Below is all 3 op-eds on this topic earliest first..
India: The Missing Factor In Afghanistan, Pakistan
By John Tsucalas, For The Bulletin
PUBLISHED:
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009
Take a look at a map of the Indian Ocean, the great trade route for shipping oil not only to India and China, but also the Pacific Ocean. Let the eye move to the north to sight India in the approximate center of the landmass, then moving westward to, in order, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Then move eastward to encompass China and the South China Sea off its coast.
Beyond the importance of the area for shipping, especially oil, the area is captive to nuclear weapons either held or with nations aspiring to develop them. Among those who have such weapons within the region, count China, India and Pakistan; the aspiring ones are North Korea and Iran, assuming no recent, significant breakthrough by these two in the development of those weapons.
A closer look at the map shows that Iran has to go through some hoops to get oil to say China, a huge consumer as is India. Iran must exit the Persian Gulf, pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Oman, then traverse the Arabian Sea into the Indian Ocean and turn eastwards through the tight Strait of Malacca, Indonesia, into the South China Sea.
This route can be easily bottled up by a well-built and diversified naval fleet, such as ours. Should we consider doing this? No, I wouldnt advise it unless China started something, which it wont. However, this explains importantly why China is developing a strong navy; when it comes to thirst for oil, its vulnerable.
As a bottom line, China and India are highly competitive with each other. However, India is too attentive to Pakistan to allow it to be embroiled in a conflict with China. On Pakistans eastern boundary, it and India have a common border. Indeed our envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, is looking to bring Pakistan and India into a combined effort to defeat jihadists in the area. While impracticable, its a creative idea because it could succeed in a dual way: lessen tensions between the two, while possibly sharpening our fighting capability against jihadists. NATO is worthless in the whole region.
However, the combination is unlikely to occur. The Pakistanis have not helped much in our fight to defeat jihadists; they are as terrible as NATO. Worse still, Pakistan has become a sanctuary for the Taliban and al-Qaida, especially the former. Moreover, the Taliban have successfully negotiated for the establishment of Muslim law (Shariah) in parts of Pakistan. I fear that theres a fifth column at work in Pakistan, largely operating through the powerful spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, but in concert with the Taliban, itself a sort of fifth column. They hide among the civilian population, even dressing as that population does. Therefore, they are hard to identify to kill or capture. In connection with Shariah, President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto, signed approval of Shariah at the federal level, another nail in our coffin.
In August, Afghanistan will hold its presidential election. The incumbent president, Hamid Karzai, in the mold of Mr. Zardari, will be on the ballot; he is only good at verbally attacking us after aircraft of the United States Air Force (USAF) have inadvertently killed civilians while in air support of Special Forces. From carriers in the Indian Ocean, the Navy has joined the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, using the latest in the Hornet series, the Super Hornet, an all-purpose attack aircraft that, along with their pilots, have done an excellent job. Most of the aircraft used and missions done are notably by the F-16 Fighting Falcon, itself all-purpose, of USAF.
President Obama has announced his strategy for the area. It is a smart approach, seeing Afghanistan and Pakistan as one combined area. That is why Mr. Holbrooke is the envoy to both. Additionally, he sees the main thrust to be one of killing or capturing jihadists, meaning keep the pressure on both al-Qaida and the Taliban. He has continued assaults by drones on Pakistan. He is doing a sensible job.
Now to what we should ask of India: Attack Pakistan and remove it as a factor in the battle against jihadists! There is a risk, of course, of a nuclear exchange between the two countries, both possessing the weapons for it. It is easy to say that both should eschew the use of them. However, the losing side is too likely to use them, and to me, thats Pakistan doing it first.
Its looking promising, especially if we can convince India to join the battle.
John J. Tsucalas, former deputy auditor general of Pennsylvania, is a Philadelphia corporate consultant on finance. He can be reached at
tsucalas@verizon.net.
====
The President's Policies And The Overstretching Of The American Military
By John Tsucalas, For The Bulletin
PUBLISHED:
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009
We seem to be overdoing our movement of forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. This is not smart troop management. Some have already been shipped to the theater of choice according to the commander in chief and his antiwar left-wing base both in the Congress and among the American people.
