What's new

American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

The UK Telegraph appears to be suggesting that American officials are accepting the Pakistani account of 'the US providing the wrong coordinates to the Pakistani liaison officer' - still some unanswered questions, especially regarding the duration of the US attacks on the two posts, even after Pakistani officials had communicated with NATO officials regarding Pakistani bases being attacked.

Pakistan friendly fire deaths due to US officers' "errors" - Telegraph

So Americans went to attack Position A, asked Pakistan if Pakistan has any troops in Position B, and Pakistan said it doesn't have any troops in Position B, and then America went ahead and attacked Position A?

So much back and forth and the no one in America figured out they are talking about to positions?

Sounds bogus way to say we're not complicit, we're just incompetent.
 
for RPG the firer needs to be within 400m of the target and it can only happen when he is almost underneath it or the helicopter is landing or dropping troops from ropes. same goes with Manpads that they need to be less than their maximum distance to eb effective. thus giving less time to the helicopter to react.

indeed all above discussion is based on assumption that Americans decide to target Pakistani posts on a regular bases like their drone strikes on suspected Taliban/ AQ terrorist locations.

but once that starts happening then it wont stay at that level and may move to the next level of Jets where PAF would have to make an appearance for its name sake.

then kiss the "******" peace goodbye. for sure Taliban will have a lot of willing recruits. I guess it will be Iran that will get the blame for helping Pakistan in the fight against the Americans. But wait, Americans are already blaming them for helping Taliban, the mortal enemies of Shias who have executed the Iranian diplomats and nationals wherever they found them during their time in power. It makes perfect sense for Americans to blame someone else for anything no matter how ridiculous that maybe.

irfan bahi (i dont know what to call)

the rpg was fire from a mountain top and heli was about 300m away . . . . . my village mate has that video, it was on you tube also but right now i am unable to fined it
 
So Americans went to attack Position A, asked Pakistan if Pakistan has any troops in Position B, and Pakistan said it doesn't have any troops in Position B, and then America went ahead and attacked Position A?

So much back and forth and the no one in America figured out they are talking about to positions?

Sounds bogus way to say we're not complicit, we're just incompetent.

Still sounds like hogwash - how do you get the coordinates that wrong? Did US troops on the ground have no idea where they were? How did the air support end up at the correct location?

Why were the Pakistanis the only ones given the wrong coordinates here?
 
I agree with your points Raptor, all of them.

But what is confusing to me is this:-

The troops deployed on the border have the right to defend themselves. If need be, they have the right to seek reinforcements too. Gen. Kayani made a statement that the CoC (Chain of Command) need not be followed by the troops, if under attack. Does it mean, that before his statement on CoC came out, the troops were to seek out the higher authority whether to defend themselves?

In essence, what I am asking is, how does it (breaking of CoC) make a difference in the position and situation of the troops deployed on the border if they do come under attack? They are supposed to defend themselves anyway, whether CoC is in place, or not!

The only difference I see is, it will become even more difficult in the coming times to ascertain which side of the border was at fault - if such an attack takes place again - So why mince the words, and make it appear even uglier?

Mere words won't fetch anything - let the things, that are need of the hour, be in place, but reserve the words to keep them from affecting the situation adversely.

With such anti-Pakistan sentiments rife across the western border, and such anti-American sentiments inside Pakistan (I bet a lot within the PA too), such breaking of CoC may raise the frequency of similar clashes, and the country may be heading toward some sort of war of attrition.

Many in here will say that Pakistan cannot just sit back and watch its sovereignty get violated. But what I am saying is, wisdom calls for minimizing the losses because Pakistan is not doing very well in all its sectors.

It is simply not in its right time, nor in its right in position to sustain the offensive coming in from all the directions, even more so when the adversary is aware of all its weaknesses.

Like Markham said - For all your days prepare, meet them ever alike: When you are the Anvil bear, when you are the Hammer, strike.

I have no comment, there is no reinforcement, no PAF response, no China response, no communication response by COAS, no Talibans response, no medical experts availables, no witness reports.

And there were no response during OBL raid within forty minutes and now increased to 2-5 hours slaughting Pakistan Army in the borders.

The key role here is Apache's Jammer system is perfect accurate to mute all communications including wireless. A recent installed radars in the West will be jammed again. Cutt off!
 
The UK Telegraph appears to be suggesting that American officials are accepting the Pakistani account of 'the US providing the wrong coordinates to the Pakistani liaison officer' - still some unanswered questions, especially regarding the duration of the US attacks on the two posts, even after Pakistani officials had communicated with NATO officials regarding Pakistani bases being attacked.

Pakistan friendly fire deaths due to US officers' "errors" - Telegraph

AM thanks for linking this neutral post that agrees with our story. I don’t know what our noble critics will make of it? I always suspected malicious intent and that is very much clear now.

the failure or complicity at three levels.

the ones requesting the strike
the ones giving the go ahead
and the ones actually carrying out the strike

indeed, never a business as usual anymore. What’s more, the reports of American fighters flying the CAP across the border further complicates this “alliance” this whole operation is rotten to the core. The helicopters returning but then coming back to resume their attack only suggests a premeditated attack. As far as the apology is concerned, there wont be any and neither should we expect or accept it and the Americans are the ones to blame, hiding behind the NATO’s name and making the German commander Gen Jacob to answer all the awkward questions is not going to hide the truth much longer despite their history of cover ups and hushing the whistle blowers regarding deliberate civilian deaths and their kill squads collecting teeth and fingers of the slain civilians as trophies and their snipers baiting the Iraqi metal scavengers to pick up stuff and then shoot them dead on “suspicion” of planting IEDs or stealing American equipment in Iraq.

Yet these are the same Americans who are willing to hold talks secretly with Haqqanis that are arranged by the ISI but in the open everyone who is anyone in American administration is busy blaming us for their failure in Afghanistan and citing our links within Haqqanis as support. Going by this definition Pakistan Army’s DGMO would be “supporting” the Indian DGMO because they keep contact with each other.

that’s what happens when there are too many chiefs in the village, and that’s what the American leadership looks like, suggesting some inter department and state institutions rivalries and tug of war and a very good public speaking president strangely keeping a mum. So who knows if this whole idea of teaching Pakistan a lesson was the brainchild of one of the many hawks within the US administration specially when the next US elections are in the horizon it helps to show the current government much more tough and ruthless than the tea party goons and Republican hardliners.
 
I think Pakistan government and ARMY took right decision AFTER NATO attacks FOR new rules of engagement. Reason is because this is highly considered deliberate attack by the NATO(done by US). Also further strong steps for kicking USA out from Shamsi Airbase in 15 days is extreme/right measure.. No need to Panic too much. Just stop the NATO supplies till official apologize from Obama and
NATO and force them to Assure Pakistan "not to mistake again". But if they does in future, We will retaliate back with full force inspite the consequences and results. Because there is nothing important than country Sovereignty, Lives and integrity.
 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/144675-pakistan-russia-threat-afghan-war.html


Days after the Pakistanis closed their borders to the passage of fuel and supplies for the NATO-led war effort in Afghanistan, for very different reasons the Russians threatened to close the alternative Russia-controlled Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The dual threats are significant even if they don’t materialize. If both routes are cut, supplying Western forces operating in Afghanistan becomes impossible. Simply raising the possibility of cutting supply lines forces NATO and the United States to recalculate their position in Afghanistan.

New interesting development ! Lets see how events turn out in future ...
 
Rejecting Apology, U.S. May Hasten End of Pakistan as Client


WASHINGTON, Dec 3, 2011 (IPS) - President Barack Obama has sided with U.S. military and Defence Department officials in rejecting a proposal by the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan for a U.S. apology for last weekend's attack on two Pakistani border posts, and approving an investigation into the attack that won't be completed until Dec. 23 at the earliest.

The White House and the military bloc are gambling that the lengthy investigation into the attack that killed 25 Pakistani troops will defuse popular Pakistani anger and that final report will allow the Obama administration to return to a more aggressive policy toward Pakistan in 2012.

But the course Obama has chosen is likely to further aggravate the anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan that has boiled over in response to the violation of Pakistani sovereignty and unprecedented number of deaths of Pakistani troops. U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and State Department officials are seriously concerned that the rejection of any acknowledgement of U.S. responsibility for nearly three weeks will push Pakistan further toward a potentially irreversible break in relations with the United States.

Pakistan has vowed to close "permanently" the U.S.-NATO logistics routes through which more than half of the supplies needed for the war in Afghanistan must pass. Despite the development of an alternative set of routes through Central Asian republics, that closure will seriously constrain the U.S. ability to wage war in Afghanistan within four to six weeks, according to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who usually reflects the latest thinking of Pentagon and CIA officials.

Although Washington hopes that decision will be reversed in the coming weeks, some U.S. officials warn that the closure could harden under popular political pressure.

Serious concern about rapidly rising anti-U.S. sentiment forcing the hand of the Pakistani government led the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, to urge the White House to move quickly to assuage Pakistani anger, according to the New York Times and the CNN security blog "Security Clearance".

Munter reportedly told a group of White House officials that if the United States has evidence that Pakistani troops had actually fired at U.S. troops first, it should provide it to Pakistan, but that if it has evidence that U.S. forces were at fault, the White House should issue a formal apology in order to prevent far more serious deterioration of relations.

Defence Department officials argued, however, that no statement on the attack should be issued by the White House until the formal investigation is completed, and that the expression of condolences by the White House press secretary and cabinet officials was sufficient until then, according to a report in the New York Times first published Nov. 30.

The investigation launched by CENTCOM commander Gen. James N. Mattis is to be completed and a report submitted by Dec. 23, but the letter from Mattis states that the officer in charge may request additional time to complete it.

At the daily State Department briefing by spokesman Mark Toner Friday, a reporter referred to "concern expressed by U.S. officials in this building…that the window is rapidly closing for the United States to come up with some kind of explanation for the Pakistanis."

The Defence Department argument that the United States can keep the Pakistani government and population waiting for more than three weeks for the results of the investigation is based in part on the longstanding assumption that the Pakistani military will be forced to accommodate U.S. interests, because of its dependence on U.S. assistance.

Decades of patron-client relations between the Pakistani military and their U.S. military and CIA counterparts have created a widespread belief in the military and CIA that Pakistan is too dependent on the United States for assistance to cut loose completely from U.S. policy.

A Dec. 1 column by the Washington Post's Ignatius shows that the notion of Pakistan is client stateremains intact among Pentagon officials.

Ignatius suggested that the Pakistani military will soon have to wake up from its gestures of opposition to U.S. policy - especially the cutoff of NATO supplies for Afghanistan.

"Continued Pakistani reprisals make sense only (if) Islamabad is heading toward a real and lasting break with Washington," he wrote, adding, "I don't get the sense that's what Pakistan's leaders really want."

So the Pakistanis "will need to figure out how to climb down the hill," he wrote, "now that they have forcefully planted the flag."

The justification for the military and DOD officials to oppose the admission of responsibility for those deaths and to express regret for it is not based on a conviction that U.S. troops were innocent in the Nov. 26 attack. The Nov. 30 New York Times report said DOD officials "did not deny some American culpability in the episode…."

That private admission suggests that the real reason for rejecting an apology is that it would shift the focus of media attention away from the Pakistani policy of allowing insurgents to have safe havens in Pakistan from which to carry out operations in Afghanistan.

U.S. military and Defence Department officials desperately need to make the case that Pakistani complicity in Taliban insurgent attacks across the border in Afghanistan is the primary obstacle to the success of the 10-year U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan.

That interest can only be served if the investigation ordered by CENTCOM concludes that there is no reason for the United States to apologise, because of the threat to U.S. troops from insurgents who have been protected by the Pakistani army.


The investigation would have to give credibility to the claim by the U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) unit and its Afghan counterpart that they pursued the insurgents who attacked them across the border to a location close to, if not inside, an encampment that turned out to be a Pakistani border post.

A series of news media stories in the days after the incident reported just such accounts from members of the SOF commando unit, but the Pakistani army command provided details that refuted it. The U.S. military has denied that the attack on the border posts was deliberate, but it has also acknowledged privately to the New York Times that U.S. troops were culpable in the deaths of the Pakistani troops.

The U.S. military investigation is supposed to be open to Pakistani participation, though not as an equal partner. But Pentagon spokesman George Little confirmed Friday that Pakistan has elected not to participate in it.

Maj. Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem, the Pakistani Army's director general of military operations, has pointed to earlier "joint investigations" of U.S. violations of Pakistani sovereignty as having "come to naught". He referred to "joint investigations" with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) into the three U.S.-NATO attacks on Pakistani troops on Jun. 10, 2008, Dec. 30, 2010 and Jul. 17, 2011.

The reports generated by those inquiries "give a version not based on facts as we know them", Nadeem said.

The appointment of Brig. Gen. Stephen Clark to carry out the investigation of the attack on the Pakistani border posts raises yet another issue: whether the investigation will hold the SOF unit involved and the helicopter pilots attached to it fully accountable.

Clark has spent virtually his entire military career in the Air Force Special Operations Command.

