SOLDIERS WITH SCRUPLES

It resembles a gargantuan squid hurtling towards you with enormous speed, its fearful tentacles bracing up for the kill and its frightening eyes fixed on the prey. You empty your M16A2 rifle—which fires a 5.56-mm bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second—fitted with the M203 40-mm grenade launcher to flatten the devouring monster. But the tentacles are furiously fast to dodge every volley, and you are startled to discover that it is actually a mirage that has claimed several collateral targets—men, women and children—when you fired your service weapon recklessly. You are safe, but maimed and badly scarred mentally, desperately looking for a prosthetic for your amputated spirit and to hobble honourably for the rest of your life—the damage is too gory to forget.

Democracy Now!—a syndicated programme of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio and television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America—aired some 'men of honour' in May who were conscientious enough to admit their complicity in the unscrupulous orders of their superiors, felt shame and disgust in treating Iraqis inhumanly, termed the American occupation inhuman and illegal, and advocated strong action against some of their high-ranking commanding officers—including former commander of American forces in Iraq and present head of US Central Command David H Petraeus. And they can still walk honourably without a crutch for they are “Winter Soldiers on the Hill”. These war veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus at Capitol Hill and gave a first-hand account of the horrors of war.

Amy Goodman, the terrific hostess of Democracy Now!, explained before the testimonies were aired: “Like the Winter Soldier hearings in March 2008, when more than 200 service members gathered for four days in Silver Spring, Maryland, to give their eyewitness accounts of the injustices occurring in Iraq Afghanistan, “Winter Soldier on the Hill” was designed to drive home the human cost of the war and occupation—this time, to the very people in charge of doing something about it.”

Amy further explained, “The name Winter Soldier has been derived from the name of a similar event held in 1971, when hundreds of Vietnam veterans gathered in Detroit. The term was derived from the opening line of Thomas Paine's pamphlet The Crisis, published in 1776, which read, 'These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman'.”

Consumed by shame and regret and their souls shattered by the shards of war, these 'soldiers with scruples' were visibly scarred as they narrated their harrowing and horrifying experiences on and off the battlefield. Former Marine Corp Scout/Sniper Sergio Kochergin (above, in the middle with a beard) was the first to shoot, giving behind-the-scene account of the initial days of the US invasion of Iraq. “It was very hard to see the pain in people's eyes... from their losses they begun to cry... they said it was our fault, the planes killed them.”

Once, Kochergin and his fellow soldiers were instructed to guard an ammuntion supply point in Al-Najaf city—capital of Al-Najaf governorate in central Iraq and located about 160 km south of Baghdad—and take action against anyone trying to steal the weapons. The former sniper mentioned how the High Command had instructed them to “roughen up everybody, that they could not trust anybody and put as much fear as possible... instill fear into people on every chance we got.”

Kochergin also explained the “drop weapon” strategy, which he witnessed on duty in Al Anbar province. US Army personnel were supplied AK-47s whenever they killed unarmed people so that they could be planted on their bodies to make it look like real encounters. These weapons were supplied by the higher chain of command, he added. Kochergin went on to add how within two months of deployment, the rules of engagement changed drastically: any Iraqi carrying a bag and a shovel was to be considered a suspect. “We killed innocent people.... We got approval to kill anyone with a bag and a shovel.” He and his unit were ultimately “tired of killing people and wanted to go home”.

Kochergin also exposed how the US had rendered them vulnerable to attacks by providing outdated equipment, and questioned the allocation of massive amounts of money to logistics when the situation was abysmal as ever. Shockingly, Kochergin was using an M-16 of '70s make, and the Hummers even lacked the basic safety mechanism.

Finally, Kochergin mentioned how the Army Command even dubbed mentally-scarred soldiers on their return as “cowards”. And psychologists, instead of counselling, suggested alcohol as the best way to overcome the tremendous stress and guilt. “The Marine should have never gone to Iraq,” he asserted.

Former US Army Captain Luis Montalvan (above, to Kochergin's right), 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, who had worked extensively for General Petraeus, further exposed America's laxity towards the urgent requirement of more resources and troops in Iraq. “I wrote countless memorandums for more resources and personnel... but was never answered. I was given unlawful orders to stop humanitarian assistance to refugees caught between the Syrian and Iraqi borders. I disobeyed them,” he said. He added how “General Petraeus never heeded to requests of his subordinate officers for more troops and resources”… and painted a
rosy picture as the country slipped into a civil war. Montalvan advocated
court martial of such generals.

Montalvan also mentioned American callousness towards the spiralling insurgency. As of March 2006, no system to track immigration or emigration between Iraq and Syria was installed. From 2005-07, the absence of such a mechanism contributed to the instability of Iraq as foreign fighters and criminals frequently crossed the border at will. For the past year-and-a-half, Montalvan and other Iraq vets have co-authored several pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle “raising the issue of dereliction of duty by generals who have been promoted... and continue to perpetuate lies”.

