Inching Towards Showdown

By Tariq Niaz Bhatti

Recent elimination of Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, Amir of Afghan Taliban in a Drone strike speaks of US administration frustration in the ongoing protracted war in Afghanistan. Reportedly it was daylight Drone attack but a close look at the scattered evidence on the site of incident, tells a different story, a mismatch to the official version. But alleged drone strike vindicates the US unilateralism; the reluctance to be bound by rules made for others. The New World Order and its enforcement requires Imperial US power to be used to secure economic, political and military gains and ward off security threat to its economic and military interests all over the globe. Hence, the US forces are found operating in Syria and Iraq to recapture the areas lost to self-proclaimed Jihadist groups like ISIS and are planning to send troops in Libya to stabilize the security situation there.

Has World Just Avoided Yet Another Middle Eastern War?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Security situation all over the world is nothing short of chaotic and patience on all matters related to national security now a days often fizzle out very quickly particularly when it involves states like Iran and the US. Both these nations have a historic luggage of bitter bilateral relations on many issues. Though the situation improved considerably after Iran reached an agreement with 5+1 nations on its nuclear program but like it has been said earlier, it is not easy to react to any aggressive posturing with patience with a history of bitterness.

Syrian Conflict Enters In Disturbing New Phase

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Just days after the fateful incident of Russian SU-24, Syrian conflict is taking a rather uglier turn as more disturbing events are unfolding. 

In the latest developments, Syrian government has accused US led coalition warplanes of attacking a Syrian Army Camp in Deir ez Zor province. The incident is first of its kind which has taken place amid ongoing allegations and counter-allegations between Turkey and Russia triggered in the aftermath of SU-24 downing row and can very easily trigger a new round of more kinetic confrontation between US and Russian led alliances.

The Syrian government has said that 3 people were dead while 13 got injured and number of military vehicles were destroyed. According to Syrian government, the coalition jets fired nine missiles at an army camp in the Deir ez Zor province, which remains mostly under the control of Islamic State. 

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has filed an official protest with the UN Security Council regarding the US-led coalition’s airstrikes on Syrian troops, Syria’s SANA official news agency reported Monday.

“Syria strongly condemns the act of aggression by the US-led coalition that contradicts the UN Charter on goals and principles. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent letters to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council,” SANA quoted the foreign ministry as saying.

US and Coalition Rejects Allegations:

The US and allied nations’ coalition has denied the Syrian claims.

Brett McGurk, Obama’s envoy to Syria, on his Twitter account, said that there had been no coalition strikes anywhere within 55 kilometers (35 miles) of the said camp.

"Reports of coalition involvement are false," he wrote in his tweet.

Apart from him, the coalition spokesman Colonel Steve Warren also commented on Syrian allegations saying, ”We’ve seen those Syrian reports but we did not conduct any strikes in that part of Deir ez Zor yesterday. So we see no evidence,” 

The Deir ez Zor province is situated in eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by Islamic State (IS). The region is of significant strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for IS.

Syrian government is declaring the US led coalition bombing in Syria against ISIS as illegal. According to some unconfirmed reports, President Putin has reportedly already declared the Syrian crisis a beginning of World War III and forces have been ordered to prepare for a global scale conflict. 

In another related development, Iraq has given Turkey an ultimatum of 48 hours to leave Iraqi territory while Turkey has said that it has right to protect its soldiers. This ultimatum comes after Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's letter of his Iraqi counterpart Haider Al Abadi in which it is promised and assured that there will be no deployment of Turkish forces in Iraq until Baghdad's concerns are addressed. 

ANALYSIS:

If this string of events prolongs it can easily get out of control and no one will be able to prevent a regional conflict at much larger scale. The region is slowly drifting towards a larger conflict. with UN clearly finding itself irrelevant. These are perilous trends for peace and security. Any regional conflict triggered from Syria, would not only jeopardize global peace but would also destroy UN as global conflict resolution body.

It seems all the major stakeholders fighting against a common threat of IS have a complete diplomatic breakdown and events like Su-24 downing and alleged US coalition strike on an Syrian camp can easily send wrong signals regarding the intentions of opposite alliance. It is time that countries like Pakistan or China who are not involved in this mess take some initiative to salvage the prospects of peace. Any forum can be utilized for such an diplomatic incentive but whatever has to be done it must be done on war footings. Trends in Syria are obviously turning disturbing it not alarming!

US Special Forces in Syria, Implications for Region and Turkey

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Back in 2013, the US president announced that he will never send US troops in any open ended conflict like Afghanistan and Iraq. Irony is, he announced to do the same just a few days back when he told the world that US is to send Special Forces in Syria. Though the US authorities have made it clear more than once that these forces will have no combat role (but only assist and advise) but it is obvious that this move would only escalate the conflict now even more as now the Russian forces have weakened the Syrian rebel groups including ISIS. Any intervention of the US Special Forces to do the same would be strategically a futile practice.  

