From the Great Game to endgame; Militants may end up owning half the world after the draw-down….

 “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.” Archimedes
 

The super powers, in possession of some kind of a lever, have been trying to find a place to move the whole world. And this has been going on  since ages but this race to occupy a strategic lever-point in Central Asia started in eighteenth century. Tsarist Russia and Imperial Britain have been competing with each other to occupy Central Asian states and Afghanistan where, in their view, lied the point for fixing their lever. This war between them fought with covert operations, military conflicts and infrastructure development is known in history as the Great Game. The Game is still on with the only difference that this is now being played by a sole contestant who is nowhere near the victory. The war has been lost and with it, trillions of dollars of American taxpayers who were made to believe that their warmongering leaders were going to fight a great war. The loss of human lives may be insignificant as this is only a “collateral damage” which can be written off by the corporate mindset, but certainly not by the ruthless historians.

The sole contestant possesses the biggest lever ever available to mankind and it has the means to fix it but, sadly, it lacks the heart, and the moral ground. The end-game will, therefore, be a game-changer. Militants may end up owning half the world after the draw-down comes to an end. Emboldened by the end-game, they will have South and Central Asia to themselves and will have the lever too. And they have proved that they can fix the lever wherever they want. They will move and shake the whole world at will and with incredible ease. South and Central Asian region will not be the only candidate for destabilization. The instability has the inherent tendency of travelling faster than the bush fire. 

The fallout of drawdown may not figure in the calculations for winning the second term of office but there are people who have made chilling calculations. "The countries in the area that border Afghanistan are going to have a problem on their hands," Seth Cropsey, a former assistant to the U.S. secretary of defense, warns of the gradual drawdown of international troops there, "because even if the Afghan forces have been trained to defend their country from the Taliban, there are other places that the Taliban can go."

Immediately after President Barack Obama's June 22 speech announcing a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, several other NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, followed suit with statements detailing pullouts of their own. Canada has since ended its combat mission. “Today the Taliban may lack a physical presence in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia”, says a Central Asia-specific analysis of GlobalSecurity.org, “but those are the countries that have the most to fear as the security situation in northern Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.”

It is direct neighbor Tajikistan that is likely to feel the impact most directly. A nation of 7.5 million people that shares a 1,400-kilometer border with Afghanistan, it competes with Kyrgyzstan for the title of Central Asia's poorest country. Tajikistan's already fragile security situation contributes to its vulnerability, with some homegrown militant groups fighting against the government of long-serving President Emomali Rahmon. But the challenges to stability come not only from local militants. Culprits also include regional organizations like the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), with its close ties to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the IMU is actively coordinating attacks with the Taliban in northern Afghanistan. The IMU is also said to be involved in insurgent activities in other parts of Central Asia and neighboring Pakistan. The IMU's stated goal is the creation of an Islamist caliphate across Central Asia. Founded in 1991, it has fought and trained with Al-Qaeda, notably along the notorious border region separating Afghanistan from Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

Alexander Cooley, a professor at Barnard College in New York City, notes that "one has to be careful about statements from Central Asian governments, who play militant cards to get military assistance from foreign countries. But the situation in Tajikistan is serious. In the case of Tajikistan, we see a country that's already deteriorating by a number of measures, and especially the eastern part of the country might be susceptible to sort of cross-border types of campaigns and insurgencies," Cooley says.

The cross-border threats are real, and infiltration across the border into Tajikistan is already a serious source of concern despite the presence of thousands of coalition forces on the ground in northern Afghanistan. Incidents in which Afghans cross the border and kidnap Tajik citizens on the other side have lately become a fixture of life for Tajik villages in the border region.

Tajiks whose relatives have been taken hostage are forced to pay large sums to secure the release of their loved ones. In addition to the constant threat of infiltration by militant groups, the cross-border drug trade is another serious cause of concern for Tajikistan and the wider region, including Russia. On July 1, Russian's antidrug tsar, Viktor Ivanov, visited Dushanbe to discuss Tajikistan's border with Afghanistan and the possibility of Russian soldiers returning to the Tajik-Afghan border to bring the situation under control. Russian troops were stationed on that frontier until 2005, when Moscow withdrew them to demonstrate confidence in the Tajikistan government.

