Category Archives: Military

Not too sharp a Kirpan (updated)

Posted on by

A newly declassified Indian navy investigation says that the only Indian naval vessel ever sunk by an enemy submarine was inadequately protected, and the Indian navy initiated an immediate cover-up. The Pakistani sub Hangor torpedoed the INS Khukri during the 1971 India-Pakistan war. An accompanying Indian ship fled instead of returning fire. But many involved received awards for gallantry rather than court martials for dereliction of duty.

… a Pakistani submarine torpedoed and sank the Khukri on the night of December 9, 1971. It is the single biggest wartime casualty of independent India. There was never a court of inquiry to find out if anyone was responsible for the ship going down.

… in their last moments some 250 officers and sailors of the Khukri were abandoned by INS Kirpan, an accompanying naval ship that should have carried out an immediate counterattack250 sailors were abandoned by an accompanying naval ship . It also reveals that the navy’s claim that it hunted and sank the Pakistani submarine a few hours later to be false. The Hangor returned to Karachi harbour safely…

“The Khukri, in company with another A/S (anti-submarine) ship Kirpan, was torpedoed and sunk without even an engagement with the enemy. Eighteen officers and 176 sailors perished with the Khukri. Both the COs deserved to be punished, but the higher authorities gave them gallantry awards. INS Khukri and INS Kirpan violated every principle of A/S doctrine for hunter killer operations…” [Link]

If true, this revisionism may be linked to a military and civilian culture which gives greater weight to saving face than fixing problems.

… It also raises uncomfortable questions about numerous gallantry awards given out by the government to many involved in the incident. [Link]

It reminds me of the Pat Tillman friendly fire cover-up by the U.S. Army Rangers:

… the military’s top commanders were covering up the truth to protect their image… Although “soldiers on the scene said they were immediately sure Tillman was killed by a barrage of American bullets,” according to the Post, and “a new Army report on the death shows that top Army officials, including the theater commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, were told that Tillman’s death was fratricide days before the service,” Army officials decided not to inform Tillman’s family or the public until weeks after the memorial…
Continue reading →

The man the SEALS left behind

Posted on by

Last July I blogged with admiration about the exploits of Gulab the Shepherd. Gulab helped rescue a U.S. Navy SEAL from certain death. Then, his whole village stood up against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters because of a code of honor that could not allow them to let harm come to a guest. As we could have guessed at the time, no good deed goes unpunished. Newsweek updates us on the fate of the brave shepherd:

Even with all the troubles that followed, Mohammad Gulab says he’s still glad he saved the U.S. Navy SEAL. “I have no regrets for what I did,” the 32-year-old Afghan told NEWSWEEK recently. “I’m proud of my action.” Nevertheless, he says, “I never imagined I would pay such a price…”

Gulab has been paying for his kindness ever since. Al Qaeda and the Taliban dominate much of Kunar’s mountainous backcountry. Death threats soon forced Gulab to abandon his home, his possessions and even his pickup truck. Insurgents burned down his little lumber business in Sabray. He and his wife and their six children moved in with his brother-in-law near the U.S. base at Asadabad, the provincial capital. Three months ago Gulab and his brother-in-law tried going back to Sabray. Insurgents ambushed them. Gulab was unhurt, but his brother-in-law was shot in the chest and nearly died. The threats persist. “You are close to death,” a letter warned recently. “You are counting your last days and nights…” [Link]

It is fairly common knowledge that guerrilla wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be won unless the hearts and minds of the people are won first. A substantial reward or even an offer of asylum to Gulab would be a small price to pay for the hearts and minds of the 300+ villagers that protected the SEAL. Al Qaeda certainly knows how to spread around a little money to win the hearts and minds that we let slip away:

Gulab’s story says a lot about how Al Qaeda and its allies have been able to defy four and a half years of U.S. efforts to clear them out of Afghanistan. The key is the power they wield over villagers in strongholds like Kunar, on the Pakistani frontier. For years the province has been high on the list of suspected Osama bin Laden hideouts. “If the enemy didn’t have local support, they couldn’t survive here,” says the deputy governor, Noor Mohammed. Since the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, jihadists have been amassing influence through scare tactics, tribal loyalties and cash. A little money can purchase big leverage in an area where entire villages sometimes subsist on a few thousand dollars a year, and many foreign jihadists have insinuated themselves into the Pashtun social fabric by marrying into local families.

