A Decision to Regret

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

http://globalresearch.ca

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT111A.html

ISI Chief`s Parleys continue in Washington

by Amir Mateen



The News (Pakistan), 10 September 2001

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal, 19 November 2001



ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood`s week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet`s earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Mark Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. US sources would not furnish any details beyond saying that the two discussed `matters of mutual interests.`

What those matters could be is a matter of pure conjecture. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan, relations with India and China, disarmament of civilian outfits, country`s nuclear and missiles programme and, of course, Osama Bin Laden.

What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood`s predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif`s government the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys.

Mahmood`s visit comes close to General Musharraf`s scheduled meeting with Vajpayee in New York. It is not clear what role the US would play in bringing about any breakthrough. What does it expect from Pakistan to do in the countdown to the historic meeting? It is obvious that the US officials would like to discuss these issues with somebody they know is `in the know` and being a trusted colleague of Musharraf, capable of `delivering`. He is not like the foreign minister who did not know whether he was pleading the case of his president or chief executive.

Interestingly, his visit also saw two CIA reports expressing concern on issues related to Pakistan this week. One of them was about the effects of demographic explosion and Pakistan`s continued build up in its nuclear and missiles programme. General Mahmood must have been the right person to shed light on such things.



The URL of this article is:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAT111A.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

http://www.mqm.org/ISI/ISI_State_Within_A_State.htm

November 16, 2001

Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China

by Ted Galen Carpenter

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-16-01.html

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 13 books on international affairs.

The United States has assembled a superficially impressive international coalition against the threat of terrorism. Many countries in that coalition, however, contribute little of significance to the fight. Even worse, the willingness of some members of the coalition to actually combat terrorism is doubtful. Indeed, given their record, some of those countries appear to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. That concern is especially acute with respect to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China.

Saudi Arabia enlisted in the fight against terrorism only in response to intense pressure from the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even then, its cooperation has been minimal and grudging. For example, Riyadh has resisted Washington`s requests to use its bases in Saudi Arabia for military operations against Osama bin Laden`s terrorist facilities in Afghanistan.

Even that belated, tepid participation is an improvement on Saudi Arabia`s previous conduct. The U.S. government has warned that it will treat regimes that harbor or assist terrorist organizations the same way that it treats the organizations themselves. Yet if Washington is serious about that policy, it ought to regard Saudi Arabia as a prime sponsor of international terrorism. Indeed, that country should have been included for years on the U.S. State Department`s annual list of governments guilty of sponsoring terrorism.

The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan` s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East.

Worst of all, the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and ``charities`` throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination. The schools, for example, not only indoctrinate students in a virulent and extreme form of Islam, but also teach them to hate secular Western values.

They are also taught that the United States is the center of infidel power in the world and is the enemy of Islam. Graduates of those schools are frequently recruits for Bin Laden`s Al-Qaeda terror network as well as other extremist groups.

Pakistan`s guilt is nearly as great as Saudi Arabia`s. Without the active support of the government in Islamabad, it is doubtful whether the Taliban could ever have come to power in Afghanistan. Pakistani authorities helped fund the militia and equip it with military hardware during the mid-1990s when the Taliban was merely one of several competing factions in Afghanistan`s civil war. Only when the United States exerted enormous diplomatic pressure after the Sept. 11 attacks did Islamabad begin to sever its political and financial ties with the Taliban. Even now it is not certain that key members of Pakistan`s intelligence service have repudiated their Taliban clients.

Afghanistan is not the only place where Pakistani leaders have flirted with terrorist clients. Pakistan has also assisted rebel forces in Kashmir even though those groups have committed terrorist acts against civilians. And it should be noted that a disproportionate number of the extremist madrasas schools funded by the Saudis operate in Pakistan.

China`s offenses have been milder and more indirect than those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Nevertheless, Beijing`s actions raise serious questions about whether its professed commitment to the campaign against international terrorism is genuine. For years, China has exported sensitive military technology to countries that have been sponsors of terrorism. Recipients of such sales include Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Even though Chinese leaders now say that they support the U.S.-led effort against terrorism, there is no evidence that Beijing is prepared to end its inappropriate exports. At the recent APEC summit, China`s President Jiang Zemin was notably noncommittal when President Bush sought such a commitment. Whenever the United States has brought up the exports issue, Chinese officials have sought to link a cutoff to a similar cutoff of U.S. military sales to Taiwan -- something that is unacceptable to Washington.