Farther to the north, officials in Kyrgyzstan blame Afghan drug money and local Islamist militants for shaky security in southern Kyrgyzstan, where ethnic tensions led to bloodshed and massive displacement in 2010. Uzbekistan's leaders accuse Afghan groups of fomenting a 2005 revolt in the Ferghana Valley -- though such claims are disputed by independent analysts who contend that that rebellion should be blamed on domestic factors rooted in resistance to Uzbekistan's harsh authoritarian government. Afghan security officials acknowledge their failure to clamp down on the border but blame their inability to control the situation on a lack of troops and equipment.

Speaking on Afghan television, the commander of border security forces in the north of the country, General Abdul Habib Sayedkhil, said on July 8 that he had only 4,000 personnel to protect the entire 2,431-kilometer border with Central Asian states.

How the Afghan forces will fare in the absence of coalition troops remains an open question.

The ex-Pentagon official Cropsey, who is now a senior foreign policy fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, says that "such a scenario will only raise more serious concerns about the stability and security situation of the Central Asian countries, which are already unstable."

"There are serious problems in Kyrgyzstan...[and there are] serious problems in Uzbekistan," Cropsey says. "The question of political stability is a constant one in central Asia. If a country is politically unstable, its ability to resist invasion is reduced tremendously."

Barnard College professor Cooley points out that the security situation in Central Asia is not only a matter for concern to local governments. It is also a factor in the geopolitical competition among the great powers with direct interests in the region.

"I think one of the hidden consequences of the U.S. drawdown is that it's going to throw into sharper relief Russian and Chinese competition over the region, which I think has been hidden so far, in that they are both concerned and nervous about the permanency of the U.S. presence," Cooley says. "But with the U.S. drawing down, I think it's going to focus more the question of whose security priorities are being served in the region, China's [or] Russia's, and I think it's going to intensify the rivalry between the two."

Additional evidence of the regional anxiety about the drawdown came at the June 15 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a security forum that brings together Russia, China, and the Central Asian states. The meeting devoted significant discussion to Afghanistan.

In an interview with "The Christian Science Monitor," Russian expert Aleksandr Dugin, who heads the right-wing International Eurasian Movement allying Russian academics, policymakers, and interested observers, said that "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan concerns all the surrounding countries."

"The West is far away, but we are near," Dugin said. "This is our security zone, and that is why only an organization like the SCO can potentially hold out a constructive alternative for Afghanistan."

And imagine the fate of South Asia; al Qaeda is already in coalition with TTP, an umbrella terrorist organization killing innocent civilians and security personnel in Pakistan. With Pakistan’s army busy fighting these terrorists in FATA region, TTP is trying to broaden the war theater to suck in India and start an Indo-Pakistan war in order to achieve a space in Pakistan’s North Western border with Afghanistan. Pakistan army is hard pressed as it has to commit its resources evenly on both western and eastern borders with Afghanistan and India respectively. The ultimate aim of TTP in the short-term is Pakistan-India conflict through terrorist activities in the whole of South Asia. The region is at the risk of destabilization after the drawdown. The only reason this destabilization is not imminent is Pakistan’s remarkable restrain to open war in North Waziristan where some elements of Afghan Taliban have some sanctuaries. The moment Pakistan engages those elements in war, there will be a broader coalition of TTP, al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban and this coalition will have half the world to itself. And with the sole super power having lost the war in drawdown, nothing will be safe even in the farther lands.

Was the slain journalist another Raymond Davis for the US?

Hussain Saqib

American establishment, with the help of its allied international media, is working overtime to malign Pakistan’s security establishment. Its target of particular interest is Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency called ISI. It has the support of enthusiastic and willing partners in Pakistan’s corrupt and nincompoop politicians thrown up as “leaders” through a questionable democratic process. At the beck and call are also corporate media anchors known for their allegiance both to terrorist organizations and the Western imperialism. They think they have a reason to spit venom against Pakistan and its institutions. The charge-sheet drawn against security institutions is updated on daily basis and the latest charge added to the list is killing of a journalist of Asia Times, an online newspaper published from Hong Kong. The Pakistani government has already constituted a judicial commission to probe the killing and the panel is investigating the crime with a serving judge of the Supreme Court and members of journalist community as its members. The investigations, it is learnt, were initiated on the request of the ISI itself.

The latest diatribe by American press and senior members of administration implicating ISI in the murder without any evidence is yet another attempt to influence the outcome of the probe and increase pressure on Pakistan’s military. Those who have been following the story of Raymond Davis, a CIA operative caught with clear evidence of espionage and his contacts with banned terrorist organizations, will find striking similarities between handling by US administration and media of his arrest and journalist’s murder . The way this murder is being highlighted and the probe panel pressurized to incriminate ISI shows as if the slain journalist was another Raymond Davis working in Pakistan. 

This campaign launched in the name of killing of the journalist has come under scrutiny by the independent media also. An article titled, ISI Wrongfully Accused of Killing Journalist authored by John R. Schmidt, a former US political counselor in Islamabad has appeared in a recent issue of The National Interest. The author says ISI may have a long history of intervening in political affairs at the behest of its army masters but if ISI was responsible for murdering Shahzad, it may well have been a first. As far as physical coercion was concerned, this was much more the province of the considerably less disciplined and poorly trained civilian police and their political masters; it was Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, for example, who had Najam Sethi, one of Pakistan’s leading journalists, beaten and carted off to jail for criticizing him in 1999. Interestingly enough, Pervez Musharraf, the army chief who overthrew Nawaz, proved to be significantly more tolerant of press freedom than his predecessor.

The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that fifteen journalists have lost their lives in intentionally targeted killings in Pakistan since the murder of Daniel Pearl in early 2002, all of them Pakistani. Almost all were killed by radical Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban. The remainders were murdered for investigating regional ethnic conflicts or local corruption. None of the fifteen fit a plausible ISI scenario. But why would ISI choose Shahzad as its first victim? He was not a big-name journalist, nor was he among those who raised embarrassing questions about ISI and the army over the Abbottabad raid on bin Laden. His Karachi-naval-base story did not accuse ISI of improper conduct, and it is not clear why it would have killed him over a story that, if it embarrassed anyone, would not have embarrassed the Pakistani Army. ISI was well aware that some of its senior officers had recently had a word with Shahzad and should have realized that if he suddenly turned up murdered ISI might be blamed for it, further sullying its already battered reputation. And that, of course, is exactly what happened.

The author opines that others might have had a motive for killing Shahzad such as members of al-Qaeda and its various Pakistani affiliates, although none have claimed responsibility. But the fact remains that senior U.S. officials told the New York Times they had “reliable and conclusive” intelligence that ISI was responsible. Admiral Mullen, in an interview late last week, was somewhat more circumspect, saying merely that the evidence showed Pakistani government—but not necessarily ISI—involvement in the killing. The article goes on to say, “also unexplained is why U.S. officials would reveal such information even if they were in possession of it. Relations between the CIA and the ISI have been seriously strained ever since CIA contractor Raymond Davis was arrested and detained last January for killing two Pakistanis he said were trying to rob him but who later turned out to be working for ISI. The Davis affair was followed just six weeks later by the raid on the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, which poisoned relations even further. Needless to say, telling the New York Times there was conclusive evidence that ISI was responsible for killing a Pakistani journalist was unlikely to improve the relationship. The U.S. officials involved may have been motivated by human rights concerns, hoping to deter ISI from committing further such acts. But given recent events, there could also be elements of bad blood at work here.”

It was not a mere coincident that just two days after Admiral Mullen made his accusations on the Shahzad murder, the New York Times revealed the United States was suspending military assistance to Pakistan. Washington has been increasingly frustrated at Islamabad’s unwillingness to go after those Afghan Taliban forces using the North Waziristan tribal area as a safe haven for conducting operations in eastern Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have refused to do so because they see the Afghan Taliban as a hedge against the emergence of a hostile government in Kabul allied to India after U.S. forces depart the region. 

This is what Pakistanis believe is in their national interest and have every right to protect it even though it may be quite contrary to what the US perceives to be in its national interest. Although little publicized in the West, the Indians have developed close ties to the Karzai government, flooded the country with aid workers and provided the Afghans with over a billion dollars in aid. Although the Pakistanis have no particular love for the Afghan Taliban—whose support for Osama bin Laden got them into their current fix—they fear the Indian presence in Afghanistan even more. Not only has the United States shown little sympathy for these Pakistani concerns, it has grown increasingly angry at Pakistani reluctance to do what it wants. Seen in this context, the U.S. decision to publicly accuse ISI of complicity in the Shahzad murder can be viewed as just another manifestation of American displeasure.