Here is one units experience recently: U.S. Army combat engineers numbering 500 or so left for Afghanistan from Fort Victory, close to Baghdad, the largest direct transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan. The four-hour flight to the south of that country ended with a landing at Kandahar. The units role is to clear roads of mines, bombs and debris. Give it a little more time and this will be soon enough the smallest incremental rise involved in a direct transfer. We are climbing to a high American level there of 68,000 troops.
I cant understand what the commander in chief is doing. Here is the recent history for the 500 flown on a Unites States Air Force C-17 Globemaster III, a highly capable jet powered air transport. The battalion arrived in Iraq in late February.
It left for and arrived at Kandahar in late April, a stopover of two months, but one in a highly stressful battle area. These men and women of our forces deserve some non-combatant time in human activity at the expense of taxpayers in, say, Amman, Jordan, a beautiful place. Better still would be repeated visits by the commander in chief, whether in Iraq or the United States, to see off troops leaving for Afghanistan. Since the morale of troops is elevated to stay alive as well as to win by contact with the commander in chief, let them have the boost to the extent feasible for him.
First look at the obvious: 100 percent of people we send into battle do not survive; as the case is for any nation. With a little time off, those who will not return will have been given something needed; thats all. Moreover, Afghanistan is now more dangerous for our troops than Iraq. As measured by danger, our forces are not moving up, but rather down. The battle of choice doesnt really look that attractive; does it? Should we give something of value to the troops headed for Afghanistan? I strongly believe that the answer lies in the affirmative. Why isnt the commander in chief thinking about this? The answer is that, because he never wore the American uniform, he doesnt know the thinking of the American combatant. He or she will do anything for our country; just show them some compassion and appreciation at the very top.
In Iraq, there has been of late a spike in violence. This portends nothing except that we may have to slow transfers to Afghanistan to end the spike; thats all. There, we are going to win as we will also in Afghanistan, just be patient about the victory in the latter.
One important point about an advantage our ground forces gain in Afghanistan thats worth lives for our forces. In Afghanistan, fighting goes on at longer distances than in Iraq. Thus, because our M-16 rifle is superior to the jihadists AK-47 at longer distances, we should get better results in firefights. Indeed, over shorter distances, the reverse is true, with the AK-47 being superior.
In Afghanistan, there are factors to take into account. The Taliban is getting stronger militarily. It has by negotiation with Pakistan emerged dominant in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, it has instituted Muslim law (Shariah) in parts of Pakistan, while the Pakistani army has responded by retiring to its barracks, and maybe for the duration.
Look at the leadership of supposed allies in the battle against jihadists. We have Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan who runs a government rampant with corruption, while ignoring the poppy trade, making that country number one in heroin, but nothing else. The former is easy to solve by applying the political will to end it. The latter is difficult, for in its place, what are farmers to grow as a substitute for income?
President Obama has wisely combined Afghanistan and Pakistan into one twofold problem. The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has the very obvious deficiency of being weak on jihadists, and the Pakistani army is not a cohesive, well-organized force against the Taliban, al-Qaida or Pakistani militants. He is useless to us, as is Mr. Karzai in neighboring Afghanistan. Additionally, Mr. Zardari has not gained authority over the powerful spy network, Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (DISI). This is the CIA of Pakistan; however, dissimilar from our CIA, it is duplicitous, as well as dangerous to Pakistan itself. The DISI is a good example of an agency that has the power of both information and guns. It is potentially a part of a fifth column, and I predict that it will so end up.
Mr. Zardari had better get control of the DISI, or there will be a coup détat in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. This would be a highly difficult matter to fix, if it could be, and by us most certainly. The only alternative is for Mr. Zardari to act pre-emptively against the possibility by going after suspect DISI agents with extreme prejudice, code for: by execution. In this kind of game in this area of the world, trials are nothing but showcases. The recommended action is in order now, for it could avert serious trouble later.
President Obama has smartly continued attacks on Pakistan by drones and his continuing to do so is vital to turning around a losing direction we currently face in the combined Afghanistan-Pakistan theater.
In my last column, I proposed that we rid ourselves of Pakistan in the battle equation by working diplomatically to get India to attack it. To me, this may be the only significant strategic step left for us to take. President Obama should go to work on this one, priority number one.
John J. Tsucalas, former deputy auditor general of Pennsylvania, is a Philadelphia corporate consultant on finance. He can be reached at
tsucalas@verizon.net.
