NYT report on 26/11: Yes, everyone knew, and yes, it could happen again

We should get ready for an even more complex counterterrorism threat in the time to come. But are we ready?

Col R Hariharan

The latest revelations in the New York Times story about the collective failure of India, the US and Britain to share advance information they had on the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s 26/11 attack on Mumbai would come as no surprise to members of intelligence community anywhere.

The al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks carried out in the US remain the mother of all such SNAFUs (situation normal, all fouled up) by a government which had not acted in spite of getting advance information.

The Bush administration chose to ignore a number of warnings of Osama bin Laden’s impending attack, received from different sources including the CIA. According to a Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, which had warned of an al Qaeda plan to hijack a commercial airliner leaving from Frankfurt International Airport between March and August 2000, was disregarded because nobody believed that either Osama or the Taliban was capable of carrying out such an operation.

The 9/11 commission had found “four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management" of various agencies involved in fighting terrorism. All these relate to the leadership failure at various levels to take quick follow-up actions, though the administration and the media quickly attributed such terror attacks to intelligence failure.

The 26/11 attack itself is a classic example of multiple failures. The NYT report gives details of the failure of the US, Britain and India, which gleaned different bits of information. But none of them eviscerated a coherent picture of the terrorists’ intentions.

In the 26/11 attack, there was executive failure at various levels make use of available information. Both the RAW and the Intelligence Bureau had given advance information on the LeT training its cadres for carrying out a sea-based raid on key targets in Mumbai.

In fact, they had provided details of trainees, training schedule and trainers to Mumbai police as early as December 2006. And Mumbai police had alerted the hotels that were subsequently targeted. But the police lifted the alert as it was “too general” and the Navy and the Coast Guard probably ignored it after the Naval chief was said to have called it “not actionable”. And when the attack took place everyone was totally unprepared because they had not taped up their drills. These included the Union home ministry.

Since then a lot of effort and money has been spent upon improving our technology resources for intelligence gathering, coordination and dissemination. Qualitative improvement is taking place in coastal security set up. Despite many states resisting quantitative and qualitative improvements in policing, quite a few terrorist modules have been busted. The National Intelligence Agency is increasingly bringing in its expertise to help investigations before terrorists carry out 26/11-styled attacks.

But still, the moot question is, are we confident that such an attack would not be repeated? Before answering it, it is good to remember that no intelligence is going to be complete or always timely.

The New York Times report is a testimony to the reluctance of intelligence agencies to share information available to them instantly with other nations. There are a number of professional reasons for this. This happens even among nations like the US and Australia, which have very close security relations.

Apart from political complications, they want to protect their sources who might be involved in collecting other information. So they generally give it a high security classification; this automatically limits its circulation.

With technology leaping forward in snooping and eavesdropping on communication intelligence, agencies are sitting on a tome of inputs. So they have a major problem in identifying and sifting through information to evolve usable assessment in time even to meet their own requirement, let alone for other countries’ benefit.

So despite all the pious pronouncements, nations will continue to share information as they choose and nothing more. That is why all nations including India are augmenting their own intelligence resources. But in the war against terrorism, it is going to be even more difficult as the terrorist is getting increasingly tech-savvy and makes use of the same technological advances the intelligence gatherers enjoy. 

So we should get ready for an even more complex counterterrorism threat in the time to come. But are we ready? It is for the people to demand the answer from rulers, particularly at the state level.

Courtesy: DailyO, December 24, 2914

 http://www.dailyo.in/opinion/nyt-report-on-2611-yes-everyone-knew-and-yes-it-could-happen-again/story/1/1210.html

China' factor in Sri Lanka election and strategic security

 Col R Hariharan

Any narrative on Sri Lanka would be incomplete if India's overwhelming influence in Sri Lanka is not considered. It comes from India's huge geographic size, economic strength and global political influence from times immemorial.

After the British colonial power exited from South Asia, independent India's dominance gave rise to anxiety among sections of Sri Lankans, particularly among the Sinhala Buddhist majority who saw their country as Theravada Buddhism’s last sanctuary.

The sense of anxiety gave way to feeling of insecurity across Sri Lanak particularly after India's massive political and military intervention from 1987 to 90 to ensure the state redressed the grievances of Tamil minority population.

Though the Tamil minority question is still unresolved, Indian intervention had a positive, but cathartic effect to impart balance and realism to the largely unequal relationship between the two countries. During the last two decades both the countries have assiduously built a multi-faceted relationship. Its hallmark is probably the close strategic coordination that exists today between them to address and repair their mutual concerns on national security issues.   

