Aum Gung Ganapathaye Namah

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma-sambuddhassa

Homage to The Blessed One, Accomplished and Fully Enlightened

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Warfare

A Collection of Articles, Notes and References

References

(Revised:  Thursday, February 22, 2007)

References Edited by

An Indian Tantric

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.

- William Shakespeare

Copyright © 2002-2010 An Indian Tantric

The following educational writings are STRICTLY for academic research purposes ONLY.

Should NOT be used for commercial, political or any other purposes.

(The following notes are subject to update and revision)

For free distribution only.
You may print copies of this work for free distribution.

You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks, provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

8 "... Freely you received, freely give”.

            - Matthew 10:8 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 

1 “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.

2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,

3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,

4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,

7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.

8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.”

            - 2 Timothy 3:1-9  :: New International Version (NIV)

 

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

            - Hebrews 5:6 :: King James Version (KJV)

 

Therefore, I say:

Know your enemy and know yourself;

in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself,

your chances of winning or losing are equal.

If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself,

you are sure to be defeated in every battle.

-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, c. 500bc

 

There are two ends not to be served by a wanderer. What are these two? The pursuit of desires and of the pleasure which springs from desire, which is base, common, leading to rebirth, ignoble, and unprofitable; and the pursuit of pain and hardship, which is grievous, ignoble, and unprofitable.

- The Blessed One, Lord Buddha

 

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

            - Matthew 10:34 :: King James Version (KJV)

 

34 `Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but war.

            - Matthew 10:34 :: Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

 

Contents

Color Code

A Brief Word on Copyright

References

Educational Copy of Some of the References

 

Color Code

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Color Code                                                              Identification

 

Main Title                                                                  Color: Pink

Sub Title                                                                   Color: Rose

Minor Title                                                                Color: Gray – 50%

 

Collected Article Author                                       Color: Lime

Date of Article                                                         Color: Light Orange

Collected Article                                                     Color: Sea Green

Collected Sub-notes                                             Color: Indigo

 

Personal Notes                                                       Color: Black

Personal Comments                                             Color: Brown

Personal Sub-notes                                              Color: Blue - Gray

 

Collected Article Highlight                                   Color: Orange

Collected Article Highlight                                   Color: Lavender

Collected Article Highlight                                   Color: Aqua

Collected Article Highlight                                   Color: Pale Blue

 

Personal Notes Highlight                                     Color: Gold

Personal Notes Highlight                                     Color: Tan

 

HTML                                                                         Color: Blue

Vocabulary                                                              Color: Violet

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

A Brief Word on Copyright

Many of the articles whose educational copies are given below are copyrighted by their respective authors as well as the respective publishers. Some contain messages of warning, as follows:

Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited

without the written consent of “so and so”.

According to the concept of “fair use” in US copyright Law,

The reproduction, redistribution and/or exploitation of any materials and/or content (data, text, images, marks or logos) for personal or commercial gain is not permitted. Provided the source is cited, personal, educational and non-commercial use (as defined by fair use in US copyright law) is permitted.

Moreover,

  • This is a religious educational website.
    • In the name of the Lord, with the invisible Lord as the witness.
  • No commercial/business/political use of the following material.
  • Just like student notes for research purposes, the writings of the other children of the Lord, are given as it is, with student highlights and coloring. Proper respects and due referencing are attributed to the relevant authors/publishers.

I believe that satisfies the conditions for copyright and non-plagiarism.

  • Also, from observation, any material published on the internet naturally gets read/copied even if conditions are maintained. If somebody is too strict with copyright and hold on to knowledge, then it is better not to publish “openly” onto the internet or put the article under “pay to refer” scheme.
  • I came across the articles “freely”. So I publish them freely with added student notes and review with due referencing to the parent link, without any personal monetary gain. My purpose is only to educate other children of the Lord on certain concepts, which I believe are beneficial for “Oneness”.

 

References

Some of the links may not be active (de-activated) due to various reasons, like removal of the concerned information from the source database. So an educational copy is also provided, along with the link.

If the link is active, do cross-check/validate/confirm the educational copy of the article provided along.

  1. If the link is not active, then try to procure a hard copy of the article, if possible, based on the reference citation provided, from a nearest library or where-ever, for cross-checking/validation/confirmation.

 

References

Arkin, William M. (Sunday, October 27, 2002) The Secret War. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sunopinion/la-op-arkin27oct27001451,0,2132915.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsunop%2Dmanual

Arkin, William M. (Sunday, November 24, 2002) The Military's New War of Words. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sunopinion/la-op-arkin24nov24001455,0,7703486.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsunop%2Dmanual

Cornwell, Rupert. (Monday, September 23, 2002) Are these the detailed battle plans for the most heavily trailed military attack in modern history? UK: independent.co.uk.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=335791

Dobbs, Michael. (Sunday, December 01, 2002) U.S. facing bigger bill for Iraq war.  USA: MSNBC News.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/841609.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1

Freund, Michael. (Tuesday, November 26, 2002) Down on your knees, soldier. Israel: The Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1038285281131

Hendren, John. (Thursday, November 07, 2002) Pentagon Moving B-2 Bombers to New Roosts Closer to Baghdad. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-stealth7nov07,0,1864145.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes

Messmer, Ellen. (Thursday, February 08, 2007) U.S. cyber counterattack: Bomb 'em one way or the other. Network World.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/020807-rsa-cyber-attacks.html?page=1

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/020807-rsa-cyber-attacks.html?page=2

Mintier, Tom and Ramgopal, Ram. (Friday, October 04, 2002) India follows Pakistan with missile test. USA: CNN.com.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/04/pakistan.missile/index.html

Oldham, Jeanette and McDougall, Liam. (Thursday, November 07, 2002) Nuclear sub runs aground on Skye. Scotland: Scotsman.

http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1239852002

Padgaonkar, Dileep. (Saturday, October 05, 2002) China wants India to shed old ideas. India: The Times of India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=24200399

Reid, Tim. (Tuesday, November 12, 2002) Star Wars airships. Britain: Times Newspapers Ltd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-477539,00.html

Satloff, Robert. (Friday, November 08, 2002) Follow WWII's Torch Into Iraq. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-satloff8nov08,0,3724160.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Doped%2Dmanual

STRATFOR Global Intelligence Update. (Tuesday, October 01, 2002) War timing depends on carrier availability. USA: WorldNetDaily.com.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29124

Sun Tzu – Biography and Works.

http://www.online-literature.com/suntzu/

Tran, Mark. (Thursday, September 12, 2002) The Missionary. UK: Guardian Unlimited.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,791122,00.html

Iraq war could cost US $200 bn. (Monday, November 11, 2002) Washington, USA: MSN News.

http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandoraV15/output/A4E53FA3-6FC6-42F2-813B-E7476321238A.asp

Obituaries: N. Wraga, 101, Sovietologist. (Friday, November 15, 2002) USA: Newsday.com.

http://www.newsday.com/news/obituaries/ny-wraga153003809nov15,0,1713145.story

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Educational Copy of Some of the References

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Arkin, William M. (Sunday, October 27, 2002) The Secret War. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sunopinion/la-op-arkin27oct27001451,0,2132915.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsunop%2Dmanual

 

October 27, 2002

 

The Secret War

 Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its 'black world' of covert operations

  

By William M. Arkin, William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: [email protected]

 

SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. -- In what may well be the largest expansiion of covert action by the armed forces since the Vietnam era, the Bush administration has turned to what the Pentagon calls the "black world" to press the war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

 

The Defense Department is building up an elite secret army with resources stretching across the full spectrum of covert capabilities. New organizations are being created. The missions of existing units are being revised. Spy planes and ships are being assigned new missions in anti-terror and monitoring the "axis of evil."

 

The increasingly dominant role of the military, Pentagon officials say, reflects frustration at the highest levels of government with the performance of the intelligence community, law enforcement agencies and much of the burgeoning homeland security apparatus. It also reflects the desire of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to gain greater overall control of the war on terror.

 

Insulated from outside pressures, armed with matchless weapons and technology, trained to operate below the shadow line, the Pentagon's black world of classified operations holds out the hope of swift, decisive action in a struggle against terrorism that often looks more like a family feud than a war.

 

Coupled with the enormous effort being made throughout the government to improve and link information networks and databases, covert anti-terror operations promise to put better information in the hands of streamlined military teams that can identify, monitor and neutralize terrorist threats.

 

"Prevention and preemption are ... the only defense against terrorism," Rumsfeld said in May. "Our task is to find and destroy the enemy before they strike us."

 

The new apparatus for covert operations and the growing government secrecy associated with the war on terrorism reflect the way the Bush administration's most senior officials see today's world:

 

First, they see fighting terrorism and its challenge to U.S. interests and values as the 21st century equivalent of the Cold War crusade against communism. Second, they believe the magnitude of the threat requires, and thus justifies, aggressive new "off-the-books" tactics.

 

In their understandable frustration over continued atrocities such as the recent Bali attack, however, U.S. officials might keep two points in mind.

 

Though covert action can bring quick results, because it is isolated from the normal review processes it can just as quickly bring mistakes and larger problems. Also, the Pentagon is every bit as capable as the civilian side of the government when it comes to creating organization charts and bureaucracy that stifle creative thinking and timely action.

 

The development of the Pentagon's covert counter-terror capability has its roots in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. The Army created a highly compartmentalized organization that could collect clandestine intelligence independent of the rest of the U.S. intelligence community and follow through with covert military action.

 

Known as the Intelligence Support Activity, or ISA, when it was established in 1981, this unit fought in drug wars and counter-terror operations from the Middle East to South America. It built a reputation for daring, flexibility and a degree of lawlessness.

