The Hawks Fail to Stir Pakistan

Contributing Editor Vice Adm (Retd) IF QUADIR
analyses the effect of the cruise missiles launched off
Pakistan’s shore and overflying Pakistan on their way to
suspected terrorist targets in AFGHANISTAN

The Government of United States of America had earlier declared its intention of punishing the culprits of the dastardly bombing of the two American Embassies in Africa. Therefore, if for any reason the Mujahideen’s activities were considered hostile to the United States or its people, should not these prospective Mujahideen been warned too? Or, had they been warned as well by means the public is not aware of? Furthermore, it is still not clear why their activities were suspect in US eyes? And it is doubtful these prospective Mujahideen were followers of Bin Ladin? Pakistanis themselves having suffered from RAW’s activities for over two decades none supports terrorism anywhere in the world. But the people have, like all other nations of the world, made a clear distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. One has a right to ask, Those people who are helping the Southern Sudanese to fight their Northern brothers or the people of West Irian in Indonesia - are they terrorist too? Or, is there a subtle distinction between them and the Kashmiris, that we in Pakistan do not understand? There is of-course a possibility that authorities in Islamabad were given signals about Mujahideen camps in Afghanistan, which signals either failed to receive the importance due to them or, they were not passed on to all concerned. My own experience, if that could be a guide to such matters e.g., Symington and Pressler has been that enough but unambiguous indicators are always provided well in time. The reluctance of both the governments involved in this case, to talk publicly about this issue leaves much room for conjectures by the public which could not be in the interest of authorities in Islamabad.

The United States, before the Second World War and also soon after it, was considered the most powerful country in the world - morally? Today it is the most powerful country in the world materially and militarily. One hopes that this new circumstance is an addition to what was already there and not its replacement. But, that is for the people and government of that great country to decide. Do they want to be admired or feared or by a combination of both, respected? These are issues which only the leaders of that country can attend to, but with the world changing so fast after the demise of the Soviet Union, these issues are assuming increasing importance by the day. Perceptions are forming throughout the world as to the role United States intends to play in the future. Would it be benign, consultative or coercive? Would selfish national interests, a legacy of the colonial and imperialistic eras, reign supreme again? Or, would the United States build up further on the concept of the Global Village that emerged out of the general era of peace, despite the Cold War, following the Second World War and the revolution in electronics and communication technologies which the Cold War generated? What has happened to the New World Order President Bush spoke of, when he and the last President of the Soviet Union met at Malta? Have these high ideals met their pre-mature death? I hope there is still hope that that is not so. But, if that were the case, let us hope something else even better would emerge in their place. The only question is Does the present leadership in United States of America intend to follow in the footsteps of the ‘Founding Fathers’ or would they much rather chart a new course for the future?Ó At present, a new course seems to be the favoured one, which for the emerging countries would be a challenge to appreciate and face.

Reverting to Tomahawks and their victim Pakistanis in Afghanistan, under the circumstances brought out earlier in the opening paragraph, the least one could hope of United States now is to make up to the families of the innocent victims of this unfortunate attack. A failure to do so, would not only be unfair in principle but more ominously, such a decision is bound to leave unmistakable and clear indications of a major shift in US policy in South and Central Asia. For Kashmiris certainly, the effect on their efforts to liberate themselves of Indian tyranny would be profound. Though they are larger in population and were a separate entity even under the British, their freedom and liberty seems of less importance to those who matter than that of the people of Southern Sudan and of West Irian. Or for that matter, coming much nearer home, of that of the Kurds in Northern parts of Iraq. For Pakistan too, the signs should be far from re-assuring. With the unfolding scenario in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan, even without regard to the prevalent economic situation in both the countries, these could not be considered the best of times for Pakistan. To an extent we are responsible for the pass we are in today. Outright economic and political wanton-ness apart, we ourselves helped most seriously to remove from the area the raison d’etre of American strategic interest in Pakistan. We still take pride in and boast of an act that has brought nothing but hardship and misery to us in their various forms. The situation as it stands today, to get out of our isolation, there is an urgent need to forge new links with our old friends. But these have to be at the political level as the old type of links, which may have had their own uses earlier, have completely outlived their utility. Those type of links are completely out of context in today’s world of economic development and general peace. The change merits serious consideration by all concerned.

Arising out of the ashes at Durand Line is the frightful prospect of increasing number of countries the world over exercising their right of defending themselves or their interests, in and across the territories of others, without any ‘if you please’. The Security Council is yet to take a serious note of, leave alone act upon, the frequent violation of Lebanese territory by Israel in her self-proclaimed right of pursuit. Now American weapons flying at about 200 feet over 500 miles of Pakistan’s territory in search of enemies in Afghanistan. Tomorrow it could be missiles with Sanskrit names chasing the Mujahideen in the same area. Perhaps the RAW and its Pakistani counterpart too would battle it out with missiles on each other’s territory. Iran and Iraq have old scores to settle and now Afghanistan is about to get into that category. What about the happenings in Africa, Latin America and even in South East Asia? Would Himalayas remain a barrier even to cruise missiles chasing the Tibetan militants? The prospects of such rights being exercised with impunity by the strong are literally too numerous and dreadful to mention. Such acts must be seriously condemned and outlawed forever. Certainly better means can be found to eliminate terrorism and the terrorists.

