Connect with us

Defense

Chuck Yeager: Supersonic Man’s dogfight with India

Published

on

India won the 1971 War so decisively that even Pakistanis do not dispute that their defence forces capitulated in a matter of days. Over 93,000 Pakistan Army officers and soldiers were held for a year in Indian POW camps – cowering in fear from vengeful Bangladeshi mobs – and it remains the single most humiliating episode in Pakistan’s short history. And yet a decorated American general claims that Pakistan won that war.

Chuck Yeager, a WW II fighter pilot and the first person to travel faster than the speed of sound, is so besotted with Pakistan that he claimed in a tweet on September 8: “……Pakistan won. They are a sovereign nation. India did not annex them.”

Yeager’s claim was in response to former Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta, who needled the former fighter pilot about his role in the 1971 War.

The American, who was deputed by the Pentagon to train Pakistan Air Force (PAF) pilots in the 1970s, continues his India bashing of the Cold War years. Cheered on by his Pakistani fanboys, he has been engaged in a Twitter war with those who contest his bizarre claim.

@insenroy, social media editor, CNNNews18, summed up Pakistan’s condition after the bruising 14-day war: “Complete air dominance, blockade of Karachi port, liberation of Bangladesh and the surrender. Yet @GenChuckYeager thinks Pak ‘won’ in ’71.”

Several tweets were deferential to Yeager, addressing him as “sir” or “general”. Typical of Macaulayites, people like Gupta seemed to be almost sorry they were questioning a westerner: “Sorry, I touched a raw nerve, Gen. You’re among the finest fighter pilots ever but sadly were on losing side in ’71.”

@Syednaa tweeted: “@GenChuckYeager sir with due respect, we lost East Pakistan in 1971 and saw it become Bangladesh. that was India’s objective and it won, sir.”

Yeager replied: “No, it was not. Its objective was to annex. One India again as it was before the Brits forced mass migrations.”

However, this writer called him a “Cold War fossil” because who in his right mind would support Pakistan. Yeager’s association with a brutal regime makes him a “war criminal” too. Indeed, he has tarnished his own legacy by being part of a bunch of Americans who aided and abetted the Pakistani killing machine that killed 3,000,000 Bengalis. According to the New York Times, “This largely overlooked horror ranks among the darkest chapters in the entire Cold War.”

Intolerable hatred

So why has Yeager developed a visceral hatred for India and Indians? For that let’s revisit the 1971 War.

The 1971 India-Pakistan war didn’t turn out very well from America’s point of view. But for Yeager it went particularly bad. He was dispatched by the US government to train PAF pilots but ended up as target practice for the Indian Air Force (IAF), kicking up a diplomatic storm during a war situation.

Yeager’s presence in Pakistan was one of the surprises of the Cold War. In an article titled, “The Right Stuff in the Wrong Place”, by Edward C. Ingraham, a former US diplomat in Pakistan, Yeager was head of the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) – a rather fanciful name for a bunch of thugs teaching other thugs how to fight.

In 1971, says Ingraham, Yeager arrived in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad to head MAAG. It wasn’t a terribly exciting job: “All that the chief of the advisory group had to do was to teach Pakistanis how to use American military equipment without killing themselves in the process.”

Among the perks Yeager enjoyed was a twin-engine Beechcraft, an airplane supplied by the Pentagon. It was his pride and joy and he often used the aircraft for transporting the US ambassador on fishing expeditions in Pakistan’s northwest mountains.

Yeager: Loyal Pakistani

Yeager may have been a celebrated American, but here’s what Ingraham says about his mindset: “We at the embassy were increasingly preoccupied with the deepening crisis (the Pakistan Army’s genocide in what is now Bangladesh). Meetings became more frequent and more tense. We were troubled by the complex questions that the conflict raised. No such doubts seemed to cross the mind of Chuck Yeager. I remember one occasion on which the ambassador asked Yeager for his assessment of how long the Pakistani forces in the East could withstand an all-out attack by India. “We could hold them off for maybe a month,” he replied, “but beyond that we wouldn’t have a chance without help from outside.” It took the rest of us a moment to fathom what he was saying, not realizing at first that “we” was West Pakistan, not the United States.”

Clearly, Yeager had no problems with the Pakistani killing machine which was mowing down on an average 10,000 Bengalis daily from 1970 to 1971.