It is time for China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to prove by their deeds, not just their words, that they are serious about contributing to the campaign against international terrorism. In China`s case, that means ending all militarily relevant exports to regimes that have sponsored terrorism. In the cases of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it means defunding terrorist organizations and the extremist ``schools`` that provide them with recruits. It also means severing ties with such terrorist movements as the Taliban and the Kashmiri insurgents. The world is watching the actions of all three countries.

Re: Fuzair

I forgot to mention that the IMA will accept non-NDA graduates, but only if they have a Bachelor`s degree from somewhere else.

I think that the 4.5 year course of study is roughly equivalent to what Western armies also expect their officers to undergo.

Shammi:

Interesting about the NDA and the Indian Army. I knew that the Indians had extended the cadet period to try to overcome persistent quality problems in the junior officers but had no idea that it was that long a period!

Our armed forces, basically the Army, have had persistent quality/education problems with its junior officers as well. You go straight to PMA after doing your Intermediate (12th Class) or your `O` levels and pass out after 2 years there. There also used to be an Officers Training School at Mangla which took cadets who already had a BA and trained them for just one year. During Zia`s days they started the Junior Cadet Battalion which took cadets after Matriculation (10th class) and they stayed at PMA for 4 years. As a general rule, these officers tend to be the most religious and most reactionary/conservative in the Army. I don`t know if this is because of the 4 years of rigorous indoctrination at PMA or because the intake was mainly the sons of JCOs/ORs, i.e., cadets who had the poorest and narrowest academic background. Incidentally, the JCB cadets also tend to be the most professionally competent ones at the junior officer level.

Back in the late 1970s there was a proposal to extend the PMA course to three years--bascially to improve the quality of education, esp English, of the cadets--and some people actually spent 5 terms (2 1/2 years) at PMA as a pilot program but this was dropped as being too unwieldy and OTS was instituted instead.

I don`t know what the current situation is but could certainly find out if anyone is interested.

Our officers also get the same type of study leave as do the Indians and attending the War Course (or the National Defence Course as a substitute) is a must for promotion beyond Brigadier and Staff College is an absolute must to go beyond Lt. Col./Col. in the Army.

Regards.

Re: Dost-Mittar

I didn`t fully answer your question, ``Then how do they complete advanced degree, I mean is there a provision in the army for education leave?``

I think that there is a provision for education leave, taking classes from the various services training schools, correspondence schools, as well as regular civilian schools.

This is the plug from the Army web-site:

``...NDA cadets are awarded Bachelor’s degrees in Arts, Science or Computer Science on completion of training. If you join the technical stream, you will acquire Graduate and Post-Graduate degree in Engineering at some of the finest institutes of technology with all expenses taken care of...``

``...Selection for the prestigious Defence Services Staff College course results in the awards of an M.Sc. in Defence and Strategic Studies. What’s more, you can also get study leave for two years to further upgrade your professional skills...You could even get into Research and Development, if you have the aptitude. The Army runs some of the country’s most prestigious academies and institutes. These cover a wide range...From Engineering to Medicine. From Administration to Strategy. From Armament Technology to Management...``

http://mod.nic.in/aforces/welcome.html

Anecdotally speaking, one of my distant cousins wanted to get out of the Navy to apply his technical skills in the commercial sector. He finally was let go after much pleading, and is now the #2 guy in Hughes Networks (India), subsidiary of the US giant.

Re: Dost-Mittar

``...don`t Indians go to Khadagvasla generally without completing their university degree?...``

National Defence Academy, Kharakvasala accepts cadets straight out of high school (age limit for admissions is 17?). After 3 years, successful cadets receive a Bachelor`s degree in their chosen fields (science, arts, etc.) from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. 3 years of NDA qualifies them to be called `gentlemen-cadets`.

Those headed towards the Army go to the Indian Military Academy (for another 1-1.5? year course), while the naval and airforce cadets head for similar training schools elsewhere. It is not until they finish IMA (or equivalent for navy/air force) that they get commissioned as officers.

IMA also accepts trainees who have not been through NDA, but these individuals are at somewhat of a career disadvantage later on. Most of these guys are short-service commission types with technical specialties (electronics, computers, etc.). Its only at the IMA that Army corps assignments are made, e.g. armored, infantry, signals, etc.

I know all this because some of my high school friends underwent the above regimen (and would drive me absolutely nuts with their new-found propensity to use forces`-jargon and acronyms even when simple explanations would suffice), and I `had` to show up for the passing out parades. Fairly impressive show, I must say.

