Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts

Monday, November 22, 2010

The Changing face of Asymmetric Warfare

The character of terrorism has changed over time and let me begin by first talking of the

THE ULTIMATE THREAT

I quote from Graham Allison’s “Nuclear Terrorism- the Risks and Consequences of the Ultimate Disaster” where he writes about Tom Clancy’s 1991bestseller The Sum Of All Fears. The novel is about a stolen nuclear weapon planned to be detonated at the Super Bowl in the US. Allison says that the comments Clancy received after this novel was published had left Clancy uneasy so he wrote an afterword in which he said

“All of the material in this novel relating to weapons technology and fabrication is readily available in any of the dozens of books …. I was first bemused, then stunned, as my research revealed just how easy such a project might be today. It is generally known that nuclear secrets are not as secure as we would like – in fact, the situation is worse than even well-informed people appreciate. What required billions of dollars in the 1940’s is much less expensive today. A modern personal computer has far more power and reliability than the first Eniac, and the ‘hydrocodes” which enable a computer to test and validate a weapon’s design are easily duplicated. The exquisite machine tools used to fabricate parts can be had for the asking…. Some highly specialized items designed specifically for bomb manufacture may now be found in stereo speakers. The fact of the matter is that a sufficiently wealthy individual could, over a period of from five to ten years, produce a multistage thermonuclear device. Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets.”

I have quoted from the author of a bestseller fiction, but truth is stranger than fiction. Let us remember that Osama bin Laden was/is a billionaire, Al Qaeda’s members were in touch with Pakistani nuclear scientists like Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majeed, while their masters were surreptitiously offering or supplying uranium enrichment technology and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea. State sponsored nuclear terrorism is the best way to describe this.

The five–ten year period that Clancy spoke of is over and there is no way of confirming that the world has become any safer after September 11 2001 or November 2008.

THE DEFINITION

The world has had trouble defining terrorism with the old cliché-- one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Although terrorism had gone global in the 1980s and then further embellished in the next decade, it was not until Sep 11, 2001 that the word and the act evoked any response from the US. Even then, it has been my terrorist first and then, maybe, yours, as we have seen in our neighbourhood.

It has moved from what one may call gentlemen militants/ anarchists/ terrorists of the 19th century and early 20th century who targeted only heads of state, monarchs, prime ministers – even up until 1970s. They operated as romantics and quite often bungled their individual acts of heroism to no great loss to anyone.

In the last three decades, there has been a dramatic shift in terrorist objectives and scale of operations. The range of its effectiveness, its lethality and ability to be catastrophic without the use of WMDs, its instant nature, use of modern technology and communications which give it the ability to strike across frontiers have multiplied many times over. The tactics too have changed; suicide terror is an increasingly common phenomenon. Armed assaults, where death for the terrorist is almost certain, is another phenomenon. We have also seen the use of vehicles, from the cycle bomb to the airplane in terrorist attacks. There are many other ways asymmetric warfare has changed and a considerable amount of this change has been technology driven in the past decade and a half. If the 1980s produced international state sponsored jihad, it also allowed nuclearisation of a rapidly Islamising state.

The revolution of the Internet and the mobile phone has been a quantum jump, the full scope of which has not been realised yet. It is difficult to predict how much, how easy and how cheap this technology will be in the future and what use the terrorist can put this to.

All this is accompanied by an effective use of the media eager for `instant` stories.

In today’s context when we refer to international terrorism, we invariably refer to Islamic/jehadi terrorism. Unfortunately, the response to this, described as the global war on terror, is neither global, nor is it against terror. It seems restricted to handling the problem in only one part of the globe against targets that are unevenly defined. The war either in Afghanistan or in Iraq, is not about defeating terror because both have created more terrorists than it destroyed. An over-militarised response has given it the wrong description of a war on terror whereas one should be thinking in terms of counter-terrorism.

The battle has become globalised-- capitalism versus global Islam. On one side is the affluent, powerful, politically empowered, mainly Christian, States which are running out of resources; ranged against them is a group which is poor, politically un-empowered and Muslim, and resource rich. Both find nationalistic politics an impediment to their progress because nationalism impedes economic domination and theological control. The former wants unhindered access to finance, markets and resources required to retain its primacy while the other strives for an Islamic take over by establishing the supremacy of an overarching Islamic Caliphate.

The present day terrorist considers civilian targets as fair game and suicide terrorism has the most favored method. One could say that this was reflection of how the character of war itself had changed from WWI to WWII and beyond. The indiscriminate targeting of civilians by the combatants during the WWII going on from Hiroshima to Agent Orange was another example where the state led with attacks on civilians.

The ability to perpetrate violence was a state monopoly. But, with the easy availability of small and lethal weapons, easy money, technology and weak failing states willing to wage asymmetric warfare for various reasons, has seen the emergence of non-State actors in destabilising regions by inflicting terrorist violence of even greater magnitude.

From specified ideological or military targets emanating from ideological beliefs, real or perceived oppression or wrong doing, terrorism has moved to punitive, revenge or catastrophic terrorism.

The present day globalization of terror, especially jihadist terror, is the outcome of Cold War, when States had combined to give money, arms and manpower to defeat their Cold War rival. A multi-billion dollar religious terrorist force was created in the name of freedom because of fortuitous confluence of mistakes that one superpower did not learn from the mistakes of the other. It was the first time that Muslims from different countries got together to work against the Infidel. The Ummah had arrived and has since then been spreading its message. The present day radical Islamist terror is the result of global Cold War ambitions and compulsions rather than any intrinsic ability and zeal among the radical Muslims to take this route.

This was the beginning of the internationalization of terror. Yet, throughout the 1990s terrorism and terrorist groups expanded beyond borders of their sanctuaries, threatening the stability of regions. We in India battled our imported demons for decades as the world looked away and concentrated more on violations of human rights by countries tackling the worst kind of terrorism. Terrorism was like a tropical disease that afflicted only the developing world while the rich remained happy together. It was only September 11, 2001, that changed the perception of threat but did very little to change the method of tackling it.

Today there is a genuine and widespread rage against the USA and its allies in the Muslim World. To many in the Islamic world, bin Laden is NOT the evil incarnate as it is made out in the West. Osama would deliver his followers from centuries of insults and humiliation by the West. They believe in him and in his tactics. That is why they are willing to die. And there is no way you can kill a man who is willing to die. Right or wrong this is a perception that has to be corrected.

It is not as if the Muslim world is faultless. A cursory review of wars, civil wars and other contemporary conflicts will show that there is a greater incidence of Muslim involvement--either fighting others or among themselves. 90% of the cases seem to have affected Muslim societies/countries. Of the 22 members of the Arab League or 57 of the OIC, almost all have had major political violence in the last 25 years.

Muslims have a difficult time living as minorities in Non – Muslim countries, as we see in parts of Europe – France, Germany or UK. In the west there is a mutual problem of how to arrive at an amalgam; in India we are increasingly going to face the challenge of preserving the equilibrium which others and some of our own seek to destroy.

ISLAMIST RAGE

There may be Muslim anger at the West, but there has also been considerable state assistance to Islamic terrorism. Saudi Arabia has funneled billions of dollars into West Asia, Pakistan and the rest of the world for over three decades for the propagation of puritan Islam in madrassas. This has made it easier for young minds to accept the cult of violence and be prepared and ready to kill in the name of religion. The other sponsor of jehadi terrorism has been Pakistan. This in fact has been the main weakness of the so-called global war on terror for it accepts the two main sponsors of Sunni Islamic terrorism as partners in the war on terror. Both the countries remain reluctant partners, or even duplicitous partners, yet continue to receive certificates of good behaviour from the US. There has been a lethal mix of Saudi money and Pakistani manpower supplies to jehad. Saudi funding through various trusts like the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the Al Rashid Trust, have helped finance madarssas and mosques. Saudi financial contribution to the making of the Pakistani nuclear bomb and contribution to the Afghan jehad has emboldened Pakistani adventurism as well as obduracy.

