Sunday, November 06, 2011

DTN News - AFGHAN WAR NEWS: Multiple Missteps Led To Drone Killing U.S. Troops In Afghanistan

DTN News - AFGHAN WAR NEWS: Multiple Missteps Led To Drone Killing U.S. Troops In Afghanistan
*Though no dereliction of duty was found, a Pentagon investigation raised troubling questions: Among them: Was the Predator missile fired too quickly?
(NSI News Source Info) HONG KONG - November 6, 2011: (Reporting from Washington)— On the evening of April 5, a pilot settled into a leather captain's chair at Creech Air Force Base in southern Nevada and took the controls of a Predator drone flying over one of the most violent areas of southwestern Afghanistan. Minutes later, his radio crackled.
A firefight had broken out. Taliban insurgents had ambushed about two dozen Marines patrolling a bitterly contested road.
The Air Force captain angled his joystick and the drone veered toward the fighting taking place half a world away, where it was already morning. He powered up two Hellfire missiles under its wings and ordered a crew member responsible for operating the drone's cameras to search for enemy fighters.
It didn't take long to find something. Three figures, fuzzy blobs on the pilot's small black-and-white screen, lay in a poppy field a couple of hundred yards from the road.
"Hey now, wait. Standby on these," the pilot cautioned. "They could be animals in the field." Seconds later, tiny white flashes appeared by the figures — the heat signature of gunfire. "There they are," he said, now sure he was looking at the enemy.
At an Air National Guard base in Terre Haute, Ind., an intelligence analyst whose job it was to monitor the video to help prevent mistakes on the mission also observed the muzzle flashes — but noticed that they were firing away from the embattled Marines.
Marines at Patrol Base Alcatraz, 12 miles from the firefight, watched their screens too, as they kept in contact with both the drone crew and the platoon members, who had set out from the base just an hour earlier. It would be their decision whether to call in a missile strike.
Thirty-one seconds after the pilot reported muzzle flashes, the Marines at Alcatraz ordered that the Predator be prepared to strike if the shooters could be confirmed as hostile. At 8:49 a.m., 29 minutes after the ambush began, they authorized the pilot to fire.
In minutes, two Americans would be dead.
**** The decision to fire a missile from one of the growing fleet of U.S. unmanned aircraft is the result of work by ground commanders, pilots and analysts at far-flung military installations, who analyze video and data feeds and communicate by a system of voice and text messages.
In addition to the platoon taking fire that morning in Helmand province's Upper Sangin Valley, the mission involved Marine Corps and Air Force personnel at four
locations: Marines of the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion at Alcatraz, the drone crew in Nevada, the analyst in Indiana and a mission intelligence coordinator at March Air Reserve Base in California.
Senior officers say drone technology has vastly improved their ability to tell friend from foe in the confusion of battle. But the video can also prompt commanders to make decisions before they fully understand what they're seeing. In February 2009, a crew operating a drone over Afghanistan misidentified a civilian convoy as an enemy force. The Predator pilot and the Army captain who called in the airstrike disregarded warnings from Air Force analysts who had observed children in the convoy. At least 15 people were killed. Adding layers of personnel like the analyst in Indiana to cut down on errors also comes at a price: It may slow down the decision to strike when American lives are at risk. The 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion operated in one of the most violent parts of Afghanistan, an area where drones patrolled virtually nonstop. It had recently revised its procedures to speed up Predator strikes, seeking to prevent "delay of missions by injection of comments" from the Distributed Ground System — military terminology for analysts like the one in Indiana. ****
The embattled platoon was part of the Lone Star Battalion, a reserve unit based in Houston. The unit hadn't seen combat for five years when orders came last year to prepare for a nine-month deployment to Afghanistan. Like any reserve unit, the battalion was a pickup team. Some Marines had combat experience, others had none at all. It arrived in Afghanistan in early March of this year. Its 2nd Platoon was sent to Patrol Base Alcatraz. Befitting its name, Alcatraz is a bleak outpost of mud buildings and tents, frigid in winter, sweltering in summer. "There are no showers, laundry facilities, chow hall or pretty much anything else," said a Marine who spent months there. The platoon was put under the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, an elite unit whose motto was "Swift Silent Deadly." Its Alpha company, which had arrived in Alcatraz five months earlier, engaged in near-daily gun battles with insurgents. Lt. Christopher Huff, a 24-year-old on his first combat tour, and his Texas reservists were given dangerous duty: patrol Route 611, one of the country's most heavily mined roads. The road cuts north-south through opium fields laced with irrigation ditches and mud walls. Tensions quickly emerged between the newcomers and the other Marines. A master sergeant later said the reservists were ordered "not to go more