The helicopter pilots who made crucial decisions during the assault on the border posts were almost certainly affiliated with the Air Force Special Operations Command.

Even more than other branches of the military, Special Operations Forces officers are known for protecting other SOF personnel against any legal challenge. When he was commander of ISAF in 2010, SOF veteran Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal used two separate investigations to deflect charges that an SOF unit had covered up the killings of two pregnant women in a February 2010 night raid gone bad.


Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106087
 
Three NATO troops killed by bomb in Afghanistan
(AFP) – 13 hours ago
KABUL — Three troops from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were killed by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan Saturday, officials said.
ISAF did not say which country the dead troops were from or give further details of the incident, in line with policy.
There are around 140,000 international troops in Afghanistan fighting a Taliban-led insurgency, 100,000 of them from the United States.
"Three International Security Assistance Force members died following an improvised explosive device attack in eastern Afghanistan today," a spokesman for the NATO-led ISAF said.
Many of the decade-long Afghan war's worst fighting takes place in eastern Afghanistan, which is close to the border with Pakistan.
Pakistan closed its supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by a NATO air strike last Saturday close to the mountainous, porous border, provoking a major diplomatic row between Islamabad and Washington.
The latest incident takes to 542 the number of coalition troops killed in Afghanistan this year, according to an AFP tally based on that kept by independent website iCasualties.org.
A total of 711 foreign troops were killed in Afghanistan last year, the highest annual total yet in the decade-long war triggered by a US-led invasion in 2001 which ousted the Taliban from power.
Amid declining support for the war and fragile economies in the West, all foreign combat troops are due to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, by which time Afghan forces and officials are set to be in control of the country.
However, a substantial foreign troop mission training Afghan security forces is expected to remain beyond that time.
A major international conference on the future of Afghanistan takes place in the German city of Bonn Monday.
The meeting is set to discuss the process of transition from foreign to Afghan control of the country, the international community's long-term role in Afghanistan and badly stalled efforts to promote reconciliation with insurgents.
But the event is set to be clouded by the absence of Pakistan, which is boycotting it in protest at the NATO air strike which killed its soldiers.

3 more down 20 to go . come on Taliban you can do batter.
 
Let the NATO supply routes into Afghanistan stay closed all over Pakistan. Time to see if the American bullcrap about that not affecting the war in Afghanistan holds water or not!

Time for Pakistan to change the rules of the engagement and take its front place in this game of chess!
 
I have no comment, there is no reinforcement, no PAF response, no China response, no communication response by COAS, no Talibans response, no medical experts availables, no witness reports.

And there were no response during OBL raid within forty minutes and now increased to 2-5 hours slaughting Pakistan Army in the borders.

The key role here is Apache's Jammer system is perfect accurate to mute all communications including wireless. A recent installed radars in the West will be jammed again. Cutt off!

You don't just jam radars by a press of a button.

A big big misconception people have, after the OBL episode and now again.
 
US begins vacating Shamsi airbase
Published: December 4, 2011


QUETTA: An American aircraft reached Pakistan on Sunday to carry US nationals who are vacating the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan.

Sources said that the aircraft landed in Pakistan today (Sunday), and the passengers were shifted to the aircraft amongst strict security. Officials from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) were also present at the site.

Residents living around the area were told not to leave their homes while the American nationals were being shifted to the aircraft.

Pakistan demanded that the US leave the remote airbase used for drone flights within 15 days and blocked ground supply routes to US forces in Afghanistan, following the Nato attack on a military outpost on November 26 that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The controversial airbase, located about 300 kilometres from Quetta, has been used as a key launch pad for drone strikes in Afghanistan and allegedly also for those carried out in Pakistan’s own tribal areas. This is the third time Pakistan has demanded the US to vacate the base. Similar demands were made after CIA operative Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis in Lahore and in the aftermath of the unilateral US raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

One US government source earlier told The Express Tribune that the US has spent months preparing for a possible eviction from the airbase by building up other drone launching and staging capability.

Earlier this year, after the US raid that killed bin Laden, some Pakistani officials demanded that Washington vacate the Shamsi facility.

At the time, however, US officials said that American personnel would remain at the base and would continue to conduct drone flights.

US officials had acknowledged that this time Pakistan appears much more resolute about carrying out the eviction threat.

Vacating the airbase was seen more as an inconvenience rather than a critical blow to drone operations, which the US also conducts from Afghanistan and possibly elsewhere.
US begins vacating Shamsi airbase – The Express Tribune
 
Back
Top Bottom