The SEAL who Gulab saved hasn’t been able to break his silence (active SEALS don’t talk) but he seems upset that Gulab didn’t receive more of a reward from the U.S. government. Judging by the type of attorney he has I wouldn’t be surprised if both him and Gulab end up as characters in a Hollywood movie (like this one) soon:

The SEAL, who remains on active duty, declined to comment via his attorney, Alan Schwartz, an “entertainment lawyer” in Santa Monica, Calif. Gulab only shakes his head: “Why would anyone else want to cooperate with the U.S. now?“

Continue reading →

Boondoggle

Posted on by

The New York Times reports that a former investigator with Congress’ Government Accountability Office (G.A.O) is blowing the whistle on his own office, as well as the Bush administration’s oversight of the contracters building elements of the national missile defense shield:

A senior Congressional investigator has accused his agency of covering up a scientific fraud among builders of a $26 billion system meant to shield the nation from nuclear attack. The disputed weapon is the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s antimissile plan, which is expected to cost more than $250 billion over the next two decades.

The investigator, Subrata Ghoshroy of the Government Accountability Office, led technical analyses of a prototype warhead for the antimissile weapon in an 18-month study, winning awards for his “great care” and “tremendous skill and patience.”

Mr. Ghoshroy now says his agency ignored evidence that the two main contractors had doctored data, skewed test results and made false statements in a 2002 report that credited the contractors with revealing the warhead’s failings to the government.

The agency strongly denied his accusations, insisting that its antimissile report was impartial and that it was right to exonerate the contractors of a coverup… And Mr. Ghoshroy’s assertions raise new questions about the Boeing Company’s military arm, the main contractor for the troubled $26 billion system of interceptor rockets now being installed in Alaska and California. The system’s “kill vehicles” are to zoom into space and destroy enemy warheads by force of impact. [Link]

Mr. Ghoshroy seems to have a strong background in defense weaponry and is currently at Harvard’s Kennedy School:

Until his arrival at the Belfer Center, Mr. Ghoshroy was a Senior Defense Analyst at the U.S. General Accounting Office, which he joined in 1998. Mr. Ghoshroy’s primary responsibility has been to provide independent technical advice to GAO staff and managers on GAO evaluation of weapons systems that employ sophisticated technology. In this capacity, Mr. Ghoshroy has contributed among others to reviews of National Missile Defense, Airborne Laser, Land Warrior, and Joint Tactical Radio. [Link]
Continue reading →

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Posted on by

As I write this post, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing oral argument in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, an important case involving the president’s constitutional and statutory authority in times of war, and the legality of military commissions set up to try detainees captured in the war on terror. The facts of the case:

Petitioner Salid Ahmed Hamdan is a detainee being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and admits to being a personal bodyguard and driver to Osama bin Laden. He was charged with conspiring to commit acts of terrorism, and was to be tried before a military commission, which is a special adjudicatory body created by Presidential order to try individuals accused of war crimes. [Link]

The procedural history, or how the present case made its way to the Supreme Court:

Before trial, Hamdan challenged the lawfulness of the military commission that was to try him, and in November 2004, the D.C. District Court enjoined the military commission proceedings as illegal under the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that military commissions had been duly authorized by Congress; that relief was unavailable under the Geneva Convention because it did not create privately enforceable rights and because it did not apply to Al Qaeda; and that the UCMJ did not preclude HamdanÂ’s trial before military commissions. [Link]

Hamdan appealed to the Supreme Court and in November 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself, as he served on the D.C. Circuit Court panel that upheld the war crimes tribunals. (Some are calling for Justice Antonin Scalia to step aside as well because of comments he recently made in Switzerland, see here.)

