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

[MastanKhan]

Yesterday there was a UFC fight between Brock Lesner and Alastair Overeem and the thing that struck me was that Brock Lesner personifies all things American.

He's Big , He's Strong , He' Arrogant and Boorish he can beat up the little guy any day any time BUT he doesn’t have the heart to take a beating and when he finally meets somewhat of a match then he ducks and covers and runs away like a coward!
That’s the same story with the American aggression that they will keep showing aggressions and will keep on murdering and killing people until they are spoken to and dealt with in the same way as they do with others

Hi,

That is not a fair comparison---Brock lesner has been in the ring for awhile now---. He realized that it is not in him now---so he retired---isn't that what happens with fighters---was this episode any different than of other fighters---.

 

[Developereo]

Pakistan really should ask for 2-5 billion dollars in damage , and "apology"

Please don't keep perpetuating this mentality that anyone can do anything to Pakistanis -- just make sure to pay at the door.

You don't do justice to your name.

Either Pakistan has a principled stance, or everything's up for sale -- for 2-5 billion dollars apiece.

P.S With a 15 trillion dollar economy, do you know what "2-5 billion dollars" means to the US?
Hint: the Apache attack on 26/11 lasted longer than it would take the US to make 2-5 billion dollars.

 

[Safriz]

the trouble is that pakistan can survive without afghanistan....can shut down borders and cut diplomatic ties / stop all trade..
but if this is done afghanistan will be doomed...

Pakistan is never praised for helping a country that cannot survive without it..but always condemned for Afghan people's own inability to stay together at peace.

 

[Xeric]

Xeric, you are one of the guys here I can have a conversation with. Thank you.

i am honored. So, Thank You.

Was there an "itchy feeling" on the back of the battle commanders' necks during this engagement? At first, probably not. After some period of time, I think it's likely. But a battle that is not ordinary, not standard Taliban fare, does not by itself indicate a cease fire or withdrawal. You'd need more data, and at this point, what data they had is sketchy.

^^ Yeah i am happy that you got my point. i couldnt have put it as clearly as you have done.

So, on topic. See, you self contradict yourself when you first say that "You'd need more data, and at this point, what data they had is sketchy" and then you also boast about your precision by saying that:

there isn't a force in the world that can match the USA for precision.

How can one be Accurate without being Aware?

Now, one may argue that 'Precision' and 'Battlefield Awareness' are two different things, but then you have to agree with me because that's not the case.

One cannnot be 'precise and accurate' without being 'Aware (of his surroundings)'. Because if these two things are not played together, it would imply into something like firing a TOW Missile while being blindfolded.

Similarly i would call it CRIMINAL to let a soldier, let's say operate PGMs while he doesnt even know his location on the map or for that matter he's not sure what or who he is going to shoot at!

It's like handing over a super computer to some guy whose 'day job' is searching for online ****.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. Standard for any such contact is locate, identify, and engage until neutralized or there is simply nothing left to engage. Obviously the elephant in the room is identify. The communications between Pakistan and the U.S. was inaccurate, lacking, or both.
As for the firepower, or "overkill", there isn't a force in the world that can match the USA for precision. Forum readers right now are choking, laughing, or both, but it is the truth. What other country takes its standard iron bombs and ignores them, using instead a 100 kilo JDAM bomb or the new 20 kilo 1 meter long Griffin guided air to ground missile by Raytheon to be excellent due to the precision guidance?

Again, i will reiterate my previous point - we all know that the US masters in employment of 'Shock and awe Doctrine' or 'Rapid Dominance Doctrine', but then before you decided to employ this 'Shock and Awe' against Pakistani posts on Nov 26 there were certain rules that should have been kept in mind before going for the kill.

What are those rules, here let me explain it to the readers (i am sure you it must be known to you):

'Shock and Awe Doctrine ' means;

"the use of overwhelming power (which you did), dominant battlefield awareness (which you surely lacked!), dominant maneuvers (ofcourse), and spectacular displays of force (whom am i kidding? Gunships, G/A aircarfts, massive firepower etc) to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight".
​

So as we can see from the above definition, Battlefield Awareness is crucial (and probably also a prerequisite) before one can even think of unfolding his (so dearly mastered) 'Shock and Awe' campaign, and thus my perpetual question;

"Why was this IMPORTANT factor missed out during this particular operation (and i am not even taking into account any previous blue over blue incidents of the US military)?" Was it deliberate or mere incompetence? Pakistanis need an answer!

BTW if anyone missed, Battlefield Awareness means having the capability to have near-perfect knowledge and information of the battlefield' - to a layman this would mean, atleast knowing whom you going to 'duck shoot' during an operation.