What does all this mean for the region? but a more important question remains that why the US President had to announce the plans to send troops in Syria after making prior commitment of not sending more troops in open ended conflicts? Another related question is why President Obama announced boot on Syrian ground after Russia has weakened many of the Syrian armed groups and Syrian army is gearing up for a decisive operations to take back important towns from ISIS? What does actually the US is trying to achieve here? All these questions are intriguing for anyone interested in Syrian conflict and Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Regional Implications

There are number of theories circulating in open source domain to answer the question that who actually is pulling the strings in Washington to force Obama to make US fight more wars and to worsen its standing even more among Muslim populace? Few think that it is Israel or Military Industrial Complex ... but all the policy decisions in Washington are not being made by either of these. The fact is Israel and Russia had agreed to coordinate military actions on Syria even before Russia actually started military operations there. For Israel, the more immediate threat is Hizbollah, not Assad. 

Since the onset of Russian military campaign in Syria, the Western media has reported that Russian jets are actually hitting hideouts and strongholds of Syrian rebels which were armed and backed by the US. 

Actually, the US has plans to rearm and regroup all the proxies against Russia in order to maintain the firm grip on the region. This perpetual war in Syria, which is now expanding towards Turkey, is nothing more than extension of geopolitics by other means; both for Russia and the US. Neither is interested in eliminating Islamic State or other groups. They are nothing more than proxies in this brawl between two powers. Perhaps this is why the US rejected the Russian offer to conduct joint ops against ISIS.

This explains why fewer than 50 special forces personnel are being sent to Syria and to be “headquartered” in northeastern Syria with a “wide range of groups,” including Syrian Arabs, Turkmen, and Kurds, according to a senior US defense official. While the forces will be fully equipped to defend themselves, the official said Friday, their mission is “strictly advise and assist.”, reported by Defenseone military intelligence website.
But the most important and relevant passage of the report read something like this:

"A senior Obama administration official told Defense One in a statement earlier Friday that more F-15 strike fighters and A-10 Warthog close-air-support jets are on the way to Incirlik Airbase in Turkey. The senior defense official said a dozen A-10s are already at Incirlik, and they’re finalizing a package of roughly the same number of F-15s. The aircraft will support an effort to “thicken” air operations in northern Syria and to secure the border between Syria and Turkey."

Implications for Turkey:

Clearly, Turkey is already facing a rise in unrest and chaos with fears of further violence within her borders as it has made a similar arrangement with the US as was made by Pakistan on Afghanistan. Now Syrian fighters would be driven into Turkey (may be under the garb of being refugees just like many Afghan terrorists ended inside Pakistani camps for Afghan refugees). Only advantage Turkey has is a completely manned border. But how this can protect Turkey from any chaos or internal security risks, being posed by this perpetual state of war in Middle East, is yet to be seen!

It will be wiser to Turkey to pen and announce the terms of engagements for these US operations from her soil. Pakistani governments maintained duality on this issue (ensuring support to the US on drone strike privately and protesting on the same publicly and in the end, Pakistan had to pay a lots of civilian lives as well), it is hopped that Gen. Raheel told the same to his Turkish counterpart the same during his visit to Turkey!

So, What is fundamentally Wrong in Middle East?

The chaos in the Middle East is nothing new. It is only its present violent incarnation which is being broadcast world over is something making it look like a new phenomenon. Within US, there are strong voices telling President Obama that Diplomacy, not US 'boots on the ground', is still the best option in Syria and in retrospective analysis of Middle East Chaos it is obvious that Washington's choice to solve political issues through military strategy alone has transformed a region, infested with ethnic tensions, into an imbroglio. Sooner the US revisit its approach better it would be not just for the region but for the entire world as well.

Latest Scuffle Between China and the US

(IHS Jane's) The Pentagon has confirmed that an "unsafe" encounter occurred in mid-September when a US Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft was intercepted by Chinese fighter aircraft over the Yellow Sea.

The latest incident follows one in November 2014 when a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Shenyang J-11B interceptor performed what US officials called a "dangerous" manoeuvre close to a US Navy Boeing P-8A maritime patrol aircraft in international airspace off Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

Speaking at a regular briefing in Washington, DC, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook confirmed that a RC-135 was intercepted on 15 September by a pair of Chinese Xian JH-7 fighter-bombers in international airspace over the Yellow Sea.

Cook added that the intercept happened about 80 miles east of the Shandong peninsula, and that "one of the manoeuvres conducted by the Chinese aircraft during this intercept was perceived as unsafe by the RC-135 air crew" although he stressed that there was no indication that a near collision had occurred.