====
A Plan For Taking On Pakistan
By John Tsucalas, For The Bulletin
PUBLISHED:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009
In my previous two columns, I proposed that India should take part in the fight against jihadists in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater by attacking Pakistan. This column expands on the idea by discussing one way India can do it successfully.
The earlier columns, found at
The Bulletin - Philadelphia Family Newspaper, were published on April 20, titled: India: The Missing Factor In Afghanistan, Pakistan, and April 27, titled: The Presidents Policies And The Overstretching Of The American Military.
Our situation in Afghanistan could be improved without NATO and Pakistan being a part of it. To accomplish this, India would attack Pakistan, removing it from the equation. I caution, however, that since both countries have nuclear capability, a battle between the two could escalate into a nuclear war, started by the losing side, naming Pakistan as the first that would use such a capability.
Because of the danger of the nuclear factor, President Barack Obama and his senior advisers would have to carefully and seriously consider involving India. However, our NATO allies, a part of the coalition against jihadists, have proven themselves inept on the battlefield, and the same goes for Pakistan, also.
In fact, the latter is too cozy with jihadists, so much so that it has acceded to Muslim law (Shariah) in parts of Pakistan and has given it approval at its federal level. With regard to our NATO allies, we should thank them for their help, while asking that they leave the coalition as soon as practicable. It has to be done in this gentle way of guile because the Europeans are very sensitive.
The Taliban is resurgent, and al-Qaida likely will also be in the not too distant future. Only one way exists to reverse a tide running against us in the joint battle-theater of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is to invite India to attack Pakistan.
Such a mission would have to be classified, so that there is plausible deniability, code for: lying, by e.g., rejecting any notion that we had anything to do with this.
The first attack point should be at the port of Karachi on the Arabian Sea, the most important place on the Pakistani coast of 650 miles. Karachi is the port where most imports arrive and exports depart. A successful attack here would bottle up commerce in and out of Pakistan. It must be an amphibious assault in conjunction with aerial attacks by MiG-29s on two airfields, a short distance from the port to the northeast. Because of the commercial importance of the port, the aircraft based at the airfields are probably F-16s, providing added defense for the port.
The former has the rationale of sweeping north and taking as much Pakistani land area as possible early in the war. The latter has the objective of simultaneously taking out two airfields, the coordinates to which and the number of F-16s, if in fact based there, on the tarmac, ideally all of them at home, can be easily ascertained by Indian intelligence before the attack. Passed on to the Indian Air Force, it can launch its MiG-29s.
The superior Pakistani F-16s would be immediately deployed, except for those, if any, destroyed on the ground. India must destroy as many as possible on the tarmac; the Pakistanis have a tremendous type of aircraft in the F-16. At this point, I would start worrying about a nuclear first-use option by Pakistan.
In the north, another Indian Army has to attack simultaneously and take the capital of Islamabad. There, it must, supported by MiG-29s, demolish the headquarters of the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (DISI) and kill or capture the preponderance of agents. The same army should turn north, moving toward Kashmir, but leaving enough forces behind to hold Islamabad and the DISI, as well as military, prisoners. The effect on Pakistani forces and people should be devastating with the loss of their capital, which is why commanding generals take and hold them.
Again simultaneously, another Indian Army should leave northern India with one objective: take Kashmir. Softening up Kashmir should be Indian MiG-21s and MiG-29s, ahead of the two advancing Indian armies. Expectedly, Pakistani F-16s would seek to intercept the Indian aircraft. More air dogfights would ensue.
Now, two Indian armies would advance toward Kashmir, accompanied by MiG-21s and MiG-29s, thus more air dogfights. This may not be bad if the Pakistani leadership mistakenly thinks that Kashmir is the only Indian target of acquisition, and nothing else. As both armies move toward their objective, they could have a point and time when they join together, thus adding strength to their attacks.
The Indians should expect to be engaged by Pakistani forces and aircraft all the way to and in Kashmir. In any event, more air dogfights would follow. The air battle would be massive, with hit aircraft on both sides screeching toward the ground, their descent culminating in explosions of loud noise, shooting up bright red fires of an inferno. The skies would be full with ejected, parachuting flyers.
There are three political elements in Kashmir: pro-Indian, pro-Pakistani and pro-independent. The largest percentage support by the Kashmir people is the last named; India is second in support; with, Pakistan last.
In the final analysis, the war will be won in the air as are most, especially when using conventional weapons and, thus, the associated strategies and tactics. Obviously, either the Indian MiG-21s or MiG-29s will prevail or the Pakistani F-16s. Thus, a short discussion of the aircraft on each side now seems in order.