The High Command was also perpetuating the dangerous trend of Army bravado and machoism in tackling even ordinary citizens, who had earlier been repressed by dictator Saddam Hussein and were now enraged by the foreign occupation. Rifleman and Automatic Machine Gunner Vincent GR Emanuele, 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Alpha Company, 3rd Platoon, who was deployed in Al-Qa'im town, located nearly 400 kms north-west of Baghdad near the Syrian border and situated along the Euphrates River in Anbar province.

Between 2002 and 2006, he was jolted as the disgusting events unfolded. Emanuele narrated how taking potshots at cars that drove by was a regular feature of the Army. At times, the soldiers did not even fire warning shots at cars that pulled by roadsides before targeting them. “Thus was not the best way to become friendly with an already-hostile population,” he said. When under mortar fire, American soldiers, at times, responded with mortars without specific target information, “hitting buildings, houses and businesses”. “We rarely conducted battle damage assessment... no investigation was done and many incidents went unreported.... Because of the hostile intent, our unit had a general disdain and distaste for Iraqis and Iraq.”

A repentant Emanuele described how several innocent prisoners from the unit's detention facility were frequently left in the desert. “Desert because we dropped them off in the middle of nowhere. If they were not innocent, why were they not sent to a permanent detention facility?” While they were being transported, these innocent people were punched, kicked, butt-stroked, abused and harassed by Army personnel, he added. Other forms of inhuman treatment included addressing Iraqis as Hajis or sand niggers.

Months of deployment in a hot and hostile foreign land, under the perpetual fear of being terminated in an ambush or maimed by an improvised explosive device, and a high-pressure job started taking toll on the soldiers' personal lives. Emanuele said, “Several members of my platoon had divorces and separations.... Many of us did not think dying in Iraq was honourable... and did not want to be get deployed a second or third time.” Many Marines, including Emanuele, “turned to drugs and alcohol to cope with the horrors of this bloody occupation”.



As Emanuele's heartwrenching account ended, a soul-stirring song with a video showing coffins containing bodies of soldiers killed in Iraq and stressing the hollowness of war played during the break. The lyrics force you to think twice about military conflicts:

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

After the break, Former Marine Corp Sergeant Adam Kokesh blasted the government brass for flouting the US Constitution: “The greatest enemies of the Constitution are not be found in the sands of Fallujah (a city in Al Anbar, located roughly 69 kms west of Baghdad on the Euphrates) but right here in Wasghingtion DC.”

Kokesh repented his involvement in an incident during his attachment to Golf Company 2/1 before the siege of Fallujah. An Iraqi returning home after work in his car was approaching a military checkpoint and failed to notice a Humvee camouflaged in desert pattern. A suspicious Marine thinking that the vehicle was too fast immediately emptied his 50-calibre machine gun on it. “We justified it by saying that there were ammunition rounds in the vehicle that started going off due to heat. There were no rounds.” The second volley hit the man's chest so hard that it broke his seat. Later, the 'prized kill' was snapped with Kokesh posing next to the vehicle. “I am very ashamed of the picture posing with the dead Iraqi,” a sombre Kokesh said.

Under strict orders from their superiors, the soldiers were so reckless in dealing with Iraqis that even the faintest suspicion led to an assault. “During the siege of Fallujah, our rules of engagement changed so frequently that we were often uncertain of them.... Anyone with binoculars or cell phone would be legitimate target,” he added.

Fromer Marine Corp Corporal James Gilligan (with partially shaven head in the picture above that of the cemetery), who had served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, was involved in the Operation Iraqi Freedom. His version supported Emanuele's examples of sadistic American approach towards Iraqis. Once surrounded by a non-hostile crowd, Gilligan's Sergeant suddenly lifted a child of seven or eight years old in the air and almost choked him with “his pistol pointed towards his head and neck area”. Gilligan, who was also part of the team that searched for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), corroborated Kochergin's version of lack of proper safety mechanisms. “During the initial invasion, my Humvee had plastic doors.... And, we never found WMDs,” he added.

As Gilligan finished, another break followed, and another song played describing how the Army recruits young Americans promising a bright future.

The army recruiters in the parking lot...
Listen young man, listen to my plan
Gonna make you money, make you man
Here's what you get an M-16 and a Kevlar vest
You might come home with one less leg
But these things are surely keep a bullet out of your chest
So c'mon c'mon sign on c'mon
This one is nothing like Vietnam
Except for the bullets, except for the bombs.

What followed was a question-answer session with lawmakers asking these 'heroes' about the dehumanising aspect of military training, and their experiences. Democrat Representative from California Barbara Lee asked about the war psychology of dehumanising soldiers so that atrocities committed by them during occupation have minimal emotional impact on them, and how does it affect soldiers emotionally? She also invited suggestion on how to stop suicide attempts by Iraq-returned soldiers.

Former Army Sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith described how during initial training days trainees repeatedly stab a dummy with bayonets and yell, “KILL”. This is the first step to dehumanise soldiers, he said. Drill sergeants say a popular thing which trainees have to repeat: “Soldiers, what makes the green grass grow? Blood, blood, blood.” “I refused to say it,” he added.

Former Army National Guard Geoffrey Millard said, “As Iraq War Veterans Against The War, we have started a counselling group in Washington DC. We are not going to wait for politicians to end the war, we end the war everyday in what we do.”

