Beware of  the American Armageddon

Air Commodore (Retd) JAMAL HUSSAIN says that we should be wary of the US.

The end of the Second World War witnessed the emergence of USA as an economic and military superpower. The refreshing aspect of the American dominance in its earlier stages was its willingness to help its friends and allies get back to their feet after the carnage and destruction of the Great War. USSR, with a very different ideology soon emerged as a rival to challenge USA’s sole supremacy and the world was bisected into two distinct camps – the capitalist and the communist. There were a number of countries that claimed to be neutral but in essence they had to lean to one side or the other.

The bi-polar world lasted from 1950 to 1990, till the demise of USSR. This was the Cold War period dominated by the all pervading influence of the nuclear weapons. With both the superpowers having the capability of destroying each other and with it the rest of the world many times over, major conflicts of the nature of WW-I and WW-II were mercifully avoided. The two instead, resorted to limited conflicts by proxy where they aimed at either expanding their areas of influence or preventing the other side from doing so. The first of such event was the Korean War which eventually ended in a stalemate. This was followed by a long drawn conflict in Vietnam where the Americans threw their considerable weight behind the South Vietnam’s ‘capitalist’ government from being overrun by the North Vietnam’s communist set up. The North Vietnamese triumphed eventually at a very heavy cost in terms of human casualties. USA too suffered  heavily before it withdrew its support to South Vietnam amidst the backdrop of massive protest against the war in America itself.

The American military juggernaut had been halted by tiny North Vietnam (with the help of USSR) an underdeveloped Third World country. It was a massive psychological blow and resulted in a complete revamping of the American political and military strategy. Technology was coming up with solutions to overcome some of the weapon system deficiencies of the Vietnam era. Col. Boyd and Col. Warden, both Americans in the meanwhile were devising revolutionary targeting concepts, taking advantage of the technological advancement through which air power could be employed to create strategic paralysis of the adversary. Operation Desert Storm (Kuwait 1991), Operation Deliberate Force (Serbia 1995), Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan 2001) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq 2003) were conducted in line with the revised doctrine that had been propagated by Boyd and Warden. Spectacular results were achieved, at least in the military field, and it has re-established American supremacy, nay dominance as the world’s sole military superpower. With the demise of the Soviet Union there is little opposition to keep a check on USA’s hegemony and till such time a viable alternate springs up to restore the balance, the rest of the world, especially the developing nations, must understand the current American mind set so as to avoid becoming the next victim of its capricious new hegemonistic policies.

After the debacle in Vietnam, US military conducted a thorough introspection of their strategies and eventually came up with what now is popularly known as the Powell Doctrine, after General Colin Powell, who was the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee during Operation Desert Storm. In essence, the major features of this doctrine are:

• Strike with overwhelming force.

• Exploit technological superiority.

• Fight at a distance with precision.

• Exploit superior strategy, doctrine and training.

• Exploitation of space for information warfare.

• Win control of the air by establishing air supremacy.

• Create strategic paralysis through sustained and targeted aerial bombardment.

• Use of air and space platforms to gain total access of the enemy’s disposition while keeping him in the dark about one’s own.

• Joint air/land/sea operations with the objective of integrating the capabilities of the three services.

• Integration of Psychological Warfare fully  with the war plans.

To implement the Powell Doctrine, the American Government has come up with new sets of imperatives. To begin with, despite the end of Cold War, USA’s defence budget has expanded and its present allotment of over US $ 400 billion is greater than the combined defence budgets of the next twenty five nations. Besides, USA has exploited its vast human resources in the field of technology to come up with the most advanced weapons systems in all the three services – Army, Navy and Air Force. This factor coupled with their space based technology gives them a vital edge over their adversaries in the realm of information warfare. US commanders through their aerial and space based surveillance sensors have the ability of obtaining a near complete picture of enemy forces’ disposition and movements. Combining this capability with the ready availability of platforms in the air in the form of manned aircraft or UAVs that can conduct lethal attacks with unerring accuracy at a very short notice gives the US commanders the flexibility and edge that commanders before them could have only dreamed of.

On the political front, USA chooses its victim with care, ensuring a military weakling. It further weakens the intended prey by imposing all kinds of economic and military sanctions through a series of diplomatic manoeuvring and arm twisting of UNO and its member states. The target is then served with ultimatums to meet conditions it would find impossible to fulfil. And finally, before delivering the military coup de grace it forms a coalition of some sort again by using its clout as the sole superpower of the world. A full scale mobilization is set in motion. From this point onward, a military showdown which can have only one result becomes inevitable. Even if the victims want to avoid a military confrontation by meeting all the demands of the ultimatum, it is not permitted that option. Fresh demands are made and all their efforts at appeasement are dismissed as untrustworthy. Saddam would have withdrawn from Kuwait in 1991 if given half a chance; the Taliban might have handed over Osama bin Laden if some of their terms which could have resulted in face saving for the Afghans without compromising the spirit of justice which USA was ostensibly seeking were accepted; Saddam was cooperating as best as he could with the UN arms inspectors but his fate and that of Iraq was sealed when the US insisted that nothing short of regime change would satisfy them. In each case, the decision to commit aggression was taken after ensuring that the adversary was no match for the might of the US forces which were further strengthened by a coalition of the willing. The Powell Doctrine in all its manifestations could now be unleashed on the hapless victim. Since 1990, they are able to pursue this policy in the absence of any worthwhile military rival.

