Pak Army issues detailed report on NATO attack

[VCheng]

Aap he appni adaao pe zara gour karay na
Hum agar arz karay gay to shikayat ho ge

I will have no complaints; aap zaroor irshaad karein.

 

[Bratva]

I will have no complaints; aap zaroor irshaad karein.

All that persons who endorsing Pakistani POV, wo hazar dafa irshaad kar chukay hay. phr be janay walay anjaan kyo hain

patta patta boota boota haal humara janay hay

Janay na Janay GUL he na janay baagh to sara janay hey

 

[VCheng]

All that persons who endorsing Pakistani POV, wo hazar dafa irshaad kar chukay hay. phr be janay walay anjaan kyo hain

patta patta boota boota haal humara janay hay

Janay na Janay GUL he na janay baagh to sara janay hey

Kam az kam yeh "gul" to zaroor jaanta hey keh haqeeqat kiya hey!

I reiterate: It is important for both sides to learn from this unfortunate incident and move on, for they are indispensable to each other for many reasons.

 

[fatman17]

Posted: 26-Jan-2012

Pakistan rejects US report on 26 November airstrike


James Hardy - Asia-Pacific Editor - London


An official Pakistani report has rejected the US Central Command (CENTCOM) findings of an investigation into the 26 November NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, saying that "several portions and findings" of the report were "factually incorrect".

The CENTCOM investigation into the airstrike determined that "inadequate co-ordination by US and Pakistani military officers" was responsible for the worst 'friendly fire' incident involving NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Pakistani troops in the 10 years since the toppling of the Taliban regime. The report, written by Brigadier General Stephen Clark, Director of Plans, Programs, Requirements and Assessments, HQ, US Air Force Special Operations Command, was published in a redacted form on 26 December.

The Pakistani report rejects Gen Clark's attempt to share the blame, stating that the "fundamental cause of the incident ... was the failure of US/ISAF to share its near-border operation with Pakistan at any level. This obviously was a major omission, as were several others, like the complicated chain of command, complex command-and-control structure and unimaginative/intricate rules of engagement as well as lack of unified military command in Afghanistan".

On this issue there is a level of agreement between the Pakistani and US reports. Gen Clark found that the situation on the ground had been exacerbated by different rules of engagement for ISAF and Operation 'Enduring Freedom' (OEF): the military component of the 'Global War on Terror' that operates separately from ISAF in Afghanistan.

However, the Pakistani report also found that "US/ISAF violated all mutually agreed procedures with Pakistan for near-border operations put in place to avert such uncalled for actions. It also carried out unprovoked engagement of Pakistani posts located inside Pakistan, violating the US/ISAF mandate, which is limited to Afghanistan alone."

According to the US account, the 26 November incident occurred after a joint US-Afghan commando unit of about 150 troops operating in Kunar province around midnight came under "direct and heavy" machine gun and "pretty accurate" mortar fire from a ridgeline in the direction of the Pakistani border. Gen Clark said the ground force commander believed his forces were being attacked by militants and initially called for a show of force by air assets in the area.

When the mortar and machine gun fire did not stop, the ground force commander directed a Lockheed Martin AC-130H Spectre gunship to fire on the positions he had identified. In a second engagement, the AC-130 and an AH-64D Apache attack helicopter fired on the Pakistani positions, Gen Clark said.

The Pakistani report said that the border posts that came under fire had been in place since September 2011 and were known to US/ISAF personnel, as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aerial platforms regularly swept the valley in which they are based.

"US/ISAF had carried out at least one or two operations in and around Village Maya prior to [the] 26 November incident in the months of October/November 2011, which involved ground forces and air support," the report said. "Even when active ground operations are not taking place, an average of two to three US/ISAF aerial platforms operate opposite Mohmand Agency on a daily basis; these include ISR aircraft, fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones. Resultantly, it is inconceivable that these or any other Pakistani posts in the area were/are not known to US/ISAF."

"Establishing positive identification of the Pakistani posts ... was the direct and clear responsibility of US/ISAF who were, by their own admission, carrying out a near-border operation," the report adds.

It also denies that any US or Afghan forces came under fire from the Pakistan positions, saying they had opened fire in the opposite direction, and argues that the description of US return fire as "proportionate" was incorrect.

The report also manages to convey Pakistan's palpable anger at the US and ISAF for "deliberately" withholding specific map references relating to where the US and Afghan forces were operating. "The very purpose of sharing information about fire originating from Pakistan was for Pakistan to suppress/stop it," the report said. "Without giving exact map references, how could this have been achieved?"


COMMENT

Pakistan's report into the 26 November incident adds another level of detail to what has become a major thorn in Islamabad's relationship with the US. By rejecting the CENTCOM conclusions out of hand, it also suggests that Pakistan is in no mood to forgive and forget.

