SASF – Blogs

Post-modern warfare is a new term used to justify the new type of warfare, whereby it is fought with precision weapons with minimal collateral damage and extensively improved types of immediate information (speed of sending info), surveillance and of equipment for locating targets. This new type of warfare has been possible due to the new military technology available, the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) and the information technology.

Now you may ask yourself What is the difference between post-modern warfare and the traditional war? Who is responsible for its development and creation? And most important, other than its lesser implications on collateral damage comparing to traditional warfare, how valid or legal is it for it to be practised on sovereign nation-states?

To answer the two first questions pose no difficulty, while the last question can be found to be very debatable. To start off, post-modern warfare development and the ideas can be traced back a fairly long time ago. The usages of catapult and far distant weapons that can fire their weapons against the army are examples of weapons that shield the people who are firing them from getting killed or hurt. The usage of these weapons was to destroy the enemy with getting the least damage to one self. Although these weapons were not as precise and mobile as todays, lets say airplanes and ships; they were a sort of a foundation for this new age in warfare. Like John Donne a metaphysical poet mentioned sometime during the 1500s giving recognition to the catapult and long-distance artillery saying that we are moving into a new era of warfare which can bring less bloodshed to future wars.

Skipping forward a few hundred years we can see as the technology in the military developed. At the beginning of the 1970s the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which still operates today is observed to developing a technology for the use in military that aims at decreasing casualties or death to people. It seeks to control what ever it is attacking.

This new type of warfare has been made possible thanks to the RMA, the programme created for the sole purpose of returning war to the West to its position as the prolongation of politics by other means. As the two superpowers during the Cold War were competing, the only way they could confront each other was with nuclear weapons which they couldnt use. This created a stalemate and opened up for developing of conventional or non-nuclear weapons that the other side did not have. The advantage of these weapons was that they actually could be used. These weapons could be applied only in certain ways and with some restrictions. They had to be politically and morally approved and accepted by different charters and human rights laws and declarations.

Also, in order for this new type of weaponry to be accepted they need to be more effective and efficient in comparison to the traditional warfare before the post-modern one. The necessity to avoid human losses of the people who are actually firing these weapons was one of the factors to its efficiencies. Retaining these people as far away from the battlefield frontiers to decrease, if not fully eliminate, the risk to them. Decreasing collateral or civilian damage by providing better accuracy or precision on the target is usually second on the priority list. This all means war that has to be fought needed to be as bloodless, risk-free and precise as possible.

The US military is seen as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why its running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the World Police. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the World Police claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they cant solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesnt promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even ever.

Author: Darko Perun
Article Source: EzineArticles.com

http://www.countercurrents.org/maitra060109.htm

By Ramtanu Maitra 06 January, 2009

Countercurrents.org

Following the Mumbai massacre (Nov. 26- 29, 2008), many “important” personnel moved through the Indian Subcontinent, ostensibly with the intent of unearthing the ghastly plot that killed at least 200 people and made a mockery of India’s security. During the visits of these “important” personnel, and subsequently, only one person mentioned the thousands of tons of opium (8,200 tons in 2007, and reportedly, 421 tons of heroin) produced year after year in Afghanistan, as a major cause of the growing terrorism in the region.

In reality, the huge amount of opium is allowed to be produced not only to finance terrorists and illegal gun manufacturers, but also to infuse cash into the bankrupt world financial system, through the offshore banks. That voice of reality was heard from Moscow when, in an interview with the Russian government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta, Russia’s federal anti-narcotics service director Viktor Ivanov said: “The gathered inputs testify that regional drug baron Dawood Ibrahim had provided his logistics network for preparing and carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks.” Ivanov said the Mumbai attacks were a “burning example” of how the illegal drug-trafficking network was used for carrying out terrorism. “The super profits of the narco-mafia through Afghan heroin trafficking have become a powerful source of financing organized crime and terrorist networks, destabilizing the political systems, including in Central Asia and Caucasus,” Ivanov said at the fifth India-Russia meeting of the joint working group on combatting international terrorism, in mid-December. The Indian delegation was led by Vivek Katju, Special Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs; the Russian delegation was led by Anatoly Safonov, Special Representative of the President.

