WEST HAS EYES ON INDIA'S MASSIVE ELECTION

For India, the world’s largest democracy, protecting its 714 million voters and 800,000 polling stations during its ongoing general election is a staggering task requiring the constant protection of six million police officers. The sheer scale of the process means the elections are being held over one month and will not be completed until May 13.
The event is being watched closely in Washington and in European capitals where fears remain that another Mumbai-type attack could derail the democratic process. There is also a genuine hope in the West that India will emerge stronger from the electoral process, thereby providing a political and economic bulwark again the emerging closeness of Russia and China. Presently, America is India’s biggest trading partner with a 1% share of the U.S. market. That is a figure the Obama White House would like to increase to match the 10% slice of the market dominated by China.
To the credit of the Bush administration, two years before it left office it recognized India’s importance to American foreign policy. It saw that India was on track to achieving a superpower status to rival, or even outpace China. It also knew from research that India was likely to have a larger population than China by 2030. But it took most of the Bush years between 2001 and 2008 to see that closer ties to India were essential to U.S. policy at home and in that region of the world. The delay in reaching such an important conclusion was due to several factors. After India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, it was shunned by the West and, as a consequence, drew closer to China and Russia. That opened up a large market for those nations in terms of consumer goods and military hardware. Ironically, the West’s virtual embargo over several decades did not stop Israeli arms dealers from getting a slice of the Indian military budget which by 2007, was $15 billion annually. Sadly, the terrorist attacks on America in 2001 were to provide a catalyst for changing relations with India though the 9/11 tragedy initially resulted in colder relations between New Delhi and Washington as the latter drew closer to Pakistan, believing Pakistan was critical to waging a successful war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That quickly led the U.S. began to regard Pakistan as its main ally in the region, much to the consternation of the Indian government. Ironically, it also forced the Bush administration to re-examine relations with Pakistan’s neighbor, India.
To understand the bitter animosity that has always pervaded India-Pakistan relations, one has to remember that they share a troubled political history, which has culminated in shooting wars across their borders and has brought them to the brink of a nuclear exchange. They have also fought proxy battles over Kashmir, a slice of land to which they both claim ownership. Disputes over Kashmir began in 1947 when the British, as the colonial power controlling what was then the Indian Sub-Continent, divided up the area into what it called the Union of Indian and the Dominion of Pakistan, leaving Kashmir to become a disputed area between the two. The grand partition design was undertaken by Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, the late uncle of Prince Charles. Since Mountbatten’s time, relations between India and Pakistan have been troublesome and the fact that the two countries now have nuclear weapons sends shivers through the global community.
By 2007, it was clear that behind-the -scenes the Bush Administration had made considerable progress in establishing better working relations with New Delhi. Those efforts reached fruition in 2008 when Congress ratified a nuclear treaty with India. It was a sign to Pakistan that the United States was determined to make India an important ally in the region. The EU quickly followed suit with delegations, making it clear India was a vital economic partner for the West. Underpinning all of those moves were several crucial objectives. One was the opening up of India as a major market. Another was persuading it to expand its role in the war against terror. Third was its potential as a bulwark against China’s political designs in that part of the world. And, last but not least, Washington wanted to be the mediator in disputes between India and Pakistan. In Pakistan, the new U.S. rapprochement with India was not viewed kindly by the country’s military. Much to the dismay of U.S. generals the Pakistani military continued to make India its focus rather than the Taliban and Al Qaeda, thereby limiting its commitment to defeating terrorism on its own soil. As of April 2009, most of Pakistan’s military resources are devoted to combating a potential strike by India with the result that the majority of its army is facing the border with India, leaving the border with Afghanistan unprotected and easy for terrorists to cross.
