Indian hand seen in attack on Lanka’s team

Indian hand seen in attack on Lanka’s team

LAHORE: The rocket-launchers and explosives used in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team are in the use of Indian forces, Dawn has learnt. According to a forensic report, four rocket-launchers and nine explosives seized from the scene are factory-made and used by Indian forces. Forty grenades, 10 sub-machine guns (SMGs), five pistols, 577 live rounds of SMGs and 160 bullets of pistols were also found there. The terrorists had fired 312 bullets, two rockets and detonated two bombs. ‘No suicide jacket was found at the scene, suggesting that they were not on a suicide mission. The SMGs used in the attack are of Russian, German and Chinese made,’ an investigator told Dawn on Monday. Six policemen and a Pakistan Cricket Board van driver lost their lives when a group of a dozen terrorists ambushed Sri Lankan cricketers’ convoy near the Liberty roundabout in Lahore on March 3. Six of the Sri Lankan players suffered injuries. Although none of the 12 terrorists involved in the gory act has been arrested so far, investigators have come up with a claim based on ‘positive leads’ that none of the militant organisations in the country had the capacity to carry out the attack without the help of a state agency. ‘The ammunition and communication network is the base of our claim that a state agency is also involved,’ said the investigator. He said that law-enforcement agencies had taken over 100 suspects into custody, but yet to arrest any of the terrorists. ’Unfortunately all terrorists (involved in the attack) managed to flee to the tribal belt (probably Waziristan) owing to ‘belated’ response by police to go after them soon after the attack,’ he said. Investigators are now convinced that the mastermind of the attack had four objectives: (1) To sour Pakistan’s relations with Sri Lanka, (2) to stop foreign teams from coming to Pakistan, (3) to destabilise Pakistan and (4) to tell it (Pakistan) that its state agency is more capable than its (ISI) in carrying out such attacks even in the midst of huge security presence. Investigators however clarify that the attackers did not want to hijack the cricketers’ bus as they wanted to meet the above objectives ‘Hijacking often takes place when culprits want to secure the release of someone,’ they said. A four-member police team, headed by Punjab’s Additional Inspector-General of Police (Investigation) Salahuddin Khan Niazi, and another joint investigation team comprising officials of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Intelligence Bureau (IB), have been investigating the matter.

Israeli fighter jets strike Gaza Strip

Israeli fighter jets strike Gaza Strip

Israeli warplanes have pounded positions in the central and northern Gaza Strip, leaving at least two people injured, a Press TV correspondent reports.

Israeli fighters bombarded the northern city of Jebaliya as well as areas in the central Gaza on Saturday night. 

The overnight attacks left two people wounded and caused panic among the Palestinians in the targeted areas. 

Earlier on Tuesday, Israeli forces killed a Palestinian man and wounded five others in tank shelling and gunfire attack on the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Yunis. 

The Israeli military has repeatedly waged attacks on Gaza since its massive war on the territory at the turn of 2009. The 22-day offensive left more than 1,400 Palestinians in the densely populated coastal sliver dead. 

'Israel navy chasing Gaza-bound Asia 1'

'Israel navy chasing Gaza-bound Asia 1'

The ship, named Salam, is allegedly carrying tons of medical and food supplies for the Tel Aviv-blockaded Gaza Strip as well as eight human rights activists as part of the sizeable relief mission, which is also known as Asia to Gaza Solidarity Caravan. 

The Israeli forces have contacted the ship's captain, demanding the names of the activists, who are reportedly from Azerbaijan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Japan. 

The activists say they want to display solidarity with the Palestinian people in their resistance against Israel. 

Tel Aviv has been enforcing an all-out land, aerial and naval blockade on the 1.5 million Palestinians in the enclave since mid-June 2007. 

Salam left the port of Latakia in the northwest of Syria for the northeastern Egyptian port of el-Arish on Saturday, defying the prospects of an Israeli assault. 