US soldiers inspecting Afghan opium fields

The Drug-Led Corruption

While Dawood Ibrahim’s involvement has been tossed about in the media, what Ivanov said never gotthrough to the investigators. Or, is it that the drug angle was deliberately ignored, in order to abort the investigation by resorting to blame games, with the purpose of ending up nowhere? continue reading…

http://int-history.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=23

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008

MumbaiMassacre Calls For a Probe of British Role

by Ramtanu Maitra

The Nov 26-29 siege by terrorists of two top Mumbai
hotels and the Nariman House, where a Jewish group
had its residence and office, not only resulted in the
deaths of more than 200 individuals, but made clear
that India, like the United States, is one of the prime
targets of Dope, Inc. The questions remain: Who exactly
were the terrorists? What were their objectives?
And, were any of their objectives attained through this
dastardly act?

New Delhi must realize that if the Mumbai attack is
to be the last big one, it must carry out a thorough investigation.
The Mumbai terror had a very strong British
link as is detailed below. On Dec. 1, the London
Daily Mail reported that seven British Muslims were
involved. That number dwindled to two within a couple
of days. The now-deposed chief minister of the state of
Maharashtra (where Mumbai is located), Vilasrao
Deshmukh, announced that no British Muslims were
involved. In other words, whitewashing is fully in
progress.

But, it is likely that the evidence of British involvement
in this terrorist act has not yet been wiped out.
That is why, in the early morning of Dec. 14, Britain’s
Prime Minister Gordon Brown came pell-mell to Delhi
to urge the Indian Premier Manmohan Singh to allow
British intelligence, MI6, to interrogate the only surviving
Mumbai terrorist, Mohammed Ajmal Amir Qasab. It
is likely that the purpose of the MI6 interrogation is to
direct Qasab to provide details to confuse the investigators
and keep Britain out of it. The speed with which the
British Embassy in Delhi set up the Brown-Singh meeting
indicates that there is much at stake for Britain.

As far as the attack itself is concerned, in addition to
the three structures mentioned above, the terrorists also
fired random shots at the main Mumbai railway station,
Victoria Terminus, Cama Hospital, and the Metro
cinema. They also killed at least two top Mumbai police
officers, including the head of the Anti-Terrorist Squad
(ATS) of the state of Maharashtra, Hemant Karkare.
The operation surely had a strong input from local
allies of the terrorists. From the outset it was evident
that the former Mumbai mafioso, Dawood Ibrahim,
who now lives under Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)
protection in Karachi, allowed his network to
set up the attack. Ibrahim, a gangster who smuggled
gold from Dubai, U.A.E., a British-controlled area, and
later drugs, lives under threat of extradition to India. continue reading…

Ramtanu Maitra

29 Sep 2008

In recent weeks, particularly following the removal of Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s former President and Chief of Army Staff, on 18 August, Washington has begun to train its guns on Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which is on the border with Afghanistan.

On 3 September, US troops raided a known habitat of Taliban leaders in South Waziristan, without seeking permission from Islamabad. The USA’s unilateral violation of Pakistani territory created a furore in Islamabad, but it is evident that Washington has come to the dangerous conclusion that the Durand Line – the international border that separates Pakistan from Afghanistan, and was drawn on sand more than century ago by a British clerk – does not hold any longer. In order to secure Afghanistan, and tame the insurgents there, Washington has decided that US troops have no choice but to take the bull by the horns and move into the FATA physically, to eliminate the Taliban leaders.

Beside the furore that the raid has caused, it is evident that the Americans do not really understand what they are taking on. It is not that the US troops are not militarily competent to deal with the enemy, no matter what the strength of that enemy could be; the real issue here is that Washington refuses to acknowledge who its actual enemies are.

On the ground, the FATA is controlled by the tribal groups, who have remained non-integrated as a result of the British policy of divide and rule, and by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), a section of which works hand-in-glove with MI6.