As well as rejecting the US military's conclusions, the authors make a few digs at US public statements on operations in Afghanistan. Notable is the claim that the incorrectly targeted border posts had prevented insurgents from crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan but that "unfortunately several large- (and some small-) scale attacks on Pakistani border posts and civilians had occurred regularly, emanating from Kunar and Nuristan provinces of Afghanistan into Dir, Chitral, Bajaur and Mohmand areas of Pakistan".

This is a reversal of US officials' regular complaint that the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan has limited ISAF's ability to take on the Taliban insurgency and that Pakistan is not doing enough to prevent insurgents from crossing the border.

Some US officials may also argue that this airstrike is an unfortunate, but predictable, consequence of Pakistani duplicity; it is certainly true that in 2011 Pakistan's reputation as an honest partner was shot to pieces in US military and foreign policy circles.

The report notwithstanding, relations are quietly improving on the ground in some respects. The US has restarted unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks inside Pakistan after they were suspended following the airstrike. Four suspected militants were killed in northwestern Pakistan in a UAV attack on 23 January: the second such strike this month. NATO's supply route from Karachi into Afghanistan remains closed, however, and it is unclear when this will reopen.

 

[VCheng]

..................................

Some US officials may also argue that this airstrike is an unfortunate, but predictable, consequence of Pakistani duplicity; it is certainly true that in 2011 Pakistan's reputation as an honest partner was shot to pieces in US military and foreign policy circles.

..................

This statement is key, both in terms of its evolution that contributed to the root causes of the Salala incident, and also in terms of its effect on bilateral relations going forward.

 

[cyphercide]

This statement is key, both in terms of its evolution that contributed to the root causes of the Salala incident, and also in terms of its effect on bilateral relations going forward.

No it isn't.This statement is key;

Pakistan rejects US report on 26 November airstrike

What else you got? I'm high and dry and looking to maul someone...

 

[VCheng]

No it isn't.This statement is key;

Pakistan rejects US report on 26 November airstrike

What else you got? I'm high and dry and looking to maul someone...

The Pakistani rejection is already established; however, this rejection is not, and can not be, a full stop. Let's see how the PNSC is able to move Pakistan's national interests forward, and how effectively, taking into account all the aspects of an important bilateral relationship.

I hope it does a better job of it than till date.

 

[cyphercide]

The Pakistani rejection is already established; however, this rejection is not, and can not be, a full stop. Let's see how the PNSC is able to move Pakistan's national interests forward, and how effectively, taking into account all the aspects of an important bilateral relationship.

I hope it does a better job of it than till date.

So why not clarify their questions on the incident for Pete's sake? I see how you're baiting the neutrals with the chugging along part.While I agree that the United States is indeed a valuable partner for Pakistan and can't possibly be substituted by anyone but why would anyone endure an unequal relationship and put up with abuse without any justification whatsoever.

A convergence is required but not at the sake of forsaking all what matters.

 

[VCheng]

................While I agree that the United States is indeed a valuable partner for Pakistan and can't possibly be substituted by anyone but why would anyone endure an unequal relationship and put up with abuse without any justification whatsoever........................s.

Well, that is exactly the question that has been posed to the PNSC; it is their responsibility to answer it as best as they can, and I am perfectly content in waiting for them to come up with it.

 

[cyphercide]

^^^ Something that needs to be answered by a Pakistani citizen...the implications of me answering that response wouldn't be considered as conducive to the discourse.

 

[VCheng]

^^^ Something that needs to be answered by a Pakistani citizen...the implications of me answering that response wouldn't be considered as conducive to the discourse.

Well, this old Zen master is content to wait and see!

 

[Irfan Baloch]

This statement is key, both in terms of its evolution that contributed to the root causes of the Salala incident, and also in terms of its effect on bilateral relations going forward.

then punish the leadership why kill the soldiers who had no role, no control over what the leadership has been doing
its about time that facts are presented from the stash of information gathered and taken away from OBL's raid.

by facts I mean not just what Panetta or his butler suspects or believes but some hard evidence. Then the Pakistani nation can take the leadership to task. I fail to see how keeping world fugitive was more valuable to Pakistan when Pakistan it self had lost many times for whatever charity it got from America. I must say that honesty is a subjective term and it makes me laugh when the West tries to educate the world about it. But to keep peace I would say Pakistan is as honest as the USA is.

Not sure how America thought that it was punishing the Pakistani leadership by killing 24 soldiers when it has already lost thousands of soldiers and many thousand civilians in this war. If the Pakistani leadership is so cold and ruthless to loose its own population then killing another 24 of its soldiers would hardly matter to it if we go by this American logic.

