MUMBAI SUSPECT SPILLS BEANS
New Delhi has long accused Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate, of involvement in the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack in which ten Pakistani-based gunmen killed more than 165 people and wounded 300 more. The testimony of David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American militant arrested in 2009 in the U.S. seems to confirm that suspicion. Headley, who has been charged by U.S. authorities with involvement in the Mumbai plot, was involved in surveillance activities in the city in preparation for the attack. After several months in American custody, the U.S. allowed Indian investigators access to Headley for interviews that spanned 34 hours.
The 109-page classified report drawn from those interviews reveals that Headley admitted meeting with officers from the ISI, including a Colonel Kamran, Major Iqbal, and Major Ameer Ali. He also reports being given $25,000 by his ISI handler “to finance one of eight surveillance missions in India.” Headley claimed at least two of his missions were “partly paid for by the ISI and that he regularly reported to the spy agency.” Headley’s testimony also indicated that the highest levels of the ISI leadership may not have been aware of the scope of the agency’s subversive activities. However, according to Headley “The ISI… had no ambiguity in understanding the necessity to strike India.” (The Guardian October 18, 2010)
INDIA TESTS INDIGENOUS DRONES
India’s first indigenous unmanned aerial drone took its maiden flight in October. Designed by the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), India’s premier military research agency, the drone, named Rustom, flew at “a height of 3,000 feet remained airborne for 30 minutes and completed all mission requirements.” India has been intensely interested in obtaining unmanned drone capabilities for surveillance. In 2005, it signed a $220 million deal with Israel to buy 50 unmanned aerial drones. (AFP October 17, 2010)
KARZAI’S CASH FROM IRAN
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has acknowledged receiving up to one million dollars a year from Iran in cash stuffed duffel bags. Karzai explained the money was used to “help run the president’s office” and was funneled to his chief of staff, Umar Daudzai. Tehran initially denied any involvement, calling the charges “baseless speculations… spread by some Western media outlets in order to confuse public opinion.” Iran later admitted the payments were being made. Citing Western and Afghan officials, a New York Times report called the funds “a secret, steady stream of Iranian cash to buy the loyalty of Mr. Daudzai and promote Iran’s interests in the presidential palace.” Karzai says he is “grateful” for the Iranian payments and that he made President Bush aware of the transactions years ago. (BBC October 25, 2010)
RETHINKING AIRSTRIKES
The use of airstrikes and their potential for collateral damage has been a controversial topic in Afghanistan for several years. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the previous commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, famously limited the use of airstrikes in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties and win the “hearts and minds” of the people. However, research released by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research in July suggests that there may be serious flaws in the conventional wisdom. First, and most important, the data show civilian deaths have skyrocketed thirty one percent since airstrikes were limited in June 2009. Digging deeper into the numbers, of all the deaths of women and children attributed to Coalition forces, only six percent came from airstrikes. More than two and a half times as many women and children were killed in traffic accidents with Coalition forces.
Meanwhile, the Taliban is responsible for over three-quarters of total civilian deaths in Afghanistan, or 76 percent. The fact that support for the Taliban is on the rise in many parts of the country shows that the link between civilian deaths and popular support may not be as direct as some Westerners think. Afghan expert Jeremy Shapiro says the civilian casualty issue “clearly resonates very strongly [in the U.S.] and in Europe” but that it is “not clear that Afghans actually see this as a key issue.” What is a key issue for them, however, is the presence of foreign troops in their mist. All of which indicates that ground troops, particularly ones prone to car accidents, may not necessarily be better at winning hearts and minds than the use of air power. (Washington Post October 22, 2010)