than 100 meters" off the road. The platoon had a reputation for "not knowing where their guys are located," he said. **** Among the platoon's veterans was Staff Sgt. Jeremy D. Smith, 26, who had enlisted in the Marines in 2003 after graduating from high school in Arlington, Texas. After three tours in Iraq, where his men called him "Warrior Poet" for his sensitive nature and the country music lyrics he wrote, he shifted to the reserves. He got married in April 2009 and talked of getting a job in law enforcement. His Marine enlistment was almost up, so he didn't have to go to Afghanistan. But he had an American flag tattooed on his shoulder, and his email address included the words "last of a dying breed." He volunteered. His proud father, Jerry, called his son "a Marine's Marine" who wanted to be in Afghanistan to lead his men in combat. Another volunteer was Benjamin D. Rast, 23, a burly Navy hospitalman on his first tour. After graduating from high school in Niles, Mich., he went to a local college. He also played a season of semi-professional football, but tore up his knee. Rast enlisted in the Navy in 2008 and was sent to the Naval Medical Center in San Diego. He yearned to see combat. He was assigned to the Lone Star Battalion as a corpsman, the Marines' term for a combat medic. At Camp Pendleton, where the unit trained for five months before its deployment, he was dubbed "Doc Rast." "What if something happens to you? What will I say to everybody?" his father, Robert, asked his son. "Tell them I wanted to be on the front lines covering the guy on my left and on my right," the young man replied. **** Searching for buried bombs had a numbing sameness. Although more than 30 improvised bombs exploded along the road in 2nd Platoon's first month in Afghanistan, it had managed to avoid casualties. The morning of April 6 would start the same way. Huff, Smith, Rast and the rest of the platoon, along with an Afghan interpreter and a bomb-sniffing dog named Susie, left Alcatraz about 7:20 a.m. in four armored trucks, heading north. After half an hour, a bomb exploded beneath the third vehicle, but it caused minimal damage. Huff had planned to conduct foot patrols nearby, so they drove another 300 yards and unloaded. Huff ordered part of the platoon to search the road for more bombs. Seven others, including Smith, Rast and a sniper squad, were told to take positions 50 yards or so west of the road to guard against an ambush. Smith led the team single file down an irrigation canal perpendicular to the road, intending to turn and set up positions as instructed. But walls and other barriers blocked their way, so they went farther west. As they crossed a field, shots suddenly crackled in their direction. "We all hit the deck and returned covering fire," one of the snipers recalled. No one was sure where the shots had come from, he said, but a cluster of buildings about 200 yards to the west seemed likely. Another member of the team, Sgt. Jared Hammonds, a 27-year-old reservist from Conroe, Texas, yelled their coordinates into the radio. Once the shooting let up, the squad ran to the nearest canal and splashed through knee-deep water. They were still trying to get a fix on the insurgents. When vegetation in the ditch forced them into a poppy field, they came under fire again. They dropped to the ground again and fired toward the buildings. *** At the Air National Guard base in Indiana, the Air Force analyst watched the battle unfold on the drone's video feed. The analyst, a technical sergeant in a reserve unit, was to message minute-by-minute reports to the mission intelligence coordinator in California, who could pass them on to the crew controlling the drone. Like the drone pilot, the analyst in Indiana saw three men and muzzle flashes. The analyst typed "3 friendlies in FOV," meaning three non-insurgents in the camera's field of view. A second later, he wrote "Pers are shooting W," meaning they were firing west, away from the Marines on the road. He sent the fragmentary reports to March Reserve Air Force Base, his communications link to the drone crew. A trainee studied the video there under supervision of the mission intelligence coordinator. Almost immediately, the analyst had doubts. "Disregard," he wrote, followed by "Not friendlies," followed by "unable to discern who pers are." But he was certain of one thing: The shots were aimed away from the Marines. The mission intelligence coordinator and the trainee were dubious. They thought the shots were aimed east toward the Marine convoy. The trainee messaged the Indiana analyst to "double check" his coordinates — and didn't relay the information to the drone crew. As debate about the direction of the gunfire continued over the chat system, the analyst did not have access to radio traffic indicating a strike was imminent. And as he was preparing to strike, the Predator pilot was unaware of the analyst's doubts. **** At Alcatraz, a captain and a gunnery sergeant from 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion's Alpha company had requested air support after the platoon first reported gunfire at 8:20 a.m. When a Marine unit comes under attack, air or artillery support is supposed to be available within 10 minutes. The Predator was circling overhead in seven minutes. The Marines at Alcatraz asked the drone crew to search for Marines along the road and for insurgents to the west. They also pressed Huff to confirm his men's positions. Huff reported that his men were on