PS: Shammi, I was referring to US versus Bundeswehr in NATO war games or maneuvers, not in some sort of a hypothetical war.

Shammi:

Germany surrendered on 7th May. I`ve reproduced the actual surrendered document signed by Col. Gen. Jodl. The surrender took effect on May 8th, as is specified in the instrument of surrender.

ACT OF MILITARY SURRENDER


1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea and in the air who are at this date under German control.
2. The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorties and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at =2301= hours Central European time on = 8 May = and to remain in the positions occupied at that time. No ship, vessel, or aircraft is to be scuttled, or any damage done to their hull, machinery or equipment.
3. The German High Command will at once issue to the appropriate commander, and ensure the carrying out of any further orders issued by the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and by the Soviet High Command.
4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German armed forces as a whole.
5. In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command will take such punitive or other action as they deem appropriate.

Signed at RHEIMS at 0241 on the 7th day of May, 1945.

France

On behalf of the German High Command.

JODL
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tahmed:

GSG-9 (Grenzschutzgruppe 9 or Border Police Group 9) is not a part of the Bundeswehr (Federal Army) but of the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Police). I was aware of the Mogadishu operation and the persistent reports that the men who actually killed the hijackers were the two SAS ``advisors`` who went along with the GSG men.

The Bundeswehr is in the Kosovo operation but, as far as I know, has never actually fired a shot in anger. The East German Army, on the other hand, was used in putting down Prague Spring and had advisors in Angola in the 1970s and 1980s as well.

Regards.

Fuzair #553 1977: You write ``The Bundeswehr has never fired a shot in anger so no one can say how well or how badly it would fight. I would guess that it would do extremely well``

In 1977, German commandos (who would be ``special forces`` of the German army) stormed ``a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane`s pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed``. (I am quoting from a BBC write up on the internet). As I recall it, they threw some stun grenades (which make plenty of flash and sound to disorient the targets long enough for troops to overcome them), shouted in German to the passengers to keep their heads down, ``hinlegen`` were the words, per my photographic memory :-). However, my image of the German soldier is that of a chap I saw at Frankfurt Airport - tall and slim enough to make Hitler proud, carrying a compact machine gun, with one Paki shabby looking middle-aged gentleman (obviously a hopeful but visa-less immigrant) in front of him all the way into the plane. For some reason, the scene reminded me of the movie ``Life is Beautiful`` where you have the Italian bloke doing a mock goose-step while being led off to his execution by a Nazi.

Re: Fuzair

I have no idea on how the Bundeswehr would perform against the US Army. I do think that the Bundeswehr would ultimately lose (regardless of how well they fight). Anything beyond that would be speculative.

BTW, the German surrender took place on May 8, 1945:

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germsurr.html

Shammi:

Col. Gen. Jodl signed the unconditional surrender, authorized by Fuehrer Donitz, on May 7th. The news broadcast of it was made on May 8th, I believe.

You and Feroz are correct about a difference between the Wehrmacht and the Bundeswehr. In spite of the fact that there was considerable personnel continuity between the Bundeswehr and the Wehrmacht, the former was pretty thoroughly Americanized in the 1950s and 1960s, much to the dismay of many Wehrmacht old-timers.

The Bundeswehr has never fired a shot in anger so no one can say how well or how badly it would fight. I would guess that it would do extremely well, even if its not up to the old Wehrmacht`s standards! However, I am not aware of any reports /accounts of American forces consistently beating Bundeswehr forces in NATO wargames/maneuvers. Presumably, the Bundeswehr with its emphasis on detailed planning and sticking to its plan would be at a disadvantage then against the freewheeling Americans. I`d be amazed if this was the case and would love to hear any info you might have on this.

Feroz:

While I agree with you as to Goering`s desire to earn the laurels for himself and the Luftwaffe, I thought that general consensus was that the Wehrmacht spearheads at Dunkirk had outrun their supply lines--which happened more than once with, e.g., Rommel in France--and would not have been able to mount an assault on Dunkirk until fresh supplies and fresh troops had been brought up. Also, as the Germans and Russians found out the hard way on the Eastern Front, a full-scale assault on a town held by a determined enemy is a fundamentally different proposition from blitzing across the countryside. While the French had more or less collapsed completely, the British still had sufficient fight left in them and Dunkirk would not have fallen without a very long and very bloody fight. I`d like to hear your views on this.