Nevertheless, the Obama White House appears determined to follow the lead of its predecessor in expanding ties to India. That is why it will be watching closely these latest elections. It knows there is a likelihood a coalition government will emerge from them but hopes it will not be too leftwing with a heavy communist presence that would favor economic protectionism. That would limit the potential for U.S. and European companies to operate successfully in the Indian markets and damage India’s economic health. With that in mind, the British have warned that if a new Indian government chose to restrict access to its huge markets, the outcome would be a further weakening of the Indian rupee against the dollar. But such talk fails to take account of the underlying strength of an economy that Washington believes has the potential to outstrip Chinese growth rates over the next decade. Such an eventuality would be strategically beneficial to the West and would reduce China’s economic power.
But there are experts who think India’s tendency towards internal political squabbling of a kind that can produce weak coalition governments with leftwing agendas has the potential to derail its route to economic superpower status. Those skeptics argue that this election may produce a coalition that will last at most two years and, in the meantime, will send the country spiraling downward economically.
While pollsters ponder the possible outcome of the elections, India remains on alert for a major terrorist attack but, so far, the only violence has come from Maoist rebels who have killed approximately 30 soldiers and police officers. For voters, the major issues are the economy followed by security, reflecting the concerns of last year’s American electorate.

PAKISTAN STARES INTO THE ABYSS

The radicalization of Pakistan is progressing at such a pace that it may prove unstoppable, thereby jeopardizing U.S. policy across the region. That could be the reason some experts, including David Kilcullen, a former adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, are saying Pakistan could collapse under a growing insurgency before the end of this year.
Other dire predictions have included a warning that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of insurgents. While that possibility is described as farfetched by those familiar with the security surrounding the country’s nuclear arsenal, all of the fears expressed by experts have one thing in common - a recognition of the growing Islamic radicalization of the country. If Islamists were to emerge as the driving force politically and militarily, there is every reason to conclude that the U.S. and the region would be looking at an extreme nation with its finger on the nuclear button. In turn, that would lead to increased tensions with India and a deadlier war for the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan.
If one examines closely the increasing insurgency in Pakistan, one could easily conclude that the military is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other home-grown insurgents. There is also a real possibility that the Pakistan army’s rank and file, as well as elements of the officer class, have become radicalized. That would explain the growing anti-Americanism in the ranks and calls for the loosening of links between Islamabad and Washington. Pakistan’s military leaders have also demanded an end to Predator drone air strikes on targets within Pakistan and a greater recognition by the U.S. of the country’s territorial integrity. Those demands have been echoed throughout the political corridors of power and have resounded much more loudly in the streets where respect for America is at an all time low.
All of this supports a disturbing commentary that Pakistan is gradually disintegrating into a state that is finding it hard to curtail a growing Islamic insurgency, which has expanded from the tribal areas into major population centers and threatens to engulf the whole country. Pakistan’s answer to the insurgency has changed little in recent years. Under the Bush administration, the Pakistani dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, took billions in aid from Washington while he made all the right political noises about the war on terror. At the same time, he permitted his intelligence service, the ISI, to maintain its close links with the Taliban and to plot attacks against Indian forces in the disputed Kashmir region. As for the tribal areas, Musharraf chose a policy of appeasement rather than confrontation. That policy has continued under the new civilian president, Asif Ali Zardari and the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. Like Musharraf, their preoccupation, much to the anger of Washington, continues to be focused on a perceived threat from India. Their pervading principle about the Taliban and its fellow travelers is that it is better to seek accommodation with them. A striking example of that policy was the handing over of the Swat Valley to the Taliban in February, thereby allowing the imposition of Sharia Law throughout that region. The decision illustrated an acceptance by the government and the military that the Taliban, and like-minded groups, were fellow Muslims and it would be wrong to use conventional military means to dislodge them from their power bases.
In a recent congressional report, Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R. Neb), and Sen. John Kerry, (D. Mass), warned that time was running out to help Pakistan change course and there was a real danger of “ultimate failure.” The senators predicted that there was a six-month window to turn things around and if that could not be achieved, we could be looking at a failed state within a year.
