After the defeat

Re: OMAR1974 # 47

First of all, I admire the Israeli Defense Forces, including their air force, because they have a lot in common with the Pakistan Air Force in terms of tactics and war doctrine than is commonly thought of.

Omar, the possibilities are not far fetched. All it requires is about four or five mid-air refuelings. Lets say, the aircraft take off from Israel and are immediately refueled. They then are refueled over Iraq and over the Persian Gulf prior to ingressing into Pakistan. After a final refueling, the aircraft drop below 500 feet and get lost in the ground clutter of Persian Gulf.

Or, they can fly in tight formation in one of the international air corridors, which civilian air liners use, and echo the flight pattern of a large jet liner, including its radar signiture and Pakistani Orions, without actually eye-balling the contacts, would have no reason, but to believe their instruments!

Pakistani Orions or Brequet Atlantique will not be able to spot them because, all they have to do is rely on GPS for navigation and turn off their radars so that they are not emitting. In the mean time, the Americans who fly E-2 and E-3 AWACS can flood the airwaves with enough enegry to blind the Pakistani surveillance aicraft for only a few minutes to let the Isrealis enter Pakistani airspace. The Israelis use the western mountain ranges in Pakistan to mask from the PAF and Army ground radars till they are on target. About a hundred klicks away, they release their payloads, which have already been pre-programmed with target coordinates. How difficult will it be for a couple of men, disquised as just another bunch of tourists to aim a laser beam from across the street for the bombs to home in on the target?

By the time PAF scrambles, the bombs would be on their way and the Israelis can just cross over into Afghanistan and from thence, meet another re-fueling tanker (The Afghan Air Force does not exist and thus, can not protect its own air space) and then just head home. Omar, what I was trying to say is that because, it will not be attempted, does not mean it can not happen. It is just a simple excerise in logistics and once that is done, an operational plan of attack can be easily formulated.

Yes, they can fly over all the nations you listed and not be noticed if no one wants to notice them! As to destroying the PAF, all is needed is a well timed raid by ALCMs or SLCMs on the PAF airfields. As a military planner, my immediate concern would be to deny the PAF the ability to ``turn around`` their aircraft by destorying their storage facilities etc. I do not have to destroy all the PAF planes, just take out enough of their airfields that there are some gaps through, which the striking force can fly through.

As to the Pakistani subs, in order to approach the American aircraft carriers and sink them, they would have approach within a 100kms of the target to launch their weapons. They would have to sail past all the ASW sonar of the Americans and past the Los Angles 699 class attack submarines, which ``sniff`` around a carrier task force for any threats.

Omar, such an attack can be planned and executed with the current assets, in IDF and American inventory, and is not too far fetched! If you want Omar, lets find a map and I can walk you through it; all it needs is a correlation of assets in the right place and the right time and this will work!

now thats how i see the kargil affair:

An insect falls into a mug of beer....

- Englishman: throws the mug away and walks out.

- American: takes the insect out and drinks the beer.

-Chinese: drinks the beer and eats the insect..

- Israeli: saps the beer from the insect before throwing the insect away and drinking the beer.

- Pakistani: accuses the Indian of throwing the insect into his drink and vows to reply in kind.



- Indian: accuses the Pakistan of infiltrating the insect in the mug, supplying it with nourishment to continue swimming in the beer, blames it as a long term intelligence undercover (ISI) operation, terms the insect as an Islamic militant, then Afghan mercenary, then Pakistan army regular and finally a Pakistan Army Special

Services commando in an undercover operation, and presents the identity card of the bug to prove that indeed it is a Pakistan army person in an undercover operation to change the Line of Control, and vows to defend every inch of its

land.

``You can`t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom`` (-Malcom X).

Re: FerozK ( #49)

you have a very good military knowledge. Hats off to that. I actually started my career with Indian military and was involved in one of their Radar systems (software part of it). I never had a good understanding of the military systems and different types of hardware though. Could you explain me the importance and detailed functionality of AWACS in a battefield scenario.

Thanks in advance for your info...

SRI

Kashmir issue will end if one of the following happens:

1) India is able to successfully suppress the Kashmiris, and break their will using their present tactics.