Democrat Representative from Minnesota Keith Ellison asked whether the situation in Iraq would really deteriorate, as claimed by the US, if American forces withdraw and is America the glue holding the Iraqi society together?.

Before Montalvan could answer, he had a temporary amnesia—perhaps due to brain damage caused by the ordeal—with Kokash correcting him. He continued saying that this [the terrible consequences of withdrawal] was an assumption made by the highest echelon of the Army who have lied and misrepresented the situation on the ground. “There is no doubt that a withdrawal from Iraq is going to increase bloodshed, humanitarian refugees and sufferings," he said, but asked whether should the US fund with billions of dollars of tax payer's money an endeavour with no clearly defined objectives and for an unknown period of time. “Tribal leaders will sort out matters on their own,” he added. Kokash added, “It will be worse the longer we stay there.”

Ellison's last question raised the issue of abuse, particularly that of prisoners, and its impact on the general population. “What does things like Abu Ghraib and other abuses... do to the average Iraqi who may not hold any enmity towards the United States or US soldiers, but after their cousin uncle, aunt or wife has been abused? What does it do to them and to your security?

Gilligan answered the obvious—which the US government and the Army has conveniently overlooked—“When you meet an Iraqi teenage male... who is experienced in conflict... occupation going on in the last five years in his homeland, his neighbourhood, his streets and his schools. You are meeting people who know what exactly the Marine Air Wing is capable of, what our prison systems are like, they know what our responses are going to be to gunfire, mortar fire and sniper attack? And they are doing it and they are doing it good. They are doing it consistently and they are trying to continue this resistance, and this act of resistance is not going to end until we are actually out of that country.”

Eminent columnist *Chris Hedges rightly sums up the courage of such soldiers and the US indifference towards them: "Those who return to speak this truth, such as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, are our contemporary prophets. But like all prophets they are condemned and ignored for their courage. They struggle, in a culture awash in lies, to tell what few They have the fortitude to digest. They know that what we are taught in school, in worship, by the press, through the entertainment industry and at home, that the melding of the state’s rhetoric with the rhetoric of religion, is empty and false."

Hedges adds: The words these prophets speak are painful. We, as a nation, prefer to listen to those who speak from the patriotic script. We prefer to hear ourselves exalted. If veterans speak of terrible wounds visible and invisible, of lies told to make them kill, of evil committed in our name, we fill our ears with wax.... We do not listen to the angry words that cascade forth from their lips, wishing only that they would calm down, be reasonable, get some help, and go away. We, the deformed, brand our prophets as madmen. We cast them into the desert. And this is why so many veterans are estranged and enraged. This is why so many succumb to suicide or addictions."

What goes on in the mind of a war veteran when he returns to civilian life after witnessing bloodshed and suffering personal losses was best summed up by Jake Gyllenhaal in the 2005 movie Jarhead: “A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armoury, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands, love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper; his hands remember the rifle.”

Gyllenhaal played the role of former Marine Anthony Swofford, who wrote his memoir by the same name as that of the movie—the best-selling book describes his pre-Desert Storm experiences in Saudi Arabia and fighting in Kuwait. Jarhead is a slang used to refer to Marines (sometimes by Marines themselves). After leaving the Marine Corps, Swofford initially found it difficult to adapt to civilian life. “It felt strange to be in a place without having someone telling me to throw my gear in a truck and go somewhere,” he said.

WAR IS WRONG: more than 4,223 US soldiers have been killed and another 30,182 injured since the 2003 invasion. BESIDES, MORE THAN A LAKH IRAQIS HAVE DIED SINCE THE MISADVENTURE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Chris Hedges is a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. Hedges, who has reported from more than fifty countries, worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, where he spent 15 years.

He is the author of the best selling War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, which draws on his experiences in various conflicts to describe the patterns and behavior of nations and individuals in wartime. The book, a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, was described by Abraham Verghese, who reviewed the book for The New York Times, as “... a brilliant, thoughtful, timely and unsettling book whose greatest merit is that it will rattle jingoists, pacifists, moralists, nihilists, politicians and professional soldiers equally.”

Hedges was part of The New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism and he received the 2002 Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He was an early and vocal critic of the plan to invade and occupy Iraq.

PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION

Why the media goes into orgasmic fits whenever the United States concocts a delectable dish with distasteful ingredients like India and Pakistan? What is aroma for the US and the media is a unbearable pong for India as it very well knows that for a 'terrorist nation' that wants its obliteration and lusts after terror and nuclear proliferation cooperation will be 'unpatriotic'.

Right from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and AFP to the PTI and the Dawn gave ample space to the purported intelligence sharing between India and Pakistan at the 'prodding of Uncle Sam'. The conviction with which WSJ “intelligence reporter” Siobhan Gorman explains that “it may be right for longtime rivals Pakistan and India to forge an alliance that allows for greater intelligence sharing with the US” is at best a supersonic flight by America into the realm of impossibility.

The peg of US assumption would rankle even the dumbest: “Washington hopes the cooperation will get a lift from last week's Indian elections, in which the incumbent Congress Party won by a wide margin over a Hindu nationalist party traditionally more hostile to Pakistan,” the reports states. Amazing!

And how could the US miss the palate-teasing ingredient Kashmir for it hopes that “a calming of tensions can allow India's Congress Party government, strengthened by its election victory, to resume peace talks with Pakistan over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir". And the American dessert after the platter was too frosty to take even a small scoop: "American officials believe that the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) orchestrated the Mumbai assault specifically to undermine the peace process”.

To remind America and the WSJ, the there Indo-Pak wars (1947, '65 and '71) before the Kargil intrusion ('99) were fought when the Congress was in power. The “Hindu nationalist party” or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was in power during the Kargil War. In fact, then Prime Minister (PM) Atal Bihari Vajpayee—who belonged to the BJP—had signed the Lahore Declaration with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif in Lahore itself on on February 21, 1999. The agreement was supposed to overcome the historically strained bilateral relations between the two nations. But then Pakistan started sending its Northern Light Infantry personnel in the guise of intruders to Kargil under explicit orders from its Chief of Army staff General Pervez Musharraf. And when India retaliated, a full-scale war was inevitable.

Clearly, the squirrelly connection between the Congress' win and such an “alliance” between the two fiercely antagonistic nations defies logic.

The idiotic and fanciful idea—if at all it has materialised as the US claims, and continues—is a sheer mirage. After decades of animosity between a belligerent Pakistan and pacifistic India, the concept is anathema to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pakistani military establishment as well. And if India thinks on similar lines too, another 26/11 is not too far as Pakistan has excelled the art of digging trenches under the facade of cooperation.

To expect the ISI, which is closely interwind with the Taliban and the al-Qaeda, to share its secrets is like chasing the chimera. Many years ago, former ISI chief Hamid Gul admitted to History Channel that he had lunched with al-Qaeda head Osama bin Laden and was all praises for “doughty and fiercely independent” members of the two terror groups.

The WSJ report further states quoting US officials, “The Central Intelligence Agency arranged for Pakistan and India to share information on LeT, the group widely blamed for last November's terrorist attack on Mumbai, as well as on Taliban commanders who are leading the insurgency against Pakistan's government.” The US is stressing to Indian and Pakistani leaders that they face a common threat in Pakistan-based militant groups.

The Mumbai terror attacks clearly exposed Pakistan's collusion with the LeT. The consequent flip-flop by Islamabad on joint investigation into 26/11, its denial of the Pakistani identity of Ajmal Amir Kasab—the lone surviving terrorist in the Mumbai siege—and lack of action against LeT chief Hafeez Mohammed Sayeed and the other perpetrators of the violence further ripped apart its claims of innocence. Under US pressure, Pakistan just detained six people, partially mollifying the Indian outrage. “We have to satisfy the Mumbai question, and show India that the threat is abating," said a US official involved in developing Washington's South Asia strategy, according to WSJ.

Washington hopes that when India sees the intelligence and evidence that Islamabad is seriously fighting the militants in some areas, it will ease its deployments against Pakistan—which in turn would prompt Islamabad to put even more focus on the battle at home, the report adds.
It mentions Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's wishful thinking that the Indian government, boosted by the Congress' victory, could result in removal of one or two Army divisions from the Pakistan border in coming months. But an Indian official, according to the report, “documented an escalation of cross-border infiltrations by Pakistani militants into Kashmir”.

Amid the strange possibility of such a preposterous idea, the report also quotes an ISI officer who cautions, “We're not going to tell them everything we know and they're not going to tell us everything they know. Nobody expects that to happen.... But we're talking about [the attack]. We weren't doing that in December." Though the official also says that India and Pakistan have shared “a lot” of information with each other about the Mumbai attack with the CIA initially acting as a conduit but the two countries.

According to America, under this brilliant model of cooperation, “India gets information on groups that threaten it, including the one that carried out the Mumbai attacks”. And Pakistan gets “more trust from India that it is serious about taking on militants”. Finally, the US gets “sharper Pakistani focus on the battle against the Taliban and al Qaeda”. Though the report also mentions the American apprehension by quoting a US official that “Washington isn't under any illusions about the difficulty of erasing decades-old suspicions between India and Pakistan”.

The CIA and other intelligence agencies are tracking the location of cellphones of Taliban commanders and their training camps. The report says that the US shares this information with Pakistan, and sometimes with India, to reinforce the US argument that the Taliban threat to Pakistan is greater than the Indian threat. Uncle Sam definitely gains from such intel, but how sharing reports of progress against militants in Bajaur, Swat, and Buner with India would help us is beyond comprehension.

Similarly, AFP quotes Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for policy, “The administration hopes that in the aftermath of elections in India the two governments could resume steps to reduce tensions. I would love to see the Indian government and the Pakistan government re-engage in confidence-building measures and discussions about Kashmir and about other areas of difference.”

The Dawn published the WSJ report verbatim. Most news agencies who splashed the “cooperation” had based their reports on the WSJ story.

Besides, the reports—including the one by WSJ—were one-sided with no Indian version.