Back to Pakistani Tomahawks. Their unauthorized flight over Pakistani territory at least caused a minor flutter in world’s conscience and many voices were heard against it from different parts of the world including the United Nations. But in Pakistan itself, the politicians remained glued to their game of musical chairs; the officials and intellectuals engrossed with worries of where their next slice of bread would come; the nation with the cost of its basic diet - atta and onions; and Karachi-ites remained occupied with how to dodge stray bullets from the game of hide and seek between the un-ending stream of terrorists and the rangers while praying for safety of their cars from snatchers who so far have got away scot-free with an enviable bag of six to ten thousand vehicles annually. Incidentally, going by the number of terrorists officially claimed as eliminated so far, does it justify such a huge and unbearable burden on the government of Sindh? As for the rest of us we just went along our merry ways, as if nothing has happened. The after effect of the Afghan Jihad, it appears, has made us immune to such sufferings. In fact we have become a nation, if we are one, without a soul. Our spirit and conscience too have gone into hibernation with the fear of an empty stomach. Would someone be prepared to tell me what is a body without a soul or spirit called? May the Al-Mighty waken us out of our blissful ignorance and the long aid induced slumber. Let the buzzing of the Hawks re-kindle in us the spirit, which brought us independence in 1947.

Janes Weapon Systems shows that Tomahawk is a small, highly versatile and destructive weapon. It is 5.55 meter long, 51.72 centimetres in diameter and is powered by a kerosene engine giving the missile a range from 250 to 1350 nautical miles (2,000 yards each) depending upon the version. Its head is highly intelligent and provides the missile with a wide variety of capabilities. The missile can do just about anything in the air and from it, except speaking like a human. Its guidance could be inertial, tercom, DSMAC, active radar, GPS and perhaps also Illuminated Laser Terminal Guidance. The accuracy of hits, both in Afghanistan and in Sudan suggests that illuminated laser terminal guidance may have been used in conjunction with others. Tomahawk is a terrain-hugging missile, flying as low as 50 feet in vulnerable environment, with capability of climbing over and descending buildings and mountains with ease. It can be programmed to pass over pre-determined check points lying in different directions and can act on in flight instructions to modify original targets and settings. The capability includes attacking up to five different targets with separate ammunition before hitting the final target. By the year two thousand, United States of America is expected to have an inventory of 4,000 tomahawk missiles of Blocks III and IV versions. These two being the latest in production.

For those interested in development statistics, the programme for a Sea Launched cruise missile was launched formally on 2 June 1972. After marrying the parallel USN and USAF cruise missile programmes the Defence Systems Acquisition Review Council authorized full scale engineering on the common development plan in January 1977. A Joint Cruise Missile Project Office managed the programme. Two contenders, the General Dynamics’ Convair Division (Hugh Missile Systems Company) and Chance Vought Division of LTV conducted their under water launches in February 1976 and the failure of Chance Vought vehicle left only General Dynamics in the field. Two versions, the Land Attack and the ‘Anti-Ship’ were developed with 7 test flights in 1977, 14 during 1978 and 20 in 1979 which included the first real-time anti-surface vessel submarine-launched version. By 1982 there had been 90 test flights and launches of which 13 were failures and four partial successes. After the cold war was over, President Bush ordered all nuclear munitions for Tomahawks to be withdrawn. However, recent news reports suggest that their re-issue might be under consideration.

For deployment, while Tomahawk is usually part of a balanced weapon mix, shortly before Operation Desert Storm was to begin in January 1990, it was reported that some ships deployed in the Middle East were equipped largely or solely with Tomahawks. Throughout Operation Desert Storm 288 (some estimate 297) missiles were fired including 12 (some estimate 11) from submarines, one in the Red Sea and the other from the Mediterranean. Most missiles were sent in pulses of six along the same route rather than being deployed simultaneously along different routes. The success rate was estimated at 85% but some newspapers claiming official sources the success rate was 50%. Unconfirmed reports mention that the first wave of 116 missiles carried electro magnetic pulse payloads to disrupt Iraqi electronics. A submarine launched Tomahawk during its 400-nm trajectory attacked three targets with sub-munitions - some of which could have been ‘smart’. Another later test involved a Tomahawk flying five waypoints. According to reliable sources, 13 cruise missiles were launched against Serbian targets in September 1995. Hardly any information has been released about number or types of Tomahawk used against targets in Afghanistan or Sudan and from what types of platform they were fired. Analysis of this recent action therefore must till further information becomes available. In closing, it is understood that United Kingdom and Australia have shown interest in acquiring this weapon system from United States of America. l