 

In May 1982, Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci called the ISA "uncoordinated and uncontrolled." Though its freelance tendencies were curbed, the ISA continued to operate under different guises through the ill-starred U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1992 and was reportedly active in the hunt for Bosnian Serbs suspected of war crimes.

 

Today, the ISA operates under the code name Gray Fox. In addition to covert operations, it provides the war on terrorism with the kind of so-called "close-in" signals monitoring -- including the interception of cell phone conversations -- that helped bring down Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar.

 

Gray Fox's low-profile eavesdropping planes also fly without military markings. Working closely with Special Forces and the CIA, Gray Fox also places operatives inside hostile territory.

 

In and around Afghanistan, Gray Fox was part of a secret sphere that included the CIA's paramilitary Special Activities Division and the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command.

 

These commands and "white" Special Forces like the Green Berets, as well as Air Force combat controllers and commandos of eight different nations report to a mind-boggling array of new command cells and coordination units set up after Sept. 11.

 

An Army brigadier general commands the Joint Interagency Task Force at Bagram air base north of Kabul to coordinate CIA, Defense Department and coalition forces in Afghanistan. A new Campaign Support Group has been established at Ft. Bragg, N.C. The Special Operations Joint Interagency Collaboration Center has been created in Tampa, Fla.

 

In Europe, the Joint Interagency Coordination Group handles information-sharing and logistical support with NATO. Hawaii's Pacific Command stood up a Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorist Group this summer.

 

Meantime, old commands are being morphed into new ones for the covert war. The two Joint Interagency Task Forces in the United States previously devoted to fighting drugs now have the war on terrorism as their highest priority.

 

The epicenter of the Pentagon's covert operations remains the North Carolina-based Joint Special Operations Command, often referred to as Delta Force. The super-secret command is still not officially acknowledged to exist. Its two-star commander, Army Maj. Gen. Dell L. Dailey, who spent much of the Afghan war in Oman, has no public biography.

 

Among Dailey's assets is a fleet of aircraft specially equipped for secret operations -- conventional and covert military planes and helicopters, and even former Soviet helicopters. The bulk of those craft, including the reconfigured Russian choppers, fly from airfields in Uzbekistan and from two Pakistani air bases, Shahbaz and Shamsi.

 

The Air Force and the CIA collect additional intelligence from unmanned Predator and Global Hawk drones. They also have low-profile reconnaissance assets that look like transport planes and operate under such code names as ARL-Low, Keen Sage, Scathe View and Senior Scout.

 

Not to be left out, the Navy's Gray Star spy vessel, reminiscent of the old Pueblo, captured by North Korea in 1968, now sweeps up sophisticated -- and obscure -- "measurements and signatures intelligence" to monitor the ballistic missile capabilities of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

 

Even with all this, the Pentagon wants to expand covert capabilities.

 

Rumsfeld's influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified "outbrief" -- a briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies -- that the global war on terrorism "requires new strategies, postures and organization."

 

The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.

 

Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.

 

Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk," the briefing paper declares.

 

Never to be outdone in proposing hardware solutions, the Air Force is designing its own Global Response Task Force to fight the war on terrorism. The all-seeing, all-bombing Air Force envisions unmanned A-X aircraft capable of long-range, nighttime gunship operations and an M-X covert transport, as well as hypersonic and space-based conventional weapons capable of delivering a "worldwide attack within an hour."

 

Who says the arms race is over? Rumsfeld's science board warns against overemphasis on equipment even as it recommends more. Washington is well on its way to an arms race with itself.

 

And for those who worry that all these secret operations and aggressive new doctrines will turn the United States into the world's policeman, there is a ray of hope.

 

Rumsfeld is now the field marshal of the war on terrorism, but the Pentagon is also creating new layers of bureaucracy that may save it from itself. Not to mention the rest of us.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Arkin, William M. (Sunday, November 24, 2002) The Military's New War of Words. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sunopinion/la-op-arkin24nov24001455,0,7703486.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsunop%2Dmanual

 

November 24, 2002  

 

DEFENSE STRATEGY

The Military's New War of Words

    

By William M. Arkin, William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: [email protected].

 

SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. -- It was California's own Hiram Johnson wwho said, in a speech on the Senate floor in 1917, that "the first casualty, when war comes, is truth."

 

What would he make of the Bush administration?

 

In a policy shift that reaches across all the armed services, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and his senior aides are revising missions and creating new agencies to make "information warfare" a central element of any U.S. war. Some hope it will eventually rank with bombs and artillery shells as an instrument of destruction.

 

What is disturbing about Rumsfeld's vision of information warfare is that it has a way of folding together two kinds of wartime activity involving communications that have traditionally been separated by a firewall of principle.

 

The first is purely military. It includes attacks on the radar, communications and other "information systems" an enemy depends on to guide its war-making capabilities. This category also includes traditional psychological warfare, such as dropping leaflets or broadcasting propaganda to enemy troops.

 

The second is not directly military. It is the dissemination of public information that the American people need in order to understand what is happening in a war, and to decide what they think about it. This information is supposed to be true.

 

Increasingly, the administration's new policy -- along with the steps senior commanders are taking to implement it -- blurs or even erases the boundaries between factual information and news, on the one hand, and public relations, propaganda and psychological warfare, on the other. And, while the policy ostensibly targets foreign enemies, its most likely victim will be the American electorate.

 

One of Rumsfeld's first steps into this minefield occurred last year with the creation of the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence. Part of its stated mission was to generate disinformation and propaganda that would help the United States counter Islamic extremists and pursue the war on terrorism.

 

The office's nominal target was the foreign media, especially in the Middle East and Asia. As critics soon pointed out, however, there was no way -- in an age of instant global communications -- that Washington could propagandize abroad without that same propaganda spreading to the home front.

 

Faced with a public outcry, Rumsfeld declared it had all been a big misunderstanding. The Pentagon would never lie to Americans. The Office of Strategic Influence was shut down. But the impulse to control public information and bend it to the service of government objectives did not go away.

 

This fall, Rumsfeld created a new position of deputy undersecretary for "special plans," a euphemism for deception operations. The special plans policy czar will sit atop a huge new infrastructure being created in the name of information warfare.

 

On Oct. 1, in a little-noticed but major reorganization, U.S. Strategic Command took over all responsibilities for global information attacks. The Omaha-based successor to the Strategic Air Command has solely focused up to now on nuclear weapons.

 

Similarly, the country's most venerable and historic bombing command, the 8th Air Force, which carried the air war to Germany in World War II, has been directed to transfer its bomber and fighter aircraft to other commands so that it can focus exclusively on worldwide information attacks.

 

The Navy, meanwhile, has consolidated its efforts in a newly formed Naval Network Warfare Command. And the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, or JSCP, prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now declares information to be just as important in war as diplomatic, military or economic factors.

 

The strategic capabilities plan is the central war-fighting directive for the U.S. military. It establishes what are called "Informational Flexible Deterrent Options" for global wars, such as the war on terrorism, and separate plans written for individual theaters of war, such as Iraq.

 

To a large extent, these documents and the organizational shifts behind them are focused on such missions as jamming or deceiving enemy radar systems and disrupting command and control networks. Such activities only carry forward efforts that have been part of U.S. military tactics for decades or longer.

 

But a summary of the strategic capabilities plan and a raft of other Pentagon and armed forces documents made available to The Times make it clear that the new approach now includes other elements as well: the management of public information, efforts to control news media sources and manipulation of public opinion.

 

The plan summary, for instance, talks of "strategic" deception and "influence operations" as basic tools in future wars. According to another Defense Department directive on information warfare policy, military leaders should use information "operations" to "heighten public awareness; promote national and coalition policies, aims, and objectives ... [and] counter adversary propaganda and disinformation in the news."

 

Both the Air Force and the Navy now list deception as one of five missions for information warfare, along with electronic attack, electronic protection, psychological . attacks and public affairs. A September draft of a new Air Force policy describes information warfare's goals as "destruction, degradation, denial, disruption, deceit, and exploitation." These goals are referred to collectively as "D5E."

 

In order to do a better job of deception, the joint chiefs have issued a "Joint Policy for Military Deception" that directs the individual services to work on the task in peacetime as well as wartime. Specifically, it orders the Air Force to develop better doctrine and techniques for incorporating deception into war plans.

 

The Air Force, in response, now defines military deception as action that "misleads adversaries, causing them to act in accordance with" U.S. objectives. And, like the other services, it is increasingly folding its "public affairs" apparatus -- that is, the open world of media relatiions -- into the information warfare team.

 

"Gaining and maintaining the information initiative in a conflict can be a powerful weapon to defeat propaganda," the Air Force said in its January doctrine.

 

That echoes a statement by Navy Rear Adm. John Cryer III, who worked on information warfare in the Combined Air Operations Center in Saudi Arabia during the Afghanistan war: "It was our belief ... we were losing the information war early when we watched Al Jazeera," Cryer said at an October conference, meaning that the U.S. perspective was inadequately represented on the Arab world's equivalent of CNN. "We came around, but it took a lot longer than it should have."

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with making sure the U.S. point of view gets represented in the news media, both abroad and at home. Done properly, that is a prescription for more openness and less unnecessary secrecy.

 

The problem is that Rumsfeld's vision of information warfare seems to push beyond the notion that American ideas and information should compete with the enemy's on a level playing field. And Rumsfeld's vision, with its melding of public information and deception, is taking root in the armed services.