2) India acts morally, and allows the Kashmiris to vote for their own future, as prescribed by the U.N. resolutions, and by common decency.

3) The Kashmiris continue with their freedom struggle, and the Kashmir operation becomes too expensive for India.

4) Pakistan`s economy improves to such an extent that it is able to bleed India dry economically, by turning Kashmir into an economic battle.

I do not think there is a military solution to Kashmir.

SideNote:

Feroze: could you go into more detail on your following statement.

First of all, I admire the Israeli Defense Forces, including their air force, because they have a lot in common with the Pakistan Air Force in terms of tactics and war doctrine than is commonly thought of.

Also, I think you have made way too many assumptions in the scenario for an attack by Israel on the Pakistani nuclear installations. It is not that easy for aircraft to carry out attacks with so many air to air refuelings. It is also not that easy for aircrafts to avoid radar coverage over such a large range (speaking from personal experience). Also the pilots after such a long flight would be mentally, and physically exhausted, by the time they reached Pakistani airspace. Finally, Kahuta is too well guarded for someone to just fly in, and take out. Even friendly PAF aircraft that get too close, are considered hostile.

Anything can happen, however your scenario has way too many variables to be considered tactically correct. Compared to Pakistan, Iraq is very close to Israel. Also, there is a big difference between Iraqi air defences and Pakistani air defences.

The best scenario for Israel would be to ingress through India (with Indian cooperation), and egress the same way. However, due to the air defences at Kahuta, and around Pakistan in general, this would have very little chance of success. Otherwise, India would have tried it, already.

Any replies are encouraged...

Re: Sri

Detailed functions of an AWACS in a battlefield situation?????

First of all, the correct designation for an AWACS, which stands for Airborne Warning And Control System, is E-3 Sentry. The aircraft is designed for a surveillance radius of 200 miles on land and over water and its main purpose is to command, control and direct an Air-Land-Sea battle by intergrating the various forces into one combined operational framework.

It has sub-systems, which moniter navigation, communications and can process data from multiple sources, weapons control, battle management, tracking information on friendly and hostile forces; for reason of interdiction, reconnaissance, close air to ground support missions. In short, it can manage an entire theater of operations or a war zone.

As to the detailed functions of an AWACS, that would depend on the mission being assisted or the flight profile being maintained. What you have asked is too broad an area and if you can narrow your battlefield to a specific region, I can give you a better answer. Unless I know what battlefield scenrio might be, I can not tell you an AWACS function, because I have no idea what assets might be employed in that environment. A detailed scenrio has to be based on a specific example.

I am assuming that you might be referring to the India-Pakistan theater of operations and role of an AWACS within that environment? Am I correct?

Re: FerozK (reply#54)

Thanks for your info. yes i was referring to

indo-pak war scenario.

My question was very generic because I did not have a clear understanding of AWACS.

Now that I have an idea of what AWACS is, let`s consider a scenario where ( in a full blown indo-pak war) india is trying to use it`s navy to attack Karachi and a group of MIG`s to attack lahore. In such a scenario how can an Indian AWACS help achieve the objectives. Given the assets of two navies, what assets ( missile boats or destroyers or aircraft carrier) are best suited for indian navy, and what counter attack mechanisms could pakistan employ in this scenario? given the range of AWACS (200 miles) where would it be placed?

I was of the impression that AWACS is just like a passive listener and would not radiate any emissions. That seems to be wrong. Doesn`t sending commands mean becoming susceptible to enemy detection?

thanks

Sri

Feroze:

This is getting interesting. I am looking forward to your scenario, for an Israeli attack on Kahuta. I have a scenario of my own. I am familiar, in detail, with how the PAF works. I have also been a student of military history, and military studies, for quite sometime. We should exchange notes.

Personally, I think it is very very difficult (if not impossible) for someone to carry out a successful surgical strike against Kahuta. If my information is correct, Israel attempted one in 1983/84 (I cannot remember the exact time).

Re: UR #53

I am sorry, but had I seen your comments, I would have posted a reply to you with Sri`s post.

The mission of the Israeli Air Force is similar to Pakistani Air Force and that is to gain air superiority over the battlefield and to assit the ground elements in resisting an attack. Both Israel and Pakistan lack what can be termed as ``a critical depth`` and consequently, the concept of a tactical retreat does not exist, in either airforces` way of thinking, in face of a determined attack. Israel and Pakistan do not have land that can be traded for time and like the PAF, Israeli Air Forces` main operating bases are within 400-500 kms of their adversaries. Therefore, both air forces are dedicated to winning air superiority, because if they lose that edge, the enemy can effectivily neutralize their bases by over running them with his ground troops.

Both Pakistan and Israeli pilots are highly trained to fight against huge odds and both understand fully well that they are the first and last line of defense for their respective nations. This sense is further reinforced by a warrior corps d` espirit in their own training, aggressiveness and combat skills that neither pilot, Pakistani or Israeli, thinks that he will lose in an air engagement. Coupled with this, both airforces place stringent emphasis on Dissimilar Air Combat Tactics (DACT) and they learn to fight like their adversary might by having aggressor squadrons, which mimic their adversaries war doctrine and air combat tactics based on the flight characterists of enemy fighter aircraft.

This is just the obvivious similarities.....

As to the scenrio of an Israeli air attack on Pakistan, that was just an example. Your points are valid and I would have to look at them in detail. I think Omar has hooked me on to this idea, because I am seriously thinking about formulating a plan of attack on Pakistani nuclear facilities. Right now I am in the recon state and I am gathering ``intelligence``. After that, I will chose the ``attack package`` and a time frame. Right now, I am opting for F-16D and the Kfirs, because of their similar radar characterists with PAF`s F-16s and Mirage fighters. This is just a pre-lim determination, but attack will likely occur at around 0400hrs, Pakistani Standard Time, and hopefully on a moonless night.

You are right! I still have to work out the logistical wrinkles of the plan; route, flight time, fuel consumption, weapons payload, pilot fatique, PAF airbases within intended flight path, PAF and PAK army radar sites and their max range of coverage, PAF CAPs and BARCAPs over target, time on target and the egress routes out the ``kill box``

Just give me some time.......!!!!!!!!

Omar,

Most pakistanis will be happy that you exist, who can see the victory in kargill while the entire pak nation believes that something terrible has happened. See the pak news papers, the perception of loss is pervasive, from mujahideen to elite diplomats.

There was a great break through, Lahore process. Now after kargill pakistan is requesting for talks and india is putting forth conditions. That is some success.

Most of these details about costs are just numbers without much significance. If the aircraft are not lost in war, they are lost in flight accidents or are scrapped. The same with ammunition. All the costs of procurement and maintenance are losses to begin with, money could have been better spent on infrastructure and education. From an economic point of view, one has to look at the marginal cost of kargill operation. Other than the cost of moving the troops all other expenses are already committed. Specifically, instead of flying and drpping a few bombs in the deserts of Rajestan as part of training, the bombs have been dropped on pak troops. So what, where is the additional cost.

Any how please do take time to articulate your success story, a lot of pakistanis are eager to hear from you.

Re: UR # 57

Sounds good to me.....I would love to have someone who is familiar with the operational routine of the PAF! I just picked Kahuta as the primary target and presently, I getting intel on Pakistan air defences and PAF and army SAM sites. So far, it seems like it is going to be like trying to thread a needle wearing blind folds!!!!!

Anyway, I am looking at this idea as a brain teaser and a mental challenge to be solved!

My e-mail is ferozrk@hotmail.com

Re: Sri # 55

Your impression was correct. A E-3 does transmit emissions, but commands are send on encryptic channels and on modulating pulse frequencies. That is not its greatest Achilles Heel, but the radardome, which puts out enough enegry to microwave a small bird in flight and is really hard to mask it! Once, you have identified that, tracking an E-3 is not hard. E-3 does not have any defensive measures, but it does have fighters guarding it. So even though it is easy to track, it is hard to kill.

Okay....in your scenrio, I am assuming that PAF and IAF both have AWACS.