The intercept was originally reported by the Washington Free Beacon website, which described the JH-7 as having "crossed very close" to the nose of the RC-135.

Analysis:

With global power transformation acceleration, the existing global power is reacting to the overtures being made by inspiring global power. US and Chinese strategic interests are heading towards a collision course with the rise of Chinese military power. The US is desperate of keep an eye on Chinese development along the entire Pacific Rim of Indian Ocean but Chinese are now openly confronting such US moves.Question remains if any of these two major economies and militaries can afford such head on collision? Whatever may be the outcome of any such eventuality for both of these, it certainly would be catastrophic for the entire Asia.

Afghanistan: Choosing Between War and Peace

by Shahzad Masood Roomi

Finally, Afghan peace process has  initiated after vigorous diplomatic efforts by Pakistan and China. First meeting between the representatives of Afghan government and Taliban held in hill town resort in Muree on Tuesday. According to the statement issued by Pakistani foreign office, both sides have agreed to continue the talks after fasting month of Ramadan. But as the peace talks took start in Pakistan, voices advocating the continuation of military discourse have also begun to emerge.

Former US military commander in Afghanistan,  David Petraeus has put forward a case of keeping the US forces on ground in Afghanistan on permanent bases just like Japan and Germany. His article which can be accessed here proposes the idea of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan  as the only viable option to ensure the safety of Afghanistan and world at large. He concluded his assessment in the following words;

"Yes, such an operation would have real American costs — perhaps $5 billion to $10 billion a year in U.S. military expenses, on top of $2 billion to $3 billion to help sustain Afghan forces at roughly current size, and undoubtedly some U.S. casualties. But compared with the investment to date, of well over 2,000 American lives and nearly $1 trillion in expense, and compared with the specter of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland devised or launched out of a South Asian terrorist sanctuary, such costs are bearable — and the right call for this nation."

A number of caveats challenge this assessment of former US military general and it would be prudent to analyze the fluid Afghan political landscape in order to asses if this approach would bring any stability in war torn country and the region as has been claimed by Gen Petraeus.

ANALYSIS:

1. War itself is just politics by other means. So, one way or other, it is always a political conflict which becomes a peg to a military conflict. But so far, the US strategic community is not ready to accept this reality. There is a clear strategic division on this among US policy and opinion makers.

2.  Historically, Afghanistan has remained a complex political entity with its own internal ethnic and tribal strife. But ironically, this seemingly divided nation has demonstrated a remarkable cohesion against the external invaders. This unique paradoxical national behavior has stunned all the invaders.

3.  Lately, there has been a realization within the US policymakers that a never ending war in Afghanistan is futile not only for US/NATO forces but US political strategy home and abroad. There is no longer any clear military objective for US/NATO forces in Afghanistan after ending their combat missions last year. After utter failure in the Middle East, the US foreign policy cannot afford the baggage of yet another strategic failure of a prolonged war. The US government wants to end the war so that a political victory can be declared.

Lately, it has also been admitted in principle by the US policymakers that destroying the Afghan Taliban completely may not be possible as Afghan Taliban are as much a political entity as the are a military one. This explains why US supporting the Pak/China led peace initiative.

4. Pakistan has learnt its lesson hard way and eventually has realized the fact that it is time Islamabad let Afghans settle their issues by themselves. Peace initiative by Islamabad and Beijing has just broken the ice but how things will proceed from this point on wards wholesomely depend on Taliban and Afghan government. Due to the policy option Pakistan chose after 9/11, the role of ISI has reduced considerably in Afghan Taliban's decision making. Now, ISI is acting a sole facilitator in this entire peace process. Good news is that for the first time in last 14 years, Afghan Taliban are in talking to Kabul government. Though right now both camps have adopted maximalist  positions and reconciliation seems distinct possibility, yet both the camps have agreed to continue the negotiations after first round.

5. Americans, along with Chinese, are also part of this peace and reconciliation process as observer. This means this peace process is NOT moving forward without the US being on board. All the stakeholders are looking for a break through.

6. The demand of David Petraeus has no political backing after the US has withdrawn majority of the US forces in Afghanistan and Obama wants to bring all the US forces home before end of his run as President in 2016.

7. Permanent bases in Afghanistan would only deter the idea of peace initiative and putting the war to an end to declare a political victory. Logically any permanent military base would become a target of insurgents and Taliban perpetuating the conflict which would defeat the purpose of peace talks apart from destabilizing the region particularly Afghanistan itself.

8. Latest attacks on Kabul indicate that the US forces have actually failed to meet their primary goal of destroying Taliban during the last 14 years and that was the situation with 130,000 US troops on ground whereas now this number has gone down to 12,000. With this strength, the US forces would be stretched extremely thin in various parts of the country, particularly in North, where Taliban have gotten a strong military footprint. Attacks on Kabul would continue as well.

