& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

To all the armchair generals

Muhd Rahman
RECENTLY, in discussions around the country and in the blogosphere, I see and hear J extensive criticism and second guessing of how the sad and despicable affair of the BDR incident was 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 took 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 by a heavily armed force 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 theatre. The highly trained and fully equipped Russian security apparatus negotiated and waited four days before pumping in poison gas and storming the theatre and killing 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 other examples: 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.
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’
I'he reality is that the world's most highly trained forces could not have secured Pilkhana 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 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 favourite scapegoats. No one can ever say for certain what could have happened from the path not taken. But there is plenty of evidence that hotheaded assaults are minimally effective and cause maximum anguish.
There is no play-book 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.
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, 1 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, get an F. And as for those trying to make hay out of this sad moment by undue finger pointing and second guessing (certain political leaders come to mind), I give a 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 colour our thoughts and actions -- but think of the future and what ought to be done now -- not what could have been done. And 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.
Muhit Rahman is a banker.