In that case, an IAF AWACS can track and identify PAF planes in the air by their speed, altitude and heading and it can steer the Indian MiGs clear of any PAF planes. It can use its suite of ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) to blind PAF radars and it can do the same for the Indian Navy. I would assume that you meant Indian Navy`s Sea Harriers for attacking Karachi, because Indian ships can not come any closer than 200 miles to Pakistani coast since that would put them under Pakistani missiles like Exocet AM-39s and under threat from PAF`s Mirage V naval strike aircraft, based in bases from Karachi to Pasni.

It can tell the Indian ships, where Pakistani missile boats are; their distence, range and course headings, so the Indians can take preventive measures against them and are fully aware of their threat environment.

On the other side of the street, a PAF AWACS can act as ``trip wire`` and warn about the in-coming Indian raid. A PAF E-3 can use its radar to track the Indian MiGs as soon as they take off from their bases and judging from their flight profile (attacking aircraft have a very specific formation, called the Alpha formation. The best way to explain this would be to think of your hand with fingers evenly spaced out and your thumb and little index fingers at 45 degrees from the base of your palm), it could vector any PAF CAP to intercept and interdict their flight path, thus saving both time and fuel and increasing the time factor by which the Indians could be detected and engaged.

In the case of the naval scenrio, it could track the flight of the Indian Sea Harriers and pin point the location of the Indian carrier. This info then would be tranmitted to PAF Mirages, who feed the data into their computers and head towards the Indian carrier on the vector provided by the E-3. Even if PAF does not have an E-3, it does have Orion P-3C maritime surveillance aircraft, which can do pretty much the same thing.

The only difference would be that they would have to ``guess`` the Indian carrier`s location, whereas an AWACS could ``see`` it on its radar. A carrier during combat flight ops also transmits large amonts radar emissions, which can be triangualated!!!

Also, in case the PAF does not have an E-3, the success of Indian raid over Lahore would increase, because the PAF CAPS would have to directed to the MiGs by PAF Forward Air Controllers or radar sites and only after the Indian aircraft have been airborne and that limits the reaction time of PAF to intercept the Indian raid. Hence, the suprise element would be with the IAF, but for a limited time.

Another thing to consider is that during a full scale Indo-Pakistan Stupidity (war) #4, Indian AWACS would be the prime target of PAF, because since PAF wants to achieve air superiority, it can can not afford to ignore the threat of
an AWACS. The IAF can protect them by flying behind the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area), but that would limit their tactical utility.

An AWACS does not confer a huge advantage; it merely increases the tactical options available to a commander by providing him with an accurate ``map`` of the battlefield. An E-3 is more of a force multiplier than an actual weapon. Also, it costs around 300 million dollars, that puts it within the buying power of both India and Pakistan, if they really, really want to buy it. The real problem is the issue of technology transfer and the Americans are paranoid about sharing the technical specifications of AWACS with any other nation and hence, for political reasons their deployment with either PAF or IAF is highly unlikely.

The only other air force, other than the United States Air Force, which uses the E-3 is the Royal Saudi Air Force. How did the Saudis get it? Money.....lots of it and effective lobbying, which mooted the concerns of pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, but that is another story.....

Hope this info helps!!!

re: UR

So far, I have decided on a strike force comprising of ten aircraft: 4 F-16Ds, 4 Kfir C-7s and two F-4Es. The -16s will be the lead aircraft and will be armed with a single GBU Paveway Laser Guided Weapon, four Sparrows and two external drop fuel tanks. The Kfirs will provide top cover to the -16s and will be designated as the lasing pod, directing the laser beam upon whose glide path the -16s will release their weapons on and they will armed with AIM-9O missiles and two drop tanks. The -4Es will act as Wild Weasel anti-radar aircraft and will fly ahead of the -16s to clear a ``path`` and will be armed with Shrike and HARM anti-radar missiles.

The operational designation for the mission is Gideon`s Hammer and the point of departure is Ramat David Air Base in Israel. From there the package will fly to Turkey; via Iraq into the Persian Gulf past the Straits of Hormuz and will ingress Iranian territory, some 200kms from east of Bandar Abbas and enter Afghanistan. The attack on Katuha will be from the west, from inside Afghanistan, because it offers the shortest distence to the target and fewest risk for an easy egress. The total mission time will be around 9.1 hours (one way)and will cover about 6,000 kms (one way). There will four mid air refuelings: one near Mosul in northern Iraq, one 300kms south of Kuwait City, one 150kms north of Oman and a final one, inside Afghanistan. The refueling will be done by KC-10 tankers of USAF; flying out of from Incirlik, Turkey; Saudi Arabia, and from Oman.