9. Permanents bases in Afghanistan may deny Taliban's return in Kabul but their presence would keep preventing any Afghan government to work. Ashraf Ghani knows this very well and this explains why he agreed to Pak/China led peace initiative to succeed. Taliban's onslaught can be deter through political discourse as well and after 14 years of war, this is what the US, Afghan government and ISI have realized.

10. If the objective of this proposal is to save the human and financial investment which the US has made in order to weaken the Al-Qaeda political discourse is a more promising discourse and it is high time and all the stakeholders give it a chance.

11. But, still there is no guarantee that these talks would bear any fruit as Taliban are divided on the issue of talks and there are number of actors who do not see a political settlement in Afghanistan a good omen for their objectives. Afghan government factions consisting on former Northern Alliance are also not happy with the prospect of a political share of Afghan Taliban which might be given to them if talks succeed. Private military contractors and the US MIC would also advocate continuation of military solution in Afghanistan.

Conclusion:

This is obvious that in every possible scenario involving permanent military bases of the US on Afghan soil would only contribute to perpetuate the conflict which, in the long run, would not serve anyone's interests. So opting for a negotiated solution of this prolonged duel remains only feasible discourse for all the stakeholders involved in this conflict. 

World War II: Battle of Midway Atoll, Birth of Air-Sea Battle Concept

The details of Battle of Midway Atoll can be accessed on the following link
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-midway

Analysis

It has been 73 years since Japanse and the US navies confronted each other in the Pacific, in June 1942, during the war for Midway Atoll in World War II. The war has been described as "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare" by renowned British military historian, John Keegan and very rightly so. This was the sea battle which put Japanese maritime victories in the Pacific to an end effectively clearing the way for the US Navy to assert itself in the Pacific Ocean throughout the war.

The outcome of this Japanese misadventure, after some earlier successes in the Pacific, carries many lessons for the strategic thinkers and military planners.

The most fundamental strategic blunder Japanese combined fleet commander, Admiral Yamamoto made was that he planned a complex maritime operation to lure the US carrier fleet into a trap on faulty assumption and extremely poor military intelligence. The strength of the US Navy and morale of the US Naval officers were miscalculated to a dangerous extent and consequently, not only Yamamoto lost the battle but all his 4 aircraft carrier that took part in this attack along with more than 240 aircraft and 3000 soldiers on board.

Though its was only in 2010 when the US strategic planner embraced air-sea battle as an integrated war doctrine, battle of Midway Atoll was the first decisive war where the US Navy and Air Force conducted joint raids after raids on attacking Japanese naval fleet.

Russia: Response to US Missile Defense Shield

In a strategic response to the US Missile Defense Shield (MDS), Russia has announced to resume the production of its strategic bomber plane Tu-160.

According to Airforce Technology website, "The Tu-160 is capable of carrying the strategic cruise missile Kh-55MS, which is known in the West by the Nato designation and codename AS-15 Kent. Up to 12 Kh-55MS missiles can be carried, six in each bay. The Kh-55MS is propelled by a turbofan engine. The maximum range is 3,000km, and it is armed with a 200kt nuclear warhead.

The weapons bays are also fitted with launchers for the Kh-15P, which has the Nato designation and codename AS-16 Kickback. The Kh-15P Kickback has solid rocket fuel propulsion, which gives a range up to 200km. The Kickback can be fitted with a conventional 250kg warhead or a nuclear warhead. The aircraft is also capable of carrying a range of aerial bombs with a total weight up to 40t."

With its more than 7,300 Km combat radius, this platform is nothing short of a nightmare for the NATO. Air launched nuclear missiles would eventually would not give any time to the US MDS to react.

“In light of development of US antiballistic missile defense system the importance of ground-based and submarine-based missiles is decreasing, because the whole defense system is focused on intercepting the ballistic missiles. Thus the importance of strategic bombers increases. That is why we are paying special attention to the aviation. Unfortunately Russia fell behind in 1990s and 2000s. We were developing mobile missile systems instead of long-range aviation; however, the missile systems are vulnerable. Now we are going to focus on the long-range aviation,” president of the Academy of geopolitical problems, Leonid Ivashov, told Sputnik.

Reportedly, the avioincs of the Tu-160 would be upgraded to enhance its operational performance and survival against modern SAM systems. Russian firm, Radioelectronic Technologies Concern (KRET) is ready to start the production of avionics for the strategic bomber.