Both of your questions on China have to be answered in this as the backdrop. The questions relate to the impact of China's increasing presence and influence on Sri Lanka's Jan 2015 Presidential election and upon India's close strategic security relations with Sri Lanka and the region.

China factor

Q: A Sri Lankan ambassador to Cuba once called Sri Lanka a "natural aircraft carrier" for the Chinese. How likely is that scenario? If China were to establish a permanent naval presence in Sri Lanka, how would that impact regional politics?

Sri Lanka is the strategic gateway to India from Indian Ocean just  as India is the guarantor of Sri Lanka's freedom from external threat and invasion. At the same time their close geostrategic umbilical relationship makes both of them highly vulnerable to any external threat to either of them. The reality is if China’s increasing presence in Sri Lanka affects India's strategic security, its fall out will be upon Sri Lanka as well. 

So establishment of a permanent Chinese naval presence in Sri Lanka would dislocate the strategic balance in this region for two reasons. Naval power has become a key to China's power projection in Asia-Pacific region, particularly after PLA Navy modernisation has made rapid progress.

China is entering the South  and Central Asia in a big way investing huge amounts in building the land and maritime infrastructure to the resurrect the Silk Route to external world including Central and South Asia and what it calls the Maritime Silk road. Sri Lanka jas an unrivalled pivotal position in the maritime route because it is midway on the sea lanes of  communication from Europe to East Asia and Pacific.

Any Chinese strategic intrusion in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) has to reckon with the naval power of India - "the largest and most capable Indian Ocean littoral" as retired Indian Vice Admiral PS Das puts it. In his words this gives India "serious interests in the Western Pacific [as well] through which half of its overseas trade moves."

While assessing Chinese naval threat the twin weaknesses of PLA-N have to be considered. PLAN is yet to demonstrate its mastery of fleet operations particularly employing carrier borne forces. Despite its increasing number of ships and modernisation of command and control systems, can the present PLAN match Indian navy's five decades of fleet and aircraft operational experience to dominate the Indian Ocean? This remains the moot question. Under such limitations, it would be reasonable to expect the PLAN to do so around the last quarter of the coming decade. And India is in no mood to accept it lying.

All these are in the realm of speculation if it is considered in the emerging Asia-Pacific strategic logjam where Russia, China, India, Japan and the U.S. are locked in a complex game of power assertion. It involves not merely their military power, but also the economic and global relationship clout as well.

So it would be realistic to conclude that China with its desire to expand its economic and strategic influence this region would rather have India as an ally, if not a partner, than as a foe. Both China and Sri Lanka have repeatedly averred that China's port infrastructure constructions in Sri Lanka relate to merchant marine facilities and not for naval operations.

At the same time, it would be prudent to remember they would tremendously increase opportunities for the Chinese intelligence to improve their snooping and electronic eaves dropping on India. They would also provide legitimate opportunities for Chinese war ships to operate in India’s close proximity.

Q: What are Sri Lanka's best long-term options given all the financing and infrastructure that China has brought to the economy? Should it place its bets by aligning itself more closely with Beijing? Can it continue to play China and India off against each other?

The best option for Sri Lanka is to cultivate India to make productive use of the infrastructure built with expensive Chinese loans and project expertise. India has the power and potential to do so in Sri Lanka because its aid comes at one third the cost of Chinese loans. It can be encouraged to create joint enterprises with China so that they generate a lot of employment and make Sri Lanka a commercial capital in Asia.

Sri Lanka has adequate wisdom not to align itself totally with China which has a tendency to gobble up local joint ventures and create closed facilities outside the control of local government. 

All nations play their diplomatic cards to get the maximum out of other countries; Sri Lanka has neither the size nor the strength to play off India and China against each other. Their agenda is much larger and Sri Lanka forms only one part of it; so I do not subscribe to the ‘street smartness’ of Sri Lanka playing any cards in the power game of giant Asian nations.  

Q: Given regional concerns about China's growing assertiveness, are outsiders/third-parties watching these Sri Lankan elections more than usual? (Or should they be?)

Of course, outsiders and third-parties are watching the Sri Lanka elections more than usual not merely because of their concerns about China which will have only peripheral impact. Under the leadership of President Rajapaksa Sri Lanka is rapidly slipping into authoritarian mode with Rajapaksa family gaining control of the reins of power.That is their concern.

Mahinda Rajapaksa gained unmatched national popularity after he master-minded the total destruction of Prabhakaran-led Tamil Tiger separatists who held the nation to ransom for three decades. This helped him gain a huge majority in parliament.

But he has used his national popularity after the war not to resolve the vexing Tamil issue but to strengthen his power base. In the process fundamental freedoms have been curtailed, dissent suppressed, critical media hounded and pillars of democratic governance like the judiciary have been subverted. Lawlessness has become all pervading. While the President enjoys unfettered power, his brothers exercise control over the finances and the bloated armed forces. Last but not least, Tamil minority’s unattended grievances have the seeds to germinate Tamil separatism all over again out of the ashes of the Tamil Tigers.

So the Western world - particularly the EU and the U.S. are concerned because Rajapaksa has used xenophobia to ward off even the UN demand for greater accountability for gross human rights violations and alleged war crimes committed under his watch. He has nurtured latent anti-American feelings among the rightwing fringe for his political benefit.

Added to these concerns, India's worries have increased over Rajapaksa's studied indifference to implement his own promises to India to kick start the political process with Tamils.

Politically it reflects India's weakening ability to influence Sri Lanka. This should be of concern to Prime Minister Modi though he has managed to free the Indian government from the retrograde influence of Tamil Nadu politics which hobbled India's policy making for the last two decades. So Sri Lanka   Presidential election.is of special interest to the international community. This is more so after Rajapaksa's own long term political aide Maithripala Sirisena walked out to emerge as the common opposition candidate to deny a third term for Rajapaksa. 

[Col R Hariharan is a retired MI officer who served as the head of intelligence with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info ]

Written on December 23, 2014

Courtesy: Chennai Centre for China Studies Paper No. 2094 dated December 24, 2014 http://www.c3sindia.org/strategicissues/4734 

Some thoughts on Victory Day

 Col R Hariharan

[Based on excerpts from an interview in a TV channel beamed on the occasion of ‘Vijaya Divas’ on December 16, 2014.]

Q: On the occasion of the Victory Day commemorating India’s victory in the 1971 India-Pakistan War, what are your thoughts in general?

The 1971 War was not merely another India-Pakistan War. It was probably the shortest war after II World War that created a new nation. It restored the prestige Indian army had lost in the 1962 conflict with China. 

In 1965 as an artillery officer I was at the frontline in 1965 Kutch operations, which was a prelude to the 1965 India Pakistan War that ended in a stalemate. So participating in the 1971 war as part of the victorious 57 Mountain Division that marched into Dhaka on December 15, 1971 was of special significance to me.

I could visibly see the rising morale of our troops as we moved forward with lightning speed. The Victory Day is a tribute to our soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of the people of Bangladesh. 

Officially it started on December 3, 1971 when Pakistan Air Force carried out Operation Chenghiz Khan and struck 11 Indian air bases to trigger the war. But in eastern sector, skirmishes with Pak army had been going on even before that. It ended on December 16, 1971 when General AAK Niazi, commander of Pak forces, signed the surrender document in Dhaka. The end of the war saw 93,000 Pak soldiers who surrendered as prisoners of war in our custody. Pak Army’s strong anti-India sentiment is rooted in their shameful defeat in 1971 war.

Q: Who is the real hero of the 1971 War?

For me there was more than one hero. For the people of India and Bangladesh Mrs Indira Gandhi was the idol. She had the courage and drive to achieve her objective in the face of American threats and Chinese intimidation. 

She kept the international community fully informed of India’s concerns to the human tragedy that was being enacted in East Pakistan by Pak Army. Mrs Gandhi signed the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty before going to the war; it came in handy when Nixon tried to browbeat India by sending the 7^th Fleet to break the Indian naval cordon around East Pakistan. Last but not the least, Mrs Gandhi listened to General (later Field Marshal) Sam Manekshaw’s advice to give adequate time to the armed forces to prepare for a winning war. She would be remembered for this achievement despite all other shortcomings of her overbearing rule of the country.

Of course, for all of us in and out of uniform Sam would always remain the Hero of the 1971 war. He planned the war with text book precision.  I saw the flawless execution of the plan first-hand because we trained for it in the earlier months. Not one detail was missed out. We had reinforcements positioned in our rear areas to replace war casualties. Food supplies, fuel and ammunition were stocked well before we went to war. Civil administrators were ready to be inducted into captured areas to ensure continuity of the administration. Such planning and preparation were in sharp contrast to the 1965 war and I am sad to say in the more recent Kargil operation as well.

I would also include the people of Bangladesh who defied the Pak Army’s might and inhuman conduct and fought alongside with us both in and out of uniform. I salute them for their patriotic fervour with which they fought to protect their area of habitation, language and culture.

Q. It is alright to talk of army during times of war or on the Victory Day but what do they do in normal times?

Your question reflects the mindset of most people who consider armed forces as a burden on society. We are able to sit like this in peace because someone out there, day or night, is either ready or training to be ready to ensure our security is not threatened. Army trains eight to nine months a year to hone their military skills and fitness for war. As against this, civilian organizations i.e. big companies or multinationals train their staff for a maximum of nine days. Other organizations train for one and half days in a year.

That is why the armed forces are able to go into action in real time even in peace time i.e. national disaster like earthquake or tsunami. Recently when Jammu and Kashmir faced devastating floods that immobilized the government machinery it was the army and air force that immediately brought succour and relief to the people.

A few days back when water supply system was damaged and the people of Maldives faced unprecedented water shortage, it was an Indian naval ship that went to their aid in a matter of hours. It supplied immediately 10 tons of water stored in the ship and continues to provide 4 tons of water a day from its desalination plant to the people. You might also remember the 2004 tsunami disaster; it was Indian navy that reached Sri Lanka with relief materials in a matter of three hours after the disaster. Sadly we do not educate our people on these issues; even educated persons do not know the difference between a Param Vir Chakra and a Vir Chakra and the criteria for eligibility.

Q. Why do people join army, for livelihood or as a service to the nation?

In our times soldiers came mainly from regions where joining the army was a tradition or a done thing. It gave them dignified identity in society regardless of their social and educational limitations. In Tamil Nadu they mostly came from dry districts of Ramnad and North Arcot. They were mostly rural folks with little education but accustomed to privation and hardship. And army took care of them.

Now things have changed. People are better educated. They have better job opportunities nearer their homes with better pay and comfort levels, whereas army service means separation from your families and hardship in difficult areas. Most of those who join the army now are from semi-urban and urban areas accustomed to a softer lifestyle. They join the army because they could not get a lucrative civilian job or failed to get a secure government job. So there is a qualitative change in the armed forces. We have to accept this and adopt measures to overcome the limitations it imposes. 

Once they join the services, the army trains them to take pride in their service to the nation. In this process it imbues them with a spirit of sacrifice for the honour of their fellowmen, ‘paltan’ (regiment), family, community, and region.

Q. Civilians feel their freedom is curtailed in the army. Is it true? Did you ever feel while in service or now that your military service has been a waste?

It is true army curtails certain freedoms available to the citizen; for example an army man cannot form a union. He has to follow a chain of command for all his actions. At the same time, it provides him a disciplined way to lead a healthy life and optimize his performance in a planned and structured way to achieve clear objectives using time tested methods. This is achieved through regimentation of ideas and functioning.

But it also provides space for you to function with very little interference in your area of responsibility. Different opinions are accepted if put across in appropriate occasions. As an intelligence officer I had to present assessments from the enemy perspective which could be at variance with the operational plan. Invariably, I found the commanders listened to it carefully even if they did not agree with it before they implemented their operational plan. 

All of us who serve either in uniform or otherwise feel disgusted at times with the way things are done. It is a natural phenomenon. But such occasions are few while in service because you are steeped in your work. Of course, when a serviceman retires he comes out of his cocooned life and orderly world. So it takes some time for him to confront with problems created by caste and religious issues which seem to rule the roost in civilian style of work and lifestyle.

There has been a societal change in the attitudes towards armed forces. Previously they were held in high esteem by civil administration. But it is not so now; this is not only in India but all over the world.

As a commanding officer I have written to the District Collector to help a soldier in getting illegal occupation of his land vacated. And it always used to work. Even before I left the army, I saw a change in the response of civil administration. Nowadays it is unfair to expect a collector take such remedial action to help a soldier because he is under tremendous extraneous pressure from politicians or other negative influences.  Probably even if he wants he might not be able deliver because his bosses would not allow him to do so.

This has downgraded the ability of the officer to intercede on behalf of the aggrieved soldier, particularly when they see their commanders are unable to get even the errors in army pay scales rectified.

One thing that makes me feel disgusted is that we have not built a war memorial in our national capital after we became independent. All efforts of serving soldiers and chiefs to get it sanctioned have failed and nobody seems to be bothered. It is a shame we continue to use the war memorial built by the British colonial power. In Tamil Nadu, memorials and statues have been put up for many individuals including fictional characters. But there is no memorial for thousands of soldiers from the state who perished for the country. This national disregard for the war dead makes me feel ashamed of being an ineffective veteran. 

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: haridirect@gmail.com   Blog: http://col.hariharan.info)  

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 5845 dated December 18, 2014 http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1680