From an armchair general
Re: To all the armchair generals (Daily Star 12/9/09)
Yes we are very serious about criticizing the government's handling of the incident on 25th February 2009. The government may have been right to stop a frontal attack by the Army. But we need not guess the partisanship of those who are bold enough to give the government's handling of the crisis a rating of A. In the interest of a balanced debate I hope this will be published. It is not only armchair generals who think that an intrusion of some sort was required. You might ask some actual generals too. You might ask many, many other citizens who are not bound to any political party.
At the outset, let me say that I am an armchair general in the proud tradition of all those who, based on evidence and precedent, still care enough to ask unofficial questions and to challenge official answers. For people like me the Army, intelligence agencies, broadcast media and political opposition all get a score of F. But this is about challenging those who give the government's handling a score of A.
To start, those who give the government a score of A are also armchair generals for having reached such a conclusion well before the official investigations have concluded!
The civilian population outside the camp was not trapped. That population was actually evacuated within a few hours on day two. It could have been evacuated within a few hours on day one. These civilians were outside the perimeter. They were not trapped.
Future military textbooks will not recommend and document how not to intrude in the case of the incident in Bangladesh on 25th February 2009. They will recommend and document how to intrude in such an incident. The Russians will not be flying into Bangladesh to learn about the government's brilliant handling of the situation.
The incident in Moscow on October 23, 2002 is a blind comparison. The Chechens were known to be on a suicide mission with many wearing bombs. The Russian government did its best to obtain the best possible containment, negotiation and response. Now look at our government. Can we say the same about a heinous crime defined by such successful entry, execution and exit?
Our soldiers, hiding and dying, looked at that gate. Through that gate lay their families, their lives, their comrades and their true country. But at that same gate our soldiers saw their killers being supported by chanting crowds and giving interviews on live television.
The murderers were escorted directly into the Prime Minister's presence! She thought she was negotiating about food and pay while murder and rape had already been committed and was probably still going on back in the camp! The Prime Minister did not realize that the men she was speaking with were murderers playing for time! The Prime Minister sent totally unqualified and inexperienced people to negotiate, fact find and rescue. The government allowed the broadcast media to take position at the main gate, giving live interviews to hostage takers! The government allowed curious civilians to crowd at the walls and other civilians to chant in support of the hostage takers! The government sent an elderly and completely inexperienced lady into the camp under a white flag! The government allowed the entire camp to stay unlit throughout the whole night while teenagers were raped and shallow graves were dug! The government allowed at least several hundreds of the mutineers and murderers to effortlessly flee! The government forgot to surround the camp! The government ordered the evacuation of surrounding areas 24 hours too late! The government threatened stern action 24 hours too late! The government brought in the tanks – leading to immediate surrender – 24 hours too late!
The government and military high command was completely fooled by the perpetrators.
The Russians have their dead in spite of their best efforts. We have no such consolation. For these cannot be anyone's best efforts. The Army knows this and that is why it is struggling to accept what happened. Politicians on the other hand have no problem ignoring their own failures.
This was a military compound, inhabited almost entirely by military personnel and some of their families. It was under military attack from within under the guise of a military rebellion. References to various police manuals and police cases around the world are irrelevant. It is a military problem. Ask the militaries – and the police – in those countries. It's not as if we were expecting anything at all from our police on 25th February 2009! It's not as if the police had a say in anything on that day!
We have no precedent of any government ever having satisfactorily concluded an investigation into a violent incident of national importance. There is no reason to now suddenly expect a successful investigation within two weeks of the incident! But still we wait because we hope for the best. In the meantime armchair generals everywhere are making sure that the government realizes that this time it's not so easy to fool the people. Surely that is our democratic right!
Just look at the blunders listed above. The score F is distributed effortlessly amongst all participants. To single out the Prime Minister for an A is beyond reason. But then that's what partisan intellectuals do when they settle abroad – they apply high standards for their adopted home country and low standards when it comes to Bangladesh. It is tragic.
Many do not believe in the decision to do nothing. There are many who believe with every blood vessel in their heart that we should have done something. And those who think that for even the best armies in the world something means only a full frontal attack assault must surely know nothing about military affairs. No snipers, no commandos, no disguised infiltrators, no surveillance, no lights, no intelligence, no special forces, no night cameras, nothing.
Some think it is great that a full frontal assault on day was stopped. But the government threatened a full frontal assault on day two! If the BDR troops did not surrender on day two she would have honoured her threat by ordering a full frontal assault herself! To this day the government has not said that other military options were available other than a full frontal assault!
And in the end, after all that, a broadcast threat on day two coupled with tanks at the gates caused a mass surrender of those who had not earlier walked home freely in the night. If only that threat was made, and those tanks were moved, 24 hours earlier. I wonder if the Prime Minister had a cup of tea and biscuits with the fourteen murderers on day one at her offices. It would be a fitting highlight of the proceedings.