Post 9/11 and particularly post-Madrid 2004 have led to a hardening of positions in Europe among the majority population and at the same time there are more second and third generation Muslim youth finding their way to jehad. The stereotype of the jehadi coming from the Arab world is changing. Post-September 11, recruits are just as easily to be found in poly-techniques, high schools and university campuses in Europe. Hundreds of European youth, mainly second generation immigrants, have found their way to Iraq to fight in the Sunni triangle. There were reports of a two-way traffic between West Asia and Europe of illegals coming in to Europe and legals going to perform jehad in far away places. Three of the July bombings in London were young second-generation youth of Pakistani parentage. Youth in the UK have been increasingly under the influence of the Deobandhi mosques where al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Lashkar e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and Hizbut Tehrir (HT) activists have been active.

In Europe, intelligence and police officials from the UK, Spain, Germany, France and the Netherlands meet in state-of-the-art environments to exchange information and data, reports and wiretaps that would help follow leads in their anti-terror effort. Cooperation on this scale or even at a much lower scale is unthinkable on the Indian sub-continent as this would be counterproductive to policies followed by the Pakistani establishment. Indo-Pak talks on curbing terror are more a dialogue of the deaf than any purposeful discussions.

More dangerous than al Qaeda in the Indian context are the activities of the International Islamic Front established by Osama in February 1998. Five Pakistani terrorist organisations are signatories to this IIF – HuM, LeT, Harkat-ul-Jehadi-ul-Islami (HUJI), JEM and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) – all Sunni, all anti-Christian, anti-Jew and anti-Hindu and continue to exhort the destruction of India and prophecy victory over Jews and Christians.

Another centre is Bangladesh where jehadi organisations propagate jehadi terrorism in India and South-east Asia. The location of the continuing jehad against Christians, Jews and Hindus can be anywhere. It will be where the jehadis feel that it would be easier to operate and have the maximum impact. This obviously makes the US and Europe the most likely targets.

Groups like the al Qaeda and LET cannot be controlled by a purely non-military response because they seek the establishment of Caliphates, through violence if necessary, and which is not acceptable in the modern world. It is necessary to militarily weaken these forces, starve them of funds and bases and then to tackle long-term issues and by providing them better education, employment and so on.

There is a naive assumption that if local grievances or problems are solved, global terrorism will disappear. The belief or the hope that, if tomorrow, Palestine, or Kashmir or Chechnya or wherever else, the issues were settled, terrorism will disappear, is a mistaken belief. There is now enough free floating violence and vested interests that would need this violence to continue. There has been a multifaceted nexus between narcotics, illicit arms smuggling and human trafficking that seeks the continuance of violence and disorder.

GLOBAL JEHAD AND LEADERLESS JIHAD

The last few decades have also seen the largest scale of state sponsored terrorism raging from West Asia to South Asia, where the assistance in all its aspects has been so thinly veiled and the only precaution sponsoring states seem to take is that they do not wish to be caught in the act. It is a misnomer to describe such terrorists as non-state actors. Over time these terrorist organizations either morph on their own or are encouraged by their sponsors to split and re-emerge in their new incarnations.

Marc Sageman in his book Leaderless Jihad which is about terror networks in the 21st century, documents how Islamist terror networks were evolving into more fluid, independent and unpredictable groups than those in the past. He refers to scattered groups and individuals who drift into Internet chat rooms and the various websites of the terrorists that now flood the net and whose protagonists have little or minimal contact with their sponsors, thus making it more difficult for authorities to keep track of such activities till sometimes it is too late.

Until 2004, most of the networks functioned through face to face interactions among friends or controllers (the 1993 World Trade Centre Bombings, the1993 Mumbai serial bombing, the 1998 US embassy bombings in east Africa, the 9/11atttacks, the Indian Parliament attack in December 2001, the 2004 Madrid train bombings). Starting around 2004, communications and inspirations shifted from these interactions at local halal ethnic restaurants or barber shops close to radical Islamist mosques to interaction on the internet. The Madrid bombers were inspired by a document posted on the Global Islamic Front website in December 2003. People involved in the Mumbai 2008 case made use of internet protocols to keep in touch and draw inspiration even during the actual incident.

WMD TERRORISM

The world has not seen WMD terrorism but fears of this taking place are uppermost in the plans of most counter terror and intelligence/security organisations. The nuclear and thermonuclear arsenals of the US and Russia are still so vast that they have individual weapons that have greater destructive power than all the non-nuclear bombs dropped by all the air forces of the world in all the wars in human history, including Iraq war.

Theoretically, the various kinds of some 20000 nuclear bombs would be at risk, but in practice the more realistic fear would be use of a small weapon stolen from one of the nuclear states, or a plutonium or heavily enriched uranium basement type bomb or the theft of material to make a dirty bomb. Weapons of the first kind form part of the inventory of the US and Russian forces. It is possible that weapons of this kind would attract the attention of terrorists. Particularly attractive could be the American W-25 SADM a 25 kilogramme device that can be parachuted into enemy territory to destroy bridges tunnels and other such installations. There is also the 20 kilo Davy Crocket jeep mounted war head originally meant to halt a Soviet blitzkrieg in Europe. The W-82 is a three foot long atomic artillery shell that weighs about 40 kilogrammes, two foot long which can be carried in a back pack. The Soviet arsenal also included suitcase devices, backpack weapons like the Army’s RA 155 and the Navy’s RA-115-01 which is meant for underwater use.

The threat is not just from the terrorists getting hold of a nuclear device in the Islamic world or by jihadis but such small devices could be as attractive as the Stringer missiles were during the campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The issue here is not the large scale disappearance of such weapons but even one will be enough to create a catastrophic terrorist incident. However, experts also believe that it was more likely that that terrorists would prefer to acquire fissile material and make their own bomb rather than try to buy one off the shelf, as it were.

MARITIME TERRORISM

The world has seen terrorism on the ground, in the air but has not seen much of it on the high seas.

The attack on the USS Cole was a relatively small terrorist attack when compared to the sea-borne attack in Mumbai in November 2008. Since each terrorist attack should be seen as the possible precursor to something even bigger, the Mumbai attack has exposed India’s vulnerabilities all along its 7500 km sea boundaries and the scattered islands in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. This remains a major vulnerability in India.

Over 50,000 ships pass through the Malacca Straits each year. A terrorist attack in the in the narrow critical part of the Straits could block the Straits and cripple world trade. This would provide terrorists a large iconic impact that would not be available through a terrorist attack on a ship on the high seas. International threat perceptions of maritime terrorism are high and will continue to remain high in the foreseeable future.

The fact that till now there has been no major terrorist strikes in the high seas should not lead to the conclusion that the international jihadi terrorists feel more comfortable operating on land and would be unlikely to expand their operations to the high seas.

The possible use of oil for causing massive disruptions in the world economy has been receiving increasing attention from the international jihadi terrorist elements. The need for attacks on oil installations is a frequently occurring theme in the messages of Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. Till now, the attacks on the oil industry have been in the form of one reported attack on a oil tanker at the Aden port, attacks on the foreign experts working in the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and the blowing-up of oil pipelines in Iraq. The attacks, though spectacular, have not had a sustained effect. The oil industry, like the tourism industry, has shown itself to be resilient despite its vulnerability. Both the tourism and oil industries have so far been able to recover from the sporadic attacks on them fairly quickly. The economic disruption, though considerable, was temporary and did not have a serious effect on the availability and affordability of oil. This should not lead to any feelings of complacency that attacks of a more disastrous nature are unlikely. Counter-terrorism techniques tailor-made for the energy sector need urgent attention.

India's plans for ensuring the supplies of energy to fuel its expanding economy through a network of pipelines from Turkmenistan and Iran via Pakistan and from Myanmar via Bangladesh would remain a pipedream till the already-established international jihadi terrorist infrastructures in the region are not neutralized.

The surviving terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan continues to pose a threat to peace and security and economic prosperity in South, West and Central Asia. The emerging one in Bangladesh has serious implications for South and South-East Asia.

THE ECONOMY OF TERROR

The world has not seen financial terrorism something that would send the dollar into a spin.