I will post a more detailed breakdown, by the hour, upon final completion of the plan and a description of the assets and how they wll correlate with each other. This is just a rough draft and there are more details to be sorted out. I have agonized over the locales of Pakistan SAMs and radars and the flying path of PAF CAPs, but due to a lack of hard evidence, there is nothing I can do about that invariable and have to just chance it!!!! There will be an element of deception to allow the UASF KC-10s to ingress into Aghanistan via Iran.

Would appreciate if you would hold your questions till the finalization of the plan and then we can discuss the operational parameters of the idea! Will post new developments as they are rationalized!!

Feroze:

Are you sure you know how Wild Weasels work... You seem to be over estimating their capabilities. You might want to look into it again.

I think it is impossible for aircraft to fly for such a long time over foreign lands, and not get detected. There is only so much Wild Weasels can do.

US tankers taking off from Saudia Arabia, Oman, and Turkey to help Israeli aircraft in their attack on a Pakistani nuclear site. That will never happen. The people in these countries are very pro-Pakistan nuclear program. Also, I believe Saudia Arabia, and Oman still have a significant presence of PAF officers in their Air Forces. Also, USA will never lend its aircraft for an attack on another country. They may not stop Israel, but they will never directly help.

The planes will be detected well before they enter Pakistani airspace.

You need to enter from the Indian border.

Just some thoughts........

Re: UR # 61

UR, the point you make is a good one, but not when no one wants to detect those aircraft!!!!!

There are two elements to my plan: logistical and political. If you know what the Russian word ``maskirova`` means, you will have an idea of what I intend to do with the political aspects.

Oman, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia may be pro-Pakistani nuclear programmes, but they all share something with the Americans and the key is to exploit this ``common understanding`` and forge a consensus, which would enable the transit of the aircraft. The PAF personnell deputed to airforces of Saudi Arabia, Oman and Tukey will not be a problem, because they do not need to know what is going on and they can easily kept outside the information loop!!!!

USAF will lend its aircraft if the right arguments are made for faciliting the mission and if a critical link can be established between its national security interests and the mission intent. All that needs to be done is to establish the fact that Pakistani nuclear research complex, targetted, presents ``a clear and present danger`` to the security of the United States itself.

There is already a strong argument for establishing this fact for the issuance of a ``presidential finding``, which could tacitily authorize American support for such a mission.

As to the Wild Weasels being effective over such an extended mission, there is some serious concern on this issue. However, I am not anticpating any hostile reactions till prior to an ingress into Pakistan.

Remember, this is supposed to take place during the night and PAF has a limited inventory of FLIR HUDs or LANTRIN pods to mount CAPS at night and that limits the number of PAF fighters up at night and even if they are, they will be near the Indian border, which leaves the back door open!!!!

The ingress from the Indian side is too predictable and given the location of the target near the Agfhan border, it makes for a ``balls to the wall`` approach and then there is the question of the egress. By the time the strike aircraft turn around, PAF will ready for them and it would eat them for lunch on their way back to the Indian airspace!!!!

Appreciate your thoughts......keep sending them.....keeps me on my toes!!!!!

Feroze:

You have asked for some comments, so here they are:

Directly aiding one country to attack another is a very big issue. Can you name one incidence where the US has directly aided another country in an attack (not self-defence, but in attack)? They only do that through an alliance, like NATO, or through the UN.

The only help the US may provide is intelligence. They will never directly aid Israel with refuelers. If my recollection is correct, even when Egypt was about to run over Israel, in 1973, the US pilots did not get involved directly. They only flew cargo missions to ferry supplies to Israel. What makes you think they will help in attacking Pakistan? This is a very incorrect assumption you are making. Please keep in mind, that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, so Kahuta in now a R&D facility. The last thing the US wants to do is to piss off a country with nuclear weapons, by attacking it for no reason.