Given the strength of Pakistani concerns about Afghanistan, however, there may be no amount of pressure capable of forcing the Pakistani Army into going after the Afghan Taliban. If anything, U.S. pressure to date has only served to fan the flames of anti-Americanism both among ordinary Pakistanis and within the army. The danger is that, by continuing to ratchet up the pressure, Washington may provoke a final break with the Pakistanis. This would not only jeopardize the U.S. ability to supply its forces in Afghanistan, which rely heavily on land routes through Pakistani territory, but could lead both sides down the slippery slope to a shooting war. The Pakistani Army is already engaged in a protracted, bloody struggle against hostile Pakistani Taliban forces in the tribal areas and is widely regarded as the only force in the country capable of preventing a jihadist takeover of the government. While the current situation is certainly a mess—and U.S. frustrations are understandable—things could very easily get a whole lot worse.

The article presents a dispassionate and an excellent analysis and should be able to expose all those who thought they would be able to tarnish the image of ISI and drive a wedge between Pakistan’s security establishment and its people in a time when Pakistan is at war with foreign-funded insurgency. Such criticism, by those perceived to be anti-Pakistan, raises the image of ISI and the military in the eyes of its people.

Beware; “AfPak” means Pakistan after Afghanistan….

Everything has a price; so has the friendship. And Pakistan’s friendship with China is no exception. Pakistan is like a symbol of honor for the US; a sweetheart in typical South Asian context where the lover cannot reconcile to share him/her with anyone and would rather have her killed to save his honor. The same thing is happening with Pakistan. Its friendship with China will cost her so dearly that it faces the perils of disintegration at the hands of the US. This is the conclusion of a recent report of Center for Research on Globalization which appeared in GlobalResearch.ca. According to the paper, in the ‘Great Game’  for global hegemony, any country that impedes America’s world primacy – even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan -  may be sacrificed upon the altar of war. It was reported in these pages that Pakistan’s current troubles with India and the USA have their roots in its all-weather friendship with China. 
 

The report which appeared in two parts examines the changing views of the American strategic community towards Pakistan. The strategists base their analysis on their assumption, in fact a sinister desire that Pakistan will very likely continue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse. American military and intelligence community is trying very hard to translate their desire into reality. The report does not mention the role of Pakistani media who have clear leaning to and sympathies for both the USA and Taliban, and the opportunist and corrupt politicians very excited at the first-ever opportunity of military-bashing. These two “pillars of power” are aiding the intelligence community of the USA and Taliban to break up the country to prove the prophecies of doom. In December of 2000, the CIA released a report of global trends to the year 2015, which stated that by 2015, Pakistan will be more fractious, isolated, and dependent on international financial assistance. It further predicted that Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive politics, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction. The situation will be worsened by political elite and radical Islamic parties. The latter will increase their role in national politics and alter the makeup and cohesion of the military – once Pakistan’s most capable institution.

Everything is taking place strictly according to the script authored by the CIA. All the actors, political elite, Pakistani Taliban and the media are performing their respective roles faithfully. The report concludes that the destabilization of Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe since WWII.

The report says that war in Afghanistan is inherently related to the situation in Pakistan. After attacking Afghanistan in 2001 with Pakistan’s cooperation, the war theater has now been renamed “AfPak” altering Pakistan’s role. The war has brought instability to Pakistan and the “AfPak” eliminates its role as a proxy state and makes it a target of US fury. This is, particularly, a cause for India to rejoice because destabilized Pakistan will bring multiple benefits to India including preventing China from gaining the port of Gwadar. According to Indian Defence Review, it would not only be a severe jolt to China’s expansionist aims, it would open up India’s access to Central Asian energy routes.

There are public perceptions in South Asia and elsewhere that 9/11 took place to give the USA an excuse to secure Central Asian routes through occupying Afghanistan. This was a dream of corporate America and for this purpose, Pakistani Taliban (TTP) were created to complete the agenda of Pakistan destabilization. According to an interview with ex-DG ISI referred to in the report, these Taliban are getting aid and weapons from across the Durand line, from Afghanistan where Indian and Israeli secret services have a strong presence under the umbrella of the US. 