There is no comfort in saying that our officers were killed in the morning. For the government did not know it at the time. It is simply a probability that is being used for political expedience. It is unlikely that every single death occurred before 11am and such criminals do not sleep during a night of peace and darkness. We wait for the government to declare that the rapes stopped at 11am.
It's so easy to separate the Prime Minister from the Army. Except that she is in charge of the portfolio of the Armed Forces. In other countries the defence minister would surely resign. There is no comfort in saying the Government is only two months old. Those who use such an excuse for such blunders do so in Bangladesh only. They would never discuss such blunders abroad for fear of a response drenched in contempt. And what is to be said about the argument that any assault would have allowed the ringleaders to escape? They effortlessly walked away from the scene anyway! Just getting the charter does not change who has the charter. When there is no playbook a playbook is crafted as the situation requires and evolves. What exactly was the government's successful game plan here?
Those who dismiss the incident of 25th February 2009 by saying two weeks later that "the past is the past" have no concept of the significance of the incident and they are oblivious of the palpable tension in Dhaka city today and pay lip service to the grief of our military families.
The notion that the world's best armed forces and defence ministers would have responded either by doing nothing or by ordering a hot headed assault, just like the Bangladesh Army, is political trickery. It is an offence to all men who train hard to risk their lives for their comrades and their country. Don't let armchair generals explain this to you. Let actual generals explain this to you. Don't accept the explanations of politicians and commentators who have no experience whatsoever about such matters and who are concerned only with saving their party.
The Prime Minister's responsiveness to the officers can actually be measured by her backing down to demands from the Army. And it is absurd for partisan commentators to comment on the emotions of our wounded officers when politicians base their entire platforms and campaigns on manipulating emotions at such great cost to our country.
Finally, partisan commentators who want us to accept the past and move forward should remember that many, many readers are not woefully biased. And we know that politics and politicians in our dear Bangladesh are based almost entirely in our past with little to do with the future. So please don't ask us to look to the future after two weeks when you are still living in the past after forty years.
There can be no high grades awarded when the incident has been such a totally unmitigated disaster. The Prime Minister, the government, the Army, the BDR, the intelligence agencies and the media all score an F. And those who try to twist failure into success get a U.
Only our fallen soldiers and their families get an A for having had to pay such a catastrophic price for the failures of their military and political masters.
The 25th of February 2009 saw nothing less than an assault upon our sovereignty committed by internal and external enemies. We wait for the government to name and punish the guilty, be they soldiers, politicians or others. We wait for the government to condemn a named foreign country at the United Nations.
Maybe this time we will stand by our flag and stand our ground. Maybe this time we won't settle for less.
God rest our fallen heroes. We will forever mourn on the 25th of February 2009.
Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, abdul momen <abdul_momen@...> wrote:
>
>
> Political Gossips and speculation- BDR Carnage
> Muhit Rahman
>
>
>
> Recently, in discussions around the country and in the blogosphere, I see and hear extensive criticism and 2nd guessing of how the sad and despicable affairs of the BDR incident were handled. A principal refrain seems to be that the army should have been rushed in to shoot their way to a glorious rescue. Are we serious?
>
> All you armchair generals, can you cite ONE instance of a situation in known history where an armed force of thousands had taken over a barricaded area with a large trapped civilian population in a dense urban setting and another armed force attacked immediately (within two to three hours) and successfully rescued the hostages and/or disarmed the `rebels'? Let me make it easier, can you cite an example of armed hostage taking of even a few (ten to twenty) by a smaller, heavily armed force (sub-machine guns, mortars and grenades) in a dense urban setting where an assault team has immediately and successfully stormed the premises? By successful storming, I mean with no or minimal unintended deaths or collateral damage.
>
> Here are some examples: On October 23, 2002, approximately 30-40 heavily armed Chechens took about 800-900 people hostage in a Moscow theater. The highly trained and fully equipped Russian security apparatus negotiated and waited four days before pumping in poison gas and storming the theater and killing/executing a reported 39 of the Chechens. Even then somewhere between 129 and 200 civilians died – all but one as a result of the "rescue" operation. A special forces operative was reported as saying that had they not used the poison gas, there could have been more than 150 casualties amongst the rescuers. There are many other examples: On September 1, 2004 in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania, a group of armed Chechens took over a school, holding over 1,000 hostages. Three days later, Russian security forces stormed the building with tanks and heavy weapons. The resulting carnage caused almost 350 hostage deaths and hundreds more wounded or
> missing. On February 28, 1993, agents from United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch in Waco, Texas. The resulting siege situation lasted 51 days. When FBI agents ultimately moved in, the "rescue" caused 76 deaths. In 1972, the attempt by German police to rescue Israeli athletes taken hostage by the terrorist group, Black September, resulted in the death of 11 hostages (source: Various Wikipedia articles).