Saudia Arabia, Oman and Turkey will never help Israel in attacking Pakistan. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Their help would cause Pakistan to ally with Iran and Iraq against them. Also, the Islamic parties/groups/organizations in SA, Oman and Turkey, would really put their govts to the test. What could America offer to these countries that would be worth taking on such a headache? Please let me know.

Also, flying over so many countries, at low level to avoid radar detection is not easy (in fact impossible, if you ask me). Do you realize how difficult it is to fly over even a small island without being detected, much less the whole Middle East.

Try flying at 200 feet AGL for even an hour in a fighter. It is like running a marathon. I do not know anyone who has done it for 9 hours. If you know someone who has done that, please let me know their name. I would like to meet them. And even with LANTRNs, the aircraft will have to climb to get refueled. Some country will detect these aircraft.

Even if all the countries that the aircraft have to fly through co-operate, and assuming the US is in on it (both these things are impossible, as far as I am concerned), and the aircraft make it to the Pakistan border, what happens then. You are assuming that Kahuta`s main line of defence is the PAF. It is actually the radars, and SAMs ( a whole bunch of them). Will four (extremely tired) F-4E pilots be enough to handle the Pakistan air defence system (which is pretty good, by the way).

Any plan that involves coordination of more than one country, has too many variables. The only time more than one country can work together successfully is if they have trained together in an alliance, like NATO. Even then they have political and military problems.

A good plan of attack is one that has a very high chance of success. Not one that might succeed if so many things can be worked out.

Your plan sounds good for a fictional book, but has too many assumptions for a realistic chance of success.

Again, I could be wrong, and you could be right. So let me know what you think........

Re: UR # 63

Sorry for this being a long post......

The United States did provide intelligence and battlefield logistical help to sustain the French garrision of Dein Bein Phu in 1954, before it fell to General Giap`s North Vietnamese forces. American air force pilots were flying actual combat missions during the siege of Dein Bein Phu and ten years later, American Army`s I Corps was activily engaged in combat operations, in support of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, in the Ia Drang Valley to push North Vietnamese forces north. This was an offensive action to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, and create a security buffer around it, at the point it entered South Vietnam. They failed, because a part of the trial was in Laos and in 1972, the United States, on behalf of South Vietnam, would invade Laos to finally cut off the trial.

The United States was waging the Vietnam War, an offensive military action, on the behalf of South Vietnam in order to aid Saigon to resist communism.

The United States pilots did not engage in combat ops during the 1973 war, because the Soviet Union had send a demarché to Washington suggesting that it would not tolerate American intervention. Why do you think the Israeli armor halted its drive outside of Cario after destroying the Egyptian Third Army and Sadat was crying and begging for Moscow`s help? The Soviets had dispatched an airborne regiment to fight, if necessary, with the advancing Israeli forces and we all know that that would have meant!

Pakistan is, sotto voce, considered as a rouge state by the United States intelligence community, because of its ties and the support it gives to terrorist movements, i.e. the right to use Paksitani territory as sanctury from reprisals and risk of it proliferating its nuclear technology and the danger of that technology falling into the hands of an Islamic militant movement. The recent Pakistani gambit in Kargil has strongly suggested, to the American intelligence analysts, that Pakistani possesion of nuclear weapons has a de-stablizing influence in the region, because it has a perchant for advocating policies of adventurism and risk.

Why do you think that the international opinion was so strongly in favor of India and even Pakistan`s traditional allies, Saudi Arabia and China, refrained from openly associating with the Pakistani action and in private were cautioning Islamabad to re-think the consequences of its actions.

You are right in saying that Kahuta is a R&D facility and that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, but Pakistan lacks a delivery platform for those weapons. It may have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead in the next few years, but at the present time it does not and it has to soley rely on its aircraft, modified for the purpose, to deliver them. Pakistani nuclear weapons delivery system, even including Shaheen IIs, do not have range or the sophistication of warhead design, which would lessen the warhead weight to increase fuel capacity for attaining altitude neccesary to effectivly target United States.

The only country, which they could target would be Israel and Israel has a defence treaty with the United States that mates Israeli security concerns with American security interests in the region. Any threat to the national security of Irael would be seen as a direct threat to the interests of the United States and hence, creating a clear and present danger to the security of the United States itself.