Modern terrorism thrives not on just ideology or politics. The main driver is money and the new economy of terror and international crime has been calculated to be worth US $ 1.5 trillion (and growing), which is big enough to challenge Western hegemony. This is higher than the GDP of Britain, ten times the size of General Motors and 17 per cent of the US GDP (1998). Loretta Napoleoni splits this terror and crime GDP into three parts. About one-third constitutes money that has moved illegally from one country to another, another one-third is generated primarily by criminal activities and called the Gross Criminal Product while the remaining is the money produced by terror organisations, from legal businesses and from narcotics and smuggling. Napoleoni refers to this as the New Economy of Terror.

All the illegal businesses of arms and narcotics trading, oil and diamonds smuggling, charitable organisations that front for illegal businesses and the black money operations form part of this burgeoning business. Terror has other reasons to thrive. There are vested interests that seek the wages of terrorism and terrorist war.

Narcotics smuggling generates its own separate business lines, globally connected with arms smuggling and human trafficking, and all dealt within hundred dollar bills. These black dollars have to be laundered, which is yet another distinctive, secretive and complicated transnational occupation closely connected with these illegal activities and is really a crucial infusion of cash into the Western economies.

The nineties were a far cry from the early days of dependence on the Cold War sponsors of violence and terrorism. In the seventies, terrorists began to rely on legal economic activities for raising funds. The buzzword today is globalisation, including in the business of terrorism. Armed groups have linked up internationally, financially and otherwise, have been able to operate across borders with Pakistani jehadis doing service in Chechnya and Kosovo, or Uzbek insurgents taking shelter in Pakistan.

In today’s world of deregulated finance, terrorists have taken full advantage of systems to penetrate legitimate international financial institutions and establish regular business houses. Islamic banks and other charities have helped fund movements, sometimes without the knowledge of the managers of these institutions that the source and destination of the funds is not what has been declared. Both Hamas and the PLO have been flush with funds with Arafat’s secret treasury estimated to be worth US $ 700 million to 2 billion.

It is not easy but the civilised world must counter the scourge of terrorism. In a networked world, where communication and action can be in real time, where boundaries need not be crossed and where terrorist action can take place on the Net and through the Net, the task of countering this is increasingly difficult and intricate. Governments are bound by Geneva Conventions in tackling a terrorist organisation, whatever else Bush’s aides may have told him, but the terrorist is not bound by such regulations in this asymmetric warfare.

THE CHANGING FACE OF TERROR IN PAKISTAN

South Asia, as we all know, is both the battleground and home for these groups, threatening to destabilize political structures and social fabric of the region by acts of terror directed against specific religious and ethnic communities.

There is clear distinction between the groups which existed during the Afghan jihad and today. There are marked differences in composition, objectives, modus operandi, networks, finances and reach. The pre-al Qaida groups, like Harkat-ul Ansar (HuA), Harkat-ul Mujahideen (HM), Hizb-ul Mujahideen (HuM), Harkat-ul Jihad al-Islami (HuJI), Lashkar-e-tayyeba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), were created by state agencies in Pakistan for specific objectives. The objectives were two-fold: help the Americans drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan through guerilla tactics and launch a protracted proxy war in Kashmir. These groups largely depended on the state munificence and funds generously provided by the US and other western nations, and west Asian countries like Saudi Arabia, through a network of newly created banking organisations like the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), cowboy methods like currency chests flown into Pakistan, besides guns and ammunition shipped and airlifted in tonnes from different parts of the world.

These groups largely drew the cadre and leadership for jihad from madrasas and extremist religious groups in Pakistan which were amply supported by the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate and the Pakistan Army. They relied primarily on the religious ``brotherhood`` both within Pakistan and outside, and their association with the ISI to create a chain of madrasas and training grounds for recruiting, indoctrinating and training the so-called ``freedom fighters``(mujahideen). Their area of operation was pre-determined and they worked strictly under the control of the ISI (and CIA) in Afghanistan.

Terrorism in the Indian sub-continent underwent dramatic changes after the disintegration of Soviet Union and more so, after September 11, 200. Funds, resources and support for the jihadi groups dried up rapidly. Many of the groups died a natural death. Others were given a make-over by the ISI with a new identity and new grounds of training and operation. A large number of the cadre, unemployed, drifted to rabidly Sunni groups like Sipah-e-Saheba of Pakistan (SSP) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), criminal activities like carjacking, extortion, and kidnapping for ransom and smuggling. Others joined newly created groups like JeM and United Jehad Council carved out of old Afghan groups like HuA and HuM.

Unlike Pakistan where religious extremist groups have remained on the fringe of the political spectrum, in Bangladesh such groups have had a decisive role to play. One such group is Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) which owes much of its growth to the Islamization of the country's political institutions initiated by President Zia-ur Rehman in 1977. The present Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina is far more confident and has taken significant steps to curb terrorism aimed at India and also to reign in right wing elements that may be a threat to Bangladesh. However, in the past, both Awami League, led by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by current Premier Begum Khaleda Zia, assiduously courted JeI for their own bitter and protracted duel for supremacy. The Awami League, for instance, sought support from the religious party to campaign against the BNP while the latter has co-opted JeI as a coalition partner. JeI, as a result, is today the third largest political party in Bangladesh.

The rise of radical political and religious parties like JeI promoted the growth of madrasas in the country, mostly funded by west Asian countries. These madrasas played host to various terrorist groups anxious to recruit and train young students. One of the more prominent ones is Harkat ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI), widely regarded as al-Qaeda's operating arm in south Asia. HuJI has been consolidating its position in Bangladesh where it boasts a membership of more than 15,000 activists, of whom at least 2,000 are "hardcore.

The decimation of the Taliban and the emergence of al Qaida and Osama bin Laden gave a new hue and ideological boost to terrorist groups. The list of enemies expanded to include the US and Israel besides India. New alliances were established. Terrorist groups drew their cadres from religious extremist groups like SSP and LeJ. Drawing upon the resources of the ISI, these groups established sleeper cells in different parts of India and in other parts of the world.

With cumulative bans imposed on their activities by the US State Department, the United Nations and various governments, including that of Pakistan, these groups, particularly LeT, established new networks of finances, tapping into Pakistani diaspora in UK, west Asia, US, Australia and Europe. These groups began relying on transnational smuggling and hawala syndicates to transfer funds and arms. There was a decisive shift in targets, both in terms of location and character, and modus operandi. The targets today range from political leaders to mass transit systems to nuclear stations, with the clear objective of instigating communal violence in India and inflicting heavy damage to the economy. The methodology has shifted from isolated attacks to bombings of public transport systems and market and religious places to spread panic and fear. Kashmir is no longer the operational ground nor the sole target. The groups today live by a pan-India, and at times a pan-global, agenda of establishing the Caliphate.

Pakistan’s duplicity in dealing with terrorist and extremist elements came to haunt the region when Lahore-based Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) trained jihadis, with the connivance of ISI and Pakistan Army, attacked Mumbai and raised the spectre of another war in the region. Even after suffering several attacks in the past three years, Pakistan Army refuses to give up its support for terrorist groups like LeT or the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan.

LEFT WING EXTREMISM

It is increasingly evident that the menace of Left Wing Extremism has been underestimated by the Government all these years. Not only does it impact in areas which are rich in mineral resources (80% of India’s high grade iron ore, 85% of total coal deposits) are in the so-called red corridor. The insurgency has spread rapidly in the last few years, but has also occupied larger areas as government and governance have receded. 225 districts are affected up from 160 a few years ago; estimated to have Rs 1500-2000 crores through extortion, narcotics and hijacking government development funds; they have an arsenal of about 10000 assorted weapons from AK series to INSAS, LMGs and SLRs to 303 rifles. Originally concentrating in the rural areas of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal they are now also moving into urban centres of Raipur, Surat, Faridabad, Bastar and other places. Local grievances, exploitation and absence of governance have been the planks for their movement.