In other words, the enemy is the British controllers, not the local tribesmen. In a recent article, the senior Indian journalist Bhaskar Menon pointed out that relations between the ISI and the British intelligence community have been close for decades, and have extended into a variety of areas.

Britain’s post-World War II role as the patron of the Muslim Brotherhood (inherited from Nazi Germany), developed into a low-profile alliance with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to guide the most effective anti-communist movement in the Islamic world.

“The Brotherhood has provided the leadership of every major ‘Islamic’ terrorist organization, including the Taliban and al- Qaeda,” Menon noted (17 September 2008, www.vijayvaani.com).

Following the US incursion into the FATA, Pakistan’s newly appointed President Asif Ali Zardari travelled to London to seek the British Prime Minister’s support against the US-led border violation. While it is true that the FATA is basically controlled from London, with the help of the MI6 and the ISI, it is nonetheless strange, but at the same time revealing, that Zardari, who “got” his job by ousting Musharraf with the help of the United States, ran to London, and not to Washington, to seek help.  continue reading…

Ramtanu Maitra

12/30/07

The gruesome killing of Benazir Bhutto in the evening hours of Dec. 27 in Pakistan’s garrison town of Rawalpindi is yet another step in the process of weakening, and eventual break-up, of Pakistan.

Despite the crocodile tears shed in Washington and London over Bhutto’s assassination, it was a disaster waiting to happen and therefore, was altogether expected. Those who believed, naively, that Bhutto’s mission was to reinstate democracy in Pakistan and put its usurpers, the Pakistani military, in the background, do not realize why she was inserted into the scene, which was already rife with violence. The truth is that the British imperial circles, with their stooges in Washington, set up Bhutto’s execution, to advance their scheme to break up Pakistan, and create chaos throughout this strategic region.

Bhutto, no doubt, was a mass-based political leader, but she was a woman (an excuse used by the puppet Islamic jihadists to commit violence against a person), and she was goaded into the scene by the United States-perhaps now the most hated nation among Muslims in general-to serve Washington’s purpose, which was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and force it to share power with a democratic politician. According to the master strategists in Washington, that is the best of both worlds-the Pakistani military stays friendly, while the United States shakes off its guilt of backing a military dictator.

It is not known what transpired in the telephone call between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Benazir Bhutto that led to Bhutto’s decision to return. What promises were made will not be known unless Rice can shake off the national security garb and tell the truth. The one who knew, and could tell others, is gone.

The 9/11 event had enticed a weak-in-the-head Bush Administration to embark on a journey, the path of which was paved by the British colonialists. The vestiges of British colonial aspirations exist not only at Buckingham Palace, but even more so in the power of the intrigue and secrecy-ridden City of London.

Britain and the Muslims

The partition of India, and the formation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation, by the British Raj, was not done because the British liked Muslims. They had slaughtered them by the thousands in 1856, when the Hindus and Muslims joined hands under the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to drive out the firenghee (white-skinned foreigners). Those who remember that untold part of the history of the Indian independence movement, talk of the piles of bodies lying in the streets of Delhi slaughtered by British soldiers. Most of them, like Benazir Bhutto and her colleagues who died on Dec. 27, were Muslims.

The Muslims were “traitors” aspiring to reinstate the “despicable” and “corrupt” Mughal dynasty, London screamed.

The key to the British Empire’s financial success was its ability to manipulate Islam. The British Empire-builders eliminated the Islamic Caliphate, created nations out of deserts, eliminated some nations, and partitioned others to create Islamic nations. Britain was aware that the oil fields of Arabia would be a source of great power in the post-World War II decades. The western part of British India bordered Muslim Central Asia, another major source of oil and gas, bordering Russia and Muslim Afghanistan. British India also bordered Islamic Iran and the Persian Gulf-the doorway to the oil fields of Arabia. In order to keep its future options open, Balochistan, bordering northeastern Iran, and the tribal Pushtun-dominated areas bordering Afghanistan, remained as British protectorates. continue reading…

By Ramtanu Maitra 30 March, 2005

The United States is beefing up its military presence in Afghanistan, at the same time encircling Iran. Washington will set up nine new bases in Afghanistan in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia.

Reports also make it clear that the decision to set up new US military bases was made during Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Kabul last December. Subsequently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai accepted the Pentagon diktat. Not that Karzai had a choice: US intelligence is of the view that he will not be able to hold on to his throne beyond June unless the US Army can speed up training of a large number of Afghan army recruits and protect Kabul. Even today, the inner core of Karzai’s security is run by the US State Department with personnel provided by private US contractors.

Admittedly, Afghanistan is far from stable, even after four years of US presence. Still, the establishment of a rash of bases would seem to be overkill. Indeed, according to observers, the base expansion could be part of a US global military plan calling for small but flexible bases that make it easy to ferry supplies and can be used in due time as a springboard to assert a presence far beyond Afghanistan.

Afghanistan under control?

On February 23, according to the official Bakhter News Agency, 196 American military instructors arrived in Kabul. These instructors are scheduled to be in Afghanistan until the end of 2006. According to General H Head, commander of the US Phoenix Joint Working Force, the objective of the team is to expedite the educational and training programs of Afghan army personnel. The plan to protect Karzai and the new-found “democracy” in Afghanistan rests on the creation of a well-trained 70,000-man Afghan National Army (ANA) by the end of 2006. As of now, 20,000 ANA personnel help out 17,000-plus US troops and some 5,000-plus North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops currently based in Afghanistan.

In addition, on February 28, in a move to bring a large number of militiamen into the ANA quickly, Karzai appointed General Abdur Rashid Dostum, a regional Uzbek-Afghan warlord of disrepute, as his personal military chief of staff. The list of what is wrong with Dostum is too long for this article, but he is important to Karzai and the Pentagon.

Dostum has at least 30,000 militiamen, members of his Jumbush-e-Milli, under him. A quick change of their uniforms would increase the ANA by 30,000 at a minimal cost. Moreover, Dostum’s men do not need military training (what they do need is some understanding of and respect for law and order). Another important factor that comes into play with this union is the Pentagon-Karzai plan to counter the other major north Afghan ethnic grouping, the Tajik-Afghans. continue reading…

Ramtanu Maitra  Oct 27, 2005

Drug traffickers loaded with Afghan opium and heroin have virtually overrun and pulverized internal security in Tajikistan, particularly since the Taliban came to power in 1996. As most of the Afghan drug output finds its way to European nations (in addition to Russia), it might be expected that the European Union, and the United States, would make concrete efforts to help secure the Afghanistan -Tajikistan border.

There is no dearth of lamentation by Western political leaders about how the opiates have endangered security and about the damage caused to the youth. But, so far, no plan to address the problem has been put forward.

After the Taliban were ousted from Kabul in late 2001, opium production skyrocketed again, breaking all-time production records in 2004. Hundreds of tons of Afghan heroin are now transported annually to Europe, corrupting the continent’s systems further – and much of it passes through Tajikistan.

Afghanistan is estimated to produce 87% of the world’s supply of opium (4,519 tons this season, down 2% from 2004), with nearly half of the country’s US$4.5 billion economy coming from opium cultivation and trafficking. continue reading…

This article appears in the February 18, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

by Ramtanu Maitra

The first-ever strategic talks between India and China, which took place in New Delhi on Jan. 24-25, were the outcome of years of efforts by these two largest Asian nations “to take bilateral engagements into a long-term and strategic relationship.” Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Wu Dawei, who is also involved in the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran raised hopes that the two would begin to position their bilateral relations in the context of broader regional and global perspectives.

One of the most important outcomes which emerged from the dialogue is the expressed concern of China about deteriorating U.S.-Iranian relations, triggered by U.S. insistence that Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment program is a cover for developing weapons of mass destruction. Wu Dawei made clear that Beijing is pressing Moscow, Paris, and Berlin to take steps to prevent any U.S. hostility against Iran, saying that China is willing to mediate with the United States and the West about Iran’s nuclear program. New Delhi urged the Chinese Vice-Minister to impress upon Pakistan not to open its air space to the U.S. Air Force, in case Washington plans air strikes on Iran. continue reading…