One of the major fears in Washington is that the Pakistani military is so deeply penetrated by Islamists that many officers thinks it is better to make deals with insurgents even if that means allowing them to cross freely into Afghanistan to fight NATO. Throughout the tribal areas, the Pakistan military has brokered agreements that have led to peace in the southwestern province of Baluchistan. However, most deals have only helped the Taliban and other Islamist groupings to grow from strength to strength. Radicalizing influences within the Pakistan military have also empowered extreme Islamist clerics, many of whom have moved from the country’s borders into urban centers, threatening what was always hailed as a prime example of a secular state. All of this has occurred because of a reluctance to confront a growing Talibanization of large, federally administered areas where the insurgency has complicated the country’s relationship with the U.S. and its allies.
Pakistani generals and political leaders argue that many of their problems derive from the fact that supporting the Bush War on Terror meant Pakistan acted recklessly on its own turf by going after Taliban elements that posed no threat to the country, and by targeting Islamists who merely wanted to spread their religious message. As a consequence, the Pakistani military, at Washington's bidding, made no distinction between Al Qaeda terrorists and a Taliban it felt it could control. Before long, its military campaigns in the northwest provinces alienated all Islamist groupings and led to a deepening alienation that has grown in intensity with U.S. Predator drone attacks.
Whether or not those are valid arguments, there is little doubt the Pakistani military and political leaderships cannot live publicly with what they are calling invasions of their country’s sovereignty by the U.S. That is why they have asked the Pentagon to provide them with MQ1 predator drone systems, which cost anywhere from $5 million to $15 million. They have also requested one or two of the more advanced MQ9 Reaper drones, which can carry two 500lb bombs as well as Hellfire missiles. The Reapers are the most sophisticated drones in the U.S. counterinsurgency arsenal. They can fly higher and longer than their predecessors and have extra sensors. They have been described as the hunter-killer submarine of the air. It is unlikely Washington would agree to trust the Pakistani military with this new technology, or with the intelligence that it uses for targeting. India told Washington it would oppose the transfer of drones to its neighbor, suspecting they could be used in the Kashmir region, or other border hotspots between the two countries. For now, the likelihood is the U.S. will deny Pakistan’s request for drones and will continue to go after terrorist leaders hiding across the border from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we will all have to watch with some trepidation to see if Pakistanis can stand bank from the brink and prevent the kind of radicalization that could lead to an extreme, anti-American Islamic government taking over the country.

CHINA MAJOR CYBER THREAT TO WEST

While researchers in Canada and Britain believe Chinese hackers were responsible for recent cyber attacks on computers in over one hundred countries, other analysts are convinced the attacks were authorized by the Chinese government and its Peoples Liberation Army, using what has become known as the "GhostNet" network.
It is a large network of hackers based in Hong Kong and mainland China that operates with secret funding and guidance from the PLA. The fact that it does not use PLA computers, or work in PLA facilities means Chinese authorities can deny any links to it if British and U.S. hacker trackers identify the origin of cyber attacks and the internet addresses of “ghost” computers.
The latest global attacks appeared at first to be aimed at computers holding classified files and correspondence between the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama, and his followers throughout the world. However, it soon became clear that the computers of foreign ministries in India, Pakistan, Rumania and South Korea, to name but a few nations, were also penetrated and their information compromised.
The targeting of computers related to the Dalai Lama was intended to provide the Chinese authorities with intelligence on people connected to the spiritual leader and members of the exiled Tibetan government. The hackers would also have sought to uncover links between people in the West and the Dalai Lama’s supporters in Tibet. One analyst speculated that some of the information would allow China to unmask, torture and execute dissidents in Tibet.
The wider issue is that China is becoming a serious cyber threat to the West and is brazenly encouraging its “GhostNet” hackers to compromise computers in sensitive western establishments. It is also training cyber warfare units within the PLA to develop a capability to compromise military and civilian computer networks in America and within the NATO military structure in Europe. Cyber warfare is promoted in the PLA’s information warfare doctrine and since 2002 the PLA has overseen major penetrations of computers in the U.S. Some experts reckon the penetrations constituted training exercises for a strategy to be unfolded in an eventual war over Taiwan. Only then would China would unleash its full cyber potential and the targets would not all be military. Many would be economic and would be aimed at the U.S. banking system and Wall Street with the aim of causing cause serious economic damage, if not a financial collapse.
Western intelligence analysts have been warning for some time that the PLA has been developing what it calls “Integrated Network Electronic Warfare.” Under that umbrella term, it has been mounting attacks since 2000 as part of a sustained training simulation for launching major cyber attacks should it face down the U.S. and its allies on the battlefield. Part of the PLA’s planning has involved the establishing of units tasked to create viruses that would be inserted into Western computer networks at the onset, or in the days or weeks before a conflict began.
In 2002, the U.S. and Britain began to realize that China was a serious cyber threat after major intrusions were launched against U.S. military and contractor websites and systems. Experts in Washington gave the attack the codename, “Titan Rain.” Among the U.S. computer systems penetrated were major classified networks belonging to the Missile Defense Agency and the Sandia Laboratories, which are at the heart of America’s nuclear research and design. In that particular series of cyber attacks, Chinese hackers stole 10 terabytes of data. If one considers that 10 terabytes would be the equivalent of the entire print collection of the Library of Congress then one can imagine the vast amount of material stolen. Among the files uploaded to “ghost” computers in China were many on U.S. command and control systems.
The U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations has no doubt the PLA is behind constant attempts by Chinese hackers to compromise computer networks in the west, especially in the U.S. and Britain. The Task Force has become aware of the presence of several hundred hacker groups in mainland China. These groups are closely monitored and encouraged by the Chinese government, which controls all of China’s internet activity. By studying the groups the PLA can learn a lot about the vulnerability of computers across the globe.
Cyber warfare’s appeal for China is best expressed in a statement by Tim Thomas, an expert working with the Foreign Military Studies Office in Fort Leavenworth. He points out that the warning time frame for a cyber attack and the time frame for a response is extremely limited. Secondly, Cyber attacks travel at the speed of light and require little physical preparation. Another advantage for the Chinese is that it would be difficult for the U.S. or Britain to immediately attribute an attack to China because attacks can be layered and often follow a circuitous route to their target, making it very difficult to track them back to source. That would make it almost impossible for the U.S. or its allies to order immediate retaliation.
For Tim Thomas, a singular benefit of cyber operations is that they can be used to frustrate and confuse a target country. Attacks can be easily aimed at critical infrastructure by rendering inoperable banks and power grids and the attacks do not require too much equipment, money or manpower compared to a full military assault.
China has learned a great deal by watching how the U.S. military has operated in the new hi-tech environment of satellites and computers in overseas conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. In those conflicts, the U.S. military relied heavily on hi-tech communications to handle its logistics, including the movement of troops, aircraft, and naval battle groups. Therefore China knows that in the early stages of a conflict with the U.S. it would be vital for the PLA to be able to attack American logistics functions, thereby slowing down the time by which the U.S. military could effectively move into the war zone. If that is indeed the strategy driving the PLA’s cyber warfare doctrine, America can be certain that China will probably seek to strike first with a cyber attack if tensions mount over Taiwan and war looks inevitable. In that event, one can expect the U.S. to preempt the Chinese cyber strategy by turning off our most vulnerable networks and almost going black in hi-tech terms.
Congress has been advised that it should not only provide additional recourses to military intelligence and homeland security programs that monitor and protect America’s critical infrastructure networks but it should also encourage the administration to promote a strategy whereby American works closely with its allies to deal with China’s cyber strategies.
A critical issue Congress must address is the supply networks that provide our government, military and contractors with computer equipment. Many of the companies involved in the supply chain are foreign and some have Chinese links. Therefore, it is imperative that Congress provides funding so that the supply chain can be carefully scrutinized. It must also make available money to buy equipment from trustworthy sources. After all, it is easy for a foreign company working with our enemies to insert malware into computer chips so that it can act like a sleeping virus to be activated in the event of a crisis.