Respected desi law professor Neal Katyal is arguing the case on behalf of Hamdan. There are two questions (.pdf) before the Supreme Court. The first is a threshold inquiry regarding the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The government contends that the Court should dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds:

[The government] argue[s] that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), enacted by Congress after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, preclude pre-trial review by establishing an exclusive post-trial review process for all Guantanamo detainees. In addition, the Government has argued, even absent the DTA, the Court should withhold ruling on the merits until a final decision has been reached in accordance with traditional abstention doctrine. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that Congress specifically modified the effective date provisions of the DTA to ensure that the Supreme Court could decide this case.[Link]

Second, as to the merits:

petitioner argues [in part] that the military commission that seeks to try him is not authorized to do so under U.S. law. [H]e argues that such authorization must be explicitly provided by Congress. Respondents dispute whether such explicit authorization is required, pointing to the historical practice of the President convening military commissions as evidence of his inherent “Commander-in-Chief” power to do so. [Link]

Continue reading →

Sooden rescu…err…I mean released

Posted on by

By now most people are aware that 33-year-old Canadian peace activist Harmeet Singh Sooden (who celebrates his birthday today), along with another Canadian and one Brit, got their first taste of freedom in months on Thursday:

NOW he looks like a “Gandhian peace activist.”

The three hostages were freed Thursday from a house west of Baghdad by a joint U.S.-British military operation. The kidnappers were not there.

“Right before the intervention, they (the hostages) were bound and then their captors left their building,” said Peggy Gish, a member of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemakers Teams.

The U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, said the 8 a.m. rescue from a “kidnapping cell” was based on information divulged by a man during interrogation only three hours earlier. The man was captured by U.S. forces on Wednesday night. [Link]

The operation to rescue the three hostages was led by British SAS and MI6 as detailed in an article at Canada.com:

CanWest News Service has learned the raid was prompted after the Special Air Service and MI6 — Britain’s commando unit and its spy agency — opened negotiations with a kidnapping network after studying hostage tapes released to Arab television stations. Eavesdropping teams also tried to intercept cellphone conversations between the kidnappers and Arab television journalists.

The Canadian contingent is believed to have included the elite Joint Task Force 2, who were, according to Stephen Harper, “fully engaged and fully aware of what was going on…” [Link]

Now for the controversy. If you listened to the news yesterday you probably noticed that the language used to describe this event varied greatly. Some news organizations and groups said the hostages were “released.” Others, including military officials, said that they were “freed” or “rescued.” If you’ll reacall, these three are members of Christian Peacemaker Teams who oppose the occupation of Iraq and the presence of military there. It would put them in a tough spot if they had to publicly thank the military for Thursday’s events. Using different set of words and phrases can allow these different groups (e.g. military, CPT, and journalists) to all put their own spin on the actual events. I’d like to know more about the facts.

In Toronto, CPT co-director David Pritchard described the news as “release” rather than a “rescue” throughout the day. He said the news sent CPT workers on “a roller coaster of emotions…” [Link]

Continue reading →

Where There’s a Will…

Posted on by

Rarely does an article or blog post occupy my thoughts for very long, but Vinod’s exceptional entry regarding an anti-“Islamist” manifesto is such an exception. The manifesto, you will recall, featured several prominent signatories, including Salman Rushdie, and argued in principle that the struggle against Islamism will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.

When Sajit and I wrote for The Satya Circle, I asked in an essay, “is the war on terror more than a battle between arms and men, but between mentalities and worldviews as well?”

[T]he fact remains there is a large and growing disparity between the American worldview and that of other nations and cultures…. The disparity in understanding between America and other nations and cultures might serve as AmericaÂ’s biggest foe, not any military regime or any set of terrorist groups…. [T]he American worldview must expand in order to understand, yet by no means accept, the ideology and reasoning of the Taliban and others sharing its hatred, even if what the Taliban practices and preaches is beyond any reasonable sense of morality…. Destroying Al Qaeda and punishing those who sponsor, harbor, or otherwise encourage terrorism is not sufficient and cannot make the country truly safer or without real threat…. Unless and until America engages in such serious introspection and in the enterprise of comprehending the subjective worldview of the Islamic fundamentalists and others, America cannot take real long-term, proactive steps towards preventing another attack. [Link]

Now, this was written before the Iraq war. Since then, we have engaged in said war, arguably tortured, humiliated, and denied due process to Muslim detainees — reports of which have had the effect of further aggravating Iraqis and others, and contributing to the will that legitimizes and effectuates acts of terrorism.