the road, or within 50 yards of it. In fact, some were more than 200 yards away. At 8:41 a.m., the Predator pilot in Nevada reported seeing the muzzle flashes from three prone figures in the poppy field. The Marine officers quickly issued a "preemptive" order to prepare the Predator to fire. The captain radioed to confirm where platoon members were and told Huff that the Predator was prepared to strike near a low-slung structure marked as Building 58 on detailed military maps "if it was still a viable target." The gunnery sergeant radioed in the captain's call sign to authorize the missile strike eight minutes later. Hearing the order, Huff warned his scattered squad over the radio: "Get your guys down — danger close." Hammonds shouted at a corporal to find Building 58 on their map. "I hear [Huff] on the radio for us to take cover and I relayed it to my guys," he recalled. "Near the canal on the west side is a low wall that I tell everyone to get behind." Smith and Rast were still out in the poppy field. Hammonds' radio blared again: The Hellfire missile would hit in 17 seconds. He shouted at Smith and Rast to hustle. Suddenly the corporal found the building on his map. It was behind them, not the suspected Taliban position farther west. He yelled out, "Building 58 is the wrong building!" **** The missile exploded almost on top of Smith. Running across the field, Hammonds found Rast face down with a large wound behind his ear. Smith lay five yards away, but his condition was clear. "I knew he was dead," Hammonds said. Other Marines rushed to try to save Rast. They restored his pulse, but only briefly. They noticed Hammonds intently searching the ground. "What are you doing?" the sniper team leader demanded. "Trying to find Smith's wedding ring," Hammonds replied. Smith had worn the silver band on a chain around his neck. He found the ring and would return it to Smith's wife, Rachel. **** The Pentagon investigation into the deaths of Smith and Rast, the first friendly-fire deaths known to have been caused by a drone attack, was led by Marine Col. Randy Newman, a former regimental commander in Afghanistan. The incident raised a series of broad questions: How did the battalion's new rules for handling Predator strikes affect the decision to strike? Was the missile fired too quickly? Did the system built to help commanders make better decisions break down again? Newman's 381-page report placed much of the blame on Huff, maintaining that up until the moment the missile was fired, he could have called it off. It criticized Huff for failing to keep track of his men, and two sergeants for sending inaccurate radio reports that misled the lieutenant about their locations — and led the Marines at Alcatraz to call in the drone strike on the wrong location. However, it said the deaths were due to "miscommunications," and that no one was "culpably negligent or derelict in their duties." The names of everyone involved except Smith and Rast — and, in one place, Huff — were redacted in a copy of the report obtained by The Times. In addition to material contained in the report, this article is based on interviews with family members and Marine Corps and Air Force officers involved in the case. The commander of the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, Lt. Col. L.K. Hussey, declined to be interviewed. Some ground officers appear wary of distant Air Force analysts who can delay air support for their men under fire. A senior U.S. officer familiar with the incident said the decision to strike as soon as muzzle flashes were seen was understandable "because of the urgency of supporting the guys on the ground, and to pursue a fleeting target." Newman's report said the analysts should have been more aggressive in raising their concerns in the minutes before the missile attack. But the analysts said they were trained not to intercede when U.S. troops were in danger unless they saw women and children present, or evidence of a possible war crime. In the minutes after the attack, an apparently distraught Huff radioed back to Alcatraz that he "didn't know why we had to hit that position," said a Marine officer who received the transmission. While acknowledging that he didn't know some of his Marines were so far away, Huff told investigators that insurgent fire had mostly died down prior to the Predator attack and that he "felt like he had the situation under control." Others, in both the Marine Corps and Air Force, also question the speed of the strike. "We simply ran out of time," the mission intelligence coordinator said. A sergeant in Huff's platoon said that the time between the Predator's arrival overhead and when it fired the missile "was too short to allow for assessment and actions" by Marines on the ground. At the Pentagon, a senior Marine officer described the decision to launch the missile as "a rush to judgment." **** After the Predator pilot learned of the fatal mistake, he asked to be relieved at the controls. "The gravity of the matter overcame my ability to continue focusing on the task at hand," he explained. Replaying the video and voice communications, he was stunned to see that the muzzle flashes were aimed away from the road. He was "completely confused as to how I saw exactly the opposite sitting in the seat." He asked for the video to be stopped and left the building. An Air Force chaplain was waiting outside. david.cloud@latimes.com
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated November 1, 2011

DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated November 1, 2011
(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - November 1, 2011: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Contracts issued November 1,2011 are undermentioned;

CONTRACTS

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is announcing the award of an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Raytheon Co., Integrated Defense Systems, of Woburn, Mass., under MDA contract HQ0147-12-D-0005. The total ceiling award value is $307,580,000. Under this new contract, the contractor will perform sustainment efforts to maintain software required to operate the X-band family of radars and BMDS test planning, execution and analysis. The work will be performed in Woburn, Mass. The ordering period is from Nov. 1, 2011 through Oct. 31, 2013. Fiscal year 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund the initial orders. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is not a Foreign Military Sales acquisition. The MDA,Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

ARMY

Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Inc., Knoxville, Tenn., (W912QR-12-D-0001); Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group Inc., Pasadena, Calif., (W912QR-12-D-0002); URS Group Inc., Omaha, Neb., (W912QR-12-D-0003); Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Pittsburgh, Penn., (W912QR-12-D-0004); CH2M Hill Constructors Inc., Englewood, Colo., (W912QR-12-D-0005); PARS – Gannett Fleming JV, Robbinsville, N.J., (W912QR-12-D-0006); Bay West Inc., St. Paul, Minn., (W912QR-12-D-0007); Cape Environmental Management Inc., Norcross, Ga., (W912QR-12-D-0008); HydroGeoLogic Inc., Reston, Va., (W912QR-12-D-0009); Plexus Scientific Corp., Alexandria, Va., (W912QR-12-D-0010); and Earth Resources Technology Inc., Laurel, Md., (W912QR-12-D-0011); were awarded a $450,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract between 11 contractors. The award will provide for the environmental and restoration services for the Louisville District and all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission boundaries. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 27, 2021. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 12 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Ky., is the contracting activity.

The Boeing Co., Mesa, Ariz., was awarded a $53,020,686 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to support the AH-64D Apache. Work will be performed in Mesa, Ariz., with an estimated completion date of Feb. 28, 2014. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-09-C-0161).

The Boeing Co., Mesa, Ariz., was awarded a $29,853,554 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure two AH-64D Apache War Replacement Aircraft. Work will be performed in Mesa, Ariz., with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2013. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-05-C-0274).

Speegle Construction Inc., Niceville, Fla., was awarded a $24,645,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of a Special Operation Forces Operation and Training Facility and an Unmanned Aerial Support Squad Operations Facility at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M. Work will be performed in Curry County, N.M., with an estimated completion date of Jan. 7, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 19 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, N.M., is the contracting activity (W912PP-12-C-0003).

Lockheed Martin Corp., Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $16,100,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 missile segment enhancement follow-on flight tests. Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas; Chelmsford, Mass.; Camden, Ark.; Huntsville, Ala.; Pinellas, Fla.; Vergennes, Vt.; Hollister, Calif.; Torrance, Calif.; and Wichita, Kan.; with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2012. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-07-G-0001).

Computer Sciences Corp., – Defense, Falls Church, Va., was awarded a $14,658,512 time-and-materials contract. The award will provide for the systems engineering and technical assistance services in support of the Force Protection Systems. Work will be performed in Fort Belvoir, Va., and Fairfax County, Va., with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2012. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with four bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity (W91WAW-07-C-0080).

