US responsible for the Murder of Pakistani Troops - Pak Rejects NATO Probe

[lem34]

It is understandable that in these types of personal and emotional situations, it is difficult to refrain from bias, as it is easier to find consolation in blaming the other side, than in thinking of a solution to a persistent problem. As difficult as it may seem to accept, the fact of the matter is that mistakes were made by both sides. The investigating officer’s findings revealed that the U.S forces were first fired upon, after which they demonstrated a warning signal through a fly by; however, they were still targeted. A show of force via a ISAF aircraft, in theory, should have informed the Pakistani troops that they were ISAF forces. To say that we deliberately or intentionally wanted to harm Pakistani troops or that we were on Pakistani soil is completely false. From our side, we have accepted our mistakes during this incident which resulted in the unfortunate death of Pakistani soldiers.

Time after time we have asked for increased border cooperation and coordination by all parties in order to avoid tragic incidents such as this one. These incidents can be avoided if we focus on improving and building trust in our relationship. We ask and remain hopeful that the Pakistani military will join us in working through loose ends that are hindering our joint efforts to disable terrorists from using the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as a means of hiding and transporting transnational terrorism.

MAJ T.G.Taylor,
DET – U.S Central Command
U.S. Central Command

Sir

Your troops started the whole act by not informing Pakistan what they were doing on that border which they admit they should have. It is irelevant and immaterial what the pakistanis did thereafter. The chain of causation is not broken therefore legally they are still culpable and blame lies with them. You dont need me to tell them I am sure you have JAGs who could tell you the law. So why cant your president appologise. Surely you would call me a cynic that he may be being influenced by his forthcoming election and he doesnt want to look weak. See this is the crux 26 pakistanis dead is less important to americans than your damn election.

It is sad when soldiers die they are doing their job and duty. Its even more of a tragedy when its blue on blue. But then for your supposed ally to refuse to apolgise takes the proverbial

Oh and we are happy to help fight wot we are bigger victims than you. but why are you and your appointed and protected govt allowing so many indian consulates in afghanistan. Please dont tell me its for tourism. That is unusual to say the least that for such a small poulation you should allow a country we have been at war with and hav outstanding issues to have such a precense

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A show of force via a ISAF aircraft, in theory, should have informed the Pakistani troops that they were ISAF forces.

Why?

How does a 'show of force by ISAF aircraft' automatically suggest that the individuals on the ground are ISAF troops and not insurgents?

Is there some standard SOP, that has been provided to Pakistan, that if an F-15 flies by at 600 miles per hour, or an AC-130 discharges flares, that Pakistani forces should stop firing at whatever it is they are firing at?

What if there were both insurgents and US troops present in the area? How are Pakistani troops supposed to tell which is which from a 'ISAF aircraft show of force'?

This is where COMMUNICATION with Pakistani authorities, either directly or through the liaison officers deployed precisely for this reason, comes into play. And when it came to "COMMUNICATING' ISAF/US soldiers botched the entire thing by:

1. Deliberately failed to inform the Pakistani Army about the US/ISAF military operations along the border that night
2. Calling in airstrikes without waiting for verification from PAKISTANI authorities regarding the presence of Pakistani troops
3. After calling in airstrikes, conveying the INCORRECT coordinates to the Pakistani liaison officer
4. After receiving communications from Pakistani authorities regarding ISAF forces attacking Pakistani soldiers, delaying the relay of that information to higher authorities and FAILING to call of the airstrikes, which went on for an hour and a half longer.

How on earth can you try and lay responsibility, even partial, for this tragedy at the door of Pakistan? Every single step of the way it was the US/ISAF that made decisions that caused this to happen, not Pakistan - and here is how:

1. Communicating the details of the operation to Pakistan would have meant Pakistani forces would not have fired on ISAF troops (if indeed they did - Pakistan is still denying this claim, and it is backed up through interviews with injured soldiers from the posts), and it would likely have meant that the PA verified that ISAF troops were aware of its posts in the area.

2. Waiting for verification from Pakistani authorities after the 'alleged firing by Pakistani troops' (and before calling in airstrikes) would have resulted in a channel of communication being opened with the border posts to end the firing.