After the meeting, Ingraham requested Yeager that he be a little more even-handed in his comments. Yeager gave him a withering glance. “Goddamn it, we’re assigned to Pakistan,” he said. “What’s wrong with being loyal?!”

Ingraham continues, “The dictator of Pakistan at the time, the one who had ordered the crackdown in the East, was a dim-witted general named Yahya Khan. Way over his head in events he couldn’t begin to understand, Yahya took increasingly to brooding and drinking. In December of 1971, with Indian supplied guerrillas applying more pressure on his beleaguered forces, Yahya decided on a last, hopeless gesture of defiance. He ordered what was left of his armed forces to attack India directly from the West. His air force roared across the border on the afternoon of December 3 to bomb Indian air bases, while his army crashed into India’s defences on the Western frontier.”

Getting personal

Yeager’s hatred for the Indians was unconcealed. According to Ingraham, he spent the first hours of the war stalking the US embassy corridors, snarling curses at the Indians and assuring anyone who would listen that the Pakistan Army would be in New Delhi within a week. It was the morning after the first Pakistani airstrike that Yeager began to take the war with India personally.

On the eve of their attack, the Pakistanis, realising the inevitability of a massive Indian retaliation, evacuated their planes from airfields close to the Indian border and moved them to airfields near the Iranian border.

But no one seems to have warned Yeager.

Taking aim at Yeager

The thread of this story now passes on to former Admiral Arun Prakash. An aircraft carrier pilot with the Indian Navy in 1971, he was on deputation to the Indian Air Force when the war broke out.

Prakash presents a vivid account of his unexpected encounter with Yeager, in an article he wrote for Vayu Aerospace Review in 2007. As briefings for the first wave of retaliatory strikes on Pakistan were being conducted, Prakash had drawn a two-aircraft mission against the PAF base of Chaklala, located south east of Islamabad.

Flying in low under the radar, they climbed to 2000 feet as they neared the target. As Chaklala airfield came into view they scanned the runways for Pakistani fighters but were disappointed to see only two small planes. Dodging antiaircraft fire, Prakash blasted both to smithereens with 30mm cannon fire. One was Yeager’s Beechcraft and the other was a Twin Otter used by Canadian UN forces.

Fishing in troubled waters

When Yeager discovered his plane was totalled, he rushed to the US embassy in Islamabad and started yelling like a deranged maniac. His voice resounding through the embassy, he said the Indian pilot not only knew exactly what he was doing but had been specifically instructed by the Indian PM to blast Yeager’s plane. In his autobiography he later said that it was the “Indian way of giving Uncle Sam the finger”.

Yeager pressured the US embassy in Pakistan into sending a top priority cable to Washington that described the incident as a “deliberate affront to the American nation and recommended immediate countermeasures”. Basically Yeager was calling for American bombing of India, something that President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were already mulling.

But, says Ingraham: “I don’t think we ever got an answer.” With the Russians on India’s side in the conflict, the American defence establishment had its hands full. Yeager was smaller than small; nobody had time for his antics.

However, Ingraham says there are clues Yeager played an active role in the war. A Pakistani businessman, son of a senior general, told him “excitedly that Yeager had moved into the air force base at Peshawar and was personally directing the grateful Pakistanis in deploying their fighter squadrons against the Indians. Another swore he had seen Yeager emerge from a just-landed jet fighter at the Peshawar base.

Later, in his autobiography, Yeager wrote a lot of nasty things about Indians, including downright lies about the IAF’s performance. Among the things he wrote was the air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis “kicked the Indians’ ass”, scoring a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing 34 airplanes of their own.

Beyond the fog of war

The reality is that it took the IAF just over a week to achieve complete domination of the subcontinent’s skies. A measure of the IAF’s air supremacy was the million-man open air rallies held by the Indian Prime Minister in northern Indian cities, a week into the war. This couldn’t have been possible if Pakistani planes were still airborne.

Sure, the IAF did lose a slightly larger number of aircraft but this was mainly because the Indians were flying a broad range of missions. Take the six Sukhoi-7 squadrons that were inducted into the IAF just a few months before the war. From the morning of December 4 until the ceasefire on December 17, these hardy fighters were responsible for the bulk of attacks by day, flying nearly 1500 offensive sorties.