K.L. House Construction Co., Inc., Albuquerque, N.M., was awarded a $13,260,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction services on Cannon Air Force Base, N.M. Work will be performed in Curry County, N.M., with an estimated completion date of Feb. 12, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, N.M., is the contracting activity (W912PP-12-C-0002).

A-T Solutions Inc., Fredericksburg, Va., was awarded a $9,851,037 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to provide counter-improvised explosive device training programs in support of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with four bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W91CRB-09-C-0043).

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Herndon, Va., was awarded a $7,185,927 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing project to procure sense-and-warn capabilities in support of ongoing theater of operation efforts. Work will be performed in Bagram, Afghanistan; Baghdad, Iraq; and Huntsville, Ala.; with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2011. One bid was solicited, with one bid was received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-11-C-0088).

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Bethpage, N.Y. was awarded contract SPM4AX-12-D-9401. The award is a sole source, firm fixed price contract with a maximum $26,000,000 for airborne electronic attack spares and radio frequency switches. Other location of performance is Linthicum, Maryland. Using service is Navy. Type of appropriation is Navy Working Capital fund using FY 2012 – FY2014 funds. The date of performance completion is July 31, 2014. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Strategic Acquisitions at Philadelphia, Pa.

Bren-Tronics Inc., Commack, N.Y. * was awarded contract SPRBL1-12-D-0001. The award is a sole source, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, fixed price with economic price adjustment contract with a maximum $23,126,200 for CSEL battery and adapter for the AN/PRQ-7 CSEL radio. No other location of performance. Using service is Army. Type of appropriation is Army Working Capital fund using FY 2012 funds. The date of performance completion is November 1, 2016. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land at Aberdeen, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

NAVY

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine is being awarded a $14,392,031 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2303) exercising options for DDG 1000-class services and class logistics services. This contract modification provides additional class services associated with the detail design and construction of DDG 1000-class ships. This work will provide technical and industrial engineering in the interpretation and application of the detail design to support construction and the maintenance of the ship design. The class logistics effort is for the continued development of DDG 1000-class integrated logistics support which includes development of training curriculum, supply support documentation, maintenance analyses, and configuration status accounting. Work will be performed in Bath, Maine, and is expected to be completed by November 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

URS-IAP, LLC, Austin, Texas, is being awarded a $6,858,080 cost-plus-award-fee modification to increase the maximum dollar value of task order #0008 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N62470-06-D-6009) for the design and construction of a dining facility, network infrastructure improvements, water production facility, fuel farm, western taxiway, and full length taxiway, at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti. After award of this modification, the total cumulative task order value will be $74,158,298. Work will be performed in Djibouti, Africa, and is expected to be completed by June 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Europe Africa Southwest Asia, Naples, Italy, is the contracting activity.

AIR FORCE

Advanced Federal Services Corp., Madison, Ala., is being awarded a $10,602,369 cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide civil engineering support on the Base Operations Service Support (BOSS) contract. The primary location of performance is Fort Eustis, Va. 633rd Contracting Squadron (CONS), Langley Air Force Base, Va., is the contracting activity (W911S0-08-C-0001 Option Year 4).

*Small Business

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

Monday, October 31, 2011

DTN News - ASIAN BOOMING ECONOMIES: The Web Of New Alignments In Asia

DTN News - ASIAN BOOMING ECONOMIES: The Web Of New Alignments In Asia DTN Canada Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Outlook

(NSI News Source Info) NEW DELHI, India - October 31, 2011: On October 4, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai winged out of the darkness louring over

his country to land in India for a two-day visit. A week later, India hosted the Vietnamese President, Truong Tan Sang, and his Myanmarese counterpart Thein Sein in succession. In case you are wondering what prompted the heads of state of these three countries—not occupying much mindspace of ordinary Indians—to come calling on New Delhi, a rebalancing of regional power equations has escaped your notice. In a nutshell, key countries across Asia are currently engaged in the business of forging new alliances. Three crucial factors seem to have sparked off the diplomatic realignment. To begin with, Asia is home to some of the fastest growing economies of the world, and holds out hope of rejuvenating a global economy so palpably destitute of any vim. Yet, ironically, Asia is also the battleground where some of the bloodiest conflicts of the world are being fought. The third factor is the rise of China— economically galloping, occasionally flexing its muscles and generating consternation across the continent.

In this ongoing realignment, India has emerged as a player, a surety of sorts against the vagaries of the future. What has enabled India to carve a niche of its own is its impressive growth over the last 10 years, its inclusive democracy, its growing military might, and the faith the US has reposed in New Delhi’s ability to play a global role. As former ministry of external affairs secretary N. Ravi told Outlook, “It’s not only the familiarity and trust that all these countries have with India but also the fact that our development and growth provides a framework for many of them to use as a model.”

Hamid Karzai’s recent visit best illustrates the vantage position India occupies. With Pakistan-controlled terror groups killing top Afghan leaders and the atmosphere of acrimony enveloping US-Pak relations, a rattled Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement with India. It was perceived as an attempt to register growing frustration with Islamabad’s reluctance to act against terror groups operating from Pakistani soil against the Karzai regime. It was Karzai’s way of telling Pakistan that it had better accede to his wishes or else run the risk of seeing India emerge as a major player in Afghanistan. To put it mildly, this is anathema to Pakistan, with its cult of ‘strategic depth’, which demands a friendly neighbour in the west so that it can focus on its eastern border with India.

Srinath Raghavan of the Centre for Policy Research provides another reason: “Unlike others, India worked on a stand-alone basis in Afghanistan by talking to the Afghans directly and not through the US or others. Through the agreement, Karzai has recognised India as a long-term and reliable partner.”

If Afghanistan and India have come closer, then so have China and Pakistan. What has prompted Islamabad to seek Beijing as never before is Washington’s refusal to accept Pakistan as the sole arbiter of Afghanistan’s future. Frustrated and angry, Pakistan has been talking tough with the US. Some in the Indian foreign policy establishment feel Pakistan’s bold stance has been at China’s behest. Others, however, feel this could be China’s method of merely testing America’s resolve. Their argument: it isn’t in Beijing’s interest to allow the Pak-US problems to fester beyond a point. It, therefore, might soon ask Pakistan to back off. Their reason? Instability and violence in Afghanistan could spill over into China and impact its growth. Nor would China want to substitute the Americans—and consequently commit its resources—in bolstering Pakistan’s creaking economy. In this game of bluff and bluster, Karzai sees in India an important card to play against Pakistan.

The emerging tapestry of alliances in Asia demands that nations strike a balance among the contending powers.
China’s rise may have emboldened Pakistan, but it’s perhaps just the reverse for Vietnam—it has long felt nervous and vulnerable about Beijing’s hegemonic tendencies in the South China Sea. Last month, Vietnam’s decision to enter into a joint oil exploration project with India in the South China Sea was contested by Beijing, which claims ownership of much of the resources there. No wonder, Vietnam and India have begun to increasingly view each other as strategic partners who are synchronising their steps across many domains—from economic cooperation and trade to capacity building, defence and security. With Vietnamese president Sang by his side, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh harped on the need for the two countries to keep the sea-lanes free and secure.

But the emerging tapestry of alliances demands that countries strike a fine balance among contending powers. It does not mean a “zero sum game”—gains for one country and losses for another. So even as Sang was in India, Vietnam thought it prudent to send the general secretary of its ruling Communist Party to Beijing to engage with leaders there.

The quest to cultivate India saw Myanmarese President Thein Sein land in New Delhi a day after Sang’s departure. From the time Sein was elected president early this year, he has taken some momentous decisions—from releasing dissident leader Aung San Suu Kyi to granting greater freedom of operation to opposition parties. Perhaps the most surprising of his decisions was to stop work on the $3.6-billion, Chinese financed Myitsone hydro-electric power project recently. Over the past years, Myanmar has been reaching out to India to nurture options other than China, which enjoys a predominant influence over the leadership there. Again, Myanmar too sent its vice-president to Beijing to explain to its leadership why it has suspended work on the Myitsone project.

Is the inclination of these countries to woo India and yet not alienate China confusing? Raghavan provides the answer: “All the smaller neighbours are expanding their options so that they don’t end up being dominated by any single country. (But) the visit of the three presidents demonstrates that more countries in Asia are now keen to see India play a bigger role in the region, much beyond South Asia.” This strategy suits the Indian foreign policy establishment, which too believes that a growing web of engagement is the best answer to prevent a single power from dominating the region.

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS