What's new

Pakistani troops fire on intruding U.S. choppers

The Australian
Pakistan tribal chiefs warn US on raids

Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | September 17, 2008


LEADERS of an estimated 500,000 tribesmen who have so far remained largely neutral over the conflict in Afghanistan warned last night they were poised to support al-Qa'ida and the Taliban unless US forces retreated from their strategy of attacking targets inside Pakistan.
In a major jolt to Washington's new policy of allowing cross-border raids in defiance of the Government in Islamabad, key tribal elders were reported to have met and warned that they were also prepared to raise an army to fight coalition forces in Afghanistan. "
If America doesn't stop attacks in the tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar (army) to attack US forces in Afghanistan," Pashtun tribal chief Malik Nasrullah Khan was reported as saying in Miranshah, the largest town in North Waziristan, which has been the target of repeated US attacks in the past week.
"We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."
In the complicated fabric of tribal affiliations along the 1300km Durand Line that nominally separates Afghanistan from Pakistan, Malik Nasrullah is regarded as a powerful figure.

Only last month, he led a group of tribal elders in declaring support for government moves against militancy in the Kurrum Agency - a region beset by sectarian strife involving the Taliban.

In the past, Malik Nasrullah has been regarded as a moderate, but his change of position follows repeated US cross-border raids that, the Government in Islamabad insists, target mainly innocent civilians and are serving to sign up new recruits for al-Qa'ida and the Taliban.

Last night, the cross-border crisis was the subject of talks in London between newly installed Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Gordon Brown amid signs that Britain, despite its close alliance with Washington, is concerned that the new US tactic is creating sympathy for the militants.

In Pakistan on an official visit, British Justice Minister and former foreign minister Jack Straw is reported to have reflected London's concern about the US raids.

Yesterday, Mr Zardari summoned Pakistan's security tsar Rehman Malik to join him in his talks with Mr Brown, while officials in Islamabad said the Pakistan President was also planning to confront Mr Bush over the raids when he travelled to New York next week for the annual UN General Assembly session.

Last night, cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, leader of Pakistan's Tehrik-i-Insaaf (Justice) party, joined the criticism of the US-led raids, telling reporters it was time to stop "logistic support for the US and allied forces in Afghanistan".

"The best way to compel the allied forces to halt the border violations in the so-called hot pursuit of al-Qa'ida and the Taliban is to stop logistic support," said Mr Khan, referring to NATO's use of Karachi as a supply route for military supplies into Afghanistan.

The supply route is seen as Islamabad's strongest card in an otherwise weak hand.

Meanwhile, the 12-year-old son of a woman long suspected of links to al-Qa'ida and facing charges in a New York court has been returned to his relatives in Pakistan, two months after he was detained with his mother in Afghanistan.

The boy and the woman, Aafia Siddiqui, were detained outside the governor's house in Afghanistan's Ghazni province in July. The US-educated Pakistani was later flown to New York to face charges of assault on US personnel.

The US indictment alleges that during Ms Siddiqui's interrogation in Ghazni, the 36-year-old picked up a soldier's rifle, announced her "desire to kill Americans" and fired at US soldiers and FBI agents. She was wounded by return fire. Her son Ali Hassan was with her at the time of her arrest and had been in Afghan custody ever since.

Pakistan television showed footage of Hassan smiling shyly beneath a white prayer cap as an aunt kissed and embraced him at a house in the capital, Islamabad.

Ms Siddiqui vanished in Pakistan in 2003. In 2004, the FBI identified her as one of seven people wanted for questioning about suspected ties to al-Qa'ida. Her family has denied any link.

Additional reporting; AP
 
McCain is too much of a soldier for me to be comfortable with him, and teh conservative views around 'national security' are jingoistic, and black and white, with no room for nuance.

McCain's reaction to the Georgia crisis says it all IMO.

You know what they say about people with hammers - every problem looks like a nail...

No more warmongers please.

The man was talking like he is living the Cuban Missile Crisis.............Talking of the Russian empire and Russian ambitions to rise up and confront the USA.......The neo-con movement wants to win the election by labelling Obama as weak on national security. Guilliani is the man for McCain arguing in this regard. Palin is useless on major issues other than to excite the conservatives on her pro-life views....I believe Romney would have helped McCain on economic issues but then the strategy would have backfired as the ads they used to promote disharmny amongst the Dems when Obama picked Biden citing Biden's scathing criticism of Obama in the primaries................Compicated to say the least!
 

Guardian UK | 16 Sep 2008

Pakistan's military said today its forces had received orders to fire on US troops if they entered Pakistani territory, after a cross-border raid inflamed public opinion.

The country's civilian leaders, who have taken a tough line against militants, have insisted Pakistan must resolve the dispute with the US through diplomatic channels. But the military has taken a more robust line.

General Athar Abbas, an army spokesman, told the Associated Press that after a cross-border assault in the south Waziristan region earlier this month, the military told its field commanders to take action to prevent any similar raids.

"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

The remarks mark a sharp deterioration in military relations between the US and Pakistan, which have been close allies in the "war on terror" since the September 11 attacks seven years ago.

The Bush administration has shown increasing impatience over what it considers Pakistan's incapacity or unwillingness to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaida fighters operating on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Pakistan insists it is doing what it can. It has about 100,000 troops in the restive north-west and suicide bombers are inflicting an increasingly deadly toll on the Pakistani army.

American officials have confirmed that their forces carried out a raid near the town of Angoor Ada but have given few details. Abbas said Pakistan's military had asked for an explanation but received only a "half-page" of "very vague" information that did not identify the intended target. Pakistani officials have said the raid killed about 15 people, and Abbas said they all appeared to be civilians.

He would not say whether General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who replaced Pervez Musharraf as head of the army last year, personally made the decision on orders to fire on US troops or if it had been discussed with US officials.

The army spokesman played down reports that Pakistani forces yesterday shot at US helicopters after they penetrated national air space. Abbas insisted no foreign troops had crossed the border and that "trigger-happy tribesmen" had fired the shots.

Pakistani troops based nearby fired flares to see what was going on, he said. The US military in Afghanistan said none of its troops were involved in such an incident yesterday.

As the US steps up its military activity in the sensitive tribal area, Pakistani officials have warned that an increase in cross-border raids will achieve little and fuel the insurgency in Pakistan. Some complain that the country is being made a scapegoat for the failure to stabilise Afghanistan.

In a rare public statement last week, Kayani said Pakistan's sovereignty would be defended "at all cost". Abbas said Pakistani officials had to consider public opinion, which was increasingly anti-American and had some sympathy for rebels claiming to fight in the name of Islam.

"Please look at the public reaction to this kind of adventure or incursion," Abbas said. "The army is also an extension of the public and you can only satisfy the public when you match your words with your actions."

Last week, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said a new strategy for Afghanistan was needed that incorporated the tribal territory. George Bush is believed to have signed a secret order allowing US forces to operate in the tribal area, even though the UN mandate for international forces in Afghanistan does not extend into Pakistan.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Well said Gen. Abbas :enjoy: Keep it up
 
Did so far US disclosed who was the (high value) target in the subject raid?
After all, military actions should be in line with objective of war against terror and not a reason for founding terror. If later happens than US itself becomes become a perpetrator of terror and makes this world even more dangerous place to live.
 
Shoot a few Americans and I will believe it. After all talk is cheap. dont worry the US will give u many chances.

Regards

Most rational people do not want any Americans shot - that is an escalation neither country wants.

The idea behind this order (if true) is to act as a deterrent, prevent the US from unilaterally violating Pakistan's sovereignty and avoid any potential for escalation.


And please, try not to instigate a flame war here.
 
The man was talking like he is living the Cuban Missile Crisis.............Talking of the Russian empire and Russian ambitions to rise up and confront the USA.......The neo-con movement wants to win the election by labelling Obama as weak on national security. Guilliani is the man for McCain arguing in this regard. Palin is useless on major issues other than to excite the conservatives on her pro-life views....I believe Romney would have helped McCain on economic issues but then the strategy would have backfired as the ads they used to promote disharmny amongst the Dems when Obama picked Biden citing Biden's scathing criticism of Obama in the primaries................Compicated to say the least!

Agree there for the most part.

I don't look at the situation so much from the statements the two make, but more so from the philosophies the two subscribe to.

I have strong disagreements with Conservative philosophy in general, though I agree on some economic and limited government issues.

Are you going to be able to vote this election?
 
Most rational people do not want any Americans shot - that is an escalation neither country wants.

The idea behind this order (if true) is to act as a deterrent, prevent the US from unilaterally violating Pakistan's sovereignty and avoid any potential for escalation.


And please, try not to instigate a flame war here.

Dear AM,

No one is trying to instigate a flame war. That gentleman wants to be Rambo not me. I have already said that US and Pakistan must sit and talk talk and talk more even when all talks fail.

However I see you fail to castigate the Pakistani members who wish to take physical action against the USA even though it will mean putting Pakistan into oblivion.

Regards
 
Dear AM,

No one is trying to instigate a flame war. That gentleman wants to be Rambo not me. I have already said that US and Pakistan must sit and talk talk and talk more even when all talks fail.

Do you expect that india would talk talk and talk when XYZ invade them covertly or overtly?
 
Dear AM,

No one is trying to instigate a flame war. That gentleman wants to be Rambo not me. I have already said that US and Pakistan must sit and talk talk and talk more even when all talks fail.

Glad we are on the same page here! I would like to see you express your opinions in this manner (far more clearly) much more often, to avoid misunderstandings.

However I see you fail to castigate the Pakistani members who wish to take physical action against the USA even though it will mean putting Pakistan into oblivion.

Regards

You have me on that - but in my defense, this is a Pakistani forum, and to some extent, while I would point out that I disagree with the approach you suggested some others are articulating, I have to let people 'vent'.

At the same time, given that most people will conclude that you are not Pakistani, your comments will come across as a 'flame' (they did to me) and will inevitably invite a reaction from the Pakistani members who are already pretty upset by the events under discussion.

It is indeed not entirely an even or fair yardstick, but the context of these remarks has to be considered.

As I said in the beginning, your opening sentence is a far better means of pointing out what the correct means of approaching the current situation are, and it does so without appearing as an instigation.
 
Shoot a few Americans and I will believe it. After all talk is cheap. dont worry the US will give u many chances.

Regards

The General is very smart. Trust me on this one. Certain lines have to be drawn. Its better to say things now than have an accident on hand which can easily be escalated. Its all part of mind/double-games being played out here. Pakistan wants to give US some latitude but not too much. Ground incursions are way too much for any Pakistan government to handle. Predator attacks against pinpointed targets is one thing, letting boots on the ground an entirely other.

The current visit of Mullen is in line with this. Both sides are trying to find out where the line should be drawn.

If there is a shooting incident, the implications of this will be far reaching. Pakistani armed forces may become even more reluctant to help out the US. There would be further resistance to operations within Pakistan against Taliban outfits. The Taliban insurgency would actually pick up pace. Also if the Pakistani Army steps back from the operations and cooperation with the US, the tribal areas will go all out in their activities in support of the Pashtuns across the border. Yes there will be further action by the US as a result of such a development, but such US attacks will only cause more people to want to join the fray. Overall nothing good will come out of a shooting episode with the Pakistani side. Someone's ego is bound to get hurt and a hurt ego helps no one at this time.
 
Last edited:
Do you expect that india would talk talk and talk when XYZ invade them covertly or overtly?

Do you read my posts or U just dont like my name ? I have said

If terror eminates from India then they can also be bombed.

If Kashmir is not a freedom struggle then Europe and the world is deluded. (However it includes only the valley and all 3 countries are aggressors in Kashmir)

There cannot be any no more partitions of Pakistan for any reason.

Iraq was a wrong war but Afghanistan is justified.

Regards
 
Glad we are on the same page here! I would like to see you express your opinions in this manner (far more clearly) much more often, to avoid misunderstandings.


.


Dear AM,

I assure you that if you, Neo, Keys, Blain, Webby, MuradK ( maybe I got that name wrong) Shebazi, Dabong and Araz posted something I would reply in a clear manner as I have seen you take a lot of time to be clear in all your views but Rambos here cant get the same attention.

Regards
 
Do you read my posts or U just dont like my name ?
.

Iraq was a wrong war but Afghanistan is justified.

Regards

I neither like your biased posts nor your name to go along with the poor marketing. Explain to me in your humble opinion, why close to 8 years of occupying Afghanistan is justified and what does it justify.
 
Iraq was a wrong war but Afghanistan is justified.

Regards

How is Afghanistan justified? Ok Taliban were wrong to harbor the AQ and were retarded in their approach of world affairs, however why has the US war turned into an anti-Pashtun operation? Not every Pashtun is a Taliban, however the way this war is being run, every Pashtun is being turned into a Talib.

All this talk of AQ people getting killed is BS. Most of the people picking up arms and taking on the US, ISAF and Pakistani forces (interestingly enough the Afghan forces are nowhere in this equation), are local Pashtuns. There is a sprinkling of outsiders who believe the US is on the wrong to come and occupy another sovereign country, however they in no way pose a threat to the US and the world at large.

Just like the Afghans were left in the lurch after the Soviet withdrawal, another mistake is being made by turning a vast number of Pashtuns into the enemy. For as long as the Pashtuns are looked upon this way, there will be no peace in Afghanistan or Pakistan (and as a result no stability in South/Central Asia).
 
Back
Top Bottom