Israel's military, killed nine Turkish activists aboard Freedom Flotilla, an Ankara-backed humanitarian convoy, on May 31. 

The Asian convoy, which is joined by activists of 18 different nationalities, has traveled through Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon. It was forced to remain in Syria for a week, awaiting Cairo's authorization to dock at its port. 

A seven-member delegation of Iranian lawmakers joined the mission while it was in the Syrian capital, Damascus. 

In this regard, an Indian activist on the mission told Press TV last month, “We are completely non-violent. We do not have weapons.” 

In case of an attack, “We will face it with non-violence. We'll face it with a prayer in our hearts,” he added. 

NATO forces killed in Afghanistan

NATO forces killed in Afghanistan

Two US-led service members have been killed in southern Afghanistan on New Year's Day as 2010 was marked as the bloodiest year in the nine-year-old invasion of the country.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said Saturday that one of its service members was killed in southern Afghanistan in an insurgent attack, the Associated Press reported on Sunday. 

The NATO statement did not provide additional details on the second death of a NATO service member in the war-torn country this year. 

Meanwhile, a British soldier was killed in an explosion in Helmand province on Sunday. Nearly 350 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan since the start of the US-led invasion in 2001. 

Southern Afghanistan is the site of some of the fiercest fighting between NATO and the Taliban. In 2010, NATO deaths in Afghanistan hit a record high of 711. 

According to official figures, more than 2,200 US-led soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the outset of their occupation of the country. 

Figures released by Afghanistan's Baakhtar News Agency, however, put the foreign troop death toll at nearly 4,500. 

Despite the presence of some 150,000 US-led foreign troops in Afghanistan, the country remains devastated by militancy as well as persistent bombings and ground attacks by foreign troops that supposedly target militants but leave many civilian casualties. 

The climbing military casualties come with a comparable rise in Afghan civilian death toll. The latest report on Afghan civilian deaths from the United Nations shows a 20 percent rise in the first 10 months of 2010. 

The report said that deaths from Taliban attacks in the period were up about 25 percent, and that the Taliban were responsible for the majority of the 2,412 civilian deaths reported in the period.

Pak should discard posture of compulsive hostility

Pak should discard posture of compulsive hostility

Pak should discard posture of compulsive hostility

In a forthright message to Pakistan, India on Sunday said its posture of "compulsive hostility" will not help a "serious and sustained" dialogue between the two countries. Noting that the country "walked the extra mile in reaching out" to its neighbours, external affairs minister S M Krishna said, "We earnestly hope that our neighbour would see the merit in constructive engagement and discard the posture of compulsive hostility."
During an exclusive interview to PTI, the minister said, "Our only expectation from Pakistan is to dismantle the terror infrastructure that operates from the territories under its control. A serious and sustained dialogue can thrive only in a peaceful and terror free climate."

He also said that terrorism, whether state-sponsored or not, has no place in today's world and needs to be rooted out through concerted efforts of each and everyone.

In a year-end review of the foreign policy and challenges before India in 2011, he touched upon India's relations with immediate neighbours, country's growing economic ties with ASEAN and Korea, and the support India has received for its bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

"Our candidature for permanent membership of UNSC also received greater traction and support of the international community this year," Krishna said.

Despite differences on a host of issues with China, including Beijing issuing staple visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, Krishna said the two countries have a "better understanding of each other's positions and concerns."

"We also have the confidence, resolve and mechanisms to address our differences peacefully and in a mature manner," he said.

With issues like lack of credible action by Pakistan against all those involved in Mumbai terror attack sticking out like a sore thumb, the Indo-Pak ties witnessed acrimony in 2010.

It was reflected in the collapse of their first ministerial-level talks, after 2008 terror attacks, in Islamabad in July, despite a mandate from both the Prime Ministers -- Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani -- that the two sides should make efforts to bridge the trust deficit.

On the visit of his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi to India, Krishna said, "I look forward to his visit", but refused to comment whether it will be this month as indicated earlier.

He also noted that India was willing to discuss all issues with Pakistan through a bilateral dialogue.