Pakistani military is fighting a pitched battle to save Pakistan from the US agents (Pakistani Taliban aided and equipped by USA, India and Israel). In order to break its resolve to safeguard the national interest, it is being put under tremendous pressure from every corner. In wars, the armies are supported but in Pakistan it is being criticized which proves the point that the enemies are bent upon disintegrating Pakistan through destabilization being caused by Taliban, media and politicians. The military, which is the last rock between survival and disintegration of the country, is being weakened by media and opportunist politicians who call themselves as state pillars. Will the endgame of India succeed or the people support the military through fighting these so called crumbling pillars? Trust me, if these are pillars of the State, then the future of the people of Pakistan is not very bright.

Related story:


Beijing, Washington DC and the Gwadar port; the new game plan is not that new....

The gold-dinar, dollar and various theories on intervention in Libya....

It will be a huge mistake to take the present crisis of Libya at its face value. Muammar Gaddafi, the dictator of 42 years, who had only recently become “darling of the west” after renouncing terrorism and making himself vulnerable, has suddenly fallen from grace. Not only that, the entire democratic world is after his blood and his country and government are facing wrath of the US and NATO and attack of their combined military might. It is obviously not a human rights issue alone as similar violations are taking place elsewhere in the Muslim world with the tacit approval of the champions of democracy and freedom. Why has it become necessary to single out Libyan dictator and get rid of him?

There are so many theories and the first and foremost is that his recent economic initiatives in the oil-rich African world could directly threaten economic hegemony of the US and Europe. Irrespective of the fact that this third major war during the last 10 years waged by the civilized world on flimsy pretext will destroy their economies, the very initiative for launching a single gold-backed currency was another matter. The world could not allow any currency to endanger US dollar or the Euro. Observers say implementing that vision would change the world power equation and threaten Western hegemony. In response, the United States and its NATO partners have determined “Gaddafi must go,” and assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Analysts say introducing the gold dinar as the new medium of exchange would destroy dependence on the U.S. dollar, the French franc and the British pound and threaten the Western world. It would “finally swing the global economic pendulum” that would break Western domination over Africa and other developing economies. Attacking Col. Gaddafi can be understood in the context of America and Europe fighting for their survival, which an economically independent Africa jeopardizes. These moves are also bad for France because when the African Monetary Fund and the African Central Bank in Nigeria starts printing gold-backed currency, it would “ring the death knell" for the CFA franc through which Paris was able to maintain its neocolonial grip on 14 former African colonies for the last 50 years.

“It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi,” said Prof. Jean-Paul Pougala of the Geneva School of Diplomacy.

“The idea, according to Gaddafi, was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the dollar and other currencies,” said political analyst Anthony Wile in an editorial for The Daily Bell online.

According to the International Monetary Fund, Libya's Central Bank is 100 percent state-owned and estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. If Col. Gadhafi changed the purchasing terms of his oil and other Libyan commodities sold on the world market and only accepted gold as payment; a policy like that wouldn't be welcomed by the power elites who control the world's central banks. Furthermore, pricing oil in something other than the dollar would undercut the pedestal of US power in the world. Although in trouble, the dollar is the reserve currency based on a deal made with Saudi Arabia in 1971 in which the Saudis, as the world's largest oil producer, agreed to accept only dollars for oil. The Libyan affair has sparked a divide in the world community with the African Union and nations like Venezuela, China and Cuba—and until recently Russia—on one side as voices of reason, caution and respect for international law and honoring the UN mandate which set the parameters for engagement in Libya.

Blogosphere has another theory backed by classified cables unearthed by the Wikileaks. The leaked cable sounds the alarm of “growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism” by the Gaddafi government. This was almost identical language employed by the U.S. and British governments against Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh when he nationalized Iran’s oil field in 1951. Mossadegh was overthrown by a 1953 CIA coup that restored the Shah to the throne. It allowed US and British oil companies to re-take ownership over Iran’s oil until the 1979 revolution.

According to the cable, the US government was furious that Gaddafi was moving to rein in and limit the power and profits of the western-owned oil giants that he permitted to come back into the country after George W. Bush in 2004 lifted economic sanctions against Libya. The same cable refers to an angry speech that Gaddafi made in 2006 which was interpreted as a virtual act of war by the oil companies and the U.S. and western governments.