3. Conveying the correct information to the Pakistani liaison officer would have resulted in a quicker realization that the airstrike was called in on Pakistani troops

4. The 'delay' - this remains inexplicable to me. What explanation can there be for US soldiers to stand by and do nothing for an hour and a half AFTER Pakistani authorities contact them to indicate a 'friendly fire incident'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm not saying it is impossible for what you've described to happen, but please consider - when a truly disturbed soldier group commits an act of violence outside ROE, it is usually a couple or three individuals, maybe a squad. But to have an entire aviation squadron commanded by high-ranking officers ignore ROE, go rogue and decide one day,

"Let's smoke us some Paksiatnis! Sure it'll create an international incident of epic proportions. It'll destroy relations. Our careers will be over, we may face court martial. But screw it, I want to kill somebody!"

How likely is this for highly trained officers? Not at all, IMO.

Was there gross negligence and a screw-up of epic proportions in November? Of course. But still a FAR cry from "Lets kill us a gaggle of Pakistani border soldiers!"

Chogy,

When I referred to 'rogue soldiers' I was not referring to the aviation squadron or the 120 troops on the ground necessarily, but the individuals (handful probably) that were:
1. responsible for coordinating the airstrikes
2. and/or receiving communications from Pakistan regarding the attack on Pakistani forces
3. and/or responsible for relaying the decision to the concerned officials to halt the airstrikes
4. and/or making the decision to halt the airstrikes immediately after receiving the Pakistani communication

 

[Irfan Baloch]

3. and/or responsible for relaying the decision to the concerned officials to halt the airstrikes and/or making the decision to halt the airstrikes

4. and/or responsible for delaying the communication by 90 minutes or more.

 

[VCheng]

..............................
So what do I propose?

1 Pakistan to announce withdrawal from the WT cooperation. Clouse of all covert and overt operations and bases in Pakistan. Stop providing the storage facilities and corridor for NATO supplies.

2 Stop all military operations that are ONLY meant to assist the Americans. And concentrate only on TTP and BLA.

3 Scale down the cooperation to a level of Turkey or Saudi Arabia. And help provide help in the political and peaceful resolution in Afghanistan for its stability that also indirectly helps the Americans to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later.

How do you see the realistic chances of all, or any, of these three things of actually being implementable? They do not seem very likely to me, in my personal opinion of course.

 

[lem34]

How do you see the realistic chances of all, or any, of these three things of actually being implementable? They do not seem very likely to me, in my personal opinion of course.

i think all bets are off as to predicting cheng. you stated that you though supply routes would be reopened shortly and then you stated 30 days. well it seems to have gone longer than 30 days and there seems to be no resolution. I think what irfan is suggesting is more than reasonable and I would be surprised if pakistan is not considering all its options very carefully in the national interest it would be simply not be prudent not to do so.

 

[VCheng]

i think all bets are off as to predicting cheng. you stated that you though supply routes would be reopened shortly and then you stated 30 days. well it seems to have gone longer than 30 days and there seems to be no resolution. I think what irfan is suggesting is more than reasonable and I would be surprised if pakistan is not considering all its options very carefully in the national interest it would be simply not be prudent not to do so.

If you notice my question's wording, I did not predict anything. I merely asked IB what he thought the realistic chances were about all or any of the three things he listed.

(Yes, my estimate was wrong; will you expect me to harp as stridently as you are about it, when the supply routes do open eventually?)

 

[Developereo]

I see three main groups of individuals on the NATO side.

- the air crews: they were told, by NATO's own report, that the ground troops were under fire from the Pakistani side so, once they got the OK from their superiors, had no reason to stop the assault. From their point of view, they were simply carrying out orders to 'retaliate' on the Pakistani bases.

- the superior command: they relied on info from the ground troops. They were probably not going to second-guess what their own men were telling them, allegedly in the middle of battle.

- the ground crew: some individuals in this group deliberately gave different coordinates to their commanders v/s the air crew. They are also the ones who allege that the Pakistanis fired on them first. Even after Pakistan informed the NATO command of the mistake, they may have reiterated their claims of continuing attacks so the choppers came back. I am not a military man, so I am not sure if the chopper crews would need their targets authorized by superior command every time, or if they would take coordinates directly from the ground crew.

This last part is the confusing part. Why did the choppers go away and then come back to finish the job?

