India successfully test-fired Prithvi II, Dhanush

Indigenously developed, nuclear-capable ballistic missile Prithvi-II was today test- fired from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur, about 15 km from here off Orissa coast, in less than an hour of flight testing of "Dhanush" from a naval ship.

"Prithvi-II missile, which has a maximum range of 350 kms, was test fired from a mobile launcher at the launch complex-3 in the ITR" at around 1100 hours, defence sources said.

Official sources said trials of both "Dhanush", test-fired from a warship at a spot between Paradip and Puri, and Prithvi-II missiles were successful.

"Prithvi-II missile has proved its robustness and accuracy repeatedly during many trials earlier," a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) official said.

Pakistan and China to cooperate on defence

The top Pakistan and Chinese defense officials held a meeting where the new projects to expand their military cooperation, were discussed. The timely completion of the current projects was also an important part of the meeting.
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee of the Pakistan Army Gen Khalid Shameem Wynne met Administrator of China”s State Administration of Science Technology and Industry for National Defence Chen Qiufa discussed the issues related to defense cooperation and the present and future projects that the two countries are involved together.
General Wynne is in China to take part in the eight round of Pakistna-China security dialogue and he publicly thanked Chen Qiufa for the support in all defense projects and showed his appreciation for the active of SASTING in ensuring the timely completion of all current joint projects.

At the moment the major supplier of weapon systems for Pakistan – China, is being involved in a list of defense projects which include the development of the new modern fighter – The JF-17 Thunder which is currently being produced in both countries and the engines for the fighters are being supplied by the Russian military.
China is also involved in the construction of Naval Frigates for the Pakistan Navy which has so far received three of those frigates and the fourth one is currently being constructed in the Karach Shipyard and Engineering Works with the cooperation of the Chinese navy.

Last year, the Pakistan Naval Chief Admiral Norman Bashir stated that the country was interested in the joint development of war ships and submarines. AT the moment it is unknown if those proposals were discussed in the talks between Wynne and Chinese defense officials. The two countries have also cooperated in the development of Al-Khalid tanks.
At the moment the China’s defense ties with Pakistan are very important for the country and they are doing everything they can to augment their good relations.
China is ready to contribute with the development of the mechanism of defense and security talks, deepen strategic cooperation and ensure the peace, stability and common development of Pakistan.

India can’t always fool the world

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao on January 18, 2011 without any shame declared that Pakistan is pursuing terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Delivering a speech at a seminar on Asian Security Challenges, the Indian official asserted that the epicentre of global terrorism was located in her neighbourhood. 

“Some countries presume that they can pursue terrorism as an instrument of state policy without risks to themselves or to their standing in the international community,” she claimed. “This is a flawed and self-defeating presumption as the war on terrorism cannot be selective. Pakistan must turn away from using terror-induced coercion as an instrument of policy against India.”

It would have been better for Nirupama Rao to look closely what India has done in the past and still doing in her neighbourhood. Of course, the Indians are not exactly showering rose petals on their neighbouring countries. Consider these stubborn facts:

* It was India that attacked Pakistan in September 1965 and not vice versa. 

* It is India that has occupied the valley and is not willing to come to the table to discuss the Kashmir issue. The Indian case is so weak that they have not only ignored the UN resolutions on the subject, they also don’t want to talk about it. 
* It is India that has killed ten of thousands of Kashmiris, men, women and children, during the last 63 years. It has employed curfews, crackdowns, sieges, massacre, targeted killings and torture to control the valley.

* It is India that nurtured the Mukti Bahni in East Pakistan, trained and supported the terrorists and provided them with weapons of all sorts. 

* It was India that attacked East Pakistan in November 1971 and dismembered a sovereign country. 

* It is India that blatantly interfered in Sri Lanka, even sending her troops to meddle in Lankan affairs.

* It is India that has interfered in Nepal’s internal affairs. Now it has been revealed that the Indians were also involved in killing the Nepali king and his family.

* It was New Delhi that had supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when a world superpower had occupied a sovereign state, laid waste to it and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. 

* It is India that is now training and sending saboteurs to Afghanistan in order to destabilize Pakistan’s Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkwa provinces. The role of numerous Indian consulates in Afghanistan is not hidden from the world.

* Indian state terrorism continues in Assam, Kashmir, Khalistan, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu and Tripura among other states. Did Pakistan kill thousands of Muslims in Gujrat? Or thousands of Sikhs in Operation Golden Temple? Or thousands of others in New Delhi after Indira Gandhi was assassinated?