The sudden US interest in the region, now called Af-Pak, not only smacks of brazen hypocrisy, but also shows its foreign policy in poor light. America looked the other way after exit of the erstwhile USSR forces from Afghanistan and left the beautiful country to be riven by warlords battling for supremacy, and the ever-booming opium trade.

America continued its biased foreign policy when the Taliban were in the saddle in Afghanistan in September 1996—then Pakistani PM Benazir and its staunchest ally the US, in fact, bolstered the terror group with military and financial support, according to the book Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist and writer Steve Coll.

India has been reeling under Pakistan-sponsered terrorism since late Pakistani President and Army chief Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq launched Operation Topaz—that visualised cutting India and thereby bleeding it by a thousand cuts—in 1989 in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, fanciful ideas such as intel sharing between India and Pakistan don't deserve so much prominence in the media.

GREAT INDIAN POLL WALTZ

The writing's on the wall: the ballot is not only stronger than the bullet, but can also force you into oblivion if you fail to gauge the electorate's mood, remain glued to dogmatic beliefs and continue to flush the voter down like poop after every election.

The 2009 poll dance was fiercely competitive, pulsated with verve like the former concours, but hobbled contestants and made it clear that those puffed up with overconfidence had killed their chances of a wild card entry. And those who couldn't read the audience's mind were panting for breath at the end and made a disgraceful exit.

The saffron and the Red brigade tumbled down the stage and were zapped by the verdict. The characteristic swagger suddenly resembled flawed movements that elicited derision from the viewers, who wanted a winner that could lead the nation without the crutches of selfish coalitions and be savagely loyal to them. “We need gallops, not saunters,” the voter ruled.

Stuck in the old rut of communal politics and Stone Age-mindset, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was swept away by the 'tsunami of young India'. Like MJ Akbar wrote in The Times of India that “India is not a secular nation because Indian Muslims want it to be secular. India is a secular nation because Indian Hindus want it to be secular.” It is a reality the BJP better get accustomed to; otherwise, it will again meet the fate of John McCain—though he's still surviving—who failed miserably last year despite whipping up racist sentiments and 'hollow nationalism', and finally lost the game to Barack Obama.

With 50 per cent of the Indian electorate young, the voter was in no mood to press the button for a party and its affiliate organisations whose 'hoodlums' could bash them for pubbing, or caressing on Valentine's Day. Besides, the party had completely forgotten that it was not the '90s; it could no more force-feed the 'young India' its stinking concoction of communalism and retrograde thinking.

And haven't we had enough of 'young guns' of the saffron outfit—the vituperating Varun Gandhi. The enfant terrible of the BJP was definitely much bigger for the shoes of his maverick father; the way he tried to breach the secular bastion of Pilibhit with his communal volleys shook both the public, the political class and the government. It had to take the National Security Act to block the 'communal cannon', which threatened to blast the secular fabric in a way similar to LK Advani's 'Chariot of fire'. Of course, the invocation of the act was a clear political vendetta by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati. But what might have shocked the voter—though the other Gandhi won the Lok Sabha seat—was the party's decision to still field him despite the Election Commission recommending the withdrawal of his candidature.

Coming to our overzealous Comrades—the worst of the worse and Chinese stooges—biting the bullet is the only way they can show some grace. The cacophonous bugle of secularism, the anti-NDA and BJP stance, and the non-existent Third Front, was too blaring for voters, who had sensed this time that the Left switches side and deceives them as fast as the camouflaging chameleon bamboozles its adversaries. The Communists' sudden withdrawal of support to the United Progressive Alliance government last year in the wake of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal was enough to wipe them off. Besides, the alacrity with which the West Bengal government alloted agricultural land to the Tatas for the Nano factory had scarred the rural voter beyond any cure. And Mamata was quick to grease the anti-Nano juggernaut to her advantage, claiming 18 more Lok Sabha seats and overshadowing her poor performance in the last slugfest.

Some overexcited participants suffering with acute verbal diarrhoea like Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad even admitted their fault in waltzing alone after skidding ignominiously. The bucolic 'son of Bihar'—who had boasted of 'gyrating with public support'—conceded that without the Congress prosthetic, it was a futile attempt to make a mark. The mere thought of some Congressman snatching his baby, the Railways, from his lap had the otherwise belligerent Lalu in the appeasing mode.

Shape up or ship out: that's what India wants.

(Photo credit: nytimes.com)

Shalom! and Shame

Two striking events—one showing weapons superiority by a nation smaller than Manipur and the other an 'achievement' in satellite technology by a country more than hundred times bigger than the tiny republic—made headlines in April this year. And the two were connected inextricably. The first sure has been erased from public memory considering Indians' hunger for the fluff, but the second sure will be alive in the corridors of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Indian defence establishment for an aeon.

The first was the inking of a deal between military giant Russia and the emerging Goliath in arms export, Israel, on May 10 under which the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) would supply Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to Moscow after Russian unmanned drones performed poorly during the war with Georgia last August. According to an April 10 The Jerusalem Post report, “Israel's decision to sell advanced UAVs to Russia was made after Moscow gave assurances it would not transfer the technology to Iran or Syria and will suspend the sale of anti-aircraft systems to these countries. This is the first sale of Israeli military hardware to Russia. Before agreeing to it, Israel needed to receive permission from the United States”.