Indeed, President Bush himself said yesterday:

[W]e cannot let the fact that America has not been attacked since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the terrorist threat has disappeared. We still face dangerous enemies. The terrorists haven’t lost the will or the ability to kill innocent folks. [Link]

This extant will has led some to argue that the United States is actually losing the war on terror: killing suspected or prospective terrorists is insufficient and counterproductive, it is said, if doing so further inflames terrorist groups and their supporters. Certain U.S. policy is, in other words, a recruitment device. And it would be a mistake to assume that only fundamentalists or the impoverished are signing up; those interested in harming the United States for its actions include the educated and advantaged (see, e.g., “UNC Attack Suspect Wanted to Punish Gov’t“).

The interesting question is not whether the arms/men vs. will framework is an advantageous one, but how the concept of “winning the war of ideas” can be implemented into tangible policy. Continue reading →

At Least the Military is Winning Somewhere…

Posted on by

The Solomon Amendment is a Federal law which directs that certain Federal funds be withheld from recipient colleges and universities that do not grant military recruiters access to their campuses on a level equal to that provided to any other employer.

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), an association of law schools and professors that oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, alleged that the Solomon Amendment infringed on its First Amendment freedoms of speech and association due to the militaryÂ’s discriminatory recruitment practices (i.e., “donÂ’t ask, donÂ’t tell”). (See Abhi’s previous post on the case here.)

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against FAIR yesterday, issuing an opinion [.pdf] that upholds the constitutionality of the statute and that in effect gives FAIR three-snaps in a Z-formation (i.e., the “Zorro snap“). (While some legal commentators predicted a unanimous outcome, I honestly did not think a case this contested in the public sphere would yield an 8-0 result.)

Joan Biskupic of USA TODAY described the Court’s reasoning:

“Accommodating the military’s message does not affect the law schools’ speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions.” [T]he basic communications required of colleges were bulletin board notices and e-mails [which] hardly could be compared to the kind of “compelled” government speech that has been invalidated through the years, such as a West Virginia law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to salute the American flag, or a New Hampshire law that ordered the state motto — “Live Free or Die” — to be on license plates. [Link]

As this astute (and hopefully single) desi notes on her blog, Mia Culpa:

The decision boosts the Bush administration as it struggles to maintain recruiting levels to wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a defeat for Harvard, Yale, Columbia and other universities that accused the government of intruding on academic freedom. [Link]

Continue reading →

Three-ring circus

Posted on by

The press now has accounts of the extraordinary security measures that are being enacted in preparation for Bush’s visit to India:

About 5,000 personnel including snipers, commandos and U.S. marines using helicopters, bomb detectors and electronic jammers will protect President George W. Bush during his visit to India this week, officials said on Monday.

The personnel would be part of a three-ring security cordon around the U.S. president and First Lady Laura Bush who are due to arrive in New Delhi for their maiden visit to the subcontinent on Wednesday, they said.

“He is a much-threatened VVIP. We are fully geared,” Manish Agarwal, a top Delhi police officer involved in security operations, told Reuters…

Besides the inner-ring of security forces, an outer cordon would be deployed “as deep as possible” to thwart any attack by a rocket launcher, Agarwal said.

“A rocket launcher normally has a 1,000-metre (3,300 ft) range so we would be deployed in forests around venues,” he said. “We will have 360-degree rooftop surveillance around all the venues…” [Link]

I would hate to be a Secret Service agent on this trip. My brother once got a chance to meet Clinton but he was stopped by an agent while his two female companions were motioned forward. Another time an agent warned him that a sniper on the roof of the Chinese embassy had him in his sites. Just imagine being an agent in a whole country full of brown people! 🙂

There are already protests in India. Where will these people be with respect to the “three rings.”

Traffic in many areas in the capital will come to a near standstill on March 2 when Bush travels to his engagements from the Maurya Sheraton hotel to Hyderabad House, where he will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Rashtrapati Bhavan, where President A P J Abdul Kalam will host a dinner for his American counterpart.

Traffic is also likely to be affected by the proposed demonstrations against the Bush visit planned by the Communists, the Samajwadi Party and the Janata Dal-Secular.

The Maurya Sheraton, where Bush and his entourage will stay, has been converted into a fortress with the US Secret Service screening every visitor.