How does one avoid becoming the fall guy of the world’s lone superpower? The age old adage, “Prevention is better than cure” still holds true. The first task for such nations would be to avoid any actions detrimental to US interests. In the present circumstances however, adopting such a course may not be easy. During the cold war period, US threshold of unacceptable behaviour of other nations was relatively high and did not normally involve compromise of the target nation’s core values. Ever since their triumph in Operation Desert Storm, USA’s tolerance threshold has gone down to a level where earlier, when a change of policy that they considered inimical to their interest would have  sufficed, now they insist on a change of regime. With nothing to counter US power, it has become more and more demanding and many nations are being forced to make difficult choices under USA’s coercive policies. Iran and Syria are under pressure to stop support to groups that they consider are involved in freedom struggle in Palestine, whereas USA labels them as terrorists. Pakistan has already been forced to do an about turn in its Afghan policy and a similar pressure is being applied for it to cease all military support to the freedom struggle in Kashmir. President Chavez of Venezuela has felt the heat of US disapproval of his domestic policies that US perceived as hurting their business interests. Iraq of course paid the ultimate price of possessing a vital commodity in the shape of oil which USA had to control in order to keep the European challenge under check – Euro was fast mounting a serious threat to the dollar domination in world trade.

Since USA turns its attention towards weaklings, try and avoid being one.  While Syria and Iran are normally considered as being next on USA’s hit list, USA is unlikely to do an ‘Iraq’ on them and they are unlikely to be a push over like Iraq was. Syria and Iran might not match USA’s firepower but they have a far more cohesive and acceptable government than that of Iraq under Saddam. They have also not isolated themselves to the same degree from the rest of the world as Iraq had done especially after 1991. And of course if yours happens to be a nuclear powered nation like India and Pakistan, you have brought yourself additional insurance from a US-led military adventure.

Possession of nuclear weapons by itself may not be much of deterrence to an American-led military onslaught. The nation must have a credible ‘ride out’ or 2nd strike capability to deter a determined aggressor. Hypothetically, if USA is to mount an Iraq like invasion on India, North Korea or Pakistan, (de facto nuclear weapon capable states) it would first attempt to destroy their nuclear arsenal with a massive counter force strike using conventional or even nuclear weapons in the process. USA’s massive conventional and nuclear attack capability might convince them about their ability to take out all the nuclear assets in one coordinated massive raid. The present delivery modes based on ballistic missiles and aircraft are vulnerable to first strike, no matter how well they are dispersed and secured. True nuclear deterrence can only come about by developing the third leg of the triad, the submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Once nuclear armed submarines set sail and submerge in the ocean deeps, they are virtually untraceable. They then become a threat to the kind of invasion forces that were assembled during the Gulf Wars. Even the carrier task groups positioned to conduct aerial warfare would come within range of the marauding nuclear weapons armed submarines.   Only SLBM capability can truly provide a degree of deterrence against even a sole superpower like USA. Pakistan’s strategic assets therefore have a defensive role beyond the Indian threat, something our strategic planners must keep in mind when discussing the de nuclearization of South Asia.

Again, hypothetically speaking, how does a country like Pakistan defend itself against a USA led attack? Assuming that our nuclear deterrence has failed and a conventional attack becomes imminent, the first thing to remember would be that the more sophisticated our defensive weapons are, the easier it would be for USA to neutralize them. All our radar controlled or radar guided anti-aircraft anti-armour systems will be destroyed or made inoperable through the use of USA’s Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) capabilities. Tanks and aircraft may be able to operate in the manual mode for a brief while, but it would not take USA much time to take out our air infrastructure and blind our sensors. Control of the air would be lost fairly quickly and in its absence, any conventional defence strategy will meet the fate of Afghanistan and Iraq. An asymmetrical warfare would be the only viable option. What these can be, needs to be discussed and debated. 

The world environment today is far more complex and inter-dependent than ever before. Even a sole superpower like USA does not have the freedom to enforce its will on other nations blindly. It can only pick on a weak and fragmented nation that has few friends in the world community.

Apart from the strength of its armed forces, a nation’s security depends on a number of other factors, economic inter-dependence being one of them. Indian advantage over Pakistan is not governed by its size alone, but because it has a much bigger economic base which makes it an attractive trading partner with other countries. Tiny Singapore’s security to a great extent is guaranteed by the enormous financial clout it enjoys by virtue of its booming economy. Pakistan too can enhance its security by having a robust economy integrated with the economies of other states in a manner that any instability in Pakistan would also hurt their economic interests.

Today, Pakistan has a number of other vulnerabilities that USA can exploit to impose its will without resorting to armed conflict. As Clausewitz had stated, “War is an extension of politics” but war is generally the last option. Pakistan is heavily dependent on the west for its economic well-being and over fifty years of mismanagement has left its economy in a weak state. Our excessive reliance on IMF and World Bank has given these two world bodies that are under enormous US influence, the ability to ruin Pakistan’s economy.

Economic backwardness leads to poverty, and stability in a poor nation would always remain suspect. Poverty leads to injustices that give rise to further unrest. A fragmented nation is a vulnerable nation that is unlikely to have a stable or popular government, a situation that can be easily exploited by its adversaries. USA is a past master at toppling regimes it considers detrimental to its interests and had no compunction in overthrowing them through covert actions, Mossadegh of Iran and Allende of Chile being prime examples. Only a cohesive nation with a government enjoying the support and confidence of its citizens can ward off the danger of being destabilized through covert actions. The first step towards increasing its sovereignty and reducing the vulnerabilities must be to strengthen the economy. Dependence on IMF and World Bank for the economic growth must be reduced. A robust economy with a free trade policy creating inter-dependence with other economies of the world will strengthen its overall security. Pakistan’s security parameters will be defined by the strength or weakness of its economy. A paradigm shift in Pakistan’s defence strategy by its defence planners has now become imperative.