In regard to China, the issue of staple visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir remained a matter of concern for New Delhi which saw it as impingement on the country's "sovereignty and territorial integrity".

"We are committed to cordial and cooperative ties with our neighbours based on the principles of equality, non-interference and mutual respect," Krishna said.

However, terming 2010 as "noteworthy" for Indian diplomacy, the minister said the year witnessed the visits to India by a large number of Heads of State and Government, including all the five permanent members of the UNSC.

Each of these leaders, except for China's Wen Jiabao, were unequivocal in backing New Delhi for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

The big breakthrough came when US President Barack Obama announced in his address to Indian Parliament on November 8 that he looked forward to welcoming India "as it prepares to take a seat at the UN Security Council".

With Indian economy doing pretty well at a time when some countries were still reeling under the impact of the global meltdown, the visiting leaders also drummed up deals worth billions of dollars and fixed ambitious bilateral trade targets.

The year 2010 also saw Indian diplomacy becoming more pragmatic and business-oriented as India sealed free trade pacts with Japan and Malaysia, East Asia's star economy, and launched negotiations for civil nuclear deals with Tokyo and Seoul.

Talking about the year ahead, Krishna said as the largest democracy and one of the fastest growing major economies in the world, India is willing to play its due role in 21st century global diplomatic, financial and governance structures.

"We will continue our endeavour to steadily transform the nature of our strategic partnerships with key nations, both to our West and to our East," the minister said.

Pak should discard posture of 'compulsive hostility': Krishna - Hindustan Times

The Second Indo-Chinese War (2013-2015)

The Second Indo-Chinese War (2013-2015)

The Second Indo-Chinese War (2013-2015)

Cause of the War

The Indian military at the time of the Second Indo-Chinese War (starting sometime between 2013 and 2015) was a powerful force dominating South Asia. It was definitely not 1962, when India went to war against China without due preparation. Since 1962, India fought several border skirmishes with Pakistan and eventually split it in the 1971 war. In 1987, Indian troops even faced off against the PLA at Sumdorong Chu Valley and eventually occupied Southern Tibet and turned it into the state of Arunachal Pradesh.

Since the early 2000’s, India’s economic growth has been spectacular, at least on paper. The economic growth created a sizable middle-class and upper-class Indians in the cities while poverty and malnutrition still existed in the countryside. Rampant inflation and other economic dislocation led to discontent from the urban poor. As India grew richer as a whole, Naxalites, Kashmiris and other rebellious factions grew more and more powerful.

As a result, New Delhi was forced to adopt a more and more aggressive foreign policy to keep the country united and distract from domestic problems. New Delhi strategists believed India’s path is to mimic the British Empire and project power as a conqueror. By 2010, India had outclassed Pakistan economically and regarded Pakistan only as source of terrorism, not a conventional war threat. India’s most powerful neighbor was China and New Delhi could not feel strategically secure until an independent Tibet is created as a buffer zone. This motivation was strengthened by India’s desire for redemption for its 1962 defeat and deep-rooted colonial racism against China. India also needed Tibet's water resources because India's rapidly increasing population had outgrown its territory so expansion was required.

Prior to 2000, India was shunned by the West and could only buy second-class, faulty weapons from Russia. After 2000, India started to acquire first-class weapons from Russia like the T-90, Su-30MKI and from Israel like the Phalcon AWACS and Green Pine radar. By 2010, even the US was offering India first-class weapons like the new M777 light howitzer, C-17, C-130 transport and Apache combat helicopter. Between 1995 and 2010, the India military had gone from a large but low quality Soviet-armed force to a more professional force with an eclectic mix of first-class weaponry from both East and West.

Strategic competition between US and China for primacy in East Asia was the reason why arming India became US policy. The US wanted to enlist India to help contain China. However, the US also faced the problem that it needed Pakistan too. This problem dogged the US until it finally reached a solution in 2010 -- it would sell weapons to India to use against China in the Himalayan border regions, but it would discourage India from using them against Pakistan.