Moscow developed an interest in Israeli drones after Tbilisi operated Hermes-450 drones right), manufactured by Israeli private arms company Elbit Systems, to gather intelligence during the war against Russia. Major General Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau, had visited Russia and reportedly received assurances that Moscow would not sell the advanced multi-target anti-aircraft missile S-300 system—with a range of about 200 kilometres and target reach of 90,000 feet high—to Iran. Besides, what perturbed Israel was the S-300's capability to track up to hundred targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. Iran already has Russian TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles, according to the Israeli daily.

The IAI would sell Russia in the first stage of the $50-million deal some of its second-tier UAVs, including the Bird-Eye 400 mini-UAV, the I-view MK150 tactical UAV and the Searcher Mk II medium-range UAV (left). The newspaper added that it was possible that the deal would include the sale of IAI's long-range Heron, which can stay in the air for over 50 hours at an altitude of 35,000 feet.

Another Israeli daily Haaretz reported, the UAVs do not use American technology and are manufactured in Israel. The most praiseworthy and technologically brilliant aspect of the deal is that this small nation will sell UAVs to a country that is several times bigger in area, is among the top five arms exporters, and was once part of the Communist superpower block.

The second event grabbed headlines not only in the Indian media but in international dailies as well owing to India entry into spy satellite technology on April 20—though the event was shaped after the 26/11 jolt. When the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle took off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota, placing two satellites the 300-kg Risat-2 (left) and the 40-kg micro satellite Anusat in their orbits, India joined the elite club of countries with spy satellites.

The defence sector had been strongly advocating the need for a satellite spy to monitor the borders, terror camps in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan itself, and track hostile missiles. What made the demand more pressing was the Mumbai mayhem last November. Had an 'eye in the sky' been there to track the terrorists, who came by boat from Karachi, the attacks could have been avoided. What makes the all-weather Risat-2 a class apart is its ability to take photographs of Earth from an altitude of 550 kms through thick clouds and night vision using a top-secret synthetic aperture radar. The Risat-2 is a giant stride ahead of our indigenous visual satellites, including CARTOSAT, India's medium-resolution reconnaissance satellite launched last year.

But while the ISRO earned accolades for placing a secret agent in space—though its Chairman G Madhavan Nair vehemently denied that it was a spy satellite for reasons best known to him—that 'tiny nation' was back in news.''RISAT-2 is another earth observation satellite. I want to clarify that. There is nothing like a spy satellite at ISRO,” he said.

Yes, it was Israel again. Perhaps, it was Israel's gallop in satellite technology compared to our shocking saunters or the usually petrified Indian government fearing a rebuke from Uncle Sam that had Nair in the denial mode. Juxtaposing the technological leap and weapons advancement of Israel and our relaxed gait shows on one hand what 'a deadly determination to foil terror plans of enemies, and diligence and innovation can do, one the other, it exposes the Indian laxity and shows our fledgling arms industry in poor light. Risat-2, made by the IAI, has a clear edge over Indian satellites, which cannot photograph during night or under cloudy conditions or rains.

In January 2008, India launched the first Israeli spy satellite, the 300-kg Tecsar called Polaris (right), also built by IAI. The Risat-2 is an enhanced version of Polaris. Even the Polaris was equipped with a camera that could take pictures in almost any weather condition. Israel reportedly took the decision to launch the satellite from India because it lacks a vehicle capable of boosting the satellite into a polar orbit. According to the BBC, Tescar was a SAR technology satellite, the design, development and fabrication of which were led by MBT Space, a division of the IAI with the participation of other high-tech industries.

The launch of Polaris, originally scheduled for September 2007, was shrouded in secrecy. A section of the media speculated that the launch was abandoned following pressure from countries, a claim strongly denied by ISRO, which cited non-resolution of technical issues as the reason for the delay, the BBC added.

India gained independence just one year before Israel was formed, but lags light years in high-grade weapons production, including tanks and fighter jets. Compared to India's massive size, 3,287,590 sq km, Israel resembles a tiny droplet, smaller than Meghalaya—the total area under Israeli law, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is merely 22, 072 square kms. But Israel's quantum leap in high-grade weapons production and technology outshines not only India, but several other stronger and bigger nations.

According to The Associated Press, Israel became the world's fourth largest defense exporter in 2007, surpassing Britain, with $4.3 billion in signed contracts. Israel exports mostly radar systems, drones and anti-tank missiles to India, Turkey, Britain, the US and other Western nations. The Middle East's only nuclear power also produces a wide range of products from ammunition, small arms and artillery pieces to sophisticated electronic systems and the world's most advanced tank, Merkava. Only the US, Russia and France export more arms than Israel, according to the Israeli Defence Ministry.

A country born out of turmoil and having faced five major wars—one soon after its formation in which Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon attacked Israel—had no other option but to built a comprehensive army and equip it with a lethal arsenal. These sophisticated arms not only shield the country from its enemies but are also in great demand in other nations, including the US.