Chinese Artificial Islands: Advantages and Vulnerbilities

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

This is the artificial island in South China Sea recently built by China as part of her land reclamation project. This Chinese project has sparked a heated debate in global strategic community. South China Sea is among the most volatile maritime strategic hot spots in Indian Ocean. This particular island is located in disputed territory of South China Sea and this is why there is so much debate going on about this Chinese military project. Recently, A US Navy P-8A flew over the island and captured some very detailed pictures proving that Chinese have put their construction work on the island in the next phase. A bitter exchange of words took place between P8-A crew and Chinese Navy while US Navy plane carried out reconnaissance mission revealing details of Chinese mysterious artificial military island. After the incident, Chinese official declared the US flight as an action threatening peace in South Asia Sea. But latest media reports suggest that this was not the last such events where Chinese disapproved the US spying on her island. Australian Navy is planning a 'freedom of navigation' mission to show its disapproval of Chinese project. Australia is a US ally in Asia-Pacific Pivot strategy announced by President Obama in 2010-11.

Detailed photograph taken by the US Navy P-8A shows construction work on Chinese artificial island.

Latest, reports suggest that China has put weapons on the island. After these reports, there is a broad consensus among global security experts, that tensions over the South China Sea are set to escalate even further. As Chinese have shown their dissatisfaction over US spying its artificial island, the US defense secretary has defended the US spy plane flights over Chinese island. "There should be no mistake in this, the United State will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows", said Ash Carter, US defense secretary.

Chinese military buildup has been among the most visible geopolitical trends in last 15 years. This military buildup is translation of growing Chinese economic strength. Latest reports suggest that IMF has approved Chinese Yuan as a next global reserve currency along with US Dollar, EU Euro and Japanese Yen. This economic and military rise of China is the most vivid proof of global shift of power from the west to east. But problem with such power shift is that they are seldom peaceful and considering the high stakes of both the US and China in South China Sea, many security experts around the world consider that a war between both these powers is inevitable. 

Chinese Navy and Air Force are adopting aggressive policy as Beijing is looking to expand is capability to project power away from mainland China. Recently, Russia and China concluded naval exercises in Mediterranean Sea sending clear signal to NATO about the emergence of multi-polar world order.

There is no doubt that artificial island is a major step forward in Chinese strategy to project maritime power in South China Sea. Some experts have declared the island a non-sinkable Chinese aircraft carrier which is going to pose serious challenge to the US and allied maritime vessels in the region. But is Chinese strategy to build artificial islands in South China Sea going to yield the strategic results as Beijing has envisioned them?

Analysis:   

This Chinese artificial island is not the only project of its kind in the region. Previously, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippine have carried out similar projects in their respective waters, but problem with the Chinese project is that it is located in disputed waters where number of regional countries have claims over these waters. It makes this artificial island base a dangerous proposition to begin with.

Apart from that there is a question of building a naval island and coping with its vulnerabilities due to modern ballistic missile threats.

China is following the US footsteps as far as its island maritime strategy is concerned. During and after the World War II, the US established naval bases and stations on islands across the world. The islands like Midway Atoll and Diego Garcia provide strategic footprint to the US Navy in Pacific and Indian Ocean.  Though these islands are invaluable assets for the projection of maritime power and provide operational freedom for US Navy away from its own sea shores as they extend the line of sight for the US Navy due to radar stations and observational posts established on these islands. But at the same time, these islands can very easily become the operational nightmare due to their natural geographic vulnerability in open seas.

There is already a debate is going on within the US national security council about rising precision strike capabilities of Chinese Navy and threat it poses to the US bases in Indian Ocean and the Pacific. In 2014, Carnes Lord and Andrew S Erickson, both professors at US Naval War College, penned “Rebalancing U.S. Forces: Basing and Forward Presence in the Asia-Pacific” which presented a case study about vulnerabilities of US naval basing in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

“American seapower requires a robust constellation of bases to support global power projection. Given the rise of China and the emergence of the Asia-Pacific as the center of global economic growth and strategic contention, nowhere is American basing access more important than in this region. Yet manifold political and military challenges, stemming not least of which from rapidly-improving Chinese long-range precision strike capabilities, complicate the future of American access and security here.”, says the writers.

The advent of guided missile technology and advancements in ballistic missiles submarines in naval warfare after the World War II changed the entire complexion of forward bases on these islands and their security. In any war scenario, such islands would naturally become the first target of enemy naval fleets and respective aviation wing. Today, both the US and Chinese Navies operate ballistic missiles which can literally remove such advanced naval bases from the face of the planet along with everyone and everything on the islands. In this backdrop, it would be natural to ask if this artificial Chinese island is going to be a strategic asset to PLAN or its biggest vulnerability in case of actual conflict?   

Heavier munitions for Israeli air force, But what is the target?

According to IHS Janes,  The US State Department has approved the sale to Israel of over 20,000 guided bomb kits and 8,650 associated warheads, including additional 5,000 lb 'bunker busters', the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 19 May

.