 

The new Air Force doctrine, for example, declares that the news media can be used not only to convey "the leadership's concern with [an] issue," but also to avoid "the media going to other sources [such as an adversary or critic of U.S. policy] for information." In other words, information warfare now includes controlling as much as possible what the American public sees and reads.

 

The disinformation campaign being constructed goes against even the military's own stated mission. Truthfulness, the Air Force says, is a key to defeating adversaries. Accordingly, the service branch adds, "U.S. and friendly forces must strive to become the favored source of information."

 

The potential for mischief is magnified by the fact that so much of what the U.S. military does these days falls into the category of covert operations. Americans are now operating out of secret bases in places like Uzbekistan and the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq; Special Forces units are said to be inside western Iraq as well. In the meantime, the armed forces are making use of facilities in the Arab states along the Persian Gulf.

 

In all these cases and more, the U.S. and other western news media depend on the military for information. Since reporters cannot travel into parts of Iraq and other places in the region without military escort, what they report is generally what they've been told.

 

And when the information that military officers provide to the public is part of a process that generates propaganda and places a high value on deceit, deception and denial, then truth is indeed likely to be high on the casualty list.

 

That is bad news for the American public. In the end, it may be even worse news for the Bush administration -- and for a U.S. military that has spent more than 25 years climbing out of the credibility trap called Vietnam.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Cornwell, Rupert. (Monday, September 23, 2002) Are these the detailed battle plans for the most heavily trailed military attack in modern history? UK: independent.co.uk.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=335791

 

But even though Iraq's forces are weaker than in 1991, and those of the US even better armed today, General Franks knows that few military plans survive the start of the fighting. "We are prepared to do whatever we are asked to do," he said yesterday after visiting US servicemen in Kuwait.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Dobbs, Michael. (Sunday, December 01, 2002) U.S. facing bigger bill for Iraq war.  USA: MSNBC News.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/841609.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1

 

U.S. facing bigger bill for Iraq war

 

Total cost could run $200 billion, with little help from allies

 

By Michael Dobbs

THE WASHINGTON POST

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — Within a month of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the first Bush administration launched what became known as “Operation Tin Cup” — a frenzied round of diplomacy aimed at getting U.S. allies to help pay for war with Iraq. As a result, the bill to American taxpayers for the Persian Gulf War was about $7 billion, a fraction of its cost.

        ALTHOUGH IT is difficult to predict how much Americans would pay for a new war with Iraq, one fact seems indisputable: It will be many times more than the cost of the last war, if only because other countries are much more reluctant to share the burden.

       Informal estimates by congressional staff and Washington think tanks of the costs of an invasion of Iraq and a postwar occupation of the country have been in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion. If the fighting is protracted, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein blows up his country’s oil fields, most economists believe the indirect costs of the war could be much greater, reverberating through the U.S. economy for many years.

       The 1991 Gulf War led to a brief spike in oil prices and a fall in consumer confidence that helped tip the country into a recession that cost President George H.W. Bush his chances of reelection. Despite the high economic and political stakes, there has been no equivalent of Operation Tin Cup this time around, and the current administration has refused to engage in public debate about the likely costs of a new war.  

       “If we can plan a war, we should also be planning a way to pay for the war,” said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “Last time, we were able to slough the costs off on other countries. This time, we will have to absorb most of these costs ourselves. Someone ought to be asking questions about the impact on the budget.”

      

WHITE HOUSE: NO DECISION YET

       A White House official, speaking on condition of not being identified, said it would be premature to talk about the costs of a war with Iraq because President Bush has not decided on the use of military force. He added that unofficial estimates of the cost of war had to be weighed against the “potentially incalculable” political, diplomatic and economic costs of permitting Hussein to develop and spread weapons of mass destruction.

       Using different methodologies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and staff for the Democrat minority on the House Budget Committee have concluded that a short, decisive war involving the deployment of 250,000 U.S. troops could cost between $44 billion and $60 billion. This is significantly less than the cost of the 1991 war, which came to nearly $80 billion in 2002 dollars, reflecting the fewer numbers of troops involved. A protracted war, by contrast, could cost upward of $100 billion.

       The direct military costs of a new war will likely be less than in 1991 under most scenarios, but the postwar occupation costs will be considerably greater, most experts believe.  

         In Kuwait, most U.S. troops were able to pack up and go home in a few weeks. In Iraq, a large international military presence will be required for many years to provide security for a post-Hussein government and avert a civil war between ethnic factions, which include Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.

       “It’s a no-brainer that this is going to cost us more than the last time,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a military economist at the Brookings Institution. “In addition to the nominal price tag for the operation, you will need a large stabilization force in there for a number of years. Anything else will not be strategically viable.”

       Extrapolating from similar peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, O’Hanlon estimates that the United States is likely to initially spend between $15 billion and $20 billion a year for its share of a multinational stabilization force for Iraq. Depending on how long the stabilization force remains in Iraq, the cost to the American taxpayer could be between $50 billion and $100 billion. His calculations are based on an assumption that U.S. allies will pick up two-thirds of the cost of the stabilization force.

       Adding the costs of a stabilization force to the costs of an invasion brings the total to between $100 billion and $200 billion. This is in line with an upper-bracket estimate by White House economics adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in September. The White House subsequently distanced the administration from Lindsey’s comments, saying they were not based on any official study.

      

WAR ON THE CHEAP?  

         If the war costs between $100 billion and $200 billion, it would still be relatively inexpensive in historical terms. Because of the growth in the U.S. economy, wars are getting cheaper, at least to the American consumer. In a $10 trillion economy, the cost of a second Gulf War would be between 1 percent and 2 percent of the nation’s annual gross domestic product, compared with 12 percent for the Vietnam War, 15 percent for the Korean War and 130 percent for World War II.

       Measured against a federal budget of about $2 trillion a year, the cost of the war would be proportionately larger: between 5 percent and 10 percent.

       “You have to ask yourself where would that money come from,” said Spratt, who represents the pay-as-you-go philosophy in Congress. “While the costs of the war are clearly not beyond our means, they are beyond our budget. Remember, this all comes at a time when we are losing control over the budget.”

       In 1991, U.S. taxpayers paid about 12 percent of the military costs of the Gulf War, with the remainder of the burden being shared among such countries as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Japan. This time around, none of these countries is expected to contribute significantly.

       Iraq could be expected to assume major responsibility for the long-term costs of its economic reconstruction out of increased oil revenue. But the country has been devastated by two decades of war and economic sanctions, and cannot pay for a U.S.-led invasion and military occupation.

       The generosity of the allies was “exhausted” by the first attack on Iraq, said Chas Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Riyadh who helped raise $16.8 billion from the Saudis to pay for Desert Storm.  

 The direct military costs of a new war will likely be less than in 1991 under most scenarios, but the postwar occupation costs will be considerably greater, most experts believe.

         He added that the Saudi government would find it politically impossible to pick up a substantial portion of the costs of a new Gulf War even if it had the money, because the Saudi public is “now 100 percent against an attack on Iraq.”

       Freeman says the U.S. government grossly underestimated the costs of the 1991 war by excluding various services provided free by the Saudis. These included the costs of housing and repatriating Kuwaiti refugees, the provision of free fuel, transport and lodging to coalition forces, and a major environmental cleanup. In a future conflict, many of these costs will be borne directly by the United States.

       The most uncertain cost of the war, economists agree, is the impact on the broader U.S. economy. Such costs are difficult to quantify. William Nordhaus, a professor of economics at Yale University, estimates the indirect cost of the 1991 conflict with Iraq at about $500 billion, many times larger than the official military price tag. Depending on what happens in a future conflict, the macroeconomic impact of the war could be between zero and $1 trillion, according to his estimates.

       “I was surprised to discover that the nonmilitary costs are likely to be much larger than the military costs,” he said.

      

ASSESSING THE OPTIONS  

A recent conference by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies considered three scenarios for a war with Iraq. The benign scenario, the probability of which was estimated at 40 percent to 60 percent, envisaged a decisive victory for allied forces in four to six weeks and no disruption in oil supplies. Under this scenario, oil prices would likely come down in the aftermath of the war, boosting the U.S. economy.

       A worst-case scenario (5 percent to 10 percent probability) envisaged fighting for three to six months, massive political unrest in the Middle East, terrorist attacks against the United States and large-scale damage to Iraqi oil facilities.

       An intermediate scenario (30 percent to 40 percent probability) included limited damage to oil facilities, major urban warfare and fighting for up to three months. The intermediate and worst-case scenarios would have “serious adverse effects” on the U.S. economy, according to Laurence H. Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Bank governor now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The worst-case scenario would likely lead to a global recession.

       Nordhaus said U.S. wars have almost always gone over budget. The Civil War was 13 times more expensive than the worst-case forecast of Abraham Lincoln’s treasury secretary. Similarly, in early 1966, the Pentagon underestimated the likely cost of the Vietnam War by about 90 percent.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Freund, Michael. (Tuesday, November 26, 2002) Down on your knees, soldier. Israel: The Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1038285281131

 

Nov. 26, 2002

Down on your knees, soldier BY MICHAEL FREUND

 

George Washington did it. Stonewall Jackson did it. So did Norman Schwarzkopf, Horatio Nelson and Robert E. Lee.

 

As different as they may have been from one another, these great military figures all shared one thing in common: before embarking on a fateful battle, they made sure to arm themselves with some much-needed perspective. Simply put, each of them prayed.

 

Though we do not ordinarily associate spiritual sensitivity with men of war, the fact is that some of the most prominent generals of the modern era were not ashamed of invoking Divine mercy in their hour of need. And neither, I think, should we.