Unfortunately, India has gotten away with state sponsored terrorism on account of her so-called secularism and democracy, large size and massive foreign exchange surpluses. The charade in the garb of democracy cannot continue forever.


India can?t always fool the world

World top 10 armies-World to tem lrgest armies

Chinese J-20 a powerful competitor to American F-22 & Russian T-50

Chinese J-20 a powerful competitor to American F-22 & Russian T-50

According to the Russian "Airport" website reported January 12, China’s fifth generation fighter J-20 which completed successfully test flight is expected to become a powerful competitor of the U.S. F-22 and Russian T-50 . Some analysts believe that the smooth progress of this test show that China’s military aviation industry has made great breakthroughs in recent years, the U.S. air superiority in the region will be seriously challenged.
In the January 11 test flight carried out, J-20 for about 15 minutes of flight.

Western media have pointed out that recently appeared in Chinese media reports on J-20 might have been the consent of the Chinese military leadership.

Analysts believe that, J-20′s successful flight test showed that the modernization of China in terms of weapons far beyond the achievements of previous estimates of foreign military experts.

It is predicted that, J-20 will be served in the 2017-2019 years, and became the F-22 (today the only fifth generation fighter aircraft in service) and the Russian T-50 (it is expected to be put into production in 2015) competitors.

Published photos from the current point of view, J-20 is greater than the size of F-22 and T-50, which means it may have a longer range and greater payload. However, the performance of the aircraft airborne equipment is still a mystery.

Of course, China’s aviation industry in recent years great progress thanks in large part to advanced technology from abroad. For a long time, the engine has been plagued the development of China’s aviation industry one of the major bottlenecks. Some analysts believe that China has not yet developed to fully meet the needs of the new J-20 engine.

However, military experts pointed out that China may use existing engines for the J-20 flight testing. The experts explained that the test flight time may not be too long, the height and speed requirements are also lower than the levels after actual use.

According to the Associated Press news release, China has produced the two J-20 prototype: a Russian-made engine installed, the other one, the installation of Chinese-made engine. It should be stressed that, for the first flight of it is that Chinese-made aircraft engines installed J-20.

As for the J-20′s stealth capabilities, some experts pointed out that the performance of the machine although weaker than the U.S. F-22, but it is also quite good, the front section of the radar reflectivity of about 0.05 square meter.

J-20 test flight in the United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Beijing for the second day. British analysts have pointed out that the move may be to show Beijing its military to prepare to make their research programs become more transparent.

Of course, China also released a new generation of fighter flight out of a signal – even though the United States and its allies have expressed unease, China will continue to promote the country’s military modernization process.



"Jane’s Defense Weekly" that the J-20 supersonic cruise capability and flexibility than the U.S. F-22 "Raptor" fighter jet is slightly lower, but more weapons bay capable of carrying more fuel.
China J -20′s stealth is very well, equivalent to only 0.05 square meter body | WAREYE

Bangladesh in the Bull’s Eye

Forrest Cookson

Look at the map of the Indian Ocean. On the west there are the Middle Eastern countries and East Africa. On the east the long peninsular starts at the northern point of the Bay of Bengal and follows a series of north-south coasts going all the way to Singapore. In a real sense the Indian Ocean is closed in with the only convenient exit the man made Suez Canal in the west and the straits of Malacca in the east. In the west is a large part of the world’s discovered, remaining oil and natural gas reserves. Over in the east are three great industrial nations—Japan, China and Korea -- all consumers of a large amount of energy from oil and natural gas. These three nations have limited domestic energy resources and are dependent on imports particularly for oil and gas.

Think of the history of Japan in the first half of the 20th century. As industrial development got under way in Japan at the end of the 19th century the issue of access to raw materials became increasingly important. By the end of World War I modern navies were switching away from coal to oil as the fuel for driving the ships. Aviation was becoming more and more important in military affairs and war planes also depended on oil based fuels. From the Japanese viewpoint both their military and their industrial activities were increasingly dependent on importing oil. This oil was coming from Indonesia and the United States. The Japanese Government had imperial designs on China which, not being acceptable to the United States and the Netherlands led to the banning or limiting sale of oil products to Japan. The Pacific War between Japan and the allies followed. The war was an expression of Japanese desire for imperial expansion to insure that they had access to oil and the American resistance to this. The America resistance to Japan arose from the empathy felt by ordinary Americans for the Chinese who were oppressed by both their own Government and the Japanese occupation forces. The point of the story is that the Pacific War was about access to oil resources and the Japanese desperation to escape from dependence on the United States and the Netherlands.