Reportedly, the Israeli air force would also get 250 AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) and 3,000 AGM-114K/R Hellfire missiles. Total cost of the deal is USD1.9 billion.

The details of this deal is rather interesting. Though the deal also includes 4,100 GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which is a 250 lb-class GPS-guided weapon with flip-out wings to increase its range. But it is the numbers of heavier air launched munitions which made this entire deal very intriguing. According to DSCA notification, Israeli Air Force would get 10,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) GPS guidance kits for 2,000 lb (907 kg) MK 84 general purpose bombs, 500 JDAM kits for 1,000 lb MK 83 bombs, and 4,000 JDAM kits for 500 lb MK 82 bombs.

The most interesting item in this Israeli wishlist is a request for 500 DSU-38A/B kits that can be used to upgrade JDAMs so they can be guided to their target using a laser designator as well as GPS, making them more flexible and accurate weapons that can be used against moving targets if needed.

The notification listed 1,500 Paveway laser guidance kits for MK 83s and another 500 for 2,000 lb BLU-109 penetrator warheads, which are used against bunkers.

In terms of warheads, the notification said Israel had requested 4,500 MK 83s and 3,500 MK 82s, but no additional MK-84s or BLU-109s.

And most notably, Israel has requested 50 BLU-113 warheads. The BLU-113 is a 5,000 lb penetrator used with the GBU-28 laser-guided bomb that is designed to destroy deeply buried and heavily fortified targets.

ANALYSIS:

Every weapon acquisition is done after carefully analyzing the potential target of new weapons. By looking at the elements of this deal, it would be prudent to assume that Israeli air force's plans to bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure has been moved in advanced stage. The request for DSU-38 A/B kits and BLU-113 warheads is particularly important in this regard. In 1982, Israeli air force destroyed an under construction  Iraqi nuclear reactor, near Baghdad, using laser guided bombs and new deal also include large number of 2000 and 5000 pounds laser guided weapons.  

Such an acquisitions by Israel explains why despite a very stressed economy, Iran acquired, S-300 SAM system from Russia.

This deal also raise many questions about the future of the Obama's Middle East policy which excludes any military option against Iran's nuclear facility and is looking forward to resolve the issue related to Iran's nuclear program through negotiations. A deal in this regard is expected next month. Israeli opposition to this US strategy is not a secret and this current deal items also indicates that strategic thinking of Tel Aviv. 

Afghanistan: A Never Ending War!

Latest news suggest that almost 2300 US troops from three different units would be deployed to Afghanistan as part of regular rotation of the US forces in Afghanistan. The deployment would be for Spring and Summer seasons ahead.

The US has plans to cut the size of her forces in Afghanistan to half of current strength of 10,000 but the top US commander in the field, Gen. John Campbell, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month that he wants "greater flexibility" to potentially keep more troops in-country. After his testimony, the US announced to rethinking about force withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Actually, under current geopolitical scenario, the US cannot disengage from Afghanistan. Resurgence of a defiant Russia, Chinese overtures in Afghanistan and renewed efforts of Pakistan to bring Afghanistan Taliban on the negotiation table have made this decision a delicate proposition for the US.
There are about 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan; about 8,500 of them are soldiers. This strength would not able to control the Afghan Taliban particularly in the countryside. Perhaps, right now the US strategy is to deny Taliban from capturing any noticeable town or city. 
It is uncertain if the war in Afghanistan would come to an end anytime soon. For now, it just remains a never ending conflict!

Middle East, Geopolitics and the US-Israel Relations

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

It is obvious that President Obama wants to keep the Iranian nuclear program in check through international monitoring by IAEA and multilateral agreements with Tehran (with 5+1 group) whereas Israeli PM is seeking a direct approach from the US to address the 'problem' like US did take on Iraq during the Bush era over WMDs. But the aftermath of second and protracted Gulf-war has forced the US to avoid any new high intensity clash in the region. Israelis will always analyze the regional geopolitics from their security point of view whereas the White House is to bound to contemplate every possible global and regional contingency as a potential outcome of the US policy decisions. This difference in approach is once again visible over Iranian nuclear program. Both allies have wide difference of opinion and strategy.

But during the Netanyahu's regime, this difference of strategy and opinion is not limited to Iran, there are host of other issues where both the countries differ sharply on strategy. Now even Israeli support lobbying groups want cancellation of a planned speech in the US congress by Israeli PM. The speech will be made in the first week of March when Israeli Prime Minster would be visiting the US. The US based Israeli policy experts and lobbyists consider the planned speech of Israel premier as 'disrespect to the US president' and are demanding a cancellation.