>
> The moral is not that you do not ever attack terrorists and hostage takers but that you do it with a cool head, after all other means of recourse have failed and that it almost always results in massive casualties. According to a "hostage negotiation study guide" developed with the help of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the first rule is "ICER" isolate, contain, evaluate and report. Note that "assault" is not on the menu for first responders! For over thirty years, the New York City Police Department has used a process concerning terrorist incidents that they characterize as "time, talk, and tear gas."
>
> The reality is that the world's most highly trained forces could not have secured Peelkhana by force without massive loss of innocent lives ranging from innocent BDR personnel and their families who may have been coerced or were swept up in the mutiny, to the very hostages that they were going to save. Even the army officers who remained alive (and if you assume there had been about 150 officers present and about 60 are dead or missing, that implies 90 of them were in there, alive) were wearing BDR uniforms (as is customary) and they had taken off their rank markings — they too would very possibly have been killed in a rushed, ill-conceived attack. The ringleaders and outside agents, if they had done their planning (as seems likely) could very well have escaped and in the middle of the hundreds, if not thousands of victims, truth would have been the first casualty. As it is, few seem to want to wait for the truth to emerge before pointing at their
> favorite scapegoats. No one can ever say for certain what could have happened from the path not taken. But there is plenty of evidence that hot-headed assaults are minimally effective and cause maximum anguish.
>
> There is NO gamebook, except perhaps in the lands of the likes of Idi Amin and such despots, where massive armed conflict is precipitated in a dense urban civilian zone in the midst of the fog of lack of information and disinformation. The other reality is that our security forces have very little preparation for this type of event (note I do not say "army" I say security forces). How do you use anti-aircraft guns to flush out "rebels" hiding amidst "innocents" in residential quarters and office buildings? What happened when the lights were out? In classic hostage rescue, it is usually the rescuers who try and turn the power off so that they can have the advantage of night vision equipment over the hostage takers who are usually less prepared. The power being off was a golden opportunity for elite, trained units (again I don't say army - but "trained units") to go in and assess the situation and come back with reports and/or a plan of
> action. The reality is that while we have many brave men, we have no such well equipped, elite, trained units. So all we seem to be doing is crying about the darkness, instead of wondering why we didn't take advantage of a situation when advantage normally reverts to those who have better plans, equipment and capabilities. Whoever had the responsibility of securing the perimeter (if there was such a person or entity), did not even seem to know exactly how the perimeter worked. Reportedly, they were guarding the principal gates and left much of the perimeter wall around Gate 5, including, perhaps Gate 5, unsecured. Did someone order that Gate 5 and the surrounds be left unguarded – or did they just forget about it? Whose job was it? It is not the prime minister or even the home minister's job to secure an area. The buck may stop there but they only recently got that charter. The responsibility for controlling the security forces and maintaining
> discipline and command and of staying informed about their morale lies with the command structure and this was a massive command failure. It was likely also a cynical and brutal attempt by as yet unknown parties to start a civil war and precipitate the fall of the government.
>
> I commend the civilian government as well as the military high command for handling a terrible situation about as well as they could have – perhaps even, brilliantly!
> Moreover, the prime minister showed excellent responsiveness in going in front of the officers and I do not blame the officers for being emotional - they are Bengalis!
> All in all, I give the civilian government an "A" for their handling of the crisis and the army an "A" for its restraint. The intelligence agencies, however, all of them - police, RAB, DGFI, etc. all get an "F". And as for those trying to make hay out of this sad moment by undue finger pointing and 2nd guessing (certain political leaders come to mind), I give an "U" for unsatisfactory conduct.
>
> So, enough already!
> Let the investigations proceed and let the nation try to heal its wounds!
> Let the investigations be thorough, just and transparent.
> Let the institutions that govern and guard the country show their true strength by being fair and open and by being accountable to the people they serve.
>
> Justice must be sure – not just sure as in inevitable, but also sure as in certain.
> The past is the past and will always color our thoughts and actions - but think of the future and what ought to be done NOW - not what could have been done. If you have to indulge in "I wish they had done …" fantasy, then consider "I wish they had a better feel for the pulse of the BDR jawans … so that matters could have been headed off long before things came to a head".
>
> But it would be better if instead, you pray for the souls of the departed and for the safety and security of Bangladesh and its people and thank God that a larger calamity was avoided.
>
> ...........................................................................................................
>
>
>
>
>
> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com; chottala@yahoogroups.com; dahuk@yahoogroups.com; notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com; sonarbangladesh@yahoogroups.com; reform-bd@yahoogroups.com; amra-bangladesi@yahoogroups.com; tritiomatra@yahoogroups.com
> From: wouldbemahathirofbd@...
> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 06:41:44 -0700
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] A billion dollar question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Has Bangladesh Army paid enough price for making wrong headed(declared by court) PM or will have to pay more? How much people will have to pay if she remains five year?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list.
> http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
>
__._,_.___