Today 75 years later the same situation exists in the minds of the Chinese Government. Look at that map again and you see that the oil that is imported by China is coming largely from the Middle East and East Africa; to import this oil it is necessary to take the tankers through the Straits of Malacca between Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia or through the Lombard straits in Indonesia. Both of those routes are easily under the control of the American 7th fleet which has a de facto base at Singapore. Put another way Chinese oil imports can only reach China if the United States allows them to do so! Of course no threats are made nor are action taken to actually limit the passage of the oil products, but everyone understands the real threat without having to express it.

China’s response to this is to try everything that they can think of to develop alternative supply sources –these include deep water oil wells in the islands found in the South China Sea, oil and gas from Myanmar, and oil and gas that might be located in Russia. In addition China is developing alternative transport routes for Middle Eastern oil and gas. There are three that are potentially feasible: A pipeline over the Kra peninsular in Thailand; pipelines from central Asia and Iran to China; pipelines from the Bay of Bengal through Myanmar to China. The first of these is the simplest but as Thailand is a close ally of the United States it does not provide China much improved energy supply security. The pipelines from central Asia are very long complex construction projects that are probably many years from completion; further more these may be difficult to use for oil from East Africa and the Gulf States. Oil from such states may require ports in Pakistan and pipelines from these ports through Pakistan into western China. The Myanmar pipelines are needed not only for product from Myanmar but also for gas and oil from the Middle East shipped by targer to Myanmar ports. This includes major port facilities in Myanmar as well as pipelines and roads to protect and provide maintenance. These are all giant engineering projects, but China is well on the road to construction of some of these. The next decade will see continuing strong efforts by China to insure the security of its oil and gas supply by diversification of sources and transportation routes.

We are probably at the start of a new cold war with China and its supporters vs. the United States and its supporters. There are a few clear placements for Asia: North Korea, Myanmar, and Pakistan come down on the Chinese side; Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore come down on the US side. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal will be trying to avoid taking sides.

What does this mean for Bangladesh?

For Bangladesh the key issues revolve around two points:

1. Should Bangladesh improve the maritime access of China to the Bay of Bengal by using Chinese funds and contractors to construct the new deep sea port?

2. How will China perceive the threat to their position and energy supply routes through Myanmar from Bangladesh’s relationship with India? The struggle now taking place in the northeast part of South Asia is more and more important to Chinese strategic interests.

Since its achievement of independence in 1971 Bangladesh has had the great advantage of being of limited importance to the strategic interests of major world powers. The natural resources of oil and gas are not of a magnitude to make the country of strategic importance. The economies of eastern India, Myanmar and Bangladesh were small and poor. The northeast part of India was particularly poor and backward. Starting around the early 1990s the growth prospects for this area began to improve, increasing market size and attracting interest of foreign investors. While these areas are still much poorer than other parts of South Asia, Chinese interventions to raise their naval presence in the Indian Ocean opened the eyes of Indian strategic planners to the threats that they faced. Increasingly northeast South Asia including Bangladesh and Myanmar loom large in their potential impact on national security concerns of China and India. From being irrelevant to major power strategic interests, Bangladesh is now in the bull’s eye. Both China and India see Bangladesh as a key area. For India to insure a friendly neighbor and to have transit access to the northeast states; for China to keep India from achieving a hegemonic role over Bangladesh and to provide a secure route for gas and oil to be shipped via pipeline to southern China.

However much Bangladesh wishes to avoid being drawn into these matters, it is no longer possible to return to the past where no one has important strategic objectives in the region. Bangladesh will become increasingly the target of maneuvers by India and China to gain advantage with respect to their higher strategic goals. Many Bangladeshis believe the true interests of Bangladesh are to be a friend to both great powers and avoid taking sides. However, India and China have different ideas and would like to draw Bangladesh into as exclusive relationship as possible. Unfortunately for the conduct of Bangladesh foreign policy there are powerful domestic political forces at work. The Awami League and its allies are clearly pro-Indian and the present government is moving systematically to improve its relationship with India. The BNP and its allies are clearly pro-Chinese and would like to encourage the “opening to the east” while keeping India at arms length.

