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

[VCheng]

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

Excellent point; so how likely is it to happen what you suggest - a complete break from WoT participation?

 

[lem34]

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?

hi dev just as you come on im about to go off lol. I just want to say that from a legal point of view the Americans are clearly guilty & culpable. they have admitted that they were at fault for not having informed Pakistanis that they were in the area. the chain of causation is not broken. simply it was their mistake then led to x y and z and then 24 Pakistani soldiers died. It really is immaterial and irrelevant what the Pakistanis did or what happened after that first mistake which the Americans admit they made because that mistake lead to x y z.

 

[Developereo]

Excellent point; so how likely is it to happen what you suggest - a complete break from WoT participation?

Given the quality of Pakistani politicians and Pakistan's vulnerability to international pressures, a complete break is unlikely.

hi dev just as you come on im about to go off lol.

Yeah, I am signing off soon also.

I just want to say that from a legal point of view the Americans are clearly guilty & culpable. they have admitted that they were at fault for not having informed Pakistanis that they were in the area.

Not really. NATO claims that they were on their side of the border when they received fire from the Pakistani side. Then they retaliated. They have carefully framed their statement to appoint culpability to Pakistan and framed their own actions as self-defence complicated, as predicted, by the 'fog of war'.

 

[VCheng]

Given the quality of Pakistani politicians and Pakistan's vulnerability to international pressures, a complete break is unlikely...................

...........which brings us back to my point yet again:

Both sides now must figure out how to move ahead in a manner acceptable to both, and probably the sooner, the better for all.

 

[lem34]

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?

self delete

 

[lem34]

Dev my understanding is that the SOP is that when carrying out operations near the border nato are to inform Pakistanis. Below is a piece from OP. Simply it is an excuse for why they didst inform Pakistanis. This even if they had evidence does not mitigate their actions. If they had such evidence this matter should have been brought to the attention of PA and SOPS amended if agreed.

Military officials said North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces should inform the Pakistanis about planned operations near the border. But NATO officials told investigators they believed Pakistanis had tipped off insurgents about previous missions. That prompted them to withhold information about the Nov. 26 U.S.-Afghan operation in the Mohmand tribal region, a lawless border area that abuts Afghanistan's Kunar province.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

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.

agreed

hence I said that my opinion

note that I am not hate mongering although a lot of people in Pakistan and America would love a confrontation. What I am proposing does seem radical but hey, given the kind of partnership we have had, the current level is the worse so far. The reaction from Pakistan is also unprecedented for a very weak partner. The way military leadership has reacted to the initial assault and the report finding is something unthinkable few years back.

So if not today maybe in the future the leadership will decide that enough already, we cant do enough for the Yanks ever so lets call it. So by then such decision will become realistic.

You see, we don’t understand who is calling the shots in America. There is a front face with all the righteousness and justice for the world and then there is a sinister and nastier face that raises its head from the media and state institutions that only sees the world with a gun sight. America does believe in democracy I believe and if you check the public opinion then we are pretty much fed up with all this American association so if not today or tomorrow but soon our leadership will have to listen to the public and be done with the WoT.

As far as the threats and warnings of the consequences are concerned well after loosing 35000 people along with billions in the economy people don’t really care what else our well wishing ally can throw at us which will scare the people to cower and accept slow and painful death as a reward for staying with a thankless & always complaining “ally”.

 

[VCheng]

...........Military officials said North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces should inform the Pakistanis about planned operations near the border. But NATO officials told investigators they believed Pakistanis had tipped off insurgents about previous missions. That prompted them to withhold information about the Nov. 26 U.S.-Afghan operation in the Mohmand tribal region, a lawless border area that abuts Afghanistan's Kunar province.

One would suggest caution here: In a zeal to prove failure of NATO to follow SOP, Pakistan must be ready to counter frank charges of aiding and abetting the enemy, by leaking confidential informaiton, thus opening up a whole new can of worms best avoided I think, given the vitiated atmosphere and connotations left by the OBL raid.

agreed

hence I said that my opinion.........

As far as the threats and warnings of the consequences are concerned well after loosing 35000 people along with billions in the economy people don’t really care what else our well wishing ally can throw at us ..........

Thank you for that post.

I assure you that things can be made much more difficult for Pakistan over and above what you perceive, perhaps mistakenly, to have happened already, should USA want to do so; however, I can assure you that is not the case, given that creating severe economic hardship would lead to civil war within Pakistan in a relatively short period of time.

I am sure nobody would want that.

 

[lem34]

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

sorry something wrong with my browser i have to do a self delete to get to front page

 

[graphican]

Gen. Hamid Gul: The Sum of All Fears 1/2 - YouTube



Gen. Hamid Gul: The Sum of All Fears 2/2 - YouTube

 

[Donatello]

He should join PTI...

 

[Chogy]

I understand this is a sensitive issue.

I don't know any other way to say it other than that my gut tells me that there was no intent, and I base that on wearing the uniform myself, and being intimately involved with my own daughter's army career.

Intention is 98% of something like this. We can all understand an accident, and we can also understand, but not necessarily be content with, an accident due to negligence. The level of negligence is very important to assigning blame and the hard feelings that come from a fatal incident.