“The only thing that Netanyahu should have done was to create a strong, intimate, holy alliance with the person who actually decides, the US president. But Netanyahu has both failed to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear and has also destroyed the alliance with America. Not a bad output for a term and a half”, wrote Ben Caspit, a commentator, in Ma’ariv, a newspaper while terming the US-Israel relationship “more important than Dimona”, pointing towards Israel’s unannounced nuclear capabilities.

Evidently, the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics are changing the strategic mindset both in Washington and Jerusalem. The US has suffered more in political and economic sense as result of two long wars after 9/11 whereas Israel as emerged stronger and more aggressive in the region after chaos in Iraq and Syria. After recent incident of burning a Jordanian pilot alive in Syria and Jordanian reaction over the incident, Israel finds the environment conducive to adopt a more aggressive approach in Syria against Iran and Hezbollah while the US understands that if Iran also becomes a war zone the battlefield for their forces will stretch from Hindukush in Afghanistan to Western border of Iraq with a possibility of it further expanding till Syrian coast of Latakia and this is something the US would always like to avoid due to obvious unbearable economic and political cost of such a war.

Irrespective to what we see in mainstream media about US-Israel strategic alliance, the latest developments in these bilateral relations show that diplomacy and geopolitics are extremely delicate statecraft and things are not the same as they meet the eye. But considering history of US-Israel relations, this would not be the first time when both have difference over Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Though this acute ebb in bilateral ties is nothing new. Various contentious issues in the region affected the ties but this time there are many factors of regional politics which are not being fully controlled by either of these countries and this is why the US is insisting upon more cautious approach while the Israelis remain stubborn like always. In 1970s, Israeli policies forced the US administration of that time to put the bilateral relations in reassess and halted the military support as well. 
Now when Syrian government has offered negotiations to Israel and a debate is going on within Israeli government, it would be interesting to see what Israeli prim minster has to say to the US Congress on his upcoming visit. And even more intriguing would be the reaction by Obama administration. 

Afghanistan: America's Never Ending War!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US president Obama announced on Friday, that the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan would be extended for another year and now much talked pullback would begin in as early as December 2015 provided this extension of US war pay some dividend within one year which seems highly unlikely. Under this new order now the US troops can conduct military operations without seeking approval from Kabul.

Question is, what actually compelled President Obama to expand the US troops combat role in Afghanistan when almost everyone was expecting a draw-down of major portion of US troops from Afghanistan? According to New York Time's report, the decision has been made as combat situation is not what the US had hoped for when cut off date of December 2014 was announced in May, earlier this year by President Obama.

"Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.", reads NYT report.

It is common knowledge that Post 9/11 legislation done in Washington has empowered the private military contractors, manufacturers in the power corridors. For any US government, it would be almost impossible to disengage from military conflicts around the globe. This recent decision by President Obama would also benefit Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Pentagon irrespective to its aftermath. This decision is being considered similar to the one President Obama had to make in 2009 to send 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan under the pressure of Pentagon. Last 5 years' progress in WoT shows that the surge of US troops in Afghanistan failed to achieve its stated goals of degrading, dismantling and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. It is my intention to finish the job." said President Obama in 2009 while announcing the surge in 2009. These bitter realities have played a key role in this latest decision by the White House despite the fact that the US economy has been rattled due to this prolonged Afghan/Iraq wars.

But the problem, for the Obama, is that after 5 years of surge, it is evident that the Obama's Af-Pak strategy failed both on the battlefield and on the negotiation table while, back in the US,  Democrats are going in general elections within the next two years, without attaining half of the goals they set for themselves in 2009 Af-Pak review. The results of mid term elections, recently held in various US States, also point towards the waning public support for this prolonged war. So, understandably, Democrats are desperate for a clear and decisive victory. But can extension of combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan achieve this?  In this backdrop, this new decision by President Obama demands some pondering on its after effects on the regional geopolitical landscape.

Cost of War:

How this decision would change the general complexion of WoT within one year? Would there be another extension to the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan next year? These questions are critical as they are related to the military and financial rationale of prolonging this war. Back in 2009, it was estimated that the surge would cost $30 billion annually on additional 30,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. This cost was in addition to the cost of keeping earlier 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan sent in 2001 after 9/11. The studies conducted recently on cost of this war indicates that the cost would be in between 4 and 6 trillion dollars. This is a very high cost indeed even for a economy as big as America's.

South Asian geopolitics and US strategic interests:

With a strategic shift in power from the West to East, the geopolitical landscape in South Asia is also transforming rapidly. Emergence of China and Resurgence of Russia has affected the geopolitics in this region more than any other part of the world. South Asia is significant for global politics as majority of world population is inhabited here. Apart from China and Russia, India is also positioning itself to become a big and effective player in the region. In the Indian strategy of extending her influence in the region, military power projection and employment of "soft-power" are two most visible means.