Backed by a strong informer system, the terrorists avoid any frontal engagements with the SFs and there is a greater reliance on IEDs. They rely on rapid movement both in attack and escape. There has been a rising trend in the incidents as statistics reveal. In 2006 there were 1509 incidents which rose to 1591 in 2008 and 2258 in 2009. Left Wing Extremists have begun to move into other states like Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Assam, Kerala and Delhi. These are early stages but then every movement has an early stage before it gets out of hand unless tackled early and counter insurgency is not politicised. The tendency to rush in with humanitarian aid as an attempt to solve the crises is invariably a misplaced tactic and does nothing to win over the population or the insurgent. Development assistance without ensuring a semblance of law and order, will always be counter-productive. The entire counter effort has to be fought on a different grid, needs ground humint, quick reaction teams and the development of capacities to clear and hold. None of this will be achieved overnight and needs sustained long term efforts.

Unless all this is done the movement will continue to grow and may well join hands with other ethnic and religious groupings in the country or aided from outside.

TECHNOLOGY AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER FOR TERRORISM
We have all spoken and read about the exponential transformation in technology in the past two decades. From the first text message which was sent in Britain in 1992 and ten years later 100 billion SMS messages were being exchanged every month and today 4.1 billion messages are sent daily -- is just a common day example. Not only is this the manner in which technology is changing; today we talk of gigabytes and terabytes. But another improvement is on its way – petabytes. When this happens, then it would be possible to store the entire Library of Congress -- the world’s largest with 120 million books/journals stored on 850 kilometres of shelves with 10,000 books added daily, and these could be stored in just 0.02 petabytes. In March 2007, the CIA began working on a digital library of national intelligence information that would be have everything from raw data to analytical information which was expected to be bigger that the Library of Congress.
Two years ago the size of the Web was such that Google could search 60 billion pages in a second or less. But there is a Deep Web, that cannot be accessed and it is estimated to be 50 times larger. There is so much information overload that the 16 US intelligence agencies employ 45000 analysts. Of course in India, we don’t have that kind of global threat perceptions or requirements or even the funds but need some scaled down model. There are 1.6 billion people on line today, up from 1 billion two years ago. 60 % of the world’s population of 6.6 billion today uses cell phones up from 12% in 2000. Islamist groups are known to use mini-cameras to post their propaganda films on YouTube. Steganography is commonly used to embed secret messages on the net.
Terrorism is now truly global and as multinational as Microsoft. The US and Al Qaeda are the two that have global reach today. But terrorism is unremittingly lethal and it is cheap. (The ingredients for sirin gas which, when used properly with a spray, could kill anywhere between a few hundred and a few thousand, cost only $ 150). The irony is that the American state spends multi-million dollars in developing state of the art drones, armed with advanced weaponry, can now be hacked into by insurgents with a US $ 26 off the shelf Russian software which highlights the disparity between costs to insurgents and counter insurgents.
There are many players in the field today — the fanatics, the criminals, the drug-traffickers, the human traffickers. The masterminds are not the archetypal villains epitomised by Bollywood, but could be the boy or girl next door in the suburbs of Atlanta or Marseilles or an alumnus from Binori mosque in Karachi. For us in India we have learnt to live with it, having been victims of this for the last three decades and more. It is a problem that will not go away easily, soon or completely.
Future wars are unlikely to engage massive armies locked in prolonged battle for real estate. Attacks could now come by stealth, master-minded by some computer whiz kid along with some science graduate, and the targets are our ways of life. The terrorist of the day wishes to use 21st century tools to push us all back to the 7th century. It is a highly unconventional war that the State hopes to fight only with conventional weapons or tactics. Unless the State learns to be flexible and agile and unless there is full scope cooperation internationally, it will always be an uphill struggle with the peak never really visible.

It is the use of modern technology by the terrorist that has led the counter terrorist to evolve expensive, all pervasive surveillance and counter terrorist techniques in ways that leave the espionage and counter espionage activities of the Cold War years far behind. In the west, especially in the US there has been an upsurge in intelligence activity as the US battles to secure itself in the new global war. Faced with an information overload where every email, every telephone call, every sms, every fax is subject to surveillance apart from the literature floating on the web, intelligence activity has been outsourced in a major fashion. From just being an military-industrial complex it is now an intelligence-industry complex where major players like Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen and Hamilton, CACI International, SAIC and IBM are now active associates of the CIA, NSA and the Pentagon in intelligence activities at home and abroad. Blackwater and Dyncorp as well as others provide the muscle power. Their charter includes covert operations and interrogations of suspects. Privatisation of espionage and authorised privatisation of violence will change societies in ways that will realise only later when the power of these groups may exceed those of the state, especially in weaker or smaller states.

INTELLIGENCE

It is an unending nightmare for intelligence agencies the world over. Who? What? Where? When? And how? In what language will the terrorists communicate and what medium? What code? Will we get to know before they strike? Not all attacks will be preventable. Only finely co-ordinated, transparent and real time co-operation on a global scale will make the task of the terrorist more difficult if not impossible. The terrorist have gone global so must the counter-terrorist.

Despite the rapid development of the technological element, the human element will continue to be the most important factor in determining the outcome of the campaign against terrorism. In spite of the superiority of the State in numbers and material and technological resources, the international jihadi terrorists do not show as yet any signs of withering away. The quality of the human element they have at their disposal would substantially account for this. The quality of the human element available to the security and counter-terrorism agencies should surpass that of the terrorists if the State has to ultimately prevail.

With only mediocre human element, even the best of technological capability cannot produce adequate results. The best of human element can ultimately prevail even if the technological capability is not up to the mark. The human element is very important at every stage of counter-terrorism---intelligence collection and analysis, use of the intelligence for prevention, neutralisation of the capability of the terrorists, investigation of terrorist strikes and successful prosecution. How to develop an unbroken chain of human competence of high quality? That is a question which would continue to need attention in the years to come.
There has to be a revolution in the intelligence culture and tradecraft or operating techniques in order to be able to prevail over the terrorists. The existing tradecraft served adequately the purpose of the penetration of the State adversaries in order to collect human intelligence (HUMINT). It has been found to be inadequate, if not unsuited, for penetrating the set-ups of non-State actors, particularly the terrorists, who operate on the basis of the principle of autonomous cells. The progress towards the evolution of new tradecraft and new techniques has been unsatisfactory.

A revolution in the intelligence culture also calls for effective networking of national and foreign intelligence agencies and the sharing without inhibition of all relevant intelligence. The intelligence and counter-terrorism networking has to be as effective as the networking by the terrorists. Such networking was found difficult even in days when the number of intelligence agencies in each nation was small and manageable. How to ensure this in an era of mushrooming agencies is another question which needs urgent attention.

There has been some progress towards international intelligence co-operation at the bilateral level, but the progress towards multilateral co-operation is still years away. Since the US is and will continue to be a predominant player in all intelligence co-operation networks, suspicions of its real intentions and fears of its using such networks for serving its hegemonistic and strategic interests would continue to dog any progress towards multilateral co-operation.

There is an equally urgent need for a revolution in counter-terrorism training methods with an emphasis on joint training in specialised counter-terrorism schools for the officers and staff handling counter-terrorism in all intelligence and security agencies and police forces and the improvement of language capability. The training should develop in the officers an ability to think and act unconventionally with the help of suitably devised counter-terrorism games similar to the war games.

EFFECTS ON TERRORIST GROUPS IN INDIA.

The emergence of new terrorist groups and coalitions added a disturbing dimension to the terrorist threat to India. While the birth of a new terrorist coalition, which called itself Indian Mujahideen, raised fears about a resurgence of radical elements within the 150-million strong Indian Muslim community, it was the discovery of Hindu extremist group or groups involved in some of the terrorist attacks, till date attributed to Islamic groups, which challenges the earlier Indian claims and adds weight to the protestations made by the Muslim community about painting the entire community with a tar brush every time a bomb explodes anywhere in India.