The USA has some cool toys. There have been movies based upon them, like the "Bourne" movies, where the US G. can tell what you ate for dinner and can snoop through written correspondence by satellite. These are all ridiculous. We have capabilities, but they all fall WAY short of what Hollywood insinuates. My point with this is that lack of data, the "fog of war", and the unknown in military operations is very real and hard to describe accurately for those who have not served. When you have troops in contact with whomever, the assumption is automatically made that they are hostiles, and all resources are instantly poured into the fight to resolve it in our favor. Priority #1 is American lives. I know this doesn't sit well with others, but all militaries work this way - they preserve their own first when there is a fight in progress.

In this case, I can only guess what was happening. I'm suspecting that the airmen radio'd "We are taking fire" and at that point, everything goes into returning fire and eliminating the threat. There is no time to analyze in any detail at all, "Who is it?"

In this case, it went on for some time. Once fire is traded, the assumption is "They are enemy, because it is only the enemy who fire on us." Simplistic, but practical, and that's how it's done in the field.

In the mean time, the Pakistani soldiers are taking fire, returning when they can, so the fight continues. The communications chain had to go through two or three levels on both sides, with much confusion as to the location of troops. The articles I have read have said that the two sides said "None of our boys are in grid XYZ; they must be enemy" and unfortunately, the grid/map coordinates were not communicated properly.

I don't know what else to say, other than that I know the mentality of these troops. They are not animals, they are professionals who want to do a difficult job to the best of their ability. Further, the USA is still shedding ROE baggage from Vietnam, where we lost thousands of troops due to the inablity to fight without a hand tied behind their back.

I have to go to dinner, but I'l try and address this all further. Please rest assured the average American is saddened by the deaths of genuinely allied troops. Anyone who is fighting terrorism is considered Brothers in Arms, and the average Pakistani soldier is exactly like the average American soldier; 18 to 22, patriotic, eager to do their duty, and with no desire to harm anybody other than the enemy.

 

[VCheng]

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'.

In response to the above, I could say all of what follows too, but perhaps Chogy's words will carry more weight than mine ever will:

I understand this is a sensitive issue.

I don't know any other way to say it other than that my gut tells me that there was no intent, and I base that on wearing the uniform myself, and being intimately involved with my own daughter's army career.

Intention is 98% of something like this. We can all understand an accident, and we can also understand, but not necessarily be content with, an accident due to negligence. The level of negligence is very important to assigning blame and the hard feelings that come from a fatal incident.

The USA has some cool toys. There have been movies based upon them, like the "Bourne" movies, where the US G. can tell what you ate for dinner and can snoop through written correspondence by satellite. These are all ridiculous. We have capabilities, but they all fall WAY short of what Hollywood insinuates. My point with this is that lack of data, the "fog of war", and the unknown in military operations is very real and hard to describe accurately for those who have not served. When you have troops in contact with whomever, the assumption is automatically made that they are hostiles, and all resources are instantly poured into the fight to resolve it in our favor. Priority #1 is American lives. I know this doesn't sit well with others, but all militaries work this way - they preserve their own first when there is a fight in progress.

In this case, I can only guess what was happening. I'm suspecting that the airmen radio'd "We are taking fire" and at that point, everything goes into returning fire and eliminating the threat. There is no time to analyze in any detail at all, "Who is it?"

In this case, it went on for some time. Once fire is traded, the assumption is "They are enemy, because it is only the enemy who fire on us." Simplistic, but practical, and that's how it's done in the field.

In the mean time, the Pakistani soldiers are taking fire, returning when they can, so the fight continues. The communications chain had to go through two or three levels on both sides, with much confusion as to the location of troops. The articles I have read have said that the two sides said "None of our boys are in grid XYZ; they must be enemy" and unfortunately, the grid/map coordinates were not communicated properly.

I don't know what else to say, other than that I know the mentality of these troops. They are not animals, they are professionals who want to do a difficult job to the best of their ability. Further, the USA is still shedding ROE baggage from Vietnam, where we lost thousands of troops due to the inablity to fight without a hand tied behind their back.

I have to go to dinner, but I'l try and address this all further. Please rest assured the average American is saddened by the deaths of genuinely allied troops. Anyone who is fighting terrorism is considered Brothers in Arms, and the average Pakistani soldier is exactly like the average American soldier; 18 to 22, patriotic, eager to do their duty, and with no desire to harm anybody other than the enemy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In response to the above, I could say all of what follows too, but perhaps Chogy's words will carry more weight than mine ever will:

VC:

The post that you replied to was not arguing deliberate intent (which I have on the other thread), it was questioning CENTCOM's rationale for trying to place blame on Pakistan, even if partial, for the incident.

And if I may address the implied statement in your post, Chogy's comments might be perceived to 'carry more weight' because he has at least not taunted Pakistanis here with comments along the lines of 'just wait till Pakistan backtracks ..' etc.

Chogy has defended the US against some of the harsher allegations regarding intent, but he has not denigrated Pakistan or its military in the process - that is where the difference lies, when it comes to the type of responses you garner vs those that Chogy garners.

 

[Developereo]

There are plenty of articles out there now that highlight the distrust and dislike towards Pakistan among the 'average US soldier' deployed in Afghanistan, and especially those deployed along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

I think this is the elephant in the room that we are all tiptoeing around. When someone like Adm. Mullen openly makes the kinds of allegations he did regarding the Pak military/ISI, then it legitimizes and 'mainstreams' that kind of thinking throughout the organization. It was a very dangerous and irresponsible statement by Adm. Mullen.

No wonder, then, that some cowboys decided to give some payback.