The biggest historical dilemma with strategic power shift phenomenon from one region to another is that it is a slow, rare and infrequent and often a process full of conflicts and confrontations of various sorts. Historically, such power shifts always invited conflicts and recent strategic stand-off between China and the US in the Pacific rim of Indian Ocean around Japan, clearly indicates that this strategic flux of global economic and political power can get ugly very quickly. Both, rising and the existing powers (China and the US), have been locked in eyeball to eyeball situation and no one wants to blink. Despite the massive budget cuts and financial constrains, the US is compelled to maintain its current level of defense spending and even an increase in defense expenditure has been forced as the technological edge between the US and China is eroding fast. This explains the announcement of  Defense Innovation Initiative by the US Defense Secretary, Chuk Hegal, ealier this month. Under this initiative the US government would provide more funds for defense R&D (Research and Development). Main aim of this program is to develop new, smart weapons and various combat systems.

Afghanistan is strategically important. Not only for the US but more so for recently announced, "New Silk Route" strategy of China which aims for Asian economic integration. Chinese silk route goes around Afghanistan through Central Asia and Pakistan. This strategic infrastructure build up is a strategic Chinese attempt to secure her vulnerable energy supply lines and open up new markets for Chinese made products in Middle East, Europe and Central Asia by providing a cheap and efficient land-based transportation system. So, Chinese strategy for sustained oil supplies and Chinese export will not only expand her political influence in the region but would also contribute in Chinese military modernization. Chinese infrastructure developments in neighboring countries is going to get challenge US strategic interests in the region. This is why  energy experts like John Foster of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives believe that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden. "Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region.", stated Foster in one of his analysis on Why Afghanistan is strategically so important. Afghanistan lies in center of major energy and trade corridors in the region. It is going to be the root of TAPI gas pipeline (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India).        

Due to these Chinese overtures in the region, the Americans are compelled to maintain a strategic footprint in Afghanistan, directly or through a proxy like India, Recently, Indian interest in Afghanistan and the Indo-US strategic partnership in Afghanistan became vivid trends in South Asian geopolitics. Not only the US praises Indian role in Afghanistan but wants to expand this Indian foot print as well. This US desire was recently expressed by none other than Rear Admiral John Kirby, Pentagon Press Secretary. “I will leave it to India to decide and to speak to what they will contribute to regional security after the end of this year, but we certainly look to India’s leadership and their continued participation.”

Implications for Regional Stability:

US reliance on India as a strategic partner in Afghanistan to safeguard converging Indo-US strategic interests in the region has become a serious concern for Islamabad during the recent years. Pakistan Army Chief has already declared India a hurdle in ongoing War on Terror in FATA region bordering restive Afghanistan. And days after that, Pakistani Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif declared the US as 'unreliable' partner. Pakistani resentment stems from the fact that despite accepting the fact that India has been creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan, Post 9/11 US foreign policy has largely favored India in Afghanistan at the cost of Pakistan's security interests in Afghanistan.   

This decision is also critical for Pakistan's internal security which has been compromised by the violent elements/terrorists of TTP/Al-Qaeda hiding inside Afghanistan. Pakistan Army has been demanding a stiff action against these elements by Afghan government since many months but Kabul didn't accept Pakistani demands in this regard. A prolonged combat in Afghanistan would compound the already volatile security on open-boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is something Pakistan does not want but if the US withdraw from Afghanistan too early, that would be more catastrophic. Furthermore, -despite prevailing hostile local sentiments -the US forces in Afghanistan are part of UN approved international campaign against Taliban.

For Pakistani perspective, there is no military solution of Afghanistan and with her current military oriented strategic mindset the US would not be able to pull troops back.  It is imperative that the US forces must continue their support against insurgency but it is responsibility of Afghan government to seek a broad based political solution of the problem. For now, Pakistan would continue to face security threats from Western front and combat in FATA region would also continue to bleed Pakistan Army and State as well. For Pakistan it is critical to take initiative and unite all noticeable factions in a political process and Afghan stability must be the top strategic priority in Pak-US relations and strategic dialog as well. Even for the US, this is the only way out if Obama really want to disengage from America's never ending war!

(END)

10 Years of War on Terror & Pakistan

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Afghanistan proved strategic black hole for British and Soviet empires in 19^th and 20^th centuries and it looks like that after the destruction of two former superpowers, the US is going to vanish in this black hole in 21^st century. But this time around the war has very distinctive and unique dynamics than any other previous attempts to capture this land lock country.

Pakistan, along with many other Muslim World countries is faced with sub-conventional security threats. The covert war is not hypothetical anymore. The objective of this imposed war is to make Pakistan a dysfunctional state first, denuclearize it in the second phase and then move towards the final balkanization and dismemberment. The threat Pakistan faces today is existential! Pakistan faces a genuine, real and close threat to its very survival in a very hostile regional environment.