American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'
- Thread starter Bill Longley
- Start date
Safriz
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 20,845
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
ANALYSIS: Of NATO attacks and conspiracy theories Dr Moeed Pirzada
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Clearly defined and understood parameters of engagement will prevent the US and its allies from being sucked inadvertently into a large conflict of incalculable dimensions
Fyodor Dostoevsky had once written: Nothing is easier than to denounce the evil doer. Nothing is more difficult than to understand him. Almost 140 years after the publication of Demons (or The Possessed, as it was called in English), this is still as difficult if not impossible; especially if the demons are our own.
I was at a diplomatic dinner; the topic was Pakistans boycott of the Bonn Conference after the NATO attacks. Many Pakistanis were quietly asserting that these attacks look deliberate and most diplomats were aghast, for they found it difficult to believe that a rule-based organisation like NATO could deliberately do something that heinous and wild.
Back in my home I opened Steve Jobs gift, an iPad, for my nightly bibliotherapy. A little surfing took me to Foreign Affairs and there I found this new piece, Talking Tough to Pakistan by a certain Stephen Krasner that had first appeared on November 29, 2011. Lying lazily in my bed, I started galloping through its oft-repeated accusations of Pakistani double games. But soon I had a tingling sensation in my spine. I sat up and squinted my eyes to read carefully. Is he suggesting that the US should actually attack Pakistan?
Krasner was arguing that the only way the US can actually get what it wants of Pakistan is to make credible threats. And what will those credible threats be? Krasner suggested, among other things, an escalation of drone strikes, electronic jamming of Pakistani airspace, initiating cross-border raids by Special Operations against specific targets of such short duration that Pakistanis cannot retaliate with conventional forces, and finally strengthening US ties with India. This frightening cocktail of punishments had an amazingly benign name: Malign Neglect. His second set of punishments came under Active Isolation that included declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.
Now fully sleepless in Islamabad, and intrigued by who this Stephen Krasner was, I clicked on his brief bio, expecting that this warmonger will be a frustrated Major or Colonel prematurely retired from service in Afghanistan for cerebral deficit but it turned out that Mr Krasner is a professor of international relations at Stanford University, a senior fellow at Hoover Institute and has served as Director Policy Planning at the US State Department. Wow!
Will it be unfair to ask the question: how many military and intelligence decision-makers inside Afghanistan may be possessed by the demons of Krasner? And lets not forget, this warmonger professor from Stanford is just one of the many dozens of military officers, analysts, policy wonks and media pundits who have been continuously making a case for taking the Afghan war into Pakistans tribal areas. Is this not what most Pakistani military officers and defence analysts are claiming behind the scenes: that the Americans are deliberately pushing the war into Pakistans tribal areas?
On December 2, Julian Borger, the diplomatic editor of The Guardian, claimed in NATO plans push in eastern Afghanistan to quell Pakistan-based insurgents that NATO commanders are planning a substantial offensive aimed at insurgent groups based in Pakistan, involving an escalation of aerial strikes and have not ruled out cross-border raids with ground troops.
While The Guardian reports on the plans that were being made, the increasing chatter in Islamabad is that the attacks on Salala on November 26 were part of the same thinking and in fact were not done by NATO/ISAF proper but by the US Army Special Forces with access to gunships and air cover and that is why General Mattis has appointed Brigadier-General Stephen Clark, of the Special Forces, to investigate and that is why there will never be any unambiguous result of this investigation.
In February 2010, as President Obama completed his first year in the White House, I did a TV programme to assess his presidency. Prominent TV anchor, Talat Hussain, also joined in the discussion. While talking of Afghanistan he commented that from this point onwards Obamas fate is in the hands of these generals; now they will call the shots, they will determine what will happen.
