islamic State group, I will focus instead on the “stateness” of this group as it has developed in early 2015. The contemporary name of this group implies both that it is Islamic and also that it is a state. My principal argument is that while the Islamic State does not have all of the characteristics that we usually attribute to states, it does have many of them, and that its trajectory to date is toward increasing levels of stateness. This matters a great deal, not only because it shapes the lives of the people who live within Islamic State-controlled territory, but also because it has implications for how outside actors should engage with this group. In particular, the more the Islamic State actually resembles a state, with its security provision and regulatory institutions, the less international actors will be able to “degrade” or “destroy” the group without also degrading or destroying the fundamental functions of the state. Attempts to degrade and destroy these emergent state institutions will likely lead to anarchy, which often comes with profoundly negative consequences.

DEFENDING DEBALTSEVE

Far from home, a close-knit police battalion tried to keep the peace in one of the most strategically important towns in eastern Ukraine.

A LONG 700 MILES FROM HOME, A GROUP OF YOUNG MEN FROM WESTERN UKRAINE FOUND THEMSELVES GARRISONED IN AN OLD RAILROAD CONDUCTORS’ BOARDING HOUSE IN THE TOWN OF DEBALTSEVE, located in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast. Tasked with maintaining martial law in this town that since January has been on the front lines of fighting, the members of the Lviv Special Purpose Battalion more resembled a crack military unit than a group of law enforcement officers. Photojournalist James Sprankle traveled to Debaltseve in January and spent several days with the battalion.

Situated in an area that is surrounded by the Luhansk People’s Republic to the east and the Donetsk People’s Republic to the west, the town is a vital transportation crossroad and therefore of great strategic importance. Not only is it at the intersection of two major highways; Debaltseve also served as an important rail hub for the Donetsk region’s ailing coal industry.

Though Debaltseve has so far been well defended by Ukrainian forces, it has recently become engulfed in a deadly burst of fighting that erupted between the Ukrainian military and pro-Russian separatists in mid-January. Civilians and military have been killed in the shelling which has devastated local buildings. CNN reported that the morgue is full, with some 200 bodies having been brought in so far this month alone. Two thousand of the town’s residents have been evacuated in the last few days, AP reports, as pro-Russian separatist forces continued to make their advances. Many of those who remain are living in bomb shelters and basements and are without electricity, running water, with food supplies running low.

The group of 39 of men pictured in these photos first arrived in October, prepared to take the place of the town’s disbanded police force. The military forces secure the outskirts of the town, but it is the men from Lviv who have been the ones to keep the peace with civilians. They go on patrols, investigate crimes, and are occasionally called upon to settle disputes between military personnel and civilians. When, for example, the military tried to commandeer a local man’s tractor for use on the front, the battalion members stepped in and negotiated an agreeable arrangement. And while there is no open animosity directed toward the men in the battalion, it’s clear they are not wanted here. The residents of Debaltseve want life to return to normal. They want peace.

Building a Better Post-Oslo Era

Nathan J. Brown

FEBRUARY 4, 2015

The United States and Europe should encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to use international organizations and law as an alternative to violence.

There is little argument among Palestinians that they are in the midst of a political turning point. It is clear to all what they are turning away from: the Oslo era in which they were governed by a series of makeshift structures that many vainly hoped would end the Israeli occupation and deliver a Palestinian state. Those hopes—and corresponding Israeli hopes for a negotiated end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—faded long ago for most Palestinians. But many of the governance structures set up in the wake of the 1993 Oslo Accords were kept alive because senior leaders on both sides, as well as critical international actors (chiefly the United States and Europe), still clung to elements of the interim arrangements and showed strong signs of tactical partnership.

Now, however, Palestinian and Israeli leaders appear to be making different calculations. With the Palestinian leadership having taken the initial steps to file a complaint against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) late in 2014, and Israel moving toward parliamentary elections in March 2015, most are positioning themselves for a post-Oslo era in which they no longer depend on Oslo’s structures. At the same time, the international sponsors of what a few diehards continue to call the peace process seem to be running out of patience, ideas, and perhaps even funds.