Pakistani propaganda, backed up by Yeager, had claimed 34 Sukhoi-7s destroyed, but in fact just 14 were lost. Perhaps the best rebuttal to Yeager’s lies is military historian Pushpindar Singh Chopra’s “A Whale of a Fighter”. He says the plane’s losses were commensurate with the scale of effort, if not below it. “The Sukhoi-7 was said to have spawned a special breed of pilot, combat-hardened and confident of both his and his aircraft’s prowess,” says Chopra.

Sorties were being launched at the unprecedented rate of six per pilot per day. Yeager himself admits “India flew numerous raids against Pakistani airfields with brand new Sukhoi-7 bombers being escorted in with MiG-21s”.

While Pakistani pilots were obsessed with aerial combat, IAF tactics were highly sophisticated in nature, involving bomber escorts, tactical recce, ground attack and dummy runs to divert Pakistani interceptors from the main targets. Plus, the IAF had to reckon with the dozens of modern aircraft being supplied to Pakistan by Muslim countries like Jordan, Turkey and the UAE.

Most missions flown by Indian pilots were conducted by day and at low level, with the pilots making repeated attacks on well defended targets. Indian aircraft flew into Pakistani skies thick with flak, virtually non-stop during the 14-day war. Many Bengali guerrillas later told the victorious Indian Army that it was the epic sight of battles fought over their skies by Indian air aces and the sight of Indian aircraft diving in on Pakistani positions that inspired them to fight.

Indeed, Indian historians like Chopra have painstakingly gathered the details of virtually every sortie undertaken by the IAF and PAF and have tabulated the losses and kills on both sides, to nail the outrageous lies that were peddled by the PAF and later gleefully published by western writers.

While few Pakistanis claim they won the 1971 War, many believe they won the air war because India lost more aircraft. Yeager was one of the several westerners military and media figures who backed and peddled these lies. Now it seems he wants to conflate the lie on the entire war.

Clearly, Yeager is no hero. He’s just a former fighter and test pilot who was strapped into an experimental aircraft that broke the sound barrier. It was a brave thing to do but a thousand other men or women could have volunteered for that mission. He did nothing extraordinary; the real heroes were the engineers at Bell Aircraft who built the Bell X-1 supersonic jet.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Beating The Drums Of War Against Iran And Pakistan

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

As countries continue their squabbles, their home the earth is going to hell in a handbasket.  A new review paper in Biological Conservation reports 40 percent of insect species are threatened with extinction.  Guess who pollinates our plants where we get our food?

All of which is of little concern to President Trump, who disdains science and experts of any kind.  His vice president has been at the Munich Security Conference where an awkward silence prevailed as he conveyed greetings from Trump and waited for the customary applause.  His speech, focused on hounding Iran, met with polite, muted applause.

Angela Merkel in contrast defended the Iran agreement (which the US has unilaterally abrogated) and talked of maintaining lines of communication without giving up gains already achieved.  Her ambit included Russia and Mr. Putin, and her critique of Trump and his policies received thunderous applause in what was seen as a striking rebuke to ‘America First’.  Some said it was one of her best and thoughtful speeches.

In India, it’s Kashmir again.  Poor Kashmiris.  They tried trusting Nehru and waited … and waited for the promised vote for self-determination; of course Pakistan’s headstrong responses did not help.  They tried peaceful demonstrations and received blinding and sometimes fatal shotgun pellets — not for them just tear gas or the famed Israeli rubber bullets.  What’s left but militancy for which Mr. Modi blames Pakistan his convenient scapegoat.  All too convenient with elections round the corner, he has the country awash in jingoism.  Communal assault often follows in this his tried-and-true election tactic.

Rahul Gandhi the jejune opposition leader is out of his depth as usual.  His only hope is for Mr. Modi to overplay his hand.  All of this despite a general dissatisfaction because the promised economic benefits for the majority have not materialized, and as cell phones multiply, people can actually see the extravagances of the rich.

Mr. Modi threatens to isolate Pakistan and Muhammad bin Salman signs projects and loans worth $20 billion — at the beginning of his visit to Pakistan, the figure touted was $10 billion.  As Theodore Roosevelt used to say, ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick’ not the reverse.