The question facing the nation is the general strategic approach. There are in effect two choices: Move towards a strategic alliance with India and with that decision let the relationship with China be decided by China. This means being on India’s side in any conflict with China. Going down this path requires a toughness to deal with an annoyed China. The alternative is to maintain a balance and ensure that the country stays out of any conflicts between India and China. Choice between these alternatives is made difficult by the potential instability. Movement towards a strategic alliance with India might be reversed by a new Government.

India’s actions clearly indicate that they want a friendly relationship with Bangladesh and that they seek to have a strong position in Bangladesh in the energy sector and infrastructure to facilitate transit of goods between the northeast Indian states and the rest of India. The Indian government is pushing hard on these issues with considerable success. These actions serve India’s strategic purposes by raising their role in the Bangladesh economy and providing the infrastructure for logistical support to any military operations in the northeast states. [In a serious conflict between India and China there would be little possibility of enforcing a no military equipment or personnel clause.]

China faces a somewhat more difficult position. The recent visit by the leader of the opposition to China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party is an indication of their displeasure with the speed with which the relations with India are deepening. Chinese attitudes towards Bangladesh will continue to provide low cost financing of some projects and active participation of Chinese companies in Bangladesh Government tenders etc. but underneath there will be a toughness and caution. China continues to be a major arms supplier to Bangladesh. There is no point in China making an enemy of Bangladesh; in response to the progress with India, China will be cooler and less responsive as well as more demanding on assistance projects.

The past lack of strategic importance of Bangladesh’s location meant that the formulation of national security strategy was easy. The objective of all foreign policy was to maximize the foreign aid inflow and open up markets for Bangladesh exports. This was relatively simple and consequently a serious national security organization was not needed. But now the choices are more difficult requiring joint analysis by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense and involving a wide range of specialist organizations.

The new world that Bangladesh now faces suggests two points:

1. The organization for formulation and review of national security policy needs to be put in place insuring that there is close coordination between the military and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At present there is no stable systematic coordination among those responsible for national security.

2. The importance of stability of policy calls for a less political approach suggesting that the two political groupings must find a way to work out a core program that both major political grouping will not repudiate with each new government.

During the past few years there has been regular talk of a “national security council”; the best I understood this it was a device for bringing military officers into considerations of national policy. The idea stated in point 1 above is quite different. It focuses on two key issues that have never been correctly faced in Bangladesh: the strategic objectives of the country as defined by its relationships with other countries and the determination of military requirements based on the strategic objectives. Instead the size and mix of the military services is based on no strategic objectives but is determined in some mysterious way. To develop the strategic objectives and the military requirements that arise from them is the objective of a national security council. Now strategic objectives are set without reference to the military and military force levels are set without consideration of the strategic objectives. This was just fine when it did not matter very much. Now that Bangladesh is in the Bull’s Eye there is grave danger in not approaching the strategic objectives and military force levels in an intelligent, purposeful way.

As for the importance of stability of policy, that is up to the political leaders. In the United States at the beginning of the cold war in 1948 the two major political parties more or less agreed on the strategic objectives of the nation and worked out the implied force levels and roles of the military organizations. Neither party ever seriously challenged the underlying strategic objectives. During the next two decades as the cold war between China and the USA develops and escalates, Bangladesh can no longer sit out from the action. The long term survival of the nation depends on finding a strategic policy that is accepted by most of the population and in particular by the major political leaders. The choices are tough but must be faced.


DeshCalling: Bangladesh in the Bull’s Eye

Russia unable to win possible war with either NATO or China

Russia unable to win possible war with either NATO or China Russia unable to win possible war with either NATO or China - English pravda.ru Gen. Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the Russian General Staff, stated on December 14 that after two years of reforms the Russian army was fully prepared for showing appropriate reactions to any threats. It became possible owing to the creation of the absolutely new defense structure and the introduction of the new training system for the troops, the official said. High-readiness forces have been thoroughly provided with weaponry and ammo, whereas the army was supposedly degenerating before, the official added. Makarov also said that the majority of military schools were training officers on the base of outdated programs and techniques. Many of those programs, the official said, were based on combat experiences of the Great Patriotic War. Judging upon the statements of the high-ranking defense officials, the previous problems of the Russian army have been solved. Is it really so? Will the Russian army be ready to stand up against a potential enemy? Will the results of the army reforms give Russia an opportunity to show appropriate reactions to possible aggression from NATO members or China? Pravda.Ru asked expert opinion from military experts. Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems: "Statements claiming that Russian Armed Forces are ready to repulse any attack after the so-called reforms are nothing but nonsense. They are capable of settling a small conflict, in which not more than 100,000 men would need to participate. If there's a larger, local conflict, which requires the participation of up to 500,000 people, then the Russian Armed Forces would not be able to deal with it, not to mention a large-scale war with NATO or China. "In other words, without the use of nuclear arms, Russia is incapable of reacting to challenges from potential enemies. Those, who believe that the Russian army should be cut, say that we do not need such a large army at all because we have our nuclear weapons. The forces of nuclear containment need to be protected in the air and on the surface. If someone attacks Russia without the use of nuclear arms, Russia will not respond with a nuclear attack either. No country participating in WWII used chemical weapons during the war in spite of the fact that everyone had more than enough of those weapons. No one did that, not even the dying Nazi Germany. "The same will happen to nuclear weapons. Everyone is very well aware of the fact that using nuclear weapons is similar to committing suicide. Both NATO and China know that Russia will not use its nukes if a non-nuclear war occurs. "As for the so-called reforms, the combat effectiveness of the Russian army has considerably reduced during the years of those reforms. Many officers resigned not because of the outdated training - they were simply sacked. They tell us today that Stalin "beheaded the Red Army" when he repressed 30,000 out of 800,000 officers. But what is the right word to describe the sacking of 200,000 out of 300,000 officers within two years? No one of them received any apartments, by the way. "The reforms are over, and what do we see? Officers still do not have the motivation to serve, because they do not have a place to live. The technological base of the army was cut considerably during these two years. Let's take the support system, for example. This system has been handed over to entrepreneurs. This system can function normally only during time of peace. Will businessmen and their subordinates risk their lives to deliver all necessary goods to the battlefield? "So what does Russia have? China and NATO can oppose Russia with huge armies - 2.5 million men each. Russia has only 85 instant readiness brigades, or 180,000 people deployed on such a vast territory as our country. "Here is another important aspect - Russian reformers want to purchase foreign arms. One would only have to press a button to deactivate those arms in case an armed conflict with NATO occurs," the expert said. "For the time being, Russia is capable of showing resistance to such countries as Georgia. Russia will not be able to win a war with China or NATO," Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis told Pravda.Ru. "As for nuclear weapons, NATO is much stronger than Russia, and China's nuclear arsenal will soon be just as powerful as that of Russia. It will not be possible for Russia to conduct offensive operations against NATO members, because the strength of the Russian army has declined considerably. "As for military hardware, which was supposedly fully provided to high-readiness forces, I have to say that all that hardware is of the Soviet origin. New weapons exist in meager quantities. There are only two divisions of S-400 anti-missile systems, for example, and they do not have long-range missiles, which would make them different from S-300 systems. Where are those highly acclaimed Su-35 fighters, which Russia exports? "There is another important aspect here. It is an open secret that all recent wars started with massive air strikes against enemies. Russia's air defense is absolutely not ready to face such a threat. It can only protect large centers in the country and that's it. There is not even one single air defense regiment on a huge territory from Irkutsk to Khabarovsk, which is 2,500 kilometers," Khramchikhin said.

I doubt China's nuclear arsenal will be as powerful as Russia's in the near future.

Is China a threat to India?

The military as well as political leadership of India have recently issued statements referring to China as a security threat to their country. In October, Indian Army Chief General V K Singh, while speaking at a seminar in New Delhi, had bracketed China with Pakistan as ‘major irritant’ for India’s security. A couple of months earlier the Indian army chief had caused a heated controversy in the political and diplomatic circles of Pakistan by claiming in a statement that India was working on a defence doctrine based on the capability to simultaneously fight a war with Pakistan and China. The statement was somehow ignored by China but it evoked a sharp reaction from the top military leadership of Pakistan. In a similar but wider context, the same view was expressed by Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in September that China was seeking influence in South Asia at India’s expense. Calling the expansion of China’s bilateral relations in trade, economic cooperation and security fields with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as “new assertiveness by the Chinese”, the Indian Prime Minister said that that Beijing was trying to “have a foothold in South Asia, and we have to reflect on this reality”. Sino-Indian strategic discord was further highlighted in October when China denied a visa to an Indian general based in Kashmir. Most interestingly, the Indian concerns seem to centre on growing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean — a water body India perceives as its exclusive preserve.

The Indian perception of China as a security threat has been for quite long an important element of the Indian security doctrine, although Chinese leaders have repeatedly asserted that China neither sees India as a threat nor does it pose any threat to India. India relates its nuclear weapons development programme to the perceived nuclear threat from China, despite the fact that China never resorted to nuclear sabre-rattling against India. It is also true that despite robust bilateral trade, which may exceed $ 50 billion in 2010, mutual mistrust between the two countries continues to persist. The Indian media never misses an opportunity to play up this mistrust to sour relations between Beijing and New Delhi. Thus, on the one hand, there are positive and encouraging developments in relations between India and China; on the other, India’s political and military leadership and media continues to raise the bogey of a threat from China. The traditional theory that India does so in order to curry favour with the US, which itself is worried about the lengthening Chinese shadows over Southeast Asia and South Asia, fails to explain this, as, according to a Pentagon Report of 2009, the US is convinced that China can play a positive role in South Asia, particularly in defusing Pakistan-India tension. Then why has India suddenly started whipping up the perceived threat from China; and do the recent Chinese moves in South Asia pose a threat to Indian security? In order to find an answer to this question, we will have to analyse the traditional Chinese policy towards South Asia, particularly recent initiatives focusing on the promotion of bilateral trade and economic cooperation with countries that are strategically located in the Indian Ocean, and look at the Indian self-image and its perceived role in South Asia.

Unlike most western countries, including the US and Russia, China has never looked at South Asia through Indian eyes. It is to be noted that even at the height of Sino-India friendship epitomised by the slogan ‘Hindi-Cheeni bhai bhai’ (Indians-Chinese are brothers) and despite the fact that Pakistan had joined avowedly the anti-China military pact Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), China never publicly endorsed the Indian stance on Kashmir. The Chinese have interacted with smaller countries of South Asia since the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949 but they never used their presence to influence the security and foreign policies of these countries. Chinese peripheries — and South Asia being one of them — constitute the areas of special focus of the foreign policy of China for the reason that tensions and instability in these regions will have a spillover effect on the Chinese mainland. This is the reason why trade, investment and economic cooperation relations occupy top priority in China’s approach towards expanding relations with its neighbouring countries. In South Asia, this approach is reflected in a more than 30 times increase in bilateral trade with India, focus on commerce and investment, involvement in the development of infrastructure and the energy sector in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and, most importantly, Chinese acquisition of an observer state status in SAARC summits. China did not oppose India’s signing a civil nuclear deal with the US and has offered India a long-term relationship based on a strategic partnership. China is a consistent supporter of the Pakistan-India peace process and, according to former prime minister Zafarullah Jamali, China was one of those countries that played a behind-the-scenes role in facilitating the resumption of the Pakistan-India peace talks in 2004. Then why should India raise the spectre of a Chinese threat to its security?

It is because through expanded bilateral relationships with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Burma, China looks poised, in India’s perception, to ‘dominate’ the Indian Ocean the way the British did for two hundred years by acting on the strategy developed by famous Portuguese Admiral Albuquerque. This strategy was based on the control of three key points in the Indian Ocean — Aden in the west, Malacca Straits in the East and Ceylon in the centre. In addition to this, India still sticks to its traditional view of regarding the entire South Asia region as its sphere of influence and finds it difficult to reconcile with unfettered freedom of options by the peripheral states to engage with extra-regional powers like China.

America's Failed War of Attrition in Afghanistan

Jeremy Scahill

At the end of the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal this weekend, the leadership of the Afghan Taliban issued a statement characterizing the alliance's adoption of a loose timeline for a 2014 end to combat operations as "good news" for Afghans and "a sign of failure for the American government." At the summit, President Barack Obama said that 2011 will begin "a transition to full Afghan lead" in security operations, while the Taliban declared: "In the past nine years, the invaders could not establish any system of governance in Kabul and they will never be able to do so in future."

While Obama claimed that the US and its allies are "breaking the Taliban’s momentum," the reality on the ground tells a different story. Despite increased Special Operations Forces raids and, under Gen. David Petraeus, a return to regular US-led airstrikes, the insurgency in Afghanistan is spreading and growing stronger. "By killing Taliban leaders the war will not come to an end," said the Taliban's former foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, in an interview at his home in Kabul. "On the contrary, things get worse which will give birth to more leaders."

Former and current Taliban leaders say that they have seen a swelling in the Taliban ranks since 9/11. In part, they say, this can be attributed to a widely held perception that the Karzai government is corrupt and illegitimate and that Afghans—primarily ethnic Pashtuns—want foreign occupation forces out. "We are only fighting to make foreigners leave Afghanistan," a new Taliban commander in Kunduz told me during my recent trip to the country. "We don’t want to fight after the withdrawal of foreigners, but as long as there are foreigners, we won't talk to Karzai."

"The Americans have very sophisticated technology, but the problem here in Afghanistan is they are confronting ideology. I think ideology is stronger than technology," says Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former senior member of Mullah Mohammed Omar's government. "If I am a Taliban and I'm killed, I'm martyred, then I'm successful. There are no regrets for the Taliban. It's very difficult to defeat this kind of idea."

But it is not simply a matter of ideology versus technology. The Taliban is not one unified body. The Afghan insurgency is fueled by fighters with a wide variety of motivations. Some are the dedicated jihadists of which Zaeef speaks, but others are fighting to defend their land or are seeking revenge for the killing of family members by NATO or Afghan forces. While Al Qaeda has been almost entirely expelled from Afghanistan, the insurgency still counts a small number of non-Afghans among its ranks. Bolstering the Taliban's recruitment efforts is the perception in Afghanistan that the Taliban pays better than NATO or the Afghan army or police.

The hard reality US officials don't want to discuss is this: the cultural and religious values of much of the Pashtun population--which comprises 25–40 percent of the country--more closely align with those of the Taliban than they do with Afghan government or US/NATO forces. The Taliban operate a shadow government in large swaths of the Pashtun areas of the country, complete with governors and a court system. In rural areas, land and property disputes are resolved through the Taliban system rather than the Afghan government, which is widely distrusted. "The objectives and goal of the American troops in Afghanistan are not clear to the people and therefore Afghans call the Americans 'invaders,'" says Muttawakil. "Democracy is a very new phenomenon in Afghanistan and most people don’t know the meaning of democracy. And now corruption, thieves and fakes have defamed democracy. Democracy can’t be imposed because people will never adopt any value by force."

The US strategy of attempting to force the Taliban to surrender or engage in negotiations rests almost exclusively on attempts to decapitate the Taliban leadership. While Taliban leaders acknowledge that commanders are regularly killed, they say the targeted killings are producing more radical leaders who are far less likely to negotiate than the older-school Taliban leaders who served in the government of Mullah Mohammed Omar. "If today Mullah Omar was captured or killed, the fighting will go on," says Zaeef, adding: " It will be worse for everyone if the [current] Taliban leadership disappears."

In October, there were a flurry of media reports that senior Taliban leaders were negotiating with the Karzai government and that US forces were helping to insure safe passage for the Taliban leaders to come to Kabul. The Taliban passionately refuted those reports, saying they were propaganda aimed at dividing the insurgency. Last week the Taliban appeared vindicated on this point as Karzai spoke in markedly modest terms on the issue. He told The Washington Post that three months ago he had met with one or two "very high" level Taliban leaders. He characterized the meeting as "the exchange of desires for peace," saying the Taliban "feel the same as we do here—that too many people are suffering for no reason."

UPDATE: [On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that NATO and the Afghan government have held a series of "secret" peace negotiations with a man who posed as a senior Taliban leader, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour. A Western diplomat involved in the discussions told the Times, "[W]e gave him a lot of money.” It is unclear who, if anyone, the impostor was working for, though the Times speculated that he could have been deployed by Pakistan's ISI spy agency or by the Taliban itself. “The Taliban are cleverer than the Americans and our own intelligence service,” said a senior Afghan official who is familiar with the case. “They are playing games.” Last month, the White House asked the Times to withhold Mansour’s name "from an article about the peace talks, expressing concern that the talks would be jeopardized—and Mr. Mansour’s life put at risk—if his involvement were publicized. The Times agreed to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name," according to the paper.

This incident is significant on a number of levels. If true, it underscores the ineffective and inaccurate nature of US, NATO and Afghan government intelligence. It also confirms what Taliban leaders have stated publicly and to The Nation, namely that it has not negotiated with the Afghan government or NATO and that it will not negotiate unless foreign troops leave Afghanistan. The fake Mullah Mansour, according to the Times, "did not demand, as the Taliban have in the past, a withdrawal of foreign forces or a Taliban share of the government."

In October, an American official said that reports in US media outlets of senior Taliban negotiating are propaganda aimed at sowing dissent among the Taliban leadership. "This is a psychological operation, plain and simple," the official with firsthand knowledge of the Afghan government's strategies told the McClatchy news service. "Exaggerating the significance of it is an effort to sow distrust within the insurgency."