First, Im biased in favor of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, second in combat capability only to the stealth F-22 Raptor. In writing this column, I was tempted to root for it, as you may be as you read along. After all, the F-16 is American manufactured, while the MiG-21 and MiG-29 are both Russian made in the era of the Soviet Union.
The MiG-21 was used by the enemy in the Vietnam War to impressive results in air dogfights. Against American pilots, the results achieved are rendered even more extraordinary. Aged as it is, the Indians understand the value of upgrades, new parts and excellent maintenance. So, the Pakistanis should not, and will not, underestimate the MiG-21.
The MiG-29 had its maiden flight in 1977. It, too, is old. However, with upgrades, parts replacements and excellent maintenance by Indian flight-line crews, it is not to be undervalued in capabilities.
The Pakistanis need maintenance and parts for their F-16s right now. Nonetheless, whether or not we embark on this mission, dont send money for it to pay expenses of aircraft upkeep, not with its unfavorable record with us. Because Pakistani pilots are trained by American ones, they have seen pictures of the two MiG aircraft from every angle and know their strengths as well as weaknesses in battle. In any event, with the F-16s, the Pakistanis have the advantage, thus making the job a tough one for Indian pilots. An Indian victory can come in the air, but only after hard work, along with sweat and adrenaline. The last is induced by fear, something only natural.
Now, here are some downsides. Our forces are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, too. Because the latter serves as a sanctuary for the Taliban and al-Qaida, our Special Forces (SF) do pursue and do battle them in their safe havens. In the case of a nuclear exchange between the two countries, we must take our forces out of harms way immediately, meaning before the Indians attack. Our forces consist mostly of SF and United States Air Force (USAF) pilots and air support personnel, both men and women. We cant take all out.
Because the enemy has to continue to think that were strongly engaged in battle, we have to leave some there, but only volunteers. Given the character of American fighting men and women, a lot will do so. My biggest worry is the direction of prevailing winds and breezes, as they can carry nuclear fallout. If theyre blowing to the west toward Afghanistan, its a big problem for us and the Indians, too.
Another concern has to be China. Since it has good and close relations with Pakistan, it may intervene on its side. However, I doubt that it will. Nonetheless, to keep China on this track of thinking, the United States Navy (USN) must have a large and diversified presence in the Indian Ocean. If this is not deterrent enough, bottle up the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia, the shortest route to the South China Sea and the Chinese Coast, especially crucial to its oil demand, for which it has an unquenchable thirst. As a part of the planning through the end of the war, I would advise that our CIA determine the amount of Chinese oil reserves, if any, and keep count until its all over. The reason is simple: as Chinese reserves rise, our leverage in the Indian Ocean falls.
Importantly, if we dont do this mission, the odds are that well wake up some morning to find that the DISI has control of Pakistans government, along with its nuclear weaponry. This could mean that jihadists would probably gain access to some of that weaponry. There is a greater danger in not having a clean up by India of the bad situation in the area by moving on the plan contemplated by this column.
If we go forward with that plan, at zero hour plus 5 minutes, a full alert at the highest level would be announced to our forces through the public address system at each military installation of all branches worldwide, while sirens are blaring forth. The words would be something along the following line: This is not a drill; its real; good luck. The president must authorize this! One doesnt know what can come our way anywhere!
If we do it, and we should because it would be strategically decisive in the war against jihadists and keep home another 30,000 troops that otherwise would be fighting in Afghanistan at risk of life and limb; well get through this, too.
John J. Tsucalas, former deputy auditor general of Pennsylvania, is a Philadelphia corporate consultant on finance. He can be reached at
tsucalas@verizon.net.
====
Possibly besides causing a rift with Pakistan, China and India it would also cause a rift with NATO/ISAF forces AGAIN.
Bush/Gates did that last year with NATO. Seems this guy wants to re hack that episode.
Tackles individual.
I have a personal distaste for what was written as in essence it slams all those NATO/ISAF soldiers who have fought with the US in Afghanistan and died. That covers British, Canadian, French, German, Dutch and Australian soldiers.
On the other side of the border there are those from the Pakistan Army as well.
The write of these op-eds writes as if war is comic book. But he would be safe in his arm chair.
Vivid imagination as well I might add !! 