Therefore, the United States has a very narrow window of opportunity to tacitily and overtly seek the destruction of Pakistani R&D facilities, which enable Islamabad to target American shoreline with nuclear weapons. Pakistan can not retailiate, because it is depends on American waivers to get monetary assistence from IMF, the Paris Club et al. It can always make up the difference by proliferating its nuclear technology by becoming a rouge state, but that would only invite a massive military strike by the United States and a ``presidential authorization`` to contract MOSSAD to assasinate Pakistani nuclear scientists.

The United States has only to agree to provide Israel with the logistical support and it does not need to get involved. It just has to ``green light`` the Israeli plan and facilitate its success by ``encouraging`` other nations to allow the transit of Israeli aircraft through their airspace. Once the right to transit is allowed, there is no need to fly 200 AGL the entire route to the target and there will no concern of avoiding SAMs till the actual ingress into Pakistan.

UR, this is where the United States diplomacy would use the ``carrot`` approach to intice these nations and co-opt their sub-rasa (below the table) approval to allow the strike aircraft to proceed. What could America offer these nations in return for their ``understanding`` ? A better question is, what do these nations want? America could make them a offer they could not refuse!

UR, all the United States has to do is promise India a seat on the United Nations` Security Council and a new bi-lateral relationship and access for Indian nuclear scientists to work in its top secret labs and increased American investment in joint defence ties in India to off-set the Chinese dimension. In return all India has to do is feint an attack in Kargil or elsewhere to draw the Pakistani attentions and keep them occupied while the Israelis try to attack them.

You do not think that the Indians would jump at the possibility? If you do not believe me, ask the Indian Chowkwallahs on this site!

As to China, do you really think that China wants to give its chances for a seat on the World Trade Organiztion and American tilt in its affairs with Taiwan for Pakistan`s benefit?

In case of Turkey, it would do well to remember that the Turkish military, unlike its Pakistani counter-part, is non-religious and it wants to keep the Turkish political scene free from religious influences and it shares and has more in common with the American and pro-western ideals than it does with the regressive Islamic politics of Pakistan and its military.

What does Turkey want in exchange for allowing its airspace to used against Pakistan?

For starters, the United States could ``pledge`` its support behind Turkey`s bid to accquire memebership in the European Union, which it has been trying for the last 15 years. The American can increase their levels of commitment to Turkish Army in its struggles against the Kurdish Liberation Army and openly call it a terrorist organization and refuse to aid the Kurds in their demands for a seperate homeland. It could tell Turkey that it understands and supports Turkish concerns over the issue of Cyprus and will ask the Greeks to moderate their anti-Turk stand on the issue.

Do you really think that the Turks will forsake all of these inticements for Pakistan`s sake? Turkish self-interests, in these issues, would suggest that Ankara would have more to lose by not helping the Americans and Israelis than it could gain by standing next to Pakistan.

As to Saudi Arabia, do you really think that Pakistan is so important to the Saudis that they would be willing to ruin their ``strategic`` friendship with Washington? Remember, all the Americans have to tell the Saudis is they are not the only ones with oil and that the Americans can get oil from Mexico, Venezula, from the North Sea oil fields and from oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and Texas and Oklahoma to make up its enegry needs. Do you really believe that the Saudi princess will want to risk their easy life styles and all their wealth for Pakistani nuclear facilities?

UR, the same ``self interest`` approach can be applied to Oman and any other nation to enable their ``agreement`` to allow the use of their air space. Nations act on the principle of self interest and self-preservation and they will forget about Pakistan. Pakistan has no friendly nations for support; it has only donar nations, who dicate its national and foreign policies from offices in Paris, London, and Washington. Pakistan as a sovereign nation is a facade and it exists under such an illushion, because those who ``own`` it merely allow it to day-dream that it is one!

So, you see, my friend, just how easy this whole thing could be in reality!!! Like the old saying, ``truth is stranger than fiction``, this is the reality in which Pakistan finds itself today, because of its own policies and its own bad choices. As an ex-Pakistani military officer, you need to quit believing the press releases from ISPR and take a hard look at the security environment, which surrounds Pakistan.