Unlike India, which used its soldiers as cannon fodder in the four wars with Pakistan (1947, '65, '71 and '99) and the one with China ('62), Israelis started setting up covert small arms factories as early as 1920s sensing a security threat. Jews started producing hand grenades and explosives to shield against hostile Arabs. Haganah (the pre-state Jewish underground defence organisation) set up clandestine small arms factories in '30s which became the Israel Military Industries (IMI) in 1948. In the first two decades after independence, the IMI produced many of the basic weapons used by its army, including the Uzi sub-machine gun.

The 1967 Six-Day War with Arab countries acted as a catalyst to further stoke the Jewish ingenuity in armaments. As they say, necessity is the mother of all inventions—definitely not applicable to India— France imposed an embargo on arms sales to Israel, including Mirages, forcing it to develop its own production with assistance from the US. The IAI started developing and assembling a variety of its own aircraft, including the Nesher (the Eagle) and the Kfir (the Lion Cub and a replacement for the Mirage).


The Nesher (above), the Israeli version of the Dassault Mirage 5 multi-role fighter aircraft, is a multi-role single-seat fighter which can reach a speed of 2.1 mach and a range of 1,300 km. The Nesher was identical to the Mirage 5, except for the use of some Israeli avionics, a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejector seat, and provisions for a wider range of AAMs, including the Israeli Shafrir heat-seeking missile.

When the Yom Kippur War broke out in October, 1973, the Israeli Air Force had 40 Nesher planes. Although they were originally intended for attack missions, the Neshers were primarily used in air-to-air combat. The Neshers were clear winners in dogfights with the MiGs and Sukhois: according to the statistics published after the war, in the 117 dogfights that took place, 227 enemy planes were shot down. In the '80s, the Neshers were sold to Argentina, where they were renamed Dagger, and saw much action against the British in the Falklands War. They were later upgraded as Fingers.


The Kfir (above), based on a modified Dassault Mirage 5 airframe and fitted with Israeli avionics and an Israeli-made version of the General Electric J79 turbojet engine, is a single seat multi-task fighter. It can acquire a maximum speed of 2,285 kph and range of 1,300 km. It is equipped with 2× Rafael-built 30 mm DEFA 553 cannons, 140 rounds/gun, assortment of unguided air-to-ground rockets, 2× AIM-9 Sidewinders or Python-series AAMs; 2× Shrike ARMs; 2× AGM-65 Maverick ASMs, and bombs weighing 6,085 kg, including the Mark 80 series, Paveway series of LGBs, Griffin LGBs, TAL-1 OR TAL-2 CBUs, BLU-107 Matra Durandal and reconnaissance pods or Drop tanks.

The Kfir was given its first chance to prove its mettle on November 9, 1977. The Kfirs destroyed targets with a vengeance at Tel Azia, a terrorist training base in Lebanon. In '79, an 'air war' began in the skies over Lebanon. On June 27, the first dogfight took place as F-15s and Kfirs were assigned to cover other planes that were attacking terrorist targets between Lake Kar'un and the port of Sidon. In the dogfight that ensued, five Syrian MiG-21s were shot down, and the Kfir registered its first kill. In the next attacks against Lebanon, from the Litani Operation up to the Peace for Galilee, the Kfirs participated actively and proved their ability for pinpoint strikes.

The Kfir roared in other foreign skies as well with Colombia, Ecuador and Sri Lanka signing purchase deals with Israel. The amazing jet was also leased to the US Navy and the Marine Corps for use in their Aggressor Squadrons, where its excellent performance in aerial combat and low operating costs made it an ideal choice for helping American pilots train against a simulated enemy threat.

The IAI also built a transport aircraft called Arava in the late 1960s. Intended both for the military and civil market, it found customers in third world countries, especially in Central and South America as well as Swaziland and Thailand.


Meanwhile, the need for a more powerful and safer main battle tank (MBT) was felt. During the Yom Kippur War, Israeli armour suffered heavy losses from Egyptian and Syrian wire-guided anti-tank missiles. The high casualty rate spurred the IDF, which had previously depended on US Patton and Sherman tanks and British Centurion tanks, to develop the Merkava (the Chariot, above), considered one of the world's most effective and safest battle tanks. Again ingenuity and concern for maximum security were the primary concerns. The placement of the tank's engine at the front of the vehicle, where it serves as a shield for the personnel compartment, provided more space in the vehicle's rear. Resultantly, six extra soldiers could be carried. Besides, a special canopy protects the commander from indirect fire; the turret and the hull are fitted with a modular armour system that can be changed in the field; and the forward section of the turret is fitted with additional blocks of armour that provide extra protection against the latest generation of anti-tank missiles. A skirt of chains with ball weights is attached to the lower half of the turret, causing incoming projectiles to detonate on impact with the chains instead of penetrating the turret ring.

The tank became operative in 1979, and was first employed in Peace for Galilee. The main 120-mm gun, developed by Israel Military Industries, is enclosed in a thermal sleeve that increases accuracy by preventing heat distortion. With the exception of the engine, all systems and assemblies of the Merkava tanks are of Israeli design and manufacture.