In Defense of U.S. Funding for Area Studies It is only inertia that keeps the basic structures established under Oslo operating today; both Palestinians and Israelis are profoundly ambivalent about them, and the international institutions designed to support them are fraying. In this setting, they may decay or collapse as various actors blunder ahead, displaying thoughtlessness, frustration, and exhaustion rather than strategy and purpose, all undermining the interim arrangements that Oslo promised would be steps toward a permanent solution. Worse, current trends risk entrenching only the worst aspects of the status quo—the denial of Palestinian rights and the continuation of Israeli long-term existential fears—while adding paroxysms of violence and outbreaks of uncontrollable spirals of hostility.

Indeed, the contained arenas of rivalry and conflict (and negotiation) that characterized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past two decades are being replaced by a new kind of conflict. In it, leaders and their allies are seeking advantage by pressing their case in a variety of new venues, and unofficial groups on both sides are increasingly setting the agenda.

What Do We Mean When We Say ‘This Is Our 9/11’?

BY ELIAS GROLL

FEBRUARY 5, 2015

Since the day the Twin Towers fell and a plane smacked into the side of the Pentagon, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have become a symbol of terror, devastation, and sorrow. Synonymous with horror and subsequent fury, the attacks have bifurcated recent history into an era of before and after.

By virtue of its magnitude, 9/11 has also gained a symbolic meaning for violence that is shocking, unpredictable, and perpetrated by fanatics. Over time, 9/11 as a metaphor has been gradually stretched, and in the years since, similar attacks have been described in terms that begin and end with that day — as “our 9/11,” no matter the extent of the loss.

This week, the Islamic State gave its global audience a macabre spectacle: The horrific execution of Jordanian fighter pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh, who was videotaped as he burned to death in a makeshift cage. Days before the release of that video, the group had released another showing the decapitation of Kenji Goto, a Japanese journalist.

Kasasbeh’s execution, for its awful method, has dominated headlines. By contrast, Goto’s execution — and that of another Japanese ISIS prisoner, Haruna Yukawa — has evoked a defiant grief among Japanese who are comparing the tragedy to the 9/11 attacks.

“This is 9/11 for Japan,” Kunihiko Miyake, a former diplomat who has advised Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on foreign affairs, told the New York Times. “It is time for Japan to stop daydreaming that its good will and noble intentions would be enough to shield it from the dangerous world out there. Americans have faced this harsh reality, the French have faced it, and now we are, too.” In response to Goto’s beheading, Abe pledged that Japan, a country formally committed in its constitution to a pacifist policy, would avenge his killing.

These comparisons are reflective of 9/11’s symbolic role in this age of terrorism, as a marker of extreme violence, as a way to make that violence comprehensible, and to situate such violence within a framework that makes sense, the so-called “war on terror.”

Every act of terror, it seems, is now “our 9/11.”

US Navy's 6th Generation Fighter Jets Will Be Slow and Unstealthy

Zachary Keck

February 5, 2015

The U.S. Navy’s next generation air superiority fighter will not be “super-duper fast” or employ much in the way of stealth, a senior navy official announced on Wednesday.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, divulged some details about the Navy’s so-called Next Generation Air Dominance F/A-XX fighter jet during a speech at an industry conference.

“I don’t see that it’s going to be super-duper fast, because you can’t outrun missiles.” Greenert said, the Washington Examiner reported. “And you can’t become so stealthy that you become invisible — you are going to generate a signature of some sort,” he also noted, adding “You know that stealth may be overrated…. If something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

In lieu of stealth and speed, Greenert said that the F/A-XX would gain access by deploying “a spectrum of weapons” that could suppress enemy air defenses.

Greenert made the remarks while speaking at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo in Washington, DC.

His concerns about speed and stealth appear to be valid. As USNI News notes, the proliferation of high-speed anti-air weapons to America’s potential adversaries greatly reduces the value of speed. Stealth also is a wasting asset, as Dave Majumdar recently explained on The National Interest:

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)