Regards to all.

sameersaab

sorry i took so long geting back. my finals start in less than a week :(

i agree with you- no need for me to apologize at all. my intention certainly wasnt to entice you into anything as was being implied by that imp scoutie, i have an honest problem with ladies shaving (im cringing at writing those two words in such close proximity)as for zahra, i quite enjoy her nutty posts :)

but chowk like you say, is not our grandfathers. i often forget and write like its my own little tea party...must desist :0)

love,

anNy

Re: Fuzair

``...Are your colleagues referring to the planning leading up to the actual maneuvers/attacks or are they referring to the actual behaviour of the German troops once they were actually in action?...``

When I asked the question, I made no distinction between phases, ie planning or action. However, the answers that I received (and posted earlier) indicate that (today) the Americans fight in a loosely structured manner, whereas the Germans (today) prefer more structure/planning. The fact that during training, the Germans tend to get frustrated with Americans when a departure from plan is made, is indicative of how each side might also fight.

``...If the latter, it sounds very unGerman to me!...``

That depends upon whether you are referring to the Wehrmacht or the Bundeswehr. The modern German Army (as Ferozk indicates) has been `Americanized` and appears to prefer greater planning in exercises (based upon my colleague`s response), and if exercises simulate war, would also prefer greater planning in war.

Re: Fuzair

``...Germany surrendered in April...``

Wrong. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945.

Re: Dost-Mittar on junior Indian officers killed in combat

I do not have any statistics on officer-to-men-killed ratios. Without any statistics, the debate can go on ad nauseum with no end in sight.

I do know this, however, that of the unusually high number (11!) of boys from my high school class who joined the armed forces, almost all of them would tell later me about how it was drilled into them at the National Defence Academy (Kharakvasla), and later at the Indian Military Academy (Dehradun) that it was important for officers to lead from the front. I remember these young cadets (who could not have been older than 21) regaling me with stories of past officers who had fallen in battle, and how various buildings in Kharakvasla were named after them. I got the distinct impression that these guys were full of admiration for the fallen, and held the view that officers need to lead from the front.

PS: A friend also told me that it is virtually impossible to advance beyond Lt. Col. in the Indiam Army without an advanced degree (Master`s or higher).

Re: Shammi (?)

Yes, the Americans` assessement of the German armed forces were correct. The German general staff is maniacial about operational planning. There used to be a joke in the German army, which said that the best minds in the German army went into the planning section and eneded up in lunatic wards!

There is marked difference between the German army of the Second World War and the post-1945 German army. Still, the German army`s greatest strenght is in its combat resilence and willingness to recoup from set-backs and still maintain their operational coherence. The tale of the German arms in the WWII is all about this fact and the article by Fuzair proves this quality of the German army.

Secondly, the blitzkreig was not the brainchild of Hitler, but Heinz Guderian who perfected the doctrine, when he was the commandant of the German tank school in the early 1930s. Infact, Hitler got ``cold feet`` during the German onslaught in France in 1940 and ordered, against the advice of Guderian and others, to stop the German advance. Hitler thought that Germans were advancing too fast and could be counter-attacked by the French and the British. What Guderian, Rommel and Manstein tried to convince him was that there would be no allied counter-attack, because the German advance was so fast and fluid that the Allies could not even identify where the German flanks were - let alone attack them! According to them, flanks only became visable when you stopped and as long as you kept moving, there would be no flanks.

Dunkirk and the stop in German army operations was a political mistake compounded by a military inability. Goering did promise to destroy the British forces through the use of Luftwaffe only, but the bigger fault lies with der Fuhrer, because he stopped the operations to give the British an offer of peace. Hitler considered the British empire and the Great Britain was an ``associate nordic country`` and did not wish to destroy the British empire, if the British would let have him political dominance in Europe.

What he forget and what his foreign minster von Ribbentrop failed to tell him was that the British European foreign policy was designed to prevent the emergence of a single European power. It was this policy, which prompted the British to fight the Spanish armada in 1588; France`s Louis XIV ``Sun King`` in the late 1680s; Napoleon from 1793-1815; the German Kaiser Welhelm II in 1914-18 and Hitler from 1939-45.

Where Tahmed321 is correct is that it was Hitler`s insistence upon holding territory, which mitigated the effectivness of the German military doctrine of blitzkreig. Had Hitler not placed political symbolism on Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, the results might have been different. The irony of the German experince in the Second World War was that Hitler was a political genius, but a medicore military strategist. The German army`s general staff was a brilliant organization of military minds with no political understanding.

Ciao