The US does not want to see India conquering Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as that might make India too powerful to handle and eventually Indian Navy might even start affecting US naval primacy in the Indian Ocean. The US also does not want to see India continue to improve its nuclear and missile technology so that one day it can build ICBM that can reach New York. But selling artillery, helicopters, transports and fighter jets (like Super Hornet and F-16E/F offered for MMRCA competition) to fight China in a Himalayan war is okay.

Indo-Chinese relations plummeted in 2009 when PM Singh first decided to side with US to contain China and eventually carve out an independent Tibet. Since then, relations have been hostile, cold and confrontational. Sometime between 2013 and 2015, the newest US weapons were delivered to the Indian military. Not long after, the war begins.

Deployment of Forces

Since the late 2000’s, India has been raising and deploying more and more elite mountain divisions toward both the Eastern Sector and Western Sector of the disputed boundary with China. India has been supplying them with airstrips in the forward areas like Tawang and Ladakh. Indian doctrine is to use strike deep into Tibet with air-launched Brahmos, cut off Chinese defenders from supplies and overrun them. Meanwhile, India will encourage ethnic Tibetans to rebel against Beijing and sabotage PLA supplies.

By the start of the war, China had largely completed its infrastructure construction in Tibet. It has a railroad from Qinghai to Tibet and another one from Chengdu to Lhasa. China built civilian airports and military air bases in Tibet close to the Indian border. Highways tunneled through mountains provide access to the disputed Eastern Sector. Meanwhile, China opened a railroad along the Karakorum Highway through Pakistan-administered Kashmir linking Kashgar, Xinjiang with Islamabad and opened a railroad from Tibet to Kathmandu.

Major Chinese Weapons in the Theater

PLZ-04 artillery

Z-10A combat helicopter

HQ-9 SAM

CJ-10 cruise missile

J-10B air superiority fighter

J-11BS strike fighter

Phase I: The Indian Offensive

Ground forces of the two countries had already been maneuvering and watching each other when the air war began. So, China was prepared when India began its attack on the Qinghai-Tibet railway and the Chengdu-Lhasa railway. The KJ-2000 spotted the incoming squadrons of MKI and MMRCA soon after taking off from forward bases.

MKI was at a serious disadvantage to J-11BS. MKI had late-80’s Soviet avionics compared to J-11BS’s modern suite. MKI was a heavy Russian-manufactured beast while J-11BS was much lighter because of China’s composite materials technology. Also, India could not maintain foreign equipment very well or repair because spare parts usually came from Russia. Indian license-made parts were very poor in quality. As a result, some of the force could not fly and defects affected the entire MKI force. Chinese AA missiles such as PL-10 were also a generation ahead of the R-73 and R-73 on the MKI.

The J-10B also had an advantage over India’s MMCRA. The Eurofighter and Rafale were too expensive for India to buy in any reasonable quantity so India chose another. But none of the other aircraft had an upper hand over the J-10B. The J-10B has stealth features like DSI-intakes and extensive composites. It uses the FWS10A -- a 140 kN engine in the same thrust class as the Russian 117S. J-10B carries an AESA radar, electronic warfare suite and advanced AA missiles. As an air superiority fighter, it is a true equal to the Eurofighter and Rafale.

China had the numbers advantage. Where India buys, China makes indigenously at a fraction of the price. For China, a J-10B costs only ~$30 million, far less than what India would pay for a Mig-35! Where India can only induct 25 or 50 aircraft per year, Chinese war factories can crank out more than 100 per year. Just in the theater alone, China had more than 300 4th generation fighters (J-10B and J-11BS) to India’s 200 or so flyable MKI and MMRCA.

Finally, PLAAF could engage in information-centric warfare. J-10B and J-11BS work together with HQ-9 SAM and KJ-2000 as force-multiplier. Indian weapons from Russia, US, France, UK, Israel, etc. simply cannot work as an integrated system. As a result, the pride of the Indian Air Force was lost in the first few days. However, they did inflict substantial losses on the PLAAF at a ratio of 4:1 (in favor of China). China lost ~1/6 of the fighters it brought to the theater.

The remaining IAF was a handful of poorly maintained, half-flyable Mirage, Mig-29 and Mig-21. Those were quickly destroyed on the ground by J-11BS with precision-guided munitions, as were forward Indian air strips and logistics depots.

Phase II: Mountain Warfare

With total control of the skies, China proceeded to attack Indian army bases. The handful of Indian S-300 batteries was destroyed using SEAD tactics and the Y-8 electronic warfare aircraft. It was made easier by the fact that China itself operates these systems. The handful of Green Pine radars was destroyed using terrain-hugging CJ-10 cruise missiles. The indigenous Akash did not perform very well and could not stop PLAAF from dropping precision-guided munitions over all Indian army bases in forward areas.

Without fighter support or supplies, the elite Indian mountain divisions could only mount a brave but desperate offensive. Z-10A grossly outnumbered the Apache that India purchased. Again, this is because China makes indigenously at a fraction of the price. The highly-advanced Z-10A is equivalent to the Eurocopter Tiger but has less firepower and less armor than the heavier Apache.

The Chinese also have the advantage of bringing SPAAG, CIWS and short-range SAM on the highways to defend against Apache and Mi-35. Indian-controlled side had no highways. Chinese infantry carry advanced QW-2 manpads (equivalent to Stinger) against helicopters. LCH never made it to the fight because India could not successfully turn the European-made Dhruv into a combat helicopter.

Indian army had the excellent M777 light howitzer, and this weapon definitely caused damage to PLA. But the Indians faced the disadvantage that they could not "shoot-and-scoot" like the PLZ-04 since M777 was towed and there was no highway. As a result, India's M777 attrited very fast. Yet India could not crank out replacements because it is purchased not indigenously made.

PLA's biggest advantage is that it could bring up far more numbers using railways. When the Indians began their attack, they thought they enjoyed a 3:1 advantage in numbers. But they did not expect that China had quietly brought up rapid-reaction forces from Lanzhou military region, Chengdu military region and Guangzhou military region. In the end, Indian army was outnumbered 5:1!

Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, Indian army fought bravely and inflicted 2:1 (in favor of China) casualties on PLA. The high quality of the Apache and M777 was a factor. Nonetheless, PLA commanded the upper hand. Waves of PLZ-04 artillery fire rained down on the Indian mountain divisions wherever they were, killing / wounding many of them. PLA infantry supported by Z-10A followed up and tore into Indian positions. The few that survived the vicious assault ran away and eventually froze to death. PLA suffered ~1/10 casualties.

Phase III: Chinese Counter-Offensive

Having destroyed the IAF and destroyed the mountain divisions in both Eastern and Western Sectors, China went on the offense to incapacitate India from any future military adventures.

PLA advanced into the “chicken-neck” area and overran Indian defenses, cutting off the entire northeast. PLA moved through Myanmar and attacked Indian army positions near the border. India demanded that Bangladesh let Indian army transit through to save the northeast, but Bangladesh refused, knowing that it would gain from an independent Republic of Assam, for example better water rights.

In the Western Sector, PLA attacked the Indian army on Siachen Glacier from both the Chinese side and the Pakistan side in a pincher maneuver. Finally, PLA moved into Jammu and Kashmir to roll back the remaining Indian army. Overjoyed at their liberation, Kashmiris rise up and set fire to GoI buildings in Srinagar. The pro-India faction in Kashmir flees the angry mob.

Within two weeks from the beginning of the war, Kashmir was totally lost and the Indian army in Assam was cut off from the rest of India. Then, China fired hundreds terrain-hugging CJ-10 cruise missile at power plants and electricity grids. Suddenly, all the major cities in India are without electricity and running water.

As India entered darkness, rebellion and communal violence broke out all over the country. Naxalites and Assam separatists launched direct assaults on pro-India police and paramilitary forces. Local governments and entire states declare independence from New Delhi. Some generals in the Indian Army tried to restore GoI authority by force but instead the whole country simply sank into civil war.

Important Lessons from the Second Indo-Chinese War

(1) China should not underestimate India. Yes, its indigenous weapons are not a cause for concern, but the weapons India imported in the 2008-2015 time frame is first-class! Sure they will be lesser in quantity and not as well integrated as indigenous Chinese weapons but they are nothing to scoff at.

(2) It is precisely because India has upgraded from second-class weapons to first-class weapons since 2008 that India has started styling itself a "superpower." India is fundamentally an expansionist state and quite dangerous.

(3) China is already reacting to India's hostile policy. Chinese defense minister recently said "Chinese military must be self-reliant." This is reminding India that its arms purchases will not help it defeat China and assert itself as the Asian superpower.

(4) The Second Indo-Chinese War will be decided by fighter aircraft, artillery and combat helicopters. This is why the US is selling these specifically to India! The weapons offered by the US are comparable to the best that China can field indigenously (J-10B, PLZ-04 and Z-10A), making China's industrial advantage over India not decisive.

China prepares for war 'in all directions'

China prepares for war 'in all directions'

China prepares for war 'in all directions'  Peter Foster, Beijing December 31, 2010 CHINA is preparing for conflict ''in every direction'', its Defence Minister says. ''In the coming five years, our military will push forward preparations for military conflict in every strategic direction,'' General Liang Guanglie said in an interview published by state-backed newspapers in China. ''We may be living in peaceful times, but we can never forget war, never send the horses south or put the bayonets and guns away.'' China has repeatedly said it is planning a ''peaceful rise'', but the pace and scale of its military modernisation has alarmed many neighbours, including Japan, which described the build-up of its armed forces as a ''global concern''. Tension between China and India also emerged during a mid-December visit to Delhi by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Indian leaders contend that China is being provocative in Kashmir as it grows closer to Pakistan, China's ally and India's nemesis. China has infuriated India by starting to issue special stapled-paper visas - rather than the standard visa - for anyone in Indian-controlled Kashmir travelling to China, on the grounds Kashmir is a disputed territory. China later objected to including a top Indian general responsible for Kashmir in a military exchange. In response, Indian officials angrily suspended military exchanges between the countries. The most visible evidence that these problems were deepening came in the joint communique issued by the two nations at the end of Mr Wen's visit. China typically demands that nations voice support for the one-China policy, which holds that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. In the past, India has agreed to such language, but this time it was omitted, a clear sign of Delhi's irritation. General Liang's remarks came at a time of increasingly difficult relations between the Chinese and US armed forces, which a three-day visit by his counterpart, Robert Gates, was intended to address. A year ago, China froze substantive military relations in protest at US arms sales to Taiwan and relations deteriorated further this summer when China objected to US plans to deploy a nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, in the Yellow Sea off the Korean Peninsula. China also announced this month it was preparing to launch its own aircraft carrier next year. The news emerged a year earlier than many US defence analysts had predicted. China is also working on a ballistic missile that could sink aircraft carriers from afar, fundamentally reordering the balance of power in a region dominated by the US since the end of World War II. In an interview in Japan this week, Admiral Robert Willard, a US Navy commander, said he believed the Chinese anti-ship missile had already achieved ''initial operational capability'', although it would require years of testing. Analysts remain divided over whether China is initiating an Asian arms race. However, in a speech earlier this year, Mr Gates warned that China's growing military might ''threatens America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific''. General Liang also pledged that China's armed forces would increasingly be self-reliant when it comes to technology, an area in which the People's Republic lags behind the West. ''The modernisation of the Chinese military cannot depend on others,'' he said. ''In the next five years, our economy and society will develop faster, boosting comprehensive national power. We will take the opportunity and speed up modernisation of the military.'' TELEGRAPH, NEW YORK TIMES