 

Take, for example, George S. Patton, the flamboyant World War II general better known as "Old Blood and Guts." Thanks to the 1970 Hollywood rendition of his life, which won eight Academy Awards, Patton's name has become synonymous in the public's mind more with ruthless discipline and robust cursing than with acknowledging God's role in the affairs of men.

 

Though a hardened soldier, Patton was in fact a staunch advocate of prayer, deeming it a central component of any successful military strategy. "I am a strong believer in prayer. There are three ways that men get what they want: by planning, by working, and by praying," he once said.

 

Indeed, in early December 1944, as Hitler was preparing to launch a desperate assault against Allied troops which later came to be known as the Battle of the Bulge, Patton interrupted his war planning to place a call to James O'Neill, chief chaplain of the US Third Army.

 

"This is General Patton; do you have a good prayer for weather?" he told the astonished chaplain. "We must do something about those rains if we are to win the war." At Patton's request, a special prayer was written asking not only for better weather, but also for victory over America's foes.

 

"Grant us fair weather for battle," it read.

 

"Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen."

 

AT PATTON'S instruction, the army printed up some 250,000 pocket-sized cards containing the prayer and distributed one to each American soldier under his command. Several days later, Patton led his troops in a surprise counter-attack against the German forces, relieving a contingent of trapped soldiers, staving off an Allied defeat and setting the stage for the demise of Hitler's regime.

 

To any outside observer, it was evident that Patton's boldness at the helm was responsible for the unexpected victory. But Patton himself saw things somewhat differently.

 

In January 1945, after routing the Germans, he summoned Chaplain O'Neill to Luxembourg, where he told him, "Well, Padre, our prayers worked. I knew they would." He then awarded O'Neill the Bronze Star, undoubtedly marking the first time in history that a soldier had received a medal for composing a prayer.

 

Nearly six decades later, the safety of the free world is again in danger. Between Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, ongoing Palestinian and al-Qaida terrorism, and the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, the people of Israel and the United States have plenty to be concerned about. Without meaning to sound melodramatic, it seems fair to say that the fate of Western civilization might very well hang in the balance.

 

As General Patton demonstrated, it is precisely at times such as these that we must mobilize all the forces at our disposal, marshaling not only our military might, but our spiritual strength too.

 

Though not everyone is capable of donning a uniform and joining the fray, what each of us can and must do is enlist as a spiritual warrior, brandishing our most powerful weapon of all: our faith.

 

If Islamic fundamentalists are intent on waging a "holy war," then what could be more appropriate than confronting them with our own sacred fervor? It is time for Jews and Christians, Israelis and Americans alike, to pray - to pray for the safety of our soldiers, to plead for our enemies' downfall and to long for their rapid defeat.

 

Let the skeptics say what they wish, but prayer is neither a sign of weakness nor an indicator of despair. Just the opposite. It is a telling reminder of our certainty in the justice of our cause, of our profound belief that there is good and evil in this world, and that the only way to safeguard the former is to root out the latter, come what may.

 

On Yom Kippur, when our very lives are on the line, we fall down on our knees in prayer as we reenact the special Temple service which was conducted by the High Priest in Jerusalem nearly two millennia ago.

 

On the eve of war with Iraq, dropping to our knees might not seem like the most "manly" thing to do. But by placing our trust in God, like the great generals before us, we can reinforce our sense of purpose and mission. And that, more than anything else, is the surest guarantee of victory.

 

The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Hendren, John. (Thursday, November 07, 2002) Pentagon Moving B-2 Bombers to New Roosts Closer to Baghdad. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-stealth7nov07,0,1864145.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes

 

November 7, 2002

 

Pentagon Moving B-2 Bombers to New Roosts Closer to Baghdad

 Hangars will be built on an Indian Ocean island and in Britain to shorten the distance the aircraft would have to fly in case of a war with Iraq.

 

Shelters for the stealth

November 7, 2002 

     

By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer

 

KNOB NOSTER, Mo. -- The Pentagon is moving the jet that fired the opening salvos of the last two U.S. wars to within easy striking distance of Iraq, erecting tent-like portable hangars for the batwinged B-2 bomber on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

 

Four of the new $2.5-million maintenance hangars, each serving two planes, will be built on the British-held isle and one at Fairford, England. It will be the first time B-2s will be based overseas instead of here at Whiteman Air Force Base.

 

The foreign positioning of the radar-deflecting aircraft has been in the works for years, officials said. But the timing suggests the key role the B-2 is likely to play if there is a second war in the Persian Gulf, military analysts said.

 

If the U.S. launches war on Iraq, the B-2s will be critical in taking out an antiaircraft system that has been improved with fiber-optic communications and updated equipment and has had a decade to adapt to the tactics of U.S. and British planes patrolling "no-fly" zones over Iraq.

 

Diego Garcia is a five-hour flight from Baghdad. B-2s based there could each make three sorties every two days, military analysts said. It took the B-2s that flew from central Missouri nearly two days just to get to Afghanistan.

 

The futuristic bomber — housed at the same base the Enola Gay left to drop the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima in 1945 — was created to carry nuclear weapons into the Soviet Union. But by the time the first plane, the Spirit of Missouri, touched down at Whiteman Air Force Base in 1993, that enemy was gone. In both Kosovo and Afghanistan, military analysts say, the B-2 adapted well to its new mission: carrying conventional weapons in the opening strike of a war.

 

"The B-2 bomber was designed specifically to kick the door down and kill targets," said Col. Doug Raaburg, commander of the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman.

 

The Pentagon has long planned to station B-2s at three sites capable of striking trouble spots throughout the world within 24 hours: Guam for Asian targets, Britain for European targets and Diego Garcia for the Middle East.

 

Military officials wouldn't say exactly when the B-2s bound for Diego Garcia and Britain — as many as 16, some of them housed in permanent hangars, out of a fleet of 21 — will be in position. But they will be ready "in case we get the call," Raaburg said.

Even many B-2 advocates concede that the aircraft played no more than a cameo role in Afghanistan, where air defenses were few.

 

But Iraq has one of the most dense air defense systems in the world. It is a hodgepodge of technology from Russia, Yugoslavia and France. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime has installed fiber-optic communications systems that are redundant, in case one is destroyed.

 

The Iraqis have built new facilities, reinforced others and added radar, experts say. How much of it has been destroyed by U.S. and British planes patrolling the country's northern and southern no-fly zones remains unclear, but those areas do not include Baghdad, where Hussein has placed his best air defenses.

 

"We didn't have to use the B-2s in Afghanistan because you didn't need it," said Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.), an unabashed B-2 aficionado. "You're going to need it in Iraq."

 

After its introduction in 1993 at a cost of $2 billion each, the B-2 was criticized as too delicate — critics erroneously said it couldn't fly in the rain — and too expensive. But since the devastating opening bombing runs in Kosovo, analysts say, it has become the Pentagon's first-strike weapon.

 

Eight B-2s could drop as many as 576 bombs on Iraqi air defenses in the first three days of a war, seizing control of the airspace. It takes three minutes for a B-2 to drop 16 satellite-guided "smart" bombs. It is the only plane that can carry the 5,000-pound explosive that crew members call "the crowd pleaser," which burrows up to 20 feet into rock and destroys underground bunkers with massive force.

 

Some analysts predict that after the first few days of an assault on Iraq, the B-2s would be shuttled off to the sidelines, as they were after performing just six missions in Afghanistan.

 

But others note that during the entire 1991 Gulf War, the plane that Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf used most to bomb targets in Baghdad was the earlier-generation stealth fighter, the F-117, because it could evade detection. With a second war likely to focus far more firepower on the Iraqi capital, the B-2 would be the weapon of choice, perhaps along with F-117s, said John Pike, a defense analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., research group.

 

"Baghdad is the center of gravity in this war, so I would suspect that the B-2s would be going downtown until the war is over," Pike said.

 

Placing B-2s at Diego Garcia frees up bases nearer Iraq to host shorter-range bombers and fighters in Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan. The U.S. Central Command recently made room for the B-2s by moving B-1 bombers from Diego Garcia to Amman, Jordan.

 

After the introduction of the B-2, which was built in Palmdale by Northrop Grumman, war planners were skittish about using it. They feared that losing a $2-billion plane would cause a political backlash at home. No one knew for certain how well it would work in combat, where the pilots are extremely vulnerable if spotted. Flying a B-2 is something of an act of faith.

 

It has no high-speed afterburner, no missiles to return firenothing to protect it but stealth.

 

It is called the stealth bomber because its sleek shape helps it evade radar. Maintaining the shape of the smooth composite skin is such a delicate endeavor that maintenance crews cover seams, rivets and any dents from bugs or birds with radar-absorbing tape after each mission.

 

The painstaking maintenance, which would be done at Diego Garcia in the new portable hangars, can mean the difference between life and death.

 

One kink in the body could tip off ground radar to the bomber's location. Air Force officials believe that the only stealth fighter to be shot down, an F-117, was struck in Yugoslavia because radar on the ground bounced off the open bomb bay doors.

 

Whatever the risk to the pilots, any missions from Diego Garcia to Baghdad would be over in the wink of an eye, comparatively speaking.

 

B-2 pilots fly missions never envisioned before — a record 44½ hours to Afghanistan, by circuitous routes — and they have forged their own on-board lifestyle. The trips are so long that pilots consulted sleep therapists. (They were advised to load up on carbohydrates and sleep either less than 45 minutes or more than two hours to avoid the drowsiness brought on by waking during a deep sleep.)

 

Pilots steal naps in lounge chairs from Kmart that they stash behind the two seats.

 

After a lengthy trek to the target, they turn around and head home without ever seeing the ground.

 

"At no other time in the world are you so removed yet so involved," said a B-2 captain who asked to be identified by his codename, Pita.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Messmer, Ellen. (Thursday, February 08, 2007) U.S. cyber counterattack: Bomb 'em one way or the other. Network World.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/020807-rsa-cyber-attacks.html?page=1

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/020807-rsa-cyber-attacks.html?page=2

 

U.S. cyber counterattack: Bomb 'em one way or the other

National Cyber Response Coordination Group establishing proper response to cyberattacks

By Ellen Messmer, Network World, 02/08/07

 

San Francisco — If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch a cyber counterattack or an actual bombing of an attack source.

 

The primary group responsible for analyzing the need for any cyber counterstrike is the National Cyber Response Coordination Group (NCRCG). The three key members of the NCRCG, who hail from the US-CERT computer-readiness team, the Department of Justice and the Defense Department, this week described how they would seek to coordinate a national response in the event of a major cyber-event from a known attacker.

 

This week’s massive but unsuccessful denial-of-service (DoS) attack on the Internet’s root DNS, which targeted military and other networks, did not rise to the level of requiring response, but made the possibility of a massive Internet collapse more real than theoretical. Had the attack been successful there may have been a cyber counterstrike from the United States, said Mark Hall, director of the international information assurance program for the Defense Department and the Defense Department co-chair to the NCRCG, who spoke on the topic of cyber-response during the RSA Conference here.

 

“We have to be able to respond,” Hall said. “We need to be in a coordinated response.

 

He noted that the Defense Department networks, subject to millions of probes each day, hasthe biggest target on its back.”

 

But a smooth cyber-response remains a work in progress. The NCRCG’s three co-chairs acknowledge it’s not simple coordinating communications and information-gathering across government and industry even in the best of circumstances, much less if a significant portion of the Internet or traditional voice communications were suddenly struck down. But they asserted the NCRCG is “ready to stand up” to confront a catastrophic cyber-event to defend the country.

 

“We’re working with key vendors to bring the right talent together for a mitigation strategy,” said Jerry Dixon, deputy director for operations for the National Cyber Security Division at US-CERT. “We recognize much infrastructure is operated by the private sector.The U.S. government has conducted cyber war games in its CyberStorm exercise last year and is planning a second one.

 

Page 2 of 2

The third NCRCG co-chair, Christopher Painter, principal deputy chief at the Justice Department, said the cyber-response group also seeks to communicate with 50 countries around the world where monitoring for massive cybersecurity events go on as well. “Some of them have some of the same communications issues we have here,” he noted.

 

The Department of Homeland Security’s National Response Plan calls for coordination with a number of agencies, including the Department of Treasury, when the decision for a national response is made. So far, there has been no major cybersecurity event against the United States that has prompted the need for a national response.

 

The massive DoS attack attempt against the Internet’s root-servers this week, which specifically targeted military networks, raises the question whether the United States would ever respond with a counterattack.

 

“It’s the President’s call,” said Hall said, pointing out the recommendation for a counterattack would be passed to the chief executive via the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha.

 

In the event of a massive cyberattack against the country that was perceived as originating from a foreign source, the United States would consider launching a counterattack or bombing the source of the cyberattack, Hall said. But he noted the preferred route would be warning the source to shut down the attack before a military response.

 

All the military services are preparing for military cyber-response, Hall pointed out.

 

Jim Collins, R&D engineer at the Air Force Information Operations Center, who also spoke on the need for network defense at a session at the RSA Conference, said the Air force is also gearing up for an offensive cyber capability.

 

“The Air Force hasn’t just been standing by,” he said, noting that in November, the Air Force added the mission to fight in cyberspace by creating a new Cyber Command.

 

“We’re standing up cyber-fighters to do network warfare,” Collins said. “Where we had pilots before, we’ll have fighters in cyberspace.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Mintier, Tom and Ramgopal, Ram. (Friday, October 04, 2002) India follows Pakistan with missile test. USA: CNN.com.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/04/pakistan.missile/index.html

 

India follows Pakistan with missile test

Staff and wires

Friday, October 4, 2002 Posted: 9:47 AM EDT (1347 GMT)

 

Pakistan's intermediate range missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads 

 

  SHAHEEN 1 FACTS

- Length: 12.0 m

- Body diameter: 1.0 m

- Launch weight: 9,500 kg

- Payload: Single warhead 1,000 kg

- Warhead: 750 kg nuclear 35 kT, chemical, HE or submunitions

Guidance: Inertial

- Propulsion: Single-stage solid propellant

- Range: 750-800 km

- Accuracy: 200 m

Sources: CNN/Janes

 

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Just hours after Pakistan test-fired an "indigenously developed" medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile, India has responded by test-firing its own surface-to-air missile.

 

India's domestically-built Akash missile was fired from a mobile laucher at the Interim Test Range at Chandipur-on-Sea near Balasore in Orissa. It has a range of 25 kilometers (15 miles) and is able to strike several targets simultaneously.

 

The tests come during a particularly low point in relations between the two countries, following closely a spate of killings blamed on Pakistani-based militants during elections in the Indian-run half of Kashmir.

 

More than a million Indian and Pakistani troops remain locked in a tense, 10-month-old stand-off along their shared border.

 

"It was a routine test. We are testing different parameters of the missile since the past fortnight," said P. K. Bandhopadhyaya, the Defense Ministry spokesman. "The missile is meant for air defense. It will be used by the army and air force," he told The Associated Press.

 

Earlier Friday, Pakistan launched a test missile, named the Hatf 4 or Shaheen, which is believed to have a range of 750-800 kilometers (465-500 miles) and the capability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

 

"Prior notification of the test had been given to neighbors as well as some friendly countries," Pakistan's Inter Services Public Relations Directorate said in a press release.

 

A Pakistani military official quoted by The Associated Press described the test as "routine."

 

India initially labeled Pakistan's test a publicity stunt "clearly targeted at the forthcoming general election in Pakistan."

 

"As we have said before, we are not particularly impressed with these missile antics of Pakistan," India's External Affairs Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao said to reporters before India had responded with its own test.

 

"As is well known, Pakistani missiles are based on clandestinely imported materials, equipment, and technology," she added.

 

U.S. visit

The test also followed a visit by Christina Rocca, the U.S. assistant secretary for South Asia, who left the region Thursday after attempting to lower tensions between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory Kashmir.

 

Some analysts have suggested that with the current international focus on a possible U.S.-led military attack against Iraq, India may be tempted to take the opportunity of launching a strike on Pakistan.

 

Pakistan said it had warned its nuclear-rival India in advance of the exercise 

 

Given that possibility, the test may be a way of Pakistan showing off the continued readiness of its armed forces.

 

With tensions remaining high, both countries have been urged to halt missile tests in order to avoid misinterpretations by the other side that could accidentally trigger a war.

 

Diplomats say that with each country just four minutes missile flight from the other there is little time for the opposing militaries to determine whether a launch is indeed a test or a first strike attack warranting an immediate response.

 

Furthermore it is also impossible for either side to determine whether an opponent's missile might be carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead -- raising the potential of a retaliatory strike with disastrous consequences for the region.

 

-- CNN Correspondents Tom Mintier in Islamabad and Ram Ramgopal in Delhi in Islamabad contributed to this report

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Oldham, Jeanette and McDougall, Liam. (Thursday, November 07, 2002) Nuclear sub runs aground on Skye. Scotland: Scotsman.

http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1239852002

 

Thu 7 Nov 2002

Photo.

HMS Trafalgar was deployed alongside HMS Triumph (pictured) and HMS Superb against Afghanistan last October.

 

Nuclear sub runs aground on Skye

 

Jeanette Oldham and Liam McDougall

 

A NUCLEAR submarine has run aground while taking part in a military exercise off Skye.

 

The Ministry of Defence was last night trying to find out how the vessel, one of the navy’s 12 nuclear-powered attack subs, managed to hit a rock while on a military exercise.

 

The MoD would not say last night if the captain of the submarine would face a court martial.

 

HMS Trafalgar usually carries Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and it is believed it will be used in any invasion of Iraq.

 

The MoD said two crew members on board the submarine sustained injuries at 7:58am yesterday, when it hit a rock, Fladda-Chauina, 500 metres off the north-west coast of Skye. At the time, the vessel was travelling at 14.5 knots (18 mph).

 

An MoD spokeswoman said: "There is no damage to the pressure hull and a core integrity assessment of the nuclear reactor has been conducted.

 

"There is no risk to the public or crew."

 

The submarine was taking part in a training exercise and surfaced immediately after the incident.

 

One of the crewmen suffered a broken nose and the other strained his back.

 

HMS Trafalgar, which was commissioned in 1983, was due to arrive at Faslane naval base on the Clyde today , where the damage will be assessed fully. The 4,750-ton submarine was last night travelling under her own power, but was being escorted by a Royal Navy warship.

 

The military exercise involved between 20 and 30 vessels, including submarines and frigates, as well as aircraft. Such exercises take place beside the busy shipping lanes of the west coast of Scotland between Cape Wrath and Skye about two or three times a year.

 

Charles Kennedy, the local MP and the Liberal Democrat leader, said in a statement: "The first reaction to this news must be one of relief that no hull breach or damage to the nuclear reactor has occurred and no lives have been lost.

 

"But when a nuclear submarine is involved in an incident of this nature, with the potential for disastrous consequences, it is essential that a full investigation is undertaken, the conclusions of which must be made public."

 

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, said: "Accidents happen but we have precious few of these submarines - where is the spare capacity to stand in when such vessels are put out of action?

 

"The government is unprepared for the unexpected, and the armed forces are already overstretched as it is."

 

Jane Tallants, the vice-chairwoman of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), said: "It is very worrying that these submarines, which are supposedly precision machines, couldn’t miss something the size of Skye."

 

Carol Naughton, the chairwoman of CND, said: "We are calling for an independent assessment of this accident.

 

"We are sceptical of immediate reassurances from the Royal Navy following the case of HMS Tireless, which went to port in Gibraltar two years ago and subsequently was discovered to have had a reactor fault."

 

The discovery of a "design fault" led to the entire hunter-killer fleet being called back into port, claimed a spokesman for CND.

 

"Our question is this: has this incident been caused by another design fault? If so, will all hunter-killers be called back into port?"

 

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive would only say last night: "Defence matters are reserved.

 

"A full investigation is being carried out by the Ministry of Defence. Scottish ministers will be kept fully informed." 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Personal Note

"The government is unprepared for the unexpected, and the armed forces are already overstretched as it is."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Padgaonkar, Dileep. (Saturday, October 05, 2002) China wants India to shed old ideas. India: The Times of India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=24200399

 

China wants India to shed old ideas

DILEEP PADGAONKAR

 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  [ SATURDAY, OCTOBER 05, 2002 12:03:57 AM ]

 

BEIJING: Like senior officials of China’s ministry of foreign affairs, South Asia experts here also believe that in the post-cold war world growing cooperation between India and China is in the vital interest of both countries.

 

But the latter, unencumbered by diplomatic niceties, assert quite candidly that India, as a rising power, needs to discard its perception of the ‘‘Chinese threat’’ for such cooperation to be truly substantive.

 

According to Prof Sun Shihai, Deputy Director of the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, India had advanced the ‘‘Chinese threat’’ thesis as a justification for its nuclear tests in 1998. This mindset was equally evident from certain statements of defence minister George Fernandes.

 

Another veteran specialist of Indian affairs, Prof Wand Hongwei, said that an ‘‘ideological residue’’ of the 1962 border war still persisted in India. Some officials and intellectuals continued to exploit it in order to demonise China. The truth about who and what provoked the war is now increasingly being acknowledged even by some of India’s China experts. It needs to be more widely acknowledged so that the ‘‘ideological residue’’ does not constitute an impediment in taking Sino-Indian relations to a qualitatively higher level.

 

The experts also rubbished the theory, which has gained currency in certain Indian circles, that the US is seeking to bolster its ties with India to use it as a counter-poise to China. ‘‘Both our countries are too big and too independent-minded to be used by anyone against one another,’’ Prof Sun asserted before proceeding to make another interesting claim.

 

Asked whether China was apprehensive about the presence of American troops in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, he said that there was no room for such an apprehension. India, China and the US shared a common interest in containing the forces of religious extremism and terrorism. This fact alone should encourage them to discard old ideas about creating a ‘balance of power’ in the region to ensure a stable security environment.

 

The conversations with the experts and senior officials leave little room for doubt that China has adopted a pre-eminently pragmatic approach in its dealings with the outside world. Regardless of its public postures, it will simultaneously explore several options, including ostensibly contradictory ones, to safeguard and promote its national interests.

 

At the same time, however, it will act as a ‘responsible’ great power. Its actions will not be very much at odds with those of the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council. Its efforts to engage India in a ‘‘comprehensive partnership of cooperation’’ despite the reservations of its South Asia experts need to be appraised in this dual context.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Reid, Tim. (Tuesday, November 12, 2002) Star Wars airships. Britain: Times Newspapers Ltd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-477539,00.html

 

November 12, 2002

 

Star Wars airships

By Tim Reid

 

THE Pentagon has turned to technology first used in Napoleonic France to defend the United States from attack in the 21st century: the giant airship.

 

Sixty-five years after the Hindenburg disaster sent the airship’s prospects crashing to the New Jersey earth, Pentagon officials plan to ring the American continent with giant unmanned craft to spot incoming missiles and aircraft.

 

The US Missile Defence Agency has asked the country’s largest military contractors to develop a high-altitude airship that can float at 70,000ft, aiming to have an operational fleet by 2010. The agency, charged with protecting America from ballistic missiles, has given the companies until February to submit designs.

 

In the post-September 11 world, the technology could also enhance monitoring terrorist activities on the ground, the Pentagon believes. Each airship would carry 40ft radars with a sweep of about 750 miles, ringing the US coastline.

 

Initially they would not carry weapons, but the Pentagon hopes that later they could use lasers to attack missiles, a marriage of Great War and Star Wars technology.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Satloff, Robert. (Friday, November 08, 2002) Follow WWII's Torch Into Iraq. USA: Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-satloff8nov08,0,3724160.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Doped%2Dmanual

 

November 8, 2002 

 

COMMENTARY

Follow WWII's Torch Into Iraq

 Allied invasion of North Africa 60 years ago resonates today.

   

By Robert Satloff, Robert Satloff is the director of policy and strategic planning at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

 

As the chance of war with Iraq grows, we should pause today to recall the 60th anniversary of Operation Torch, the American-British invasion of North Africa during World War II.

 

Thanks to Torch, the momentum began to swing against Nazi Germany, an evil regime that used what we now call "weapons of mass destruction" to kill millions.

 

Three lessons from Torch have special resonance today:

 

* We need clear war aims, which Washington and London lacked in November 1942.

 

Despite Torch's military victory, the Allies opted against demanding surrender from Vichy France. Instead, they allowed the regime to keep control of North Africa as long as Allied troops were permitted free movement through the region.

 

Proponents contended that this deal hastened the war's end. Yet it also gave Vichy license to increase the persecution of Jews, even after "liberation." Not until the summer of 1943 were all Jews finally freed from Vichy slave labor camps in North Africa.

The Allies, however, learned their lesson. Two months after Torch, President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill for the first time decreed their war aim to be "unconditional surrender."

 

In any war with Iraq, an opportunity to negotiate is likely to emerge, perhaps with a high-ranking Iraqi general or maybe a cousin from a marginally less bloodthirsty branch of Saddam Hussein's family. He will promise stability, forswear aggression, promise to respect any future Israeli-Palestinian peace and commit to weapons inspections. And he will hint broadly at pumping lots and lots of oil.

 

For many, this would be as good as it could possibly get.

 

Yet just as Roosevelt and Churchill eventually opted for clarity over expediency, so too must we fight the urge for a simple solution to today's Iraq problem. While such a deal might provide a smooth "exit strategy" for U.S. troops, it would almost surely come back to haunt us and might even necessitate another foray into Iraq.

 

Without the full removal of Hussein's clique and his party, we will have bought merely time, not peace or security.

 

* A small band of partisans can contribute much.

 

In 1942, on the evening before the Allies' arrival, 377 members of the Algerian underground, more than 300 of them Jews, spread out across Algiers in one of the war's greatest exploits in sabotage. Armed only with knives, hunting rifles and World War I relics, they cut phone lines, intercepted telegraph messages and even forcibly detained senior Vichy commanders to ease the entry of Allied troops.

 

Thanks to their courage and cunning, many American and British lives were saved. In cruel irony, many leaders of the Jewish underground were soon imprisoned by Vichy, with little protest from their Allied "liberators."

 

In today's Iraq debate, many experts disparage the possible contribution that opposition forces could make to the war effort. This view is often offered by alumni of past ignoble episodes of U.S. failure to keep promises to anti-Hussein Iraqis.

 

These analysts fail to take into account the connection between U.S. resolve and the opposition's prowess.

 

In Torch, when the Algerian resistance learned that the Allies were truly committed to the battle against Vichy, they performed remarkable deeds of heroism.

 

In Iraq, resistance fighters exude skepticism because they have no confidence in Washington's resolve. Convince them that the U.S. will fight a war to end Hussein's regime and they too might perform remarkable deeds.

 

* We must remember to fight for people, not just interests.

 

One week after the Torch landings, when it was apparent that Washington was doing nothing to ease Vichy's persecution of local Jews, a number of U.S. Jewish soldiers organized an ad hoc protest group and called on Roosevelt's personal envoy in Algiers to ask why the U.S. government wasn't helping the Jews. They were rebuffed.

 

How brave those soldiers were. This was 1942, after all, just days after the first American shots against an enemy heretofore thought invincible and on behalf of coreligionists who spoke a different language and followed different customs.

 

Let us honor the memory of the Algiers protesters by resolving that brave American Muslim soldiers never have cause to ask why we failed to translate victory over Iraq into a victory for the people of Iraq.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

STRATFOR Global Intelligence Update. (Tuesday, October 01, 2002) War timing depends on carrier availability. USA: WorldNetDaily.com.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29124

 

STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE

War timing depends on carrier availability

Unclear when enough ships will be stationed in Iraq area

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 1, 2002

5:00 p.m. Eastern

 

Editor's note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies.

 

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

 

The timing of any attack on Iraq will rely not only on a new U.N. Security Council resolution, but also on the availability of U.S. and allied aircraft carriers, reports Stratfor, the global intelligence company.

 

Bush administration officials are pressing the case for a new United Nations Security Council resolution against Iraq, meeting with fellow Security Council members China, France and Russia. But as Washington pushes for a new resolution that would allow for military strikes, Pentagon officials are looking at the availability of equipment, troops – including Marine expeditionary units, or MEUs – and aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region.