Gaddafi's speech included these unacceptable words: “Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them—now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.” 

Libyan oil reserves are estimated to be the largest in Africa with 41.5 billion barrels.

According to an article in The National Interest, every American president seems to start at least one war. George W. Bush initiated two conflicts. He was ill informed, impetuous, and foolish. The casualties and costs of his actions were catastrophic. But he addressed significant issues. Barack Obama is different in almost every way. Knowledgeable, cool and reasoned, he has one new war on his record. America’s casualties and costs in Libya are likely to remain minimal. Although an embarrassing example of geopolitical FUBAR, the conflict is of little consequence. Whatever happens, the world will quickly go back to normal.

According to this article, three of the Senate’s leading hawks, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, spent a pleasant time in Tripoli two years ago supping with the dictator and discussing the possibility of providing military aid. Britain sold the Qaddafi regime crowd-control technologies. And everyone bought his oil. However, earlier this year allied governments noticed that Qaddafi was vulnerable. He faced domestic revolt and—the naïve fool, as the North Koreans triumphantly observed—had agreed to abandon terrorism, limit the range of his missiles and drop his nuclear program. The Western powers decided to get ahead of the curve with a little democracy promotion. Particularly insistent was France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, down in the polls with an election scheduled next year. Why President Obama joined in is anyone’s guess. Maybe he really believed his rhetoric. Yet the claim of incipient genocide was merely the humanitarian equivalent of Bush’s missing WMDs. 

According to an article in Foreign Policy Journal, Libya’s geographical location and terrain has the potential to play a key role in US-led operations in the region, as evident from the historic role of the Wheelus airbase during the Cold War. Libya’s vast desert expanses and good weather are ideal for setting up gunnery and target ranges. It has the largest southern Mediterranean coastline. The major highway runs in close proximity to the coast offering easy access to the sea. The Green Mountain overlooks Europe’s busy shipping lanes. The Mediterranean is home to the US’ Sixth Fleet, numerous US/NATO bases and important oil terminals. It is central to the US’ ‘Phased Adaptive Approach’ plan which involves deploying a land and sea based BMD (ballistic missile defense) shield of radars and interceptor missiles. The BMD system includes the SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles on board the USS Monterey and the Aegis class warships. Air and Naval bases can contribute in projecting power far beyond the Mediterranean shores, apart from the back-up to the sea-based assets. Ports in the Gulf of Sidra can provide fuelling and servicing facilities.

The articles says that the French and the British have their sights on lucrative oil contracts and big-ticket defense deals. The French government was outraged when Qaddafi din not opt for Dassault’s Rafale fighter jets and  Areva’s nuclear reactors. BP’s oil deal with Libya, approved by Qaddafi after the disputed release of Al Meghrahi, was mired in bureaucratic delays. Whitehall saw the unrest as an opportunity to pounce on Qaddafi for dilly-dallying on the project. Sarkozy’s hawkish advocacy for intervention in Libya was with the motive to renew his popularity for a re-election gambit, after he came under fire for France’s discredited diplomacy in Tunisia, Paris was furious over Tripoli for cutting mega arms deals with Ukraine and Russia. Then what held back Russia from vetoing the resolution on Libya? Moscow could not afford to derail the ‘reset’ with the US. The Libyan turmoil jacked up oil prices and that brought a windfall for Russian oil. It leaves the door open for Russia to ‘intervene’ in the conflict zones in its sphere of influence under the rubric of ‘humanitarian intervention’.

A Fifth Generation warrior of the Fourth Generation Warfare….

Nobody ever heard of suicide bombings, terrorist attacks or targeted mass killing by veiled terrorists till the end of WWII. These were all products of cold-war era, particularly during Palestinian movement for a homeland of their own. They probably thought of these tactics, which were subsequently sanctioned by their mullahs, as the most effective way to keep the enemy terrified, make their voices heard and push for acceptance of their demands. Hijacking of airliners was another tactic which was employed by the Palestinians. Then there were insurgencies like Maoist movement in India, Tamil Tigers’ armed conflict with Sri Lankan government and sectarian killing in Pakistan. The latest and most deadly conflict is between foreign-funded insurgents and the state of Pakistan. All these armed conflicts were apparently between the state and non-state actors but as a matter of fact there was some state behind the non-state actors fighting its proxy war against the enemy state. For example, Sri Lankan insurgency and Taliban insurgency in Pakistan was fueled and funded by India, sectarian killing in Pakistan was a proxy war fought between and funded by orthodox Saudi Arabia and clergy-led Iran.