Today on MSNBC, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell continued to insist that US and NATO forces have facilitated safe passage for Taliban leaders for reconciliation meetings in Kabul. The Taliban maintain there have been no meetings.

The Taliban imposter incident also calls into question scores of deadly night raids that have resulted in the deaths of innocent Afghans. Several survivors of night raids recently told The Nation that they believed they were victims of bad intelligence provided by other Afghans for money or to settle personal grudges.

Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from NATO and Washington, the Taliban are not on the ropes and, from their perspective, would gain nothing from negotiating with the United States or NATO. As far as they are concerned, time is on their side. "The bottom line for [NATO and the US] is to immediately implement what they would ultimately have to implement…after colossal casualties," stated the Taliban declaration after the recent NATO summit. "They should not postpone withdrawal of their forces."

Depending on whom you ask, the fact that General Petraeus has brought back the use of heavy US airstrikes and is increasing night raids and other direct actions by Special Operations Forces could be seen as a sign of either fierce determination to wipe out "the enemy" or of desperation to prove the United States and its allies are "winning." Over the past three months, NATO claims that Special Operations Forces' night raids have resulted in more than 360 "insurgent leaders" being killed or captured along with 960 "lower-level" leaders and the capture of more than 2400 "lower-level" fighters. In July, Special Operations Forces averaged five raids a night. Now, according to NATO, they are conducting an average of seventeen. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the raids "intelligence-driven precision operations against high value insurgents and their networks," adding, "There is no question that they are having a significant impact on the insurgent leadership."

The raids undoubtedly have produced scores of successful kill or capture operations, but serious questions abound over the NATO definitions of Taliban commanders, sub-commanders and foot soldiers. Most significantly, the raids consistently result in the killing of innocent civilians, a fact that is problematic for NATO and the Karzai government. "A lot of times, yeah, the right guys would get targeted and the right guys would get killed," says Matthew Hoh a former senior State Department official in Afghanistan who resigned in 2009 in protest of US war strategy. "Plenty of other times, the wrong people would get killed.

Sometimes it would be innocent families." Hoh, who was the senior US civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban stronghold, describes night raids as "a really risky, really violent operation," saying that when Special Operations Forces conduct them, "We might get that one guy we’re looking for or we might kill a bunch of innocent people and now make ten more Taliban out of them."

Hoh describes the current use of US Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan as a "tremendous waste of resources," saying, "They are the best strike forces the world’s ever known. They’re very well trained, very well equipped, have a tremendous amount of support, and we’ve got them in Afghanistan chasing after mid-level Taliban leaders who are not threatening the United States, who are only fighting us really because we’re in their valley."

In an interview with the Washington Post in mid-November, President Karzai called for an end to the night raids. "I don't like it in any manner and the Afghan people don't like these raids in any manner," Karzai said. "We don't like raids in our homes. This is a problem between us and I hope this ends as soon as possible.... Terrorism is not invading Afghan homes and fighting terrorism is not being intrusive in the daily Afghan life."

Karzai's comments angered the Obama administration. At the NATO summit, President Obama acknowledged that civilian deaths have sparked "real tensions" with the Karzai government, but reserved the right to continue US raids. "[Karzai's] got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women...who are in a foreign country being shot at and having to traverse terrain filled with IEDs, and they need to protect themselves," Obama said. "So if we're setting things up where they're just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham blasted Karzai's statement calling for an end to night raids, saying, “it would be a disaster for the Petraeus strategy.”

Along with Afghan government corruption, including a cabal of war lords, drug dealers and war criminals in key positions, the so-called Petraeus strategy of ratcheting up air strikes and expanding night raids is itself delivering substantial blows to the stated US counterinsurgency strategy and the much-discussed battle for hearts and minds. The raids and airstrikes are premiere recruiting points for the Taliban and, unlike Senator Graham and the Obama administration, Karzai seems to get that. In the bigger picture, the United States appears to be trying to kill its way to a passable definition of a success or even victory. This strategy puts a premium on the number of kills and captures of anyone who can loosely be defined as an insurgent and completely sidelines the blowback these operations cause. "We found ourselves in this Special Operations form of attrition warfare," says Hoh, "which is kind of like an oxymoron, because Special Operations are not supposed to be in attrition warfare. But we’ve found ourselves in that in Afghanistan."