 

During Operation Desert Storm, the United States deployed as many as six aircraft carriers in the region simultaneously: the USS Saratoga (CV 60), the USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), the USS Midway (CV 41), the USS Ranger (CV 61), the USS America (CV 66) and the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). Of these, only the Roosevelt and the Kennedy are still in service. Most of the others were smaller than today's carriers, and improvements in aircraft and munitions mean the military can muster equal firepower with fewer carriers on station.

 

The U.S. Navy currently maintains a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers – six based on the Atlantic coast, five on the Pacific coast and one forward deployed in Japan. Two carriers now are within striking range of Iraq: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) and the USS George Washington (CVN 73). The Washington, which arrived in the northern Arabian Sea in July, handed over duties to the Lincoln on the symbolic Sept. 11 anniversary. The Lincoln is the first U.S. carrier deployed with the new F/A-18 Super Hornets on board.

 

Any major attack on Iraq likely would involve more than two U.S. aircraft carriers, and the next one due on station – the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) – is set to arrive in November to relieve the Washington, which is nearing the end of its deployment. This puts one of the earliest possible moments for a major strike on Iraq in mid- to late November, when for a brief time three carriers will be regularly scheduled to be in the region.

 

But as in operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, when additional carriers were brought into play, one must look at the entire carrier fleet to determine how many ships will be available and when. In general, a U.S. aircraft carrier spends six months on deployment, followed by a six-month maintenance period and another half-year or more for training. Many of the carriers deployed for operations against Afghanistan are still in this maintenance-and-recovery cycle.

 

The USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) returned to its homeport of Norfolk, Va., in late March and will not be ready for deployment again until late spring 2003. The Kennedy, which took part in Desert Storm, returned to Mayport, Fla., in August and will not be ready to deploy again for some time. Its deployment earlier this year was marred by problems that led to the removal of its captain. The other two Atlantic-based carriersthe USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) – are undergoing extensive overhauls and will not be ready for deployment anytime soon.

 

Vessels in the Pacific are closer to being ready for action in the Gulf. The USS Constellation (CV 64) is scheduled to head to the Mediterranean and the Arabian Sea in December on what may be its last voyage before decommissioning. The USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) finished its six-month maintenance and upgrade period in September, a month ahead of schedule, but months of training still are required before it will be ready to deploy in early 2003.

 

The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), which returned to San Diego, Calif., in late May, also will be ready for early 2003. And the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) – the only U.S. forward-deployed aircraft carrier, based in Yokosuka, Japan – also may be ready by then or even earlier. The remaining active U.S. carrier, the USS Nimitz (CVN 68), still is undergoing a yearlong maintenance and communications upgrade scheduled for completion in December.

 

In addition to U.S. carriers, the British HMS Ark Royal (RO7) reportedly is ready to deploy to the region soon – though the two other British carriers, the HMS Invincible (RO5) and the HMS Illustrious (RO6) are undergoing maintenance, as is the French Charles de Gaulle (R91).

 

In addition to naval-based aircraft, Washington also will consider the availability of its MEUs – rapid reaction forces that will be deployed early in any invasion of Iraq.

 

Of the seven U.S. MEUs, the 11th MEU is already in the region, having taken part in exercises in Kuwait. The 13th and 15th MEUs are both at home in Camp Pendleton, Calif.: the 13th having recently completed a seven-month deployment in the Arabian Sea and the 15th getting ready for its next deployment.

 

One other MEU, the 24th, currently is participating in Operation Dynamic Response in Kosovo. The 22nd recently returned from an overseas deployment, and the 26th just completed urban combat training. All three MEUs are based at Camp Lejeune, N.C. The final MEU, the 31st, currently is training at its base in Okinawa.

 

For U.S. strategists planning an attack on Iraq, this means that as many as three MEUs, in addition to the 11th, could be active in the Arabian Sea within the next three months. Meanwhile, the Navy can have three carriers in the region in November, or four in December, in preparation for an early strike.

 

While this does not guarantee military action before year-end, it does make action any earlier unlikely for purely logistical reasons – even if political backing could be rallied sooner.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Sun Tzu – Biography and Works.

http://www.online-literature.com/suntzu/

 

Chinese general, circa 500 B.C. A collection of essays on the art of war is attributed to Sun Tzu. These are the earliest known treatises on the subject. There is a growing number of translations of this Chinese classic, usually titled Sun Tzu: The Art of War. Sometimes the wording is reversed. Knowledge of Sun Tzu reached Europe shortly before the French Revolution in the form of a summary translation by Father J. J. M. Amiot, a French Jesuit priest. In the various translations, Sun Tzu is sometimes referred to as Sun Wu, and Sun Tzi. The most fundamental of Sun Tzu's principles for the conduct of war is that "All warfare is based on deception". Another key Sun Tzu principle is that "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." Sun Tzu's ideas spread to the rest of Asia and to Japan. The Japanese quickly adopted Sun Tzu's teaching and perhaps added a few chapters of their own. It is no accident that Asian cultures are referred to as cultures of strategy, and Sun Tzu has played no small part in this development. The works of Sun Tzu have been widely known in the United States since the mid-1970s. Diplomat Henry Kissinger has made reference to Sun Tzu and the principles for the conduct of warfare has been the subject of serious study in U.S. military circles for many years. The art of war as applied to business, sports, diplomacy and personal lives has been popularized in American business and management texts. Sun Tzu may be the most frequently quoted Chinese personality in the world today, eclipsing Confucius, Lao Tze and Mao Dzedong. Basketball coach Pat Riley and lawyer Gerry Spence have quoted from Sun Tzu in their books. [Pat Riley and Art of War] [Gerry Spence and Art of War] [Ronnie Lott and the Art of War] American Football player Ronnie Lott told a Superbowl panel (1997) that he would ignore pregame distractions using a good book. Check Lott's recommendation. (Lott is now retired.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Tran, Mark. (Thursday, September 12, 2002) The Missionary. UK: Guardian Unlimited.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,791122,00.html

 

George Bush has not come out and said that America will be now a permanent war economy, but all his declarations point to that, going back to his statement after the World Trade Centre attacks. At the time Bush said America faced a "crusade" against terrorism. He was criticised then for using a term bound to cause offence in the Muslim world.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Iraq war could cost US $200 bn. (Monday, November 11, 2002) Washington, USA: MSN News.

http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandoraV15/output/A4E53FA3-6FC6-42F2-813B-E7476321238A.asp

 

Iraq war could cost US $200 bn

 

Washington: President George Bush’s chief economic adviser estimates that the U.S. may have to spend between $100 billion and $200 billion to wage a war in Iraq, but doubts that the hostilities would push the nation into recession or a sustained period of inflation.

 

Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House’s National Economic Council, projected the “upper bound” of war costs at between 1% and 2% of U.S. gross domestic product. With the U.S. GDP at about $10 trillion per year, that translates into a one-time cost of $100 billion to $200 billion. That is considerably higher than a preliminary, private Pentagon estimate of about $50 billion.

 

In an interview in his White House office, Mr. Lindsey dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying it wouldn’t have an appreciable effect on interest rates or add much to the federal debt, which is already about $3.6 trillion. “One year” of additional spending? he said. “That’s nothing.”

 

At the same time, he doubted that the additional spending would give the economy much of a lift. “Government spending tends not to be that stimulative,” he said. “Building weapons and expending them isn’t the basis of sustained economic growth.”

 

Administration officials have been unwilling to talk about the specific costs of a war, preferring to discuss the removal of Mr. Hussein in foreign-policy or even moral terms. Discussing the economics of the war could make it seem as if the U.S. were going to war over oil. That could sap support domestically and abroad, especially in the Mideast where critics suspect the U.S. of wanting to seize Arab oil fields.

 

Mr. Lindsey, who didn’t provide a detailed analysis of the costs, drew an analogy between the potential war expenditures with an investment in the removal of a threat to the economy. “It’s hard for me to see how we have sustained economic growth in a world where terrorists with weapons of mass destruction are running around,” he said. If you weigh the cost of the war against the removal of a “huge drag on global economic growth for a foreseeable time in the future, there’s no comparison.”

 

Other administration economists say that their main fear is that an Iraq war could lead to a sustained spike in prices. The past four recessions have been preceded by the price of oil jumping to higher than $30 a barrel, according to BCA Research.com in Montreal. But the White House believes that removing Iraqi oil from production during a war — which would likely lead to a short-term rise in prices — would be insufficient to tip the economy into recession. What is worrisome, economists say, is if the war widens and another large Middle East supplier stops selling to the U.S., either because of an Iraqi attack or out of solidarity with Saddam Hussein’s regime.

 

Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Hussein’s ouster could actually ease the oil problem by increasing supplies. Iraqi production has been constrained somewhat because of its limited investment and political factors. “When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production to world supply” each day, Mr. Lindsey estimated. “The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”

 

Currently, Iraq produces 1.7 million barrels of oil daily, according to OPEC figures. Before the Gulf War, Iraq produced around 3.5 million barrels a day.

 

Mr. Lindsey’s cost estimate is higher than the $50 billion number offered privately by the Pentagon in its conversations with Congress. The difference shows the pitfalls of predicting the cost of a military conflict when nobody is sure how difficult or long it will be. Whatever the bottom line, the war’s costs would be significant enough to make it harder for the Bush administration to climb out of the budget-deficit hole it faces because of the economic slowdown and expense of the war on terrorism.

 

Mr. Lindsey didn’t spell out the specifics of the spending and didn’t make clear whether he was including in his estimate the cost of rebuilding Iraq or installing a new regime. His estimate is roughly in line with the $58 billion cost of the Gulf War, which equaled about 1% of GDP in 1991. During that war, U.S. allies paid $48 billion of the cost, says William Hoagland, chief Republican staffer of the Senate Budget Committee.