This is a new kind of warfare in which armies do not fight armies; the world’s top-class armies equipped with the most sophisticated weapons are engaged in a unique war with masked and unnamed soldiers. And the latest technology, put to test in this kind of warfare is proving helpless. The states have one major disadvantage; their armies are not trained for this kind of warfare. This is called Fourth Generation Warfare or 4GW. According to military thinkers, 4GW is an extremely effective method of warfare that the US and its allies will find very difficult to defeat (a slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome). 4GW can is generally defined as a method of warfare that aims at achieving a moral victory by undermines enemy strengths, exploiting enemy weaknesses, and using weapons and techniques that differ substantially from opponents or asymmetric operations.

Fourth generation warfare (4GW) has been correctly defined as a conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian.

According to experts, the rise of 4GW is both a product and a driver of loss of the nation-state's monopoly on violence, rise of cultural, ethnic, and religious conflict, and globalization via technological integration. The tactics employed by 4GW are rear area operations -- 4GW warriors do not confront a nation-state's military but rather its society through psychological operations – terror and ad-hoc innovation -- use of the enemy's strengths against itself.

First generation warfare includes wars of Napoleon and is characterized by conscription and firearms as a result of decline of mercenaries. Second generation warfare includes the US civil war and WW1, characterized by firepower and nation-state alignment of resources to warfare. Classical example of third generation warfare is WW2 and is characterized by maneuver and armored warfare. All these generations witnessed progressive development of technology in aid of the warring armies. Fourth generation warfare is characterized by ad-hoc warriors and moral conflict. In this warfare, it is not the army alone but the innocent civilian population, economic infrastructure and the ethics which are major targets.

4GW is characterized by globalization -- modern technologies and economic integration enable global operations; pervasiveness -- the decline of nation-state warfare has forced all open conflict into the 4GW mold; granularity-- extremely small viable groups and variety of reasons for conflict; vulnerability -- open societies and economies; technology -- new technologies have dramatically increased the productivity of small groups of 4GW warriors. In addition to these features which distinguishes 4GW from the conventional war, global media plays an effective and decisive role and can win you the war through an incredible level of manipulation. This type of war has the advantage of networking -- new organizational types made possible by improvements in technology are much better at learning, surviving, and acting.

In brief, 4GWs are complex and long term which use terrorism as tactic; have non-national or transnational base—highly decentralized and directly attack on the enemy's culture. This type of warfare is highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation in which all available pressures are used - political, economic, social and military. The war occurs in low intensity conflict, involving actors from all networks. It uses insurgency and guerrilla tactics.

As the regular armies are only trained to fight regular armies, the conflict in 4GW results in higher casualties of and other losses inflicted on the regular state armies. In order to minimize human and material losses, modern states having the advantage of technology have developed multiple weapons; the latest weapon developed after losing to insurgents is called predator drone. We can also call it a Fifth Generation Soldier of the 4GW. The latest version is General Atomics MQ-1 Predator which is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used primarily by the United States Air Force (USAF) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Initially conceived in the early 1990s for reconnaissance and forward observation roles, the Predator carries cameras and other sensors but has been modified and upgraded to carry and fire two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles or other munitions. The aircraft, in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. For technical, operational and historical details, click here.

Since June, 2004, the CIA has been operating the drones to attack militants in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Since May 2005 the MQ-1 Predator fitted with Hellfire missiles has been successfully used to kill a number of prominent al Qaeda operatives. The use of the Predator has also resulted in a number of civilian deaths which was attributed to faulty intelligence. The drones have also been used in Balkan states, Yemen, Iraq and Libya. Due to associated civilian casualties, the people of Pakistan have been protesting against its use terming it as violation of their sovereignty. But the number of casualties of terrorist high-command suggests that drones are the most effective and efficient way to target terrorists at the least human cost.

Related links:

What is more perilous; drone strikes on terrorists' hideouts or acts of terrorism?

Ground the Drones