A rational answer to the Indian subcontinent is a loose confederation of independent states in a cooperative scenario, accruing the benefits of free trade and the particular resources of individual members — not the copycat US ‘most favored nation status’ to be yanked like a toy from a recalcitrant child.  All this when Pakistan has just introduced the very short range Nasr low-yield nuclear-tipped missile designed to decimate a cold start attack.

Instead of the frenetic jumping up and down and undiplomatic meaningless threats, how about a calm and rational peace?

Continue Reading

Defense

A lie about an allegation of the IRGC’s support for terrorism

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

Recent attacks on the Revolutionary Guards can be viewed from two perspectives. The first perspective is historically and the second, in terms of the behavioral model of regional and sub-regional actors in the current pattern of Western-Asian regional order.

It seems that recent pressures on the Revolutionary Guards as a revolutionary entity are rooted in the fears of Washington and its allies from a revolutionary force. A force whose members go beyond the military equations or even beyond the logic of power in the region to survive the ideals of the revolution and defend oppressed nations.

History has clearly shown that Washington is afraid of IRGC. The force that presents figures such as the martyr Hojaji and a picture of him, while willingly and resolutely prepared for martyrdom, affects the world.

In the past three decades since the Revolutionary Guards have lived, the West has always been afraid of a force that has been inspired by soft power along with its hard power. It is the same force that can bring nations and quickly become a native force in different countries.

The White House knows well that if Hezbollah-Lebanon, Ansarullah-Yemen and many other popular forces were formed on the regional level, they all had the power to influence the pattern of the Revolutionary Guards. The dependence of the classical armies in different countries on the national government does not allow them to operate with flexibility at all times and places, and even if these operations are carried out people in other countries do not welcome the presence of an army that is alien to it.

Territorial frontiers, in terms of modern Islamic civilization, defend the borders of the Islamic Revolution, which are Islamic ideals. It is inevitable that, in the soft power, the IRGC has the power to help not only the oppressed people in Iraq and Syria, but also to meet the people in these countries.

Accordingly, over the past years, Washington has repeatedly tried to use various methods to weaken the popular position of the Revolutionary Guards and to prevent its increasing popularity in the region and beyond.

Soft power strategists in the United States who are well aware that the concept of power in the new age is not only the result of hard power and the soft power of the countries, have so far been attempting to deal with psychological or media methods To disrupt the Revolutionary Guards and scare the peoples of the region from the influence of the Revolutionary Guards. The propaganda included a Shia-based pseudo-propaganda, a lie about the IRGC’s anti-Semitic tendencies, an allegation of the IRGC’s support for terrorism, an illusion about the role of the IRGC in the development of the Persian Empire, and sometimes with numerous contradictory propositions. For example, while the Revolutionary Guards are falsely accused of stirring up ethnic or religious disputes and are being reduced to an ideological force, this rumor is spreading that the Iranian people’s budget is spending on the other people! At the same time, that is an allegation the IRGC want to expand and increase its dominance over Western Asia.

These media never tell their audience that the IRGC is finally the source of Iran’s resources to other countries, or vice versa, seeking to use other countries for the benefit of the Iranian people. In fact, they are not obliged to explain to themselves the obvious fact that unless a powerful force such as the Revolutionary Guards is acting simultaneously in the language of its nation, it is also considering developing the power of this nation.

But along with the historical roots of the Revolutionary Guard, regional realities must also be taken into account. Today, under the circumstances, the Revolutionary Guards are accused of developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorism, in which Western-backed terrorists have been in the weakest position in the last decade. Unlike a decade ago, the United States is now forced to withdraw its troops from the region. London’s policies have failed to fill the United States in the region due to domestic problems, including the clashes with the European Union, and the Arab-American allies-Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The result of Iran’s resilience to its positions in the region, which is nothing but serious support for the oppressed nations, has caused Iranian regional rivals like Riyadh to seek to modify their behavior towards our country and to improve the areas for improving relations to provide with Iran. Under such circumstances, the Donald Trump administration has concluded that it has lost all its winning leaves to pressure the Revolutionary Guard, and now it cannot impose its power on the Revolutionary Guards even in the Persian-Gulf tensions.