 

This time it is far from clear how much of the cost — if any — America’s allies would be willing to bear. Most European allies, apart from Britain, have been trying to dissuade Mr. Bush from launching an attack, at least without a United Nations resolution of approval. But if the U.S. decides to invade, it may be able to get the allies to pick up some of the tab if only to help their companies cash in on the bounty from a post-Saddam Iraq.

 

Toppling Mr. Hussein could be more expensive than the Persian Gulf War if the U.S. has to keep a large number of troops in the country to stabilize it once Mr. Hussein is removed from power. Despite the Bush administration’s aversion to nation-building, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, recently said that the U.S. troops in Afghanistan likely would remain for years to come. The same is almost certain to be true in Iraq. Keeping the peace among Iraq’s fractious ethnic groups almost certainly will require a long-term commitment of U.S. troops.

 

During the Gulf War, the U.S. fielded 500,000 troops. A far smaller force is anticipated in a new attack on Iraq. But the GOP’s Mr. Hoagland said the costs could be higher because of the expense of a new generation of smart missiles and bombs. In addition, the nature of the assault this time is expected to be different. During the Gulf War, U.S. troops bombed from above and sent tank-led troops in for a lightning sweep through the Iraqi desert. A new Iraq war could involve prolonged fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities — even including house-to-house combat.

 

The Gulf War started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, which prompted a brief recession. The U.S. started bombing Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991, and called a halt to the ground offensive at the end of February.

 

With Iraq’s invasion, oil prices spiked and consumer confidence in the U.S. plunged. But Mr. Lindsey said the chance of that happening again is “small.” U.S. diplomats have been trying to get assurances from Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil-producing states that they would make up for any lost Iraqi oil production. In addition, Mr. Lindsey said that the pumping equipment at the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been improved so oil is easier to tap, if necessary. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations, he said, wanted to “make sure you can pump oil out quickly.”

 

On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he doubted a war would lead to recession because of the reduced dependence of the U.S. economy on oil. “I don’t think that ... the effect of oil as it stands at this particular stage, is large enough to impact the economy unless the hostilities are prolonged,” Mr. Greenspan told the House Budget Committee. “If we go through a time frame such as the Gulf War, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on us.”

 

The U.S. economy also has become less dependent on oil than it was in 1990, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, an economic consulting group in West Chester, Pa. A larger percentage of economic activity comes from services, as compared with energy-intensive manufacturers, he said. Many of those manufacturers also use more energy-efficient machinery

www.msnbc.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Personal Note

“One year” of additional spending?  “That’s nothing.”

The fundamental law of Economics, ”There is nothing called a free meal”. The whole subject of money management evolves from that statement.

In the last century, the British Empire was “the empire where the sun never set”. They fought all sort of wars, civil wars, independence wars by colonial states etc, draining them to bankruptcy.

 

"The government is unprepared for the unexpected, and the armed forces are already overstretched as it is."

- Oldham, Jeanette and McDougall, Liam. (Thursday, November 07, 2002) Nuclear sub runs aground on Skye. Scotland: Scotsman.

http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1239852002

 

No single nation has the everlasting status of “super-power”. As time goes on, the baton of super-power status moves to other emerging nations or powers.

Why war then? Don’t waste money?

“It’s hard for me to see how we have sustained economic growth in a world where terrorists with weapons of mass destruction are running around,”

If you weigh the cost of the war against the removal of a “huge drag on global economic growth for a foreseeable time in the future, there’s no comparison.”

Limited options.

Vocabulary.

Baton   n.

A short staff carried by certain public officials as a symbol of office.

He held the baton of command. --Prescott.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Obituaries: N. Wraga, 101, Sovietologist. (Friday, November 15, 2002) USA: Newsday.com.

http://www.newsday.com/news/obituaries/ny-wraga153003809nov15,0,1713145.story

 

OBITUARIES

N. Wraga, 101, Sovietologist

 

THE WASHINGTON POST

 

November 15, 2002

 

Washington - Natalie Grant Wraga, who was born in czarist Russia, saw great upheaval in her native land and became an expert in unmasking Soviet deception methods for the State Department and as a writer and mentor, died Tuesday at her home in Lovettsville, Va. She was 101 and had a heart ailment.

 

Wraga was born Natalia Konstantinovna Mark in what is now the Estonian capital Tallinn. She learned English and French from governesses, and her language proficiency helped her get a job with the American Relief Administration, a post-World War I relief effort.

 

Herbert Romerstein, a former staff member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and director of the U.S. Information Agency's office to counter Soviet disinformation, said that Wraga spoke about everything from the philosophical roots of Soviet deception to Soviet forgery techniques.

 

"Propaganda is obvious to anybody with any brains, but disinformation is not," she told John Berlau of Insight magazine.

 

"Sometimes more than 90 percent of the content of disinformation is true. The thing that is important is to find the part that is false." Sometimes it can be one word, she said.

 

Wraga leaves no immediate survivors.

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reference

Stowe, Judy. (Wednesday, August 21, 2002) Lt-Gen Tran Do - Vietnamese army officer turned dissident. UK: Independent.

http://www.opinionnet.org/mykdb13.html

 

Tran Do was regarded as one of the most outstanding generals in the Peoples' Army of Vietnam in fighting against both the French and the Americans. Yet his death was ignored by the officially controlled Vietnamese press and his funeral was marked by anti- government demonstrations.

 

Nothing in Tran Do's early career could have forecast this outcome. As an idealistic young student he joined the Communist Party in 1940 and was soon arrested and sentenced by the French colonial authorities to 15 years imprisonment. The end of the Second World War saw an end to that and Do was quick to enlist in the newly formed Peoples' Liberation Army to oppose any attempt by the French to re- establish their presence in Vietnam.

 

At that juncture in 1945, being well-educated and with a gift for writing, Do was appointed one of the founding editors of the army newspaper. He was not, however, content to remain an armchair soldier. By 1954 he was appointed Political Commissar of the famous 312 Division which undertook the brunt of the fighting in the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu resulting in the defeat of the French.

 

That had a major impact on Do. He saw not just the heroism of war but also its suffering and encouraged young writers to record their impressions of both sides of the battle. This led to a major confrontation within the top levels of the Vietnamese military and political leadership. Nobody was supposed to challenge Vietnam's great victory over the French. As a result Do kept his head down for the next few years until 1965, when the war against the Americans started to hot up and he returned to active military service.

 

Despite being a northerner, Do was sent south to become the Deputy Political Commissar of the so-called Liberation Army operating in the Mekong delta area. The Americans soon became aware of his presence there and on several occasions reported he had been killed in battle. It was not true. Do was involved in combat but he also spent time writing articles under the pen-name Cuu Long about how the war could be won.

 

Only after the Communist victory in 1975 did Do begin to emerge from his hitherto clandestine existence and, returning to Hanoi, shrugged off his military uniform. He was appointed Deputy Chairman of the National Assembly, a purely figurehead position. More to his liking, he also became Deputy Minister of Culture. As such he had a hard time. The party line was extremely dogmatic whereas, having read widely, he was all in favour of a more liberal attiude towards the arts which he tried to encourage.

 

During this process in the late 1980s Do also came to the conclusion that all the bloodshed and sacrifice that Vietnam had been through in its struggle for independence and freedom was worth nothing if it did not result in true democracy. In other words, he began to speak out against the institutionalisation of the Vietnamese Communist Party as the sole ruling body within the country. This, of course, was heresy and in early 1999 Tran Do was expelled from the party which he had served so long and so faithfully.

 

His expulsion sent shock waves throughout the numerous ranks of army veterans who had served with him during the war. Nor was that all. The security services placed Tran Do under strict surveillance and confiscated the personal memoirs he had started to write. Naturally he protested and remained defiant to the end of his life. So too did his son at Do's funeral. It was an event that the authorities could not ignore. Thousands of people turned out to bid him farewell. Tran Do was truly one of Vietnam's great national heroes both in terms of his military record and in his outspoken calls for democracy.

 

Judy Stowe

 

-------------------------------

Tran Do, army officer and politician: born 1924; married Nguyen Thi Phuc Hang (four sons, one daughter); died Hanoi 9 August 2002.

 

(Reference: Stowe, Judy. (Wednesday, August 21, 2002) Lt-Gen Tran Do - Vietnamese army officer turned dissident. UK: Independent.)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://in.geocities.com/anindiantantric/warfare.html

 

Published on internet:  Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Revised:  Thursday, February 22, 2007

 

Information on the web site is given in good faith about a certain spiritual way of life, irrespective of any specific religion, in the belief that the information is not misused, misjudged or misunderstood. Persons using this information for whatever purpose must rely on their own skill, intelligence and judgment in its application. The webmaster does not accept any liability for harm or damage resulting from advice given in good faith on this website.

Back to An Indian Tantric Homepage Index

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“Thou belongest to That Which Is Undying, and not merely to time alone,” murmured the Sphinx, breaking its muteness at last. “Thou art eternal, and not merely of the vanishing flesh. The soul in man cannot be killed, cannot die. It waits, shroud-wrapped, in thy heart, as I waited, sand-wrapped, in thy world. Know thyself, O mortal! For there is One within thee, as in all men, that comes and stands at the bar and bears witness that there IS a God!

(Reference:  Brunton, Paul. (1962) A Search in Secret Egypt. (17th Impression) London, UK:  Rider & Company. Page:  35.)

Amen

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1