The IAI almost reached a milestone in late '80s with the development of an all-Israeli military aircraft, the Lavi (the Lion, above). After developing avionics, electronics and weapons systems for the aircraft, Israel tested the first prototype in '68. The fighter was equipped with a 1×30 mm DEFA cannon and bombs weighing 7,260 kgs. However, under financial constraints and American pressure that the fighter would compete with US exports, the project was cancelled next year. But Israel diverted its resources to production of advanced radar systems, precision weapon systems, UAVs and commercial and military aircraft conversion. The IAI diversified and expanded with funding from the US, and developed the Amos and Ofeq satellites.

The military's lethal armour also includes a wide array of helicopter gunships, including the US-made deadly Cobras and Apaches. Besides, Israel manufactured the Racquet (the Machbet) in the late 90s, which contains a Vulcan cannon and a pod containing four stinger missiles to intercept low-flying aircrafts.

In '87, when the Arab countries acquired long ranged surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs), Israel signed an agreement with the US to assemble a prototype for an anti-SSM the Arrow (left). The Arrow system’s radar, designated Green Pine, is of the most sophisticated type ever built in the country and one of the most advanced in the world. The Arrow is the most advanced missile of its kind in the world, and is capable of developing a speed of approximately nine mach. Besides, Israel manufactures a long-range electro-optical missile called Delilah (below Arrow's image), optimised to strike high-value, time-critical moving and relocatable targets. Delilah, operated by fighter aircraft, enables the elimination of SAM and SAS threats and assure quick reaction time required between the detection of such threat to its engagement and destruction.

The Israeli arms industry is not just content with attacking enemy aircraft and missiles, it also manufactures missiles that destroy enemy rockets and missiles midway. The 105-mm anti-personnel/anti-matériel (Apam) round is intended to provide tank crews with the means to neutralise infantry tank killer squads armed with anti-tank missiles and rockets. The intention was to provide tank crews with a weapon that would have been effective over a general area by providing air bursts created by six sub-munitions ejected from the base of the projectile as it travels over an area of terrain.

Besides, Israeli weapons manufacturer Rafael Armament Development Authority built Python, part of the family of AAMs. The first was the Shafrir-1 missile developed in 1959, followed by the Shafrir-2 in early 1970s. Afterwards the missiles were given the western name of Python. Then there is Alto missile, also known as the Derby, a medium-range active-radar seeker missile.

Israel also developed Spyder (surface-to-air PYthon and DERby, right), an anti-aircraft missile system manufactured by Rafael which is a quick reaction medium-range missile system. Spyder is capable of engaging aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, drones and precision-guided munitions. The kill range is from less than 1 km to more than 15 kms and at altitudes from a minimum of 20 mts to a maximum of 9,000 mts. The system is capable of multi-target simultaneous engagement and also single, multiple and ripple firing by day and night and in all weathers.

When it comes to small arms, Israel is far ahead of some of the most advanced nations. Its TAR 21 (above) is a bullpup assault rifle chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition with a selective fire system. The name TAR 21 stands for Tavor Assault Rifle-21st Century. It is the standard issued weapon of the Givati Brigade and the Golani Brigade with the Nahal Brigade to receive it by 2010. The TAR 21 will become the standard Israeli infantry weapon. India has purchased the rifles for its para commandos. India has also purchased Israeli Galil sniper rifles (below), which are improved Galil assault rifles, redesigned to fire 7.62mm Nato cartridge.

There are approximately 150 defense firms in Israel with combined revenues of an estimated $3.5 billion. The three largest entities are the government-owned IAI, IMI and the Rafael Arms Development Authority. The medium-sized privately owned companies include Elbit Systems and the Tadiran Group. Israel's UAVs, including the Hunter, have now become standard for military establishments in many countries around world.

Coming to behemoth India, our soldiers were armed with .303 rifles, which are not even self-loading, in the first two Indo-Pak wars and the Indo-China War. The sheer thought of Indian soldiers butchered by Kalashnikov-armed People's Liberation Army is both disgusting and shocking. The '71 War was no better with our soldiers using the fusil automatique léger (light automatic rifle) or FAL, a 7.62x51 Nato self-loading, selective fire rifle produced by the Belgian armaments manufacturer Fabrique Nationale de Herstal. Even the present Indian official rifle, the INSAS, is no better with a three-round burst, two more than the FAL. For us, economy of bullets is dearer than the lives of our soldiers!

Our own so-called Light Combat Aircraft or Tejas is still undergoing testing after having been conceptualised as early as 1983—hats off to the laxity. As far as the MBT Arjun goes, the results are again dismal. Although the Defence Research and Development Organisation started its development in the '70s, mass production started as late as '96. Even then the first five units were not delivered until 2004. The delay forced the Army to order vast numbers of Russian T-90S tanks. The Army has shown little interest in the Arjun, believing it will soon be obsolete.

It's better not to mention the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the Aman especially considering the performance of the Raw and the CBI.

So where do we stand? Nowhere, considering the threats from Pakistan and a belligerent China. Shame on India.