I strongly believe that this attack was only to humiliate Pakistan and showcase it to the rest of the world saying that’s how America deals with its own allies so imagine what it will do to its enemies.
This attack had all the hallmarks of the empire. Most of it is bullying, propaganda and aggression.

The sooner Americans reach a settlement with the Taliban and leave this place for their next adventure the better for Pakistanis.

 

[VCheng]

then punish the leadership why kill the soldiers who had no role, no control over what the leadership has been doing

The whole nation pays the price, not just these 24 soldiers, and not just in lives, for the decisions and consequences of their leaders.

its about time that facts are presented from the stash of information gathered and taken away from OBL's raid.

by facts I mean not just what Panetta or his butler suspects or believes but some hard evidence. Then the Pakistani nation can take the leadership to task. I fail to see how keeping world fugitive was more valuable to Pakistan when Pakistan it self had lost many times for whatever charity it got from America.

There are already mountains of evidence over decades for the Pakistani nation to take its leaders to task; adding the OBL evidence is small by comparison to what they have already done. The "taking to task" is simply not going to happen for the foreseeable future, I am sorry to say.

I must say that honesty is a subjective term and it makes me laugh when the West tries to educate the world about it. But to keep peace I would say Pakistan is as honest as the USA is.

Not sure how America thought that it was punishing the Pakistani leadership by killing 24 soldiers when it has already lost thousands of soldiers and many thousand civilians in this war. If the Pakistani leadership is so cold and ruthless to loose its own population then killing another 24 of its soldiers would hardly matter to it if we go by this American logic.

I keep trying to tell many here that honesty and morality and other similar concepts do NOT apply to international geopolitics, no matter which country one is talking about. The Pakistani leadership is as cold and ruthless as any other country's, no more, and no less.

There was no intent on the US side; it was an accident, rooted in many factors.

I strongly believe that this attack was only to humiliate Pakistan and showcase it to the rest of the world saying that’s how America deals with its own allies so imagine what it will do to its enemies.
This attack had all the hallmarks of the empire. Most of it is bullying, propaganda and aggression.

You may believe whatever you wish; I will respect that. However, most of the perceived humiliation that you, and many others, are upset about, clearly arise from factors within Pakistan, but the Pakistani leadership is clever enough to be able to divert this ire towards USA (and India, the old favorite bogeyman), while it carries on its own merry way.

The sooner Americans reach a settlement with the Taliban and leave this place for their next adventure the better for Pakistanis.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Continued unrest on the western front will divert Pakistani resources and attention from its traditional eastern front, and India will do whatever is needed to ensure this outcome. It is only logical.

 

[Awesome]

During our investigation in December, we had asked the Pakistani government to take part. We would have preferred to have the cooperation and participation of our Pakistani counterparts; unfortunately, this invitation was declined. It is simply unfair to assume that the report presented to our command and released to the media was biased or fabricated. This incident was tragic but unintentional. Consider: why would we intentionally attack and kill Pakistani soldiers and harm our bilateral relations with Pakistan? There is neither rhyme nor reason in these accusations. Lack of coordination and communication on both sides resulted in this unfortunate incident. Instead of thinking of more means to further strain the U.S- Pakistan relationship, we need to work towards improving our relationship for the sake of bringing stability and peace in the region. Hence, we need to look beyond this incident, and redirect our energy to tackle the real issue at hand – how best to rebuild the bonds of trust and to improve the coordination so critical to us both.

MAJ David Nevers,
DET – U.S Central Command
U.S. Central Command

Generally its a SOP to not to involve the accused culprit in their own investigation. Point to be repeated here for all - Pakistan accused the US that the USG intentionally fired at Pakistan. For this we need to bring the Pentagon and the White house under investigation, not the rank and file that did the shooting. The USG offered to bring the JI Joe under investigation when it should have brought forward Obama.

So in other words... Stop trying to fool everybody and waste our time by platitudes such as joint investigation.

 

[fatman17]

This statement is key, both in terms of its evolution that contributed to the root causes of the Salala incident, and also in terms of its effect on bilateral relations going forward.

and what of this...
As well as rejecting the US military's conclusions, the authors make a few digs at US public statements on operations in Afghanistan. Notable is the claim that the incorrectly targeted border posts had prevented insurgents from crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan but that "unfortunately several large- (and some small-) scale attacks on Pakistani border posts and civilians had occurred regularly, emanating from Kunar and Nuristan provinces of Afghanistan into Dir, Chitral, Bajaur and Mohmand areas of Pakistan".
the fact that these posts were erected to monitor and beat back these incursions by 'afghans' which according to PK officials is known to both the 'double dealing' ANA and their masters the US/ISAF forces.

---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------

so please "no more holier than thou" attitudes.