 

[Developereo]

1 Pakistan to announce withdrawal from the WT cooperation. Clouse of all covert and overt operations and bases in Pakistan. Stop providing the storage facilities and corridor for NATO supplies.

Absolutely.

British sources claim that AQ leadership is all but gone from Pakistan, so there's no reason for Pakistan to be involved in this mess any more.

 

[VCheng]

............
- the ground crew: some individuals in this group deliberately gave different coordinates to their commanders v/s the air crew. They are also the ones who allege that the Pakistanis fired on them first. .................

How can one go about proving or disproving the deliberate intent and claim of being fired upon first? I would ask you to assume you are the investigating officer assigned this task please, if you can. Thanks.

 

[lem34]

If you notice my question's wording, I did not predict anything. I merely asked IB what he thought the realistic chances were about all or any of the three things he listed.

(Yes, my estimate was wrong; will you expect me to harp as stridently as you are about it, when the supply routes do open eventually?)

That's my point I don't think its possible to predict. Your assumption being that routes will open at some time in the future. I think Americans have overplayed their hand. I think the deaths of our valiant soldiers may be the turning point. It is clear the public of Pakistan have wanted the modality of exchange or relationship to change for some time. its very difficult for politicians to capitulate with feelings so raw and so high especially with an election coming. I cant see the army after the battering its received in the western press to want anything different so I do not think that anything is off the table. I think it will also be up to Americans to finally take note of our concerns. Pakistan has suffered more than any country in the war for terrorism and no one would wants Pakistan to stop getting involved in wot but how do several Indian consulates allowed by the puppet regime of America in Afghanistan help wot. Our concerns must be given weight if we are expected to cooperate. In the absence of our concerns being addressed what Irfan says is entirely reasonable under the circumstances in my opinion.

 

[Developereo]

How can one go about proving or disproving the deliberate intent and claim of being fired upon first? I would ask you to assume you are the investigating officer assigned this task please, if you can. Thanks.

Of course intent is hard to prove. That is NATO's whole excuse: that it was an honest mistake not deliberate.

From the Pakistani perspective, the fact that the choppers returned for a second round of killing after being called off supports the claim of deliberate intent.

 

[Mabs]

I think it was in the Pakistani media today that the NATO has requested the four major shipping companies which transport its goods to release them back to the US. Allegedly, an email orginated from the NATO command in Bahrain asking the shipping companies to contact a Lt.Col Jerome with the US embassy. The media was even showing the transcript of the email. Ofcourse, NATO hasn't confirmed or denied this as far as I know.

 

[VCheng]

Of course intent is hard to prove. That is NATO's whole excuse: that it was an honest mistake not deliberate.

From the Pakistani perspective, the fact that the choppers returned for a second round of killing after being called off supports the claim of deliberate intent.

Yes, but by definition we now have a "he says vs he says" sort of a situation; how does one break the impasse then in a manner both sides can agree upon?

 

[Developereo]

That's my point I don't think its possible to predict. Your assumption being that routes will open at some time in the future. I think Americans have overplayed their hand. I think the deaths of our valiant soldiers may be the turning point. It is clear the public of Pakistan have wanted the modality of exchange or relationship to change for some time. its very difficult for politicians to capitulate with feelings so raw and so high especially with an election coming. I cant see the army after the battering its received in the western press to want anything different so I do not think that anything is off the table. I think it will also be up to Americans to finally take note of our concerns. Pakistan has suffered more than any country in the war for terrorism and no one would wants Pakistan to stop getting involved in wot but how do several Indian consulates allowed by the puppet regime of America in Afghanistan help wot. Our concerns must be given weight if we are expected to cooperate. In the absence of our concerns being addressed what Irfan says is entirely reasonable under the circumstances in my opinion.

All your points are valid but you ignore the most important fact: Pakistani politicians are spineless sellouts.

Already, there are loophole to allow NATO to use civilian trade as a cover for supplies. Gilani is drafting new rules of the relationship which will levy "heavy taxes" on NATO supplies. Translation: give me a fat commission and it's back to business.

---------- Post added at 10:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

Yes, but by definition we now have a "he says vs he says" sort of a situation; how does one break the impasse then in a manner both sides can agree upon?

It doesn't matter.

American presence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with WOT any more, and their regional games with China/Russia/India/Iran are 100% against Pakistani interests. It's long overdue for Pakistan to exit this charade.