Twenty-two months later, has Obama lost all control to his generals and to those he had defeated in the elections? Is he standing helpless facing all those who want to subvert his withdrawal plans? It is not a secret that on Afghanistan the whole administration is split; the Pentagon and the CIA are on one side and the US State Department on the other. Whereas diplomats of the whole world might be repeating ad nauseam as they again did in Bonn this month that Afghanistan has no military solution, it appears that the generals have their own visions of glory.
Einstein had once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again in the hope of getting different results. The generals, oblivious of the history of this region and of their own performance over the past 10 years, are making the case in Washington that if only they can destroy the insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal areas, the outcome will be different. But will it?
Hypothetically speaking, if the American generals get the kind of absolute freedoms they crave, then the wily insurgents will quickly melt away further deeper into Pakistani territory, forcing the Americans to practically occupy the Pakistani tribal belt as a new kind of buffer zone bordering Afghanistan under their control. It will merely expand the geography of conflict, providing a temporary relief; the final outcome can be that Pakistan will have to defend its territory behind River Indus on the other side of Attock. The American generals, at this moment, are not concerned about these looming issues because their singular focus is on achieving results in the specific war theatre of Afghanistan. It is there that their performance is being judged; they are like blinkered horses but the White House does not enjoy this luxury. It has to look beyond.
The term AfPak coined during the late Holbrooke era has only added to this tunnel vision inside ISAF headquarters, in Washington, and to a lesser extent in London and Brussels. I once got the opportunity to protest to Anne Patterson, the then US ambassador to Pakistan, that how come you lump Pakistan with its 180 million population, large urban centres, massive agrarian economy, substantial industrial base, hundreds of universities and colleges, large military, nuclear posture and space satellites with a tribal society of 25 million that has yet to enter the industrial age? The great realist that she is, she reflected, sighed and said that I do understand Pakistani reactions to AfPak but the argument in Washington is that our troops are in Afghanistan and this term helps to focus minds in Congress to sanction aid for the challenges in Pakistan.
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) of our minds plays havoc; it shapes our consciousness and thus politics. This term AfPak, coined without much thought, and accepted by a naïve, disinterested and aid hungry political class in Islamabad, has been disastrous for Pakistan. Now perhaps in hindsight people will understand that AfPak in the American minds, in the minds of Congress and the CIA and above all in the minds of military commanders defines Pakistan exclusively from the lens of Afghanistan. US responsibilities are narrowly defined inside Afghanistan and Pakistan of 200 million is merely a means to an end. So what if their strategies for Afghanistan spell disaster for Pakistan; why should they care?
It is in this context that Pakistans standoff with the US after the border attack in Mohmand Agency assumes great significance not only for Pakistan but also for the US. Clearly defined and understood parameters of engagement will prevent the US and its allies from being sucked inadvertently into a large conflict of incalculable dimensions.
The Obama administration may never be able to bring out the whole facts of the aerial attacks on Pakistan but it will find out for itself what really happened. After overcoming its embarrassment, its foremost challenge now will be to mediate between Clinton and Panetta and to control the military mindset that sees victory in a narrowly defined way.
A word for Professor Stephen Krasner: I am so glad that I studied international relations at Columbia and not Stanford.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Clearly defined and understood parameters of engagement will prevent the US and its allies from being sucked inadvertently into a large conflict of incalculable dimensions
Fyodor Dostoevsky had once written: Nothing is easier than to denounce the evil doer. Nothing is more difficult than to understand him. Almost 140 years after the publication of Demons (or The Possessed, as it was called in English), this is still as difficult if not impossible; especially if the demons are our own.
I was at a diplomatic dinner; the topic was Pakistans boycott of the Bonn Conference after the NATO attacks. Many Pakistanis were quietly asserting that these attacks look deliberate and most diplomats were aghast, for they found it difficult to believe that a rule-based organisation like NATO could deliberately do something that heinous and wild.
Back in my home I opened Steve Jobs gift, an iPad, for my nightly bibliotherapy. A little surfing took me to Foreign Affairs and there I found this new piece, Talking Tough to Pakistan by a certain Stephen Krasner that had first appeared on November 29, 2011. Lying lazily in my bed, I started galloping through its oft-repeated accusations of Pakistani double games. But soon I had a tingling sensation in my spine. I sat up and squinted my eyes to read carefully. Is he suggesting that the US should actually attack Pakistan?
Krasner was arguing that the only way the US can actually get what it wants of Pakistan is to make credible threats. And what will those credible threats be? Krasner suggested, among other things, an escalation of drone strikes, electronic jamming of Pakistani airspace, initiating cross-border raids by Special Operations against specific targets of such short duration that Pakistanis cannot retaliate with conventional forces, and finally strengthening US ties with India. This frightening cocktail of punishments had an amazingly benign name: Malign Neglect. His second set of punishments came under Active Isolation that included declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.
Now fully sleepless in Islamabad, and intrigued by who this Stephen Krasner was, I clicked on his brief bio, expecting that this warmonger will be a frustrated Major or Colonel prematurely retired from service in Afghanistan for cerebral deficit but it turned out that Mr Krasner is a professor of international relations at Stanford University, a senior fellow at Hoover Institute and has served as Director Policy Planning at the US State Department. Wow!
Will it be unfair to ask the question: how many military and intelligence decision-makers inside Afghanistan may be possessed by the demons of Krasner? And lets not forget, this warmonger professor from Stanford is just one of the many dozens of military officers, analysts, policy wonks and media pundits who have been continuously making a case for taking the Afghan war into Pakistans tribal areas. Is this not what most Pakistani military officers and defence analysts are claiming behind the scenes: that the Americans are deliberately pushing the war into Pakistans tribal areas?
On December 2, Julian Borger, the diplomatic editor of The Guardian, claimed in NATO plans push in eastern Afghanistan to quell Pakistan-based insurgents that NATO commanders are planning a substantial offensive aimed at insurgent groups based in Pakistan, involving an escalation of aerial strikes and have not ruled out cross-border raids with ground troops.
While The Guardian reports on the plans that were being made, the increasing chatter in Islamabad is that the attacks on Salala on November 26 were part of the same thinking and in fact were not done by NATO/ISAF proper but by the US Army Special Forces with access to gunships and air cover and that is why General Mattis has appointed Brigadier-General Stephen Clark, of the Special Forces, to investigate and that is why there will never be any unambiguous result of this investigation.
In February 2010, as President Obama completed his first year in the White House, I did a TV programme to assess his presidency. Prominent TV anchor, Talat Hussain, also joined in the discussion. While talking of Afghanistan he commented that from this point onwards Obamas fate is in the hands of these generals; now they will call the shots, they will determine what will happen.
Twenty-two months later, has Obama lost all control to his generals and to those he had defeated in the elections? Is he standing helpless facing all those who want to subvert his withdrawal plans? It is not a secret that on Afghanistan the whole administration is split; the Pentagon and the CIA are on one side and the US State Department on the other. Whereas diplomats of the whole world might be repeating ad nauseam as they again did in Bonn this month that Afghanistan has no military solution, it appears that the generals have their own visions of glory.
Einstein had once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again in the hope of getting different results. The generals, oblivious of the history of this region and of their own performance over the past 10 years, are making the case in Washington that if only they can destroy the insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal areas, the outcome will be different. But will it?
Hypothetically speaking, if the American generals get the kind of absolute freedoms they crave, then the wily insurgents will quickly melt away further deeper into Pakistani territory, forcing the Americans to practically occupy the Pakistani tribal belt as a new kind of buffer zone bordering Afghanistan under their control. It will merely expand the geography of conflict, providing a temporary relief; the final outcome can be that Pakistan will have to defend its territory behind River Indus on the other side of Attock. The American generals, at this moment, are not concerned about these looming issues because their singular focus is on achieving results in the specific war theatre of Afghanistan. It is there that their performance is being judged; they are like blinkered horses but the White House does not enjoy this luxury. It has to look beyond.
The term AfPak coined during the late Holbrooke era has only added to this tunnel vision inside ISAF headquarters, in Washington, and to a lesser extent in London and Brussels. I once got the opportunity to protest to Anne Patterson, the then US ambassador to Pakistan, that how come you lump Pakistan with its 180 million population, large urban centres, massive agrarian economy, substantial industrial base, hundreds of universities and colleges, large military, nuclear posture and space satellites with a tribal society of 25 million that has yet to enter the industrial age? The great realist that she is, she reflected, sighed and said that I do understand Pakistani reactions to AfPak but the argument in Washington is that our troops are in Afghanistan and this term helps to focus minds in Congress to sanction aid for the challenges in Pakistan.
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) of our minds plays havoc; it shapes our consciousness and thus politics. This term AfPak, coined without much thought, and accepted by a naïve, disinterested and aid hungry political class in Islamabad, has been disastrous for Pakistan. Now perhaps in hindsight people will understand that AfPak in the American minds, in the minds of Congress and the CIA and above all in the minds of military commanders defines Pakistan exclusively from the lens of Afghanistan. US responsibilities are narrowly defined inside Afghanistan and Pakistan of 200 million is merely a means to an end. So what if their strategies for Afghanistan spell disaster for Pakistan; why should they care?
It is in this context that Pakistans standoff with the US after the border attack in Mohmand Agency assumes great significance not only for Pakistan but also for the US. Clearly defined and understood parameters of engagement will prevent the US and its allies from being sucked inadvertently into a large conflict of incalculable dimensions.
The Obama administration may never be able to bring out the whole facts of the aerial attacks on Pakistan but it will find out for itself what really happened. After overcoming its embarrassment, its foremost challenge now will be to mediate between Clinton and Panetta and to control the military mindset that sees victory in a narrowly defined way.
A word for Professor Stephen Krasner: I am so glad that I studied international relations at Columbia and not Stanford.
AZADPAKISTAN2009
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37,669
- Reaction score
- 68
- Country
- Location
What a joke
---------- Post added at 07:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------
What a joke
When Ramond Davis kills people in back of their spine its mistake
When 28 Soliders are killed by unprovoked attack its a mistake
But its completely ok to jail a women who happened to be kidnapped because its justice and even if she did it in a mental state where her children were thought to be also kidnapped (who knows she was insane)
I think we had enough of US bull crap ... we need to setup proper airdefence and start patrolling our airspace like a sovereign nation does
---------- Post added at 07:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------
What a joke
When Ramond Davis kills people in back of their spine its mistake
When 28 Soliders are killed by unprovoked attack its a mistake
But its completely ok to jail a women who happened to be kidnapped because its justice and even if she did it in a mental state where her children were thought to be also kidnapped (who knows she was insane)
I think we had enough of US bull crap ... we need to setup proper airdefence and start patrolling our airspace like a sovereign nation does
Secur
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 10,119
- Reaction score
- 56
- Country
- Location
DG MO terms Nato attack 'pre-planned'
Updated 2 hours ago
ISLAMABAD: Director General Military Operations Major General Ashfaq Nadeem Thursday termed the Nato airstrike in Mohmand Agency as a “pre-planned attack,” Geo News reported.
Briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Defence which met under the chairmanship of Javed Ashraf Qazi, the DG MO said Nato officials gave wrong information to the Border Coordination Centre about the location of the operation.
"The bunkers were specifically targeted and destroyed," Maj. Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem told the Senate body.
Nadeem added that terrorists hide inside ditches and cracks and not on mountain peaks which is where the check posts were located.
The DG MO said the only confusion was if the attacks were the act of Special Forces or ISAF.
DG MO terms Nato attack 'pre-planned'
Updated 2 hours ago
ISLAMABAD: Director General Military Operations Major General Ashfaq Nadeem Thursday termed the Nato airstrike in Mohmand Agency as a “pre-planned attack,” Geo News reported.
Briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Defence which met under the chairmanship of Javed Ashraf Qazi, the DG MO said Nato officials gave wrong information to the Border Coordination Centre about the location of the operation.
"The bunkers were specifically targeted and destroyed," Maj. Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem told the Senate body.
Nadeem added that terrorists hide inside ditches and cracks and not on mountain peaks which is where the check posts were located.
The DG MO said the only confusion was if the attacks were the act of Special Forces or ISAF.
DG MO terms Nato attack 'pre-planned'
MiloMayor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 4, 2011
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 0
I fell really sorry for the death of the soldiers. May their soul RIP.
Coming to the video, if Pakistan has stopped this double game,there would not have been the need for the above video
Last edited by a moderator:
pakdefender
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,671
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
They are now telling it like it should be!!
This was indeed a deliberate and pre-planned attack done by the United States
Gald to see that supplies to American killers have remained shut and we have kicked off the process of getting them out of our country. It will take time but we have at least started the roll back of their ingress into our country
pakdefender
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,671
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
So according to this geo report amrekanon ki phat rahi ha afghanistan mein as a result of this blockage operations have come to a stand still!!
This will not stop here ... the image of the 24 coffins draped in Pakistani flag will stay with us and we will do everything in our capacity to inflict upon the perpetrators as much loss as they have done on us!!
This will not stop here ... the image of the 24 coffins draped in Pakistani flag will stay with us and we will do everything in our capacity to inflict upon the perpetrators as much loss as they have done on us!!
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
STRIKES RECALLED: Explaining the sequence of events, he said a post code-named Volcano was first attacked by two helicopter gunships at 12.15am on Nov 26. A nearby check post, code-named Boulder, hit back with 12.7mm anti-aircraft weapons and mortars after the Volcano check post was attacked.
He said the General Headquarters came to know about the incident at 12.35am. Subsequently, check post Boulder also came under attack and all communication was lost with both checkposts. But minutes before the disruption, Company commander Major Mujahid left for the Volcano and Boulder posts for an assessment of the situation. Unfortunately, the officer lost his life after the helicopters re-engaged.
Another officer sent later saved his life by sheltering in a bunker when he saw helicopters taking position again. He said the entire operation lasted almost two hours.
Gen Nadeem said the two posts were located at a place from where there had been no cross-border infiltration, although militant attacks from the other side had been frequent.
The two check posts, he maintained, could not be mistaken for militant havens as the other side had been given all information about the number of Pakistani posts and their locations. The men at the posts were uniformed and positions were well-defined.
The DGMO further said the Pakistan Army believed that Nato was monitoring the transmissions that night and knew they had hit Volcano checkpost.
DECEPTION: He said misleading information was provided to the Pakistan military from the outset. Just before the Nov 26 strike, a Pakistani officer at the regional tactical centre was informed by an American sergeant that their special forces had received indirect fire from Gora Pai, some 15 kilometres from Volcano post. And after seven minutes, a woman officer informed him that the fire had, in fact, come from Volcano, which had been hit in retaliation.
“It is not the first incident of its kind and in recent years it already has happened thrice.”
In reply to a question, Gen Nadeem said joint investigations had been carried out in the past as well, but vital information that could have helped reach a conclusion was never shared.
Alamgir Babar, an additional secretary at the Foreign Office, also attended the briefing.
Afghan border to get air defence weapons | Newspaper | DAWN.COM
These are the words of the DGMO. Pretty clear to me that who was at fault. Looks like the ISAF does not even know hoe to read maps!
He said the General Headquarters came to know about the incident at 12.35am. Subsequently, check post Boulder also came under attack and all communication was lost with both checkposts. But minutes before the disruption, Company commander Major Mujahid left for the Volcano and Boulder posts for an assessment of the situation. Unfortunately, the officer lost his life after the helicopters re-engaged.
Another officer sent later saved his life by sheltering in a bunker when he saw helicopters taking position again. He said the entire operation lasted almost two hours.
Gen Nadeem said the two posts were located at a place from where there had been no cross-border infiltration, although militant attacks from the other side had been frequent.
The two check posts, he maintained, could not be mistaken for militant havens as the other side had been given all information about the number of Pakistani posts and their locations. The men at the posts were uniformed and positions were well-defined.
The DGMO further said the Pakistan Army believed that Nato was monitoring the transmissions that night and knew they had hit Volcano checkpost.
DECEPTION: He said misleading information was provided to the Pakistan military from the outset. Just before the Nov 26 strike, a Pakistani officer at the regional tactical centre was informed by an American sergeant that their special forces had received indirect fire from Gora Pai, some 15 kilometres from Volcano post. And after seven minutes, a woman officer informed him that the fire had, in fact, come from Volcano, which had been hit in retaliation.
“It is not the first incident of its kind and in recent years it already has happened thrice.”
In reply to a question, Gen Nadeem said joint investigations had been carried out in the past as well, but vital information that could have helped reach a conclusion was never shared.
Alamgir Babar, an additional secretary at the Foreign Office, also attended the briefing.
Afghan border to get air defence weapons | Newspaper | DAWN.COM
These are the words of the DGMO. Pretty clear to me that who was at fault. Looks like the ISAF does not even know hoe to read maps!
Bratva
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 13,832
- Reaction score
- 67
- Country
- Location
Piecing together the events
The DGMO said a US sergeant at the Nawra coordination centre informed a Pakistani officer that they had noticed fire coming from the Pakistani side, from the Gora Pari area.
“This was a move to deceive the Pakistani troops as the check post was located 15 kilometres away from the two check posts that were attacked later on,” Nadeem is said to have told the committee.
Apparently, he went on, while Pakistani troops were focusing on that complaint, US helicopters attacked well-marked check posts, which are located on a high mountainous terrain in an area where there is no civilian population — therefore, according to the DGMO, ruling out any possibility that the attack was carried out in pursuit of militants hiding in the area. He added that the two check posts were set up in September 2011 and their maps were exchanged with the US.
“The first attack was carried out at 12:15am and all communications were blocked. After the first attack they returned and conducted a second attack. The whole operation was completed in two hours,” he said. GHQ knew about the attack by 12:35am and informed officials and their counterparts.
“Keep in mind that all this happened in the middle of the night and our troops were killed in cold blood,” Nadeem is quoted as having said.
Suspicion grows
The DGMO told cabinet members that Isaf commander General Allen was in Pakistan on the day of the incident. “He was discussing with us how to resume tripartite talks and he had been proposing the meeting in the third week of December that evening. The next morning, when we asked him about the attack, he said he was completely unaware.”
In Nadeem’s view, this gives the impression that the CIA and US special forces conduct certain operations on their own – keeping Isaf in the dark.
When asked about Pakistan’s refusal to be part of joint investigations, he said in three such incidents in the past Pakistan fully cooperated, but these efforts did not bear fruit. “Because of mistrust created due to three previous incidents we have decided to stay away from such investigations,” Nadeem said.
‘US spies unwelcome in Pakistan’
Earlier, briefing the federal cabinet on the airstrikes, Nadeem is quoted as having said that Pakistan would no longer allow the presence of US intelligence operators.
Pakistan, it seems, does not want to completely shun cooperation with the US in the ‘war on terror’, but plans to reduce the “direct and independent” operations of the CIA inside the country to a “minimum” level, a top military official said.
The DGMO told the meeting that several hundred individuals with direct or indirect links to the CIA had already been expelled from Pakistan since the secret raid by US Navy Seals in May which killed Osama bin Laden. The exact number of CIA operatives who flew out of Pakistan after the midnight raid in Abbottabad is not known, though conservative estimates put the number at more than 500.
An intelligence official told The Express Tribune last week that the army wanted the US and Nato to rely on the information provided by Pakistan, instead of running their own underground networks.
Cabinet and Senate briefings:
The DGMO said a US sergeant at the Nawra coordination centre informed a Pakistani officer that they had noticed fire coming from the Pakistani side, from the Gora Pari area.
“This was a move to deceive the Pakistani troops as the check post was located 15 kilometres away from the two check posts that were attacked later on,” Nadeem is said to have told the committee.
Apparently, he went on, while Pakistani troops were focusing on that complaint, US helicopters attacked well-marked check posts, which are located on a high mountainous terrain in an area where there is no civilian population — therefore, according to the DGMO, ruling out any possibility that the attack was carried out in pursuit of militants hiding in the area. He added that the two check posts were set up in September 2011 and their maps were exchanged with the US.
“The first attack was carried out at 12:15am and all communications were blocked. After the first attack they returned and conducted a second attack. The whole operation was completed in two hours,” he said. GHQ knew about the attack by 12:35am and informed officials and their counterparts.
“Keep in mind that all this happened in the middle of the night and our troops were killed in cold blood,” Nadeem is quoted as having said.
Suspicion grows
The DGMO told cabinet members that Isaf commander General Allen was in Pakistan on the day of the incident. “He was discussing with us how to resume tripartite talks and he had been proposing the meeting in the third week of December that evening. The next morning, when we asked him about the attack, he said he was completely unaware.”
In Nadeem’s view, this gives the impression that the CIA and US special forces conduct certain operations on their own – keeping Isaf in the dark.
When asked about Pakistan’s refusal to be part of joint investigations, he said in three such incidents in the past Pakistan fully cooperated, but these efforts did not bear fruit. “Because of mistrust created due to three previous incidents we have decided to stay away from such investigations,” Nadeem said.
‘US spies unwelcome in Pakistan’
Earlier, briefing the federal cabinet on the airstrikes, Nadeem is quoted as having said that Pakistan would no longer allow the presence of US intelligence operators.
Pakistan, it seems, does not want to completely shun cooperation with the US in the ‘war on terror’, but plans to reduce the “direct and independent” operations of the CIA inside the country to a “minimum” level, a top military official said.
The DGMO told the meeting that several hundred individuals with direct or indirect links to the CIA had already been expelled from Pakistan since the secret raid by US Navy Seals in May which killed Osama bin Laden. The exact number of CIA operatives who flew out of Pakistan after the midnight raid in Abbottabad is not known, though conservative estimates put the number at more than 500.
An intelligence official told The Express Tribune last week that the army wanted the US and Nato to rely on the information provided by Pakistan, instead of running their own underground networks.
Cabinet and Senate briefings:
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
Terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan; Nato attack not deliberate: Dempsey
Updated 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON: The head of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey said there are terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan, Geo News reported.
The US general further said that the Nato attack in Mohamand Agency was not deliberate.
Dempsey added that the US had achieved its military targets in Afghanistan and was considering asking its allies to do more.
Updated 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON: The head of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey said there are terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan, Geo News reported.
The US general further said that the Nato attack in Mohamand Agency was not deliberate.
Dempsey added that the US had achieved its military targets in Afghanistan and was considering asking its allies to do more.
Safriz
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 20,845
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
[video]http://www.kalam.tv/ur/video/96667/index.html[/video]
One litre of fuel costing 10,000 PKR to NATO
or 110 USD
and yet they prefer to sit on their high chair refusing to admit their fault and apologize..
well good luck or rather bad luck with that.
One litre of fuel costing 10,000 PKR to NATO
or 110 USD
and yet they prefer to sit on their high chair refusing to admit their fault and apologize..
well good luck or rather bad luck with that.
Similar threads
- Article