Therefore, the government of Trump tries to launch a wave of economic pressure against this revolutionary institution along with negative propaganda against the IRGC and use this method to weaken the IRGC. However, the principle of the self-sufficiency of the Revolutionary Guards and the lack of dependence of this force on global capitalism has made any sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards ineffective and a scenario for compelling the IRGC to negotiate and retreat has failed.

In such a situation, it seems that maintaining internal cohesion in support of the Revolutionary Guard is the only hope for the people of the region to be able to overcome the domination of foreigners with the help of the soft and hard power of Iran, and to make deep changes in the region.

Continue Reading

Defense

Nasr Missile and Deterrence Stability of South Asia

Published

on

Pakistan has conducted successful test of short range surface to surface ballistic missile ‘Nasr’ on January 24th, 28th and 31st respectively, as part of the Army Strategic Forces Command training exercise, which included quad salvo on 24 January and single shots on 28 & 31 January, 2019. Quad salvo means that the four missiles were fired together from AR1A/A100-E Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to enhance the operational efficiency of Army Strategic force Command. While single shots means one missile was fired from the vehicle. The aimed of letter tests were for testing in flight maneuverability, including the end flight maneuverability. Nasr has shoot and scoot attributes which mean that the system has a capability of firing and moving away quickly to avoid counter targeting which would be contributing to the weapon’s survivability.The speed and low apogee of the Hatf-IX missile would make it difficult to intercept by all the Indian existing Ballistic Missile Defence system and could defeat S-400 air defence system which is in process.

As South Asia region is consider unstable because of ongoing hostility between India and Pakistan. Though hostility between both states is unending but nuclear weapons have brought stability to a great extent. As India decided to take the nuclear weapons route, Pakistan followed because through nuclear weapons Pakistan successfully neutralized Indian conventional superiority.

In South Asia, security competition between India and Pakistan has been characterised by an action-reaction spiral. Pakistan took the path of nuclear weapons development in order to create balance against militarily superior India. In 2004, India adopted aggressive military doctrine, Pakistan rationally responded by developing Short Range Ballistic Missile Nasr which further strengthen the existing deterrence equation of the region. As Pakistan is not able economically to compete India conventionally, so it always took necessitating reactionary steps to maintain deterrence stability of South Asia.

The purpose of the development of Nasr is defensive because Pakistan would use it to secure its border from Indian conventional aggression. Pakistan Short Range Ballistic Missile Nasr has been criticized by international community that it would increase arms race in South Asia.  But Pakistan developed Nasr to overcome the growing threats from the Indian offensive military doctrine. Cold Start Doctrine forces Pakistan to increase its dependence on nuclear arsenals. General Bipin acknowledged CSD in 2017, was followed by Pakistan’s Nasr test by improving its range from 60 to 70 km which puts cold water on Cold Start. Before official acknowledgement of CSD, Pakistan did not conduct any training tests of Nasr. Pakistan inducted the Nasr missile in its strategic arsenal in 2017and its first training launch was held in July 2017 after the official acknowledgment of CSD from Indian side,  shows that Pakistan developed Nasr only to deter India from initiating a conventional assault against Pakistan. Pakistan does not want to indulge in an arms race rather react to those Indian developments which are threatening its sovereignty. This weapon system has augmented Full Spectrum Deterrence in line with Credible Minimum Deterrence, which means that Pakistan would deter conventional forces (India) by employing nuclear deterrence. Pakistan adopted assertive command and control system on Nasr which means it is centrally controlled which minimize the chances of accidental or unauthorized use.

The latest series of Nasr training tests were response to General Bipin10th January 2019, statement, that the military is launching war games next month to test ‘structures geared towards sudden and swift offensives into enemy territory by Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs). These new structures will be “validated” in military exercises on the ground in May, 2019. As IBGs are the center of Indian offensive military doctrine, which involves initiating rapid military offence from multiple fronts by exploiting the element of surprise and leaving Pakistan with neither the time to respond nor the defensive resources to stop those multiple attacks. Nasr tests are in response to this Indian military announcement as Pakistan solely developed Short Range Ballistic Missile Nasr to deter India from initiating conventional conflict. The recent Nasr tests have frightened Indian commanders because of its capability to defeat all Indian existing Ballistic Missile Defence systems and S-400 air defence system. Hence, deterrence is often in the minds of adversary. As long as Indian leaders continue to be deterred by Nasr, it will continue to be effective.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy