Mamoona Ali Kazmi

THE Indian armed forces are facing a shortage of 15,004 officers and have initiated several measures, including increasing the intake of Short Service Commission (SSC) officers, to meet the shortfall, The extent of shortage of officers is around 12,349 in the Army, 1,818 in the Navy and 837 in the Air Force. The shortage of pilots in the Air Force is about 426. Indian Armed Forces are facing a number of problems. The fatigue phenomenon is seeping low down into the morale of the Indian Armed Forces and the situation is touching the irretrievable extent. Suicides and fratricidal killings apart, what is contributing more to the phenomenon is voluntary resignations by Service officers. All the three Services witnessed a gradual increase in voluntary discharge of officers. About 3764 officers of Army, 842 officers of Navy and 893 officers of Air Force have sought discharge/voluntary retirement, with most of them moving to the lucrative corporate sector since 2004. Similarly, 37,865 personnel below the rank of officers were granted voluntary retirement during the same period. Initially, the Indian government was reluctant to relieve them, but when the mental stress of Jawans resulted in fratricides and suicides the Indian government considered resignations a fair way-out of this intense situation.

The reluctance of people to join forces and the tendency of premature retirement are responsible for the shortage of officers in Indian Armed Forces. There are many reasons for premature retirement e.g. low remuneration, suppression for promotion, being placed in a permanently low medical position, denial of leave, stress and low morale, long engagement in insurgency ridden areas, increase in better employment opportunities on civil side, compassionate reasons such as looking after ailing parents and children, ancestral property and failure to acquire minimum technical qualifications recommended for promotion. Due to all these reasons the Indian armed forces today are not an enviable career choice. Every year, a lot of requests for voluntary resignations come before the Indian government but only the most pressing ones are entertained. The unfortunate applicants, whose requests are not granted, suffer from heightened mental stress and psychological problems resulting in fratricide and suicides. The situation has become so intense that that nearly 100 Indian army soldiers commit suicide every year due to stress.

The contributors to disaffection among Indian Army’s rank and file are many. Jawans in Indian Army face economic pressures such as inadequate housing, salaries, promotional opportunities and pensions. The pressure caused by economic distress is only one of the reasons to seek premature discharge from the Services. Prospects of more attractive and better job opportunities outside Armed Forces also compel officers to seek relief from the armed forces for the sake of good future.

Economic deprivation is just only one facet of the problems. However, long and seemingly interminable spells in insurgency infested areas compound the issue of pay/allowances related problems. Indian soldiers, due to long-drawn duties, are unable to avail regular leave to see their families and sort out their problems. It also induces in them the desire to leave the job. The rapport between Officers and Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) is also missing. Officers at senior level are more concerned with their own welfare rather than the welfare of Jawans, which again leads to the dissatisfaction of Jawans with their job.

The hostile working conditions in insurgency infested areas have also their importance. The Jawans, trained to fight a visible enemy, have to fight an invisible enemy in such areas and are exposed to enemy by themselves. For them, fighting insurgency is not their task. Therefore, they want to leave a job in which there is no life security even during peace times.

Stress, low morale, and denial of leave are the main reasons for Indian Armed Forces personnel to resign from the job. Similarly, armymen, when trapped in insurgency-hit areas and finding no way out prefer leaving army for greener pastures. According to observers, the economic benefits on the civil side are the major factors forcing Armed Forces personnel to quit the job.

According to an ex-Army Chief the problem of shortage of officers can not be solved until the government remove “stagnation at the middle level and thus improve promotion opportunities of the officers, close to that of civil and police services; improve opportunities for the officers to be able to spend more time with their families; re-establish social status and warrant of precedence of the armed forces officers at the center and state levels; compensate adequately the increased level of personal risk and hardships in the field areas; bridge salary and compensation gap between the private sector and government services, to the extent possible”.

The Indian Armed Forces no longer fascinate the people as career. The army is currently facing a crisis and it is short of over 11,000 officers from the rank of captain to major. Despite campaigns like “Be an army man: Be a winner of life” the armed forces continue to face a shortage of officers. Officer’s shortage in Indian Armed Forces is acute now and seriously affecting the army, in quantity as well as quality. The severity of the problem and Indian government’s inability to solve it is reflected from the hopes that job recession in the civil side may result in more youngsters opting for armed forces as career.

Alam Rind

AFGHANISTAN is far from stable. In spite of all claims made by NATO forces ground situation in Afghanistan hasn’t visibly changed. Countryside remained mostly controlled by Taliban or their sympathizers. American lead security forces by and large stayed confined to garrisons or protected major cities.

They have not been able to alter the situation much even after Merja and Kandahar operations.

The irony is that even after having spent nine years in Afghanistan they have not been able to understand bondage of these people with Islam. What little ground they may have covered as far as bridging their relations with locals has been shattered by imprudent and deplorable act of Terry Jones.

Jones had threatened to burn Holy Quran on the anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks on United States. He was prevented from doing so out of the fear of severe retaliation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim states.

His present deplorable act was attended by just thirty followers and has not received much media coverage in the west. Nevertheless the incident has hurt Muslims all over the world and has stirred protest in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Eleven countries have registered their contempt for his act, which certainly has eroded what so ever support US lead coalition had in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is witnessing a serious backlash where United Nations compound at Mazir-e-Sharif was attacked resulting into death of nine people. Protesters have taken to streets in most of the Afghan cities to include Kandahar, Jalalabad, Charikar etc which resulted into over 22 causalities leaving scores injured. Situation in Pakistan isn’t much different. To pacify the people, Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik had to give a statement that the government has taken up the issue with Interpol. Seeing the gravity of the situation US President termed the incident as “extreme intolerance and bigotry.” But the pastor is still defiant. In response to protest in Afghanistan and killing of UN workers he believes that USA and UN should stand up to countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan as the Muslims have been killing Christians for generations. What he is trying to preach is clash of civilizations where Christians should see Muslims as their natural enemies and vice versa. That certainly outrages Muslims. Fuel has been added to fire by UN sponsored operations in Libya.

For many Muslims, the crusade has entered its third phase after destroying Iraq and Afghanistan. Now it’s Libya’s turn, the country having the largest and most valuable oil reserves in African continents. The campaign is being conducted on a clumsy excuse of protecting Libyan civilians, whereas, UN lead coalition aircraft are pounding civil population indiscriminately. The stated US stance is that they will not set their foot on Libyan soil, which appears absurd from military point of view. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has vehemently criticized the whole development sounding his concern at the ease with which decisions are being made for the use of force in international affairs. He said, “The UN security council resolution is undoubtedly incomplete and flawed. If you look at what it says, it becomes apparent that it allows everyone to undertake any actions against a sovereign state”. It appears that US government is trying to pursue her own agenda presumably to take control of global energy resources with total disregard towards the feelings of Muslims. The atrocious act committed by Terry Jones and the pitiable plight of people of Libyan’s all seems to be the sides of the same coin. The situation has made it harder for the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to manage war on terror in the respective countries.

In war on terror Pakistan and Afghanistan are confronted with difficult situations. As per common perception Afghan Taliban are fighting for the liberty of their country and Pakistani segment of Taliban is targeting the country for its support for US lead NATO forces. The act of Terry Jones has provided an excellent motivational theme to Taliban to seek support of commoners and to recruit alienated youth to their ranks.

At the same time it has denuded the two governments of their arguments against extremism. The situation is further exacerbated due to drone operations and gratuitous act like killing innocent people and Maliks.

If peace is desired in the area, American management has to be more responsive and respectful to the feelings of the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unwarranted hitches created by heedless people like Terry Jones should be prevented for the success of war on terror and to restore peace in the region.

Ramzy Baroud

THE brutality of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, and his refusal to concede power, is costing Libya much more than innocent lives. The country is now also facing a possible loss of future independence and sovereignty. From its early days, the Libyan revolt seemed to take a difference course than those of other Arab countries. It represented a window of opportunity for the United States and its Western allies to reposition themselves, slowly but surely, around a conflict that promised gruelling and bloodier times ahead.

A visit by Republican Sen. John McCain to Benghazi on April 22, was described by a CNN online report as “a major morale boast” for the Libyan rebels. His arrival followed a US decision to deploy predator drones to Libya, thus promising a greater American role in the war. According to McCain, drones are not enough, and more will be needed to break the “significant degree of stalemate.” He described Benghazi as a “powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be.”

A small crowd chanted as the US senator met with members of the Transitional National Council: “Thank you John McCain! Thank you Obama…Thank you America! We need freedom! Qaddafi go away,” according to the same report.

This decidedly American push has already inspired many neoconservative ideologues who unfailingly endorse war against any Arab or Muslim country that fails to tow their line. A major hub for US intervention — most often in support of Israeli interests — is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), credited for introducing many suspicious characters to Iraq following the ouster of Saddam Hussein. AEI scholar Michael Rubin said that the visit by McCain “brings more limelight to the rebels.” But Rubin wants even more than this. “If McCain can meet the people for whom we are fighting, why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why not Vice President Joe Biden?”

There are many indications to suggest that the US is upgrading its involvement in the Libyan war, following a brief period of political and military vacillation. Much talk of a pending stalemate in the unfair fight between poorly armed rebels and Qaddafi’s forces preceded the actual standoff on the ground. With no meaningful Arab action, and NATO’s choosy military involvement proving to be largely ineffective, the US is now being urged to “do something”.

“Doing something” is, of course, a difficult endeavour in a highly volatile political season in Washington. As miscalculations can be decisive factors in winning or losing elections, the Obama administration is trying to play its cards right, moving toward more tangible involvement in Libya, but with much caution. What is clear, however, is that the involvement will be more visible than before.

McCain’s visit is significant, not just because of his political seniority, but also owing to his former “war hero” status. In Washington, military men are more trusted than politicians. As he ushered in greater American involvement in Libya, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was contributing to the built up of rhetoric from Baghdad. The situation in Libya is “certainly moving toward a stalemate,” he told US troops during a visit. “Qaddafi’s gotta go…(and coalition actions)…are going to continue to put the squeeze on him until he’s gone,” he said, according to Reuters (The Washington Post, April 22).

Qaddafi’s brutal treatment of civilians made their protection a top priority for the country’s rebels. Benghazi-based rebel-spokesman, Abdul Hafidh Ghoda, told Aljazeera: “There’s no doubt that (the US decision to send unmanned drones) will help protect civilians, and we welcome that step from the American administration.”

But since the destruction of “somewhere between 30 and 40 percent” of Qaddafi’s ground forces (according to Mullen’s estimation) achieved very little in protecting civilians, more steps are expected from the Obama administration.

Now we are witnessing a jubilant return of previously muted calls for interventionism and regime change in favour of US-style democracy. While Libya may not have specifically fallen under the Washington radar, it now presents an opportunity too good to miss.

This realization might challenge President Barack Obama and force him to revise an earlier claim that the US’ goal was not regime change in Libya. In a televised speech on March 29, Obama said, “If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put US troops on the ground to accomplish that mission or risk killing many civilians from the air.”

But yet again, a stalemate might end up splintering Libya itself. The US and its allies would either accept a divided Libya — and exploit this division whenever possible — or raise their involvement to break the deadlock. If they opted for the latter, there is already much rhetoric to support an upgrade in the military mission. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different, and as president I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Obama said.

A US victory over Qaddafi may be seen as an opportunity to boost Obama’s faltering reputation just in time for the 2012 presidential elections. But history has repeatedly shown the high cost of political and military arrogance. Obama himself admitted that in Iraq, “regime change…took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly $1 trillion. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Since the military plunder in Iraq, the US has resorted to softer and increasingly clandestine methods to destabilize “unfriendly” countries. Recent WikiLeaks revelations show that Syria was always positioned as one of these targets. Libya seemed too stable and somewhat too distant from recent US foreign policy estimations. However, the ongoing violence in the country, and fear of the long-term repercussions of a military stalemate, could change all of that.

In Washington, mood swings occur too quickly and too often. Political opportunists know well how to turn a challenge into an opportunity, and an opportunity into an all-out war.—AN