India thus witnessed the emergence of two clear strands of terrorism, linked in a regrettable sort of way to the State’s inability, and timidity, in tackling terrorist groups and persons firmly and decisively. The Indian Mujahideen (IM) presents the first strand. According to investigations carried out so far, some of it since discredited by the discovery of Hindu brand of terrorism, it is a diffused but highly networked group of terrorists, driven by a dangerous cocktail of extremist ideology and a simmering sense of anguish and revenge. They are mostly young professionals as well as from the blue collar class who are aware of the global jihadi propaganda but are provoked more by actions of the police and rival communities at the domestic level.
THE ROLE OF THE ARMY IN COUNTER TERROR AND COUNTER INSURGENCY

The Indian Army has been required for internal security duties almost from the very beginning when it was called into tackle the communist insurgency in the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh from 1949 to 1952. The Indian Army was also pressed into action to deal with a Pakistani guerrilla invasion in Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. Then, was successively involved the North east in the 1950s and 60s, till the present in some cases like the Bodo and Assamese movements. The Army was called in for action in the Punjab in the 1980s and has been in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990.

The Army and security forces have lost 5,962 personnel in the terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir from 1990 to July 5, 2010. This year alone 45 security forces personnel have died in the State fighting terrorists. Elsewhere, as many as 939 officers and men lost their lives in Manipur; 783 in Assam; 81 in Meghalaya and 22 in Mizoram. In addition, 1,226 security forces personnel have died fighting Maoists between 2005 and 2010; this year, till July 5, we have lost 204 men in uniform.

Since 1990, the security forces have faced 1,511 cases of human rights abuse. These were investigated by various agencies, including the National Human Rights Commission, and 1,473 were found to be false and 104 men found guilty have been punished.

Ideally one would not want the Army to be involved in CI activities. The Government and the people have faced insurgencies almost from the beginning and we should have evolved suitable dedicated CI /CT instrumentalities by now. The introduction of the Army into counter-terror/counterinsurgency mode, usually in the case non-availability of the para-military is accompanied by the introduction of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to provide it legal cover for internal security duties. The Army needs to be protected and empowered but with this empowerment comes accountability. Machil cannot be allowed to repeat. The problem that arises, apart from the fact that the Army is unfamiliar with the terrain it is not supported by adequate intelligence. Added to this, are the problems of civil-military co-ordination and the ownership of various forces that are deployed. The police answer to the local government, the para-military forces to the Ministry of Home Affairs in New Delhi and the Army has its own command structure under the Ministry of Defence. There is also the problem of co-ordination among Central and local intelligence agencies.

In Jammu and Kashmir the concept of Unified Headquarters was introduced in 1994 and later tried in Assam in 1997 and Manipur in 2004 but had limited success because the body lacked statutory authority. Political parties did not take to this structure with any great enthusiasm as it required them to commit to a counterinsurgency plan which was probably at variance with their political plans. The concept of a Unified Headquarters has been a partial success and effective civil-military co-ordination remains a big challenge to evolving any cohesive long term plan that goes beyond containing insurgency to eliminating it.

THE FUTURE

The years ahead will see the following trends in India

The birth of terror coalition.

This implies a tie up between the Pak-based JeM and LeT working with BD based groups like the HUJI (B) and then tied in with Indian groups like the SIMI and other smaller groups. The Indian Mujahedeen is a product of such coalition and they – the IM could become part global jihad.

The spread of a pan-Islamic character across the breadth of the country, with the left wing extremists already talking of coalescing with other groups - Sikh, Islamic or ethnic - would be a cause for concern for the government. This is aggravated if there is the inevitable foreign hand. Be that as it may, it is feared that the NE especially Assam and West Bengal would be increasingly under threat from a mixture of LWE and Islamist terrorism. This is perhaps the most dangerous part of this spectre of terrorism.

Pakistan is not expected to give up this weapon of state sponsored terrorism as a force equaliser against the stronger India. This can happen only if the price of terrorism is more than what Pakistan can afford to pay and Pakistan overcomes its fear psychosis about India. In the decade ahead we should not expect any appreciable change in the level of terrorism. In fact we should be prepared for new kinds of terrorism. Despite having become a victim of its own terrorism, Pakistan is unlikely to be able to reverse this without further trauma.

We should be looking at the many ways terrorism could morph and evolve in the years ahead:

Terrorists groups will be smaller, more lethal and in some cases even have the lone operator.

Terrorists will be networked, mobile, educated, in the younger age group which would give them greater zeal, idealism and greater readiness to take risks.

Similar groups – mercenaries to provide support services – for counterfeiting, funds transfers, arms smuggling, will operate.

The nexus between mafia and terrorists will grow.

The nexus between the terror groups - in whatever form they take in the years ahead - and the military in Pakistan, is not going to change.

Cyber terrorists will abound.

Terrorists, in our region -- whatever their grievance, -- revenge for perceived injustice, to weaken/destroy non-Muslim or anti-Muslim countries, or establishing Caliphates – will target mostly soft, vulnerable and high-profile urban targets, especially mega-metropolis like New Delhi or Mumbai.. This would mean vital infrastructure and communications, hijack of airlines, attacks on embassies, foreign interests, mass transit networks, maritime assets – all that would hurt economic interests.

It has to be accepted that there can be no final victory in any battle against terrorism. Resentments, real or imagined, and exploding expectations, will persist. Since the state no longer has monopoly on instruments of violence, recourse to violence is increasingly a weapon of first resort. Terrorism can be contained and its effects minimised but cannot be eradicated any more than the world can eradicate crime. An over-militaristic response or repeated use of the Armed Forces is fraught with long-term risks for a nation and for the Armed forces. Military action to deter or overcome an immediate threat is often necessary but it cannot ultimately eradicate terrorism. This is as much a political and economic battle and also a battle to be fought long-term by the intelligence and security agencies, and increasingly in cooperation with agencies of other countries.

Ultimately the battle is between democracy and terrorism. The fear is that in order to defeat the latter, we may end up sacrificing some of our democratic values.
Source : Talk delivered by Vikram Sood ( Former RAW Chief) at the USI, New Delhi on September 22, 2010.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Hacking Defences


The United States launched its experimental USAF X37B space plane on April 24, which is capable of doing Mach 20 and has been described as the first step towards the militarisation of space. The Russians claim they have a similar programme. Simultaneously, the US is developing missiles that travel at Mach 5 and would be capable of reaching anywhere in the world in an hour with their conventional payload. This Prompt Global Strike programme has the Russians and the Chinese worried as the US prepares for dominance in a possible non-nuclear world. These are the big ticket items being designed by the US to protect itself in the future where the emphasis is on size and speed.

Miniaturisation is the other catchword in military technology. At today’s rate of progress, we will see doubling of progress every 10 years, which will be the equivalent of a century’s progress. American scientists like Ray Kurzweill predict that by the end of 2020, artificial intelligence would be indistinguishable from human intelligence. Given that there are no limits to human creativity, to the power of ideas and also to human depravity, the use of this power will have wide consequences for mankind. As Winston Churchill once said: “The empires of the future will be the empires of the mind”.

America’s defence department has begun to use technology that creates virtual-reality surroundings in which to train their soldiers. Cellphones are being introduced in clothing that project sound directly to the ears. Computers in a few years from now will become essentially invisible. They will be embedded in our furniture and environment.

Smarter weapons that “think” and are designed for precise missions to maximise damage and minimise own-side casualties is the trend. The state-of-the-art Predator-armed UAV could become rapidly out of date with this new minitiarised technology, where future UAVs would be the size of a bird and much more lethal. The Pentagon’s research has been towards Future Combat Systems — smaller, lighter, faster, more lethal and smarter. The US Army plans Brigade Combat Teams, with unmanned robotic systems where a battalion of 120 military robots is fitted with swarm intelligence software to enable it to mimic the organised behaviour of insects. They are even developing Smart Dust, which are devices smaller than birds and bumblebees, not bigger than a pinhead. Once developed and deployed, swarms of millions of these could be dropped in enemy zones to provide detailed surveillance intelligence and also support offensive military operations.

In another part of the world, in West Asia, the Al Qaeda began its new audio production which enables downloading jihadist propaganda to iPods for believers. A prospective jihadi no longer has to go to a remote madrasa in Balochistan or Fata (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) in Pakistan to imbibe this fervour. He can get it online. These two events — the X37B and iPods for jihad — only means that while the exponential growth of science and technology might make life comfortable for us, it does not necessarily make us more secure. Ironically it also means that the US spends billions to protect itself while the terrorist merely takes the low-cost spinoffs from this technology to harm the West. In turn, the West spends trillions more to develop techniques to protect itself against these attacks.

In March 2007, the CIA began working on a digital library of national intelligence information that would have everything from raw data to analytical information. This is expected to be even bigger than the Library of Congress, which today is the world’s largest, with 120 million books/journals stored on 850 km of shelves, with 10,000 books added daily. Besides, there is such tremendous information overload that agencies have difficulty keeping track of the electronic traffic that is out there. Sixteen US intelligence agencies employ 45,000 analysts to track and analyse this traffic. The first text message was sent in Britain in 1992, while more than four billion messages are sent daily now. This does not take into account Twitter and other social networking sites. There are 1.6 billion people online today, and 60 per cent of the world’s population of 6.6 billion uses cellphones, up from 12 per cent in 2000. Huge amounts of this work has been outsourced in the United States to private companies who collect and transmit the data to produce the finished product of intelligence. A new intelligence-industrial complex, similar to the earlier military-industrial complex, operates in the US.

Intelligence and surveillance will also increasingly be electronic. It is no longer necessary to use “plumbers” to break into opponents’ headquarters as Richard Nixon did in 1972; all this can be done online, without any legalistic rigmarole. However, so can the terrorist access computers through WAN (wide area network). Technology makes this possible. Cyber espionage has become the new game. The Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto detailed how a China-based operation, which it called the Shadow Network, pilfered documents from the highest levels of the Indian defence ministry, National Security Council secretariat, diplomatic missions and think tanks such as the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. The attacks were all over India, targeting Indian military formations and Air Force bases. The base of operations was Chengdu, in the heart of China.

China began developing its cyberspace doctrine and capabilities since the late 1990s as part of its military modernisation programme. This doctrine of active defence, under which China should be ready to respond to aggression immediately, emphasises the development of cyberwarfare capabilities. The focus of this strategy of asymmetric warfare requires developing capabilities that circumvent US superiority in command-and-control warfare. The idea is to weaken the critical importance of the cyber domain to America’s military and economic power. Chinese hackers succeeded in high-level penetration of target computer systems, data has been stolen from foreign governments, financial and commercial institutions. Non-governmental organisations like the Falun Gong and Tibetan groups in India were not spared either.
Pakistan too had begun to develop its cyberwarfare capabilities in 2000 with a project interestingly named Operation Badr. The idea was to raise 313 “Java Mujahideen architects” across the world and 10,000 developers. Whether this is just an obsession that Pakistan’s military rulers have with religious symbolism or it signifies battles of another kind is difficult to say, but it is also difficult to ignore — considering the contribution the Pakistani state has made to terror in India and globally.

The future, with all its possibilities and dangers, is upon us. One wonders if we are ready to handle this.

Source : Asian Age , 29th April 2010 , Vikram Sood ( Former Head of RA&W)

Thursday, January 17, 2008

America fails the IQ test

The US has a knack of rejecting unpalatable , On Iran for Instance.

The recent US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that Iran is some years away from having the capability to make the bomb (earliest by 2009, but more realistically by 2015) upset many of the ‘shock and awe’ brigade of neo-cons in Washington. Critics of the report have either dismissed it as a politically motivated exercise or as the revenge of those who oppose or dislike George W. Bush’s policy. Israeli strategists and analysts have largely refused to accept the report as the final word. CNN had to hurriedly cancel its two-hour programme, ‘We Were Warned: Iran Goes Nuclear’, after the publication of the NIE report.

Bush has continued to say that Iran was, is, and will remain a threat. But the rhetoric about an impending “third world war” will have to cool down now. It is not going to be easy to ignore the joint report of intelligence community considering that the US government spends $ 40 billion annually on collecting intelligence. Several former CIA analysts and experts have praised the NIE findings for resisting back channel politics and reporting ‘as they saw it’ — not based on a single source but multiple sources that include technical, documentary and electronic. Others feel that this reversal will dent the credibility of US intelligence on countries like Iran. Many see this is an intelligence exercise honestly delivered.

Yet, the use and abuse of intelligence reports is nothing new. In the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, the famous Downing Street memo of July 2002 recorded after the British MI6 chief had visited the US that the British Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) had stated that “C reported on his recent talks in Washington… Military action was now seen as inevitable. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

The worry today about Iran’s nuclear ambitions is the result of US policy in Iran in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported the idea of Iran developing nuclear power and the US hoped to sell billions of dollars worth of nuclear reactors, spare parts and nuclear fuel to Iran even though the Shah had declared rather indiscreetly that Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded Ford in 1976 to offer Iran a deal that would have earned GE and Westinghouse contracts worth $ 6.4 billion — a boon in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island disaster. The offer included a reprocessing facility for a complete nuclear fuel cycle — something that the US does not want Iran to have today. The argument now is that Iran’s desire to have its own enrichment facility for nuclear power proves that it wants to develop a bomb. The Shah fell and the Ayatollahs took over, the Soviets moved into Afghanistan and suddenly it appeared as if the arch rival would be sitting on the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The US had no plan B, except to convert the pariah General Zia-ul-Haq into an ardent frontline ally.

Every major intelligence agency of the day knew what the Pakistanis, led by A.Q. Khan and the entire nuclear-military establishment, were up to. But the Reagan administration, fixated on defeating the Evil Empire, chose to ignore all transgressions. The CIA discovered that the State Department was actually tipping off Pakistani agents in the US. Richard Barlow, a young diligent officer repeatedly and meticulously produced accurate intelligence assessments about Pakistani clandestine activity. Yet, his reports would mysteriously get substituted or altered. Barlow had missed out the realpolitik. Eventually, he was harassed and rendered unemployable and now lives in a trailer in Montana.

Year after year, Reagan certified that Pakistan was not making the bomb so that Congress would not stop the aid to Pakistan even though US money for the jehad was being diverted to make the bomb. The fact that Pakistan had cold tested in 1983, hot tested in 1984 in Lop Nor, that the China-Pakistan nuclear links had burgeoned with Beijing having supplied blue prints, radioactive isotopes and technical assistance; and that the US supplied F-16 aircraft that had been made nuclear capable, was concealed. Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark say this and a lot more in their explosive account, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Policy.

Having mastered their skills at uranium enrichment, Pakistani leaders were now looking for buyers of this technology. Seymour Hersh first wrote about this in the New Yorker in 1993. But no one bothered. Army Chief General Aslam Beg and ISI chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul put together a blueprint to include Iran and Afghanistan in a strategic tie-up in keeping with Zia’s dream of supplying the bomb to the Ummah. Iran had been won over as a customer and additional money would be available for the jehad against India. Acting as the interlocutor between China and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan arranged the sale of 36 long- range nuclear capable CSS-II missiles to Saudi Arabia at a cost of $ 3 billion. In 1988, Zia proposed that the Saudis could be secretly supplied with nuclear warheads as they were not interested in the technology. For the devout Sunni Zia, it made good sense to equip the Sunni Saudis — the Iranians were, after all, Shias.
The post-Afghan jehad period was one of US indifference. Recently, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, under a gag order for five years, has revealed details overheard on wiretaps she translated during her time at the FBI just after 9/11. She has disclosed a maze of nuclear black market espionage involving US Defence and State Department officials, where information about nuclear technology was eventually sold to Pakistan and used by A.Q. Khan for development of nuclear weapons. The secrets were then given to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and potentially al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, just weeks prior to September 11, 2001.

The urge to reject unpalatable intelligence harms the recipient. Cover-ups and misuse of intelligence invariably lead to warped policies and we may actually see a nuclear blow-back of US policies in our neighbourhood which may extend far beyond. Blowbacks affect both the perpetrator and the recipient, as in Pakistan today.

Source ; Hindustan Times , 18th Jan 2008

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Terror Lessons not learnt

Stop Referring to terrorists as fidayeen

SIX years ago, many Indian MPs survived a sensational assassination bid in the heart of the city in a high-security zone. A combination of luck and the courage and fortitude of the security forces saved the day. Today, can one say with certainty that such an attempt will be pre-empted or prevented from taking place?

In a way it is an unfair question to ask because there is no magic formula by which a counter terrorist force can kill a man or a woman who is willing to die. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether we, as a nation and not just professionally, are better prepared to handle this threat which will not go away and will conceivably become bigger. The short answer may be 'afraid not'. Terrorist attacks all over the country have continued.

The terrorist strikes in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and recently in Varanasi, Faizabad and Lucknow show terrorist cells have existed in these cities and there must be similar cells elsewhere. Also, the jehadi terrorist seems to have moved out of the Valley and is now more visible through his actions in the rest of the country.

The jehadi terrorists may have been able to get international headlines through big-ticket urban attacks but they do not have the capacity to organise jail breaks of the kind that Naxalites had done in November 2005 when they sprung 341 prisoners from the district jail in Jehanabad. The other difference has been that the jehadi terrorist does not hold territory. The Naxals do — and places like Dantewada and Narainpur in Bastar district or the Saranda forest in Jharkhand are no-go areas for the state.

Terrorism in India has largely remained restricted to various states — J&K, Manipur, Nagaland and Assam — with each outfit operating independently in its own area. The Naxals, on the other hand, have now got a reach that is officially admitted to extend to 185 of India's 605 districts in the heart of the country. Others put this figure at 256 districts. Thus, while we may externalise the jehadi terrorist problem and may therefore be better able to tackle it knowing that its mentors realise that beyond a certain threshold it could escalate beyond their control, there is no such possibility in the Naxal case. It is a purely internal problem that has been inadequately addressed in every way.

The character of terrorism has changed more rapidly in its operating procedures. There is greater reliance on cyberspace and less on the cellphone and on sleeper cells among the jehadi networks while the Naxals retain a very strong hierarchical control mechanism. Both retain their element of surprise but the latter is also a reflection of poor ground, state-led intelligence. Both seem better trained, better equipped and extremely mobile. The counter terrorist lacks in all three spheres.

It is easy to blame the intelligence agencies for all that occurs. Globally, it has been found that despite all the state assistance for intelligence agencies, the ability to collect intelligence about non-state adversaries remains the most difficult.

In India our tendency has been to make some post-event superficial changes. We do not even have adequate laws to deal with the threat like the British and the Americans do, and for a country that has had to face terrorism for most of its independent existence, we do not even have national identity cards. Our border controls remain inadequate.

A terrorist event makes a good story or 'breaking news' but the media too needs some rules of conduct. The other day it was all over the channels that police were looking for as bunch of terrorists in a white Ambassador. Surely the terrorists saw this too and abandoned their white Ambassador.

Repeated telecast of pictures of frightened families, terrified children or mangled bodies is a victory for the terrorist. He has succeeded in frightening the people. Often we glorify a terrorist when we refer to him as a fidayeen. All this has to change too if we want to win the war on terrorism.


Source : 13th December 2007, Mail Today

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

The Nuclear Deal: The Larger Picture


As the U.S. readies for the battles of the 21st century, India must not ignore the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China and the relevance of Iran. It must manage its relations with all these powers.

The India-United States nuclear deal that was supposed to be a path breaking agreement has run into stiff opposition in both countries where critics say that each has given too much for too little. For India, the deal was supposed to provide nuclear energy to make good the shortfall, access to hi-technology, be an economic bonanza for the future and grant legitimacy as a major power. For the U.S., it was part of a larger game plan. The deal was a means to cap India’ s strategic programme, provide access to India’s growing defence market, and become a strategic partner in U.S. foreign policy initiatives globally. One of the abiding primary bipartisan U.S. objectives has been to restrict, roll back and cap the Indian strategic deterrent. Bill Clinton tried it earlier when he wanted India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and announce a moratorium on fissile production. But critics in the U.S. fear that the deal has weakened the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime.
There have been different interpretations of the deal in the two capitals. New Delhi asserts that the agreement assures continued supply of fuel and that if there is any disruption, the U.S. would help find an alternative source. American officials do not agree and will help only in the case of technical or logistical difficulties. This means that there would be no assistance in case India violates some aspects of the agreement or tests a nuclear device or reprocesses U.S. origin fuel.

The 123 Agreement has been extensively commented upon by strategic analysts, experienced commentators and scientists. One of the arguments being that the Hyde Act suggests that India should work bilaterally with the U.S. for an early conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty instead of what India has wanted — a universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable arrangement. The Americans would want to rely on national technical means which would make the deal bilaterally intrusive. The deal does not give India access to reprocessing, enrichment or heavy water technologies or dual use components. In addition, the right of return of nuclear material, restrictions on reprocessing or building fuel reserves, verification and end-use monitoring, have been built into the agreement. This could restrict our strategic capabilities and options in the years ahead.

The deal was supposed to give India several benefits but the pressure to sign the deal by a specific deadline mostly came from the Americans, almost as if India was being hustled into this. The old principle of never ever signing anything in a hurry was abandoned. The Japanese, for instance, spent seven years discussing the deal before signing it. The China-U.S. 123 agreement of 1985 specifically states that both sides would observe the principle of international law under which neither party could invoke a domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty. The India-U.S. 123 agreement does not have this safeguard.

It would be unreasonable to expect that the U.S. would give us a carte blanche on the business of testing and fissile material. But it was also unnecessary for us to have allowed what was a voluntary moratorium on testing become binding in a bilateral arrangement. It was also not necessary to agree to a U.S.-led fissile material cut off instead of a multilateral arrangement in Geneva. This is what we had agreed on July 18, 2005 and since then it has been a steady process downhill. In March 2006, we agreed to place 14 of our 22 reactors under safeguards and eventually shut down the Cirus reactor permanently. By voting in the manner in which we did at the IAEA on the Iran issue, we have set a precedent that may be difficult to live down. From now onwards, whenever we vote along with the U.S. or do any deal with it, opponents to this action will accuse the government of having become subservient to the U.S.

Unfortunately, the official response to the various criticisms or doubts has been dismissive and disappointingly inadequate. No one has bothered to sit down and explain that the various doubts and fears expressed were either incorrect or exaggerated. Instead, the response has been to depict criticism as a reflection of tunnel vision of cold war mindsets or nitpicking by ignoramuses. In the midst of this emotional debate, it was forgotten that dissent is also a form of patriotism. Protagonists of the deal have claimed that the 123 Agreement overrides the Hyde Act. This is incorrect because the 1954 Atomic Energy Act is the mother of all such Acts; the Hyde Act is a stringent enabling India-specific legislation for the 123 Agreement to be signed within the parameters of the Hyde Act. It has been suggested that in case the deal did not go through, Pakistan and China would collaborate for a similar deal. Surely this would have been factored in when the deal was being negotiated. It does not require any special clairvoyance to predict that whatever the outcome of the India-U.S. deal, Pakistan would want to seek a similar arrangement either with the U.S. and failing which, with China. In a high pitch drive, it has even been suggested that this deal would now open the doors for all sorts of hi-tech technologies. Conversely, should India be seen to be in violation of this deal, these technologies would be withdrawn from us followed by sanctions.

The Nick Burns statement in Washington on July 27 is a clear enunciation of what the U.S. expects from the deal. He said that the 123 Agreement “brings India … back into the nonproliferation mainstream in a way it was not before. And that is a tangible gain for India, as well as the U.S. and the rest of the world.” From then flow the rest of the arguments about the strategic consonance on Iran, reducing India’s dependency on countries like Iran for energy supplies. He also spoke of the advantages that American companies will have in selling the “finest nuclear technology” to India. Yet he did not mention that no American company has built a single reactor in the U.S. since 1979. Mr. Burns also hoped for greater defence co-operation between India and the U.S. leading to more exercises, training and defence sales. Both countries were already working together in South Asia on Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and “in trying to form a better functioning relationship between India and Pakistan.” He hoped that the two countries would form a global partnership and work together in East Asia and Africa. The India-U.S. nuclear deal is part of an overall plan which includes the Defence Framework Agreement, the Agriculture Deal and the Disaster Management Agreement. The idea is to engage India at all levels.

The U.S. has been pursuing a military basing policy extending globally as it prepares to take on a resurgent Russia and a powerful China. There are about 1000 bases of various descriptions and purpose strewn all over the globe and Chalmers Johnson points out in his book Nemesis, India has agreed to have a ‘lily pod’ base along with Thailand, Australia and the Philippines. (Pakistan already has four such bases with much larger facilities). These ‘lily pods’ e nable pre-positioning of weapons and munitions to which U.S. access has already been negotiated. This does not mean permanent U.S. presence but only in times of emergency. No wonder Washington is very keen that the two countries sign an Access and Cross Servicing Agreement which would allow logistic support to the U.S. from locations in India. A natural corollary to this would be the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) which would give U.S. troops immunity from violations of laws of the host country. U.S. joint exercises in and around India also make perfect U.S. military sense. There is a clear agenda and a pattern.

The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is considered to be the unofficial headquarters of the neo-cons. Writing in the July 2003 issue of the AEI National Security Outlook, just a few months after U.S. troops had landed in Iraq, Thomas Donnelly and Vance Serchuk spoke of U.S. military missions being transformed into a ‘global cavalry’ that would need a radical overhaul of America’s overseas force structure and creation of a worldwide network of frontier forts as well as a system of frontier stockades “necessary to win a long-term struggle against an amorphous enemy across the arc of instability.” This arc of instability extends from Morocco to the Philippines inclusive of Eurasia which is predominantly Muslim in the peripheries of Russia and China with India and Israel stuck in the middle.

As the U.S. readies for the battles of the 21st century, India must not ignore the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China and the relevance of Iran. It must manage its relations with all these powers. It needs to therefore pause and think about ways of smoothening the wrinkles in the nuclear deal. If the sense of the House is that there are reservations about the deal then the party in power must address them adequately, in keeping with the convention that India’s foreign policy is pursued through consensus. It should not be construed to be the handiwork of a tyranny of a minority in a minority.
Source : Hindu, 5th Sepetmber 2007

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Global Problems and Regional Issues

Rising global tensions and regional unpredictability will affect India; security managers have difficult choices to make
The Cold War era produced its more or less stable tensions of mutually assured destruction as the two superpowers stared across lethal nuclear fences. The transfer of these tensions to the ‘Third World’ where the main antagonists battled each other either through their surrogates or proxies, helped. Besides, these wars helped in other ways. They enabled the testing of new weapons and the transfer of obsolete weapons to others who did not really need them.

Threats to the security of nations was quantifiable in those days in terms of weapon holdings, men under arms and their fitness to do battle; it used to be about ORBATS (Orders of Battle), the enemy’s military-industrial base and similar other indices. The threats were simpler and somewhat predictable, if only one got the enemy’s intention right. Ideology was the excuse.
The Islamic Revolution in Iran against the Great Satan followed by the Afghan jehad against the Communist Infidel created a new Islamic belief of invincibility. The First Gulf War that followed was also the first Nintendo War. U.S. arms might, backed by hi-tech and smart weaponry, was visible for the first time. The war was fought as much on the CNN news channel as on the sands of Iraq. History was being shown and written in real time.

Closer home, the success of the Afghan jehad, helped substantially by U.S. weapons and Saudi money, along with the collapse of the USSR had a message for its Pakistani mentors. They assessed that they could transfer their expertise and the demobilised jehadi foot soldiers to the Kashmiri theatre. It was an opportunity to bleed India, wrest Kashmir and right the wrongs of 1971. Besides, it was necessary to keep these jehadis away from Pakistan and engaged in India.
The 1990s saw two unrelated developments but ultimately one took advantage of the other. Rising Islamic anger against perceived and real wrongs perpetrated by their rulers in league with the Christian West occurred at a time when technology was making rapid strides. Communications became cheaper, faster. The sat-phone and cell phone revolution along with the rise of the Internet meant that a new kind of threat was emerging. It was global, without frontiers. In fact, a cyber war would ensure that the terrorist need not even cross frontiers to strike. The other uncertainty in all this is that there is no knowing where technology will take us, beyond the knowledge that improvements in applied technology will be increasingly rapid, cheap and universally accessible, including to those likely to misuse and undermine existing systems and societal orders.

The counter-terrorist will remain comparatively flat-footed and also unable to agree unequivocally on the definition of the enemy. Intelligence organisations will continue to find that suicide terrorism and catastrophic terrorism will be the most difficult to predict and prevent. Despite all the intelligence, the terrorist will appear unstoppable at times, especially because it is impossible to kill a terrorist who is willing to die.

Terrorism has become truly global and interlinked with narcotics and diamond smugglers, arms traffickers, money launderers and human traffickers. This annual gross criminal product has been estimated to be about $1.5 trillion, making it substantially bigger than the nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of the U.K. Since this ‘industry’ injected so much money into the western economy, there was hardly any incentive to stop the annual cash flow. No national government is able to tackle this menace, and till September 2001 the west was not even interested.

The Global War on Terror is likely to fade away from the main screen in the next few months. It has far too many ugly memories of failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. It will be extremely painful to go into an American election year with these reminders. Besides, states need new threats that are definable and tangible. The rest of us will be left to fight their own battles against terror while the U.S. gets involved in election-year politics.

There is considerable evidence that NATO, following its presence in Afghanistan, is now transforming itself into a global force. A scene from Afghanistan.

In the course of Congressional testimony last February, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates defined Russia, China and Iran as potential U.S. adversaries. In fact, one can see the beginnings of this as the Anglo-American alliance takes on a resurgent Russia. Vladimir Putin’s Russia will not allow itself to be pushed over into allowing its gigantic energy resources to be the exclusive preserve of the western oil companies. The ballistic missile shields, ostensibly against Iran, are not to be located in Azerbaijan or Turkey but in the Czech Republic and Poland. The message has not been lost on the Russians.

A similar missile defence shield will be located in the Far East, possibly in an increasingly militarised Japan which has been showing growing closeness with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) apart from its existing multifaceted relationship with the U.S. The Chinese have been enquiring about an “Asian NATO” on the Pacific Rim. Globally, China sees itself as major player and worries at this trend that could adversely affect its energy security, economic development and military preparedness. China will view growing India-U.S. relations with similar suspicion even as its own defence expenditure burgeons. It is therefore unlikely to give India much space in the region and will try to restrict Indian influence to its national boundaries.
There is already considerable evidence that NATO, following its presence in Afghanistan, is now transforming itself into a global force. Its tie-ups with Gulf sheikhdoms like Kuwait are being strengthened against possible attacks by Iran, and energy security is the new doctrine. There have been extensive tie-ups between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The massive U.S. military presence in West Asia with its footprint all over the energy-rich Eurasian belt continues.

New tensions are bound to rise in the months ahead as Russia, China and Iran feel they are being encircled and seek to break out. We may be looking at a Cold War Version 2 with its excessive militarisation. This will happen at a time when the western economies are on a downturn and need some revival. Rising global military expenditures will be handy.
In today’s globalised, networked world, security, in all its definitions, is a more complicated business than it was earlier. Global events have regional effects, and vice versa. Wall Street has an almost immediate impact on Dalal Street. And we in India live in a region where six of our neighbours — Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — are listed in that order as failed or failing states among the world’s worst 25, by the Washington-based Fund For Peace.

This does not mean that these states will actually collapse in that order or even collapse at all. But it has to be recognised that India does have more than one problem on its borders. The most important among these problems will be the direction Pakistan will take. These may not translate into conventional military threats but they do mean additional socio-economic and demographic problems at a time when India wants to break free as a major global player.

Rising global tensions and regional unpredictability will inevitably affect India. It may no longer be possible to remain non-aligned. The country’s security managers have difficult choices in the months and years ahead as India strives to seek its place in the sun but its rise is constantly hampered by an unsettled neighbourhood.
Source : The Hindu , 15th August 2007