Hotel employees have been issued special passes, which have to be produced along with their identity cards when they arrive on duty. [Link]

All the security precautions are sure to rub local law enforcement the wrong way. Even when Bush went to Britain a few years ago the local authorities felt bullied by his security detail:

An unconfirmed report claims that American security officials wanted to handle Air Traffic Control themselves when Air Force One, the Presidential aircraft, arrives in New Delhi but the bizarre proposal was turned down. Indian engineers, they’ve been told, are capable of handling the situation but it would not be surprising if American officials are allowed to be around.

See related posts: Media Roundup: The Trip Part 1, Media Roundup: The Trip Part II

Continue reading →

Going nukular

Posted on by

The latest New Yorker is running a scary story on just how close India and Pakistan got to war in 2002 after the Dec. 13, 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. ‘The Stand-Off’ is written by Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden. It’s not online yet, but here’s a related interview. Some of the eyebrow-raising details:

  • Pakistani nuclear scientists have admitted to meeting with bin Laden; it’s not clear if it was during bin Laden’s U.S.-backed Afghan war phase or afterwards
  • The Parliament attackers had a car bomb big enough to kill most of the Indian Parliament. The MPs escaped only by chance, because the Vice Presidential motorcade happened to be blocking the Parliament entrance and the car bomb couldn’t get inside.
  • The U.S. pressured India to back off from retaliating so that Pakistan could supply troops to police the Afghanistan border
  • The U.S. turned down basing rights offered by India during the Afghanistan bombing so as not to offend Pakistan
  • Both countries feel betrayed by the U.S. after the 2002 border standoff: India because Musharraf has reduced but not stopped jihadi groups, and Pakistan because of warming U.S.-India ties
  • Disappointed by the political restraint in 2002, the Indian military has adopted a ‘cold start’ doctrine, a rapid reaction plan that kicks in before the U.S. and Britain start applying pressure; this increases the risk of war
  • American diplomats think India has an imprecise understanding of what would trigger nuclear escalation; it’s in Pakistan’s interest to convey the impression that that threshold is low
  • American analysts think that, like most countries, Pakistan would actually use its nukes if it felt its national survival were threatened
  • Under the U.S. interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it’s illegal to give nuke safety tech like PALs (coded controllers) to India and Pakistan, even though they reduce the chance of accidental launch
  • The Pakistani military says it follows standard procedures to secure its nukes in central locations; they’re most vulnerable to being hijacked once deployed in the field
  • American analysts estimate both countries have around 100 nukes, and Israel twice that

Continue reading →

Making Sacrifices

Posted on by

Back in 2003, NY Newsday published an article by reporter Dennis Duggan titled, The Growing Legion of Wounded. A reprint of the article can be found on this website. Here is an excerpt:

October 8, 2003

When a rocket propelled grenade struck his checkpoint in Northern Iraq on June 1, Sgt. Wasim Khan of Richmond Hill became part of an unheralded and growing legion of wounded.

When Khan, 27, of the Army’s 1st Armored Division, was struck by shrapnel, he was sent to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany for five days before being transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington…

What makes Khan’s American soldier story even more compelling is that he is a Pakistani who dutifully practices his Muslim faith.

Khan has spent the last four months in Ward 57 at Walter Reed, where the maimed lie in limbo waiting for prostheses…

Khan told me over the phone Tuesday that he hopes to get a medical leave in the next few weeks. Departure from the ward is the dream of most of the soldiers who endure pain and humiliation as their wounds are swabbed, poked and scraped. Painkillers are often useless, and sometimes the doctors and nurses break into tears along with the patient who cries out in pain. [Link]

Sgt. Khan’s name re-surfaced in the press once again just last week. Guess where?

“Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices,” said President George W. Bush during his State of the Union address Jan. 31, and listening intently from the balcony with First Lady Laura Bush was wounded-in-action Soldier Sgt. Wasim Khan.

Khan, a native of Gilgat, Pakistan, is a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Khan was wounded in Iraq while serving with the 1st Armored Division. He was a special guest at the State of the Union, nominated to attend by the secretary of the Army.

“I got to meet both President Bush and Mrs. Bush after the Address,” said Khan. “They thanked me for my service and for coming and I told them it was an honor and a privilege to see them…” “It was wonderful to see how the American people support us, and keep up that support,” he said. “I hope they keep doing what they think is right for the country and right for the world. We have a lot of work ahead of us…” [Link]

Continue reading →