And also as;

Battlefield awareness requires three information technologies: collection, fusion, and dissemination of real-time actionable information to a shooter. Rapid Dominance (the kind of employed on Nov 26 against Pakistani posts) requires an unprecedented level of real-time information collection that will be provided by sensor systems such as space platforms, UAVs, unattended ground sensors, and advanced manned reconnaissance platforms (so that both the commander enjoying his coffee and the shooter on ground can modify their plans if they find a problem during the engagements of the target - the problem, the kind kind of which was there when you were engaging our posts on Nov 26).​

And hence i am back to my first point; the importance of passage of feedback to the commanders (a form of battlefield awareness) which in turn should make the battle commander have that 'itchy feeling behind his neck' thus enabling him to stop shooting Pakistanis for consecutive 90 minutes!

Mind it, these are not my thoughts alone, but also said by Mr Harlan K. Ullman and Mr James P. Wade in their paper written for Command and Control Research Program (CCRP). CCRP is a program for assisting the US DoD in understanding of the national security implications of the Information Age;

Any Intelligent Dynamic Planning is totally based on based upon feedback and new information received from the battlefield so that the plans could be modified and mistakes rectified ASAP before it's too late. http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf​

Both the Spectre Gunship and the Apache have like performance. Some might say it's "overkill" vs. troops with only machine guns, but those that do still think romantic thoughts of battle. That sort of thought process - "not a fair fight" - are naive. When the enemy presents himself, and you can attack with impunity with stand-off weapons, you do so. You don't leave your tank behind if the enemy has none to make it "honorable or fair." You know this.

You need to stop this, you know i have never said anything regarding 'the Nov 26 episode being unfair'.

Do you believe we'd be in Afghanistan at this moment if those idiots hadn't hijacked those four Boeing airliners and did what they did?

Annnddd.... this brings me back to Sun Tzu, Harts and Clausewitz... There is a reason you and me are taught military history and it was this reason that i made a reference to it in my previous post;

Ofcourse you'd not be in Afghanistan if 9/11 didnt have happened, but then one of the (probable) reason behind your anxiousness to enter Afg and kill the bad guys was, because G. Bush (and probably your generals of that time) didnt read Liddle Hart's "Indirect Approach" of 'Superior Stratagem', neither did they know of its relation to Clausewitz's "Total/Absolute War". Therefore you guys relied merely on the 'Absoluteness and Totalness of War' (ref my previous post#709) - and it is therefore the US still needs to look into he following questions (which they should have done well before jumping the gun into Afg);

-whose funding the terrorists,

-why these terrorists are so MAD at you,

-why these terrorists did what they did on 9/11,

-and (if you have time), find out why still after more than 10 years, you guys failed to achieve victory in Afg,

In short, Clausewitiz, Hart and others let you understand that acting like a MAD ELEPHANT running amok and crushing people (including your Allies - Nov 26) to their deaths, all over the world ('Nam, Iraq, Afg and counting) is not what makes you superior, respectful and praiseworthy.

But this is a separate debate for a separate thread,so i'll stop here.

"US is shyt-slinged by every weak Nation?" --> meaning, "We hate the USA when they use stuff like JDAM, thermal night vision, F-15E's and F-117's, and Spectre gunships, because we don't have any counter to those lethal platforms? Or are those sentiments aimed at U.S. foreign policy in general? Both?

Like i said earlier, though i am jealous of the US being superior to us in technology, this doesnt necessarily means that i consider it unfair when we get beaten by you while we just didnt have the resources to counter it. War is war, nothing and everything is fair in it.

Question: Would Pakistan's reaction (murderers and butchers) be the same if Pakistani soldiers had shot the AC-130 and 2 Apaches down with MANPADs? Let's say there are 24 Pakistani KIA, but also 35 U.S. Airmen and 3 aircraft downed... would that change the national reaction, make the whole incident more palatable? But it wouldn't change the fact that 24 soldiers won't be going home.

i am glad you asked this.

i am not sure about the situation you have painted above, but i am sure our National sentiments would have been different (less emotional and probably more palatable also) if the same 24 Pakistanis soldiers would have been killed by indian forces (or for that matter any other "enemy") and not by 'allies/friends', our people see this incident as if the US has back stabbed us - may be now you can see the difference and understand the reasons behind our emotional outburst.

On one side we (the military) get blamed by Pakistani (and the indian trolls) for getting paid by the US to kill our 'own' nationals/citizens (Pakistani people think that we have been hired by you guys to do your dirty work) and then all of a sudden you do Nov 26, and then you complain regarding the average Pakistani getting mad at you? Strange!

Anywaz yes, the situation would probably have been different if we had dealt with the intruders on Nov 26 the way we are supposed to deal with any 'external threat/enemy'. The whole emotional outspark is primarily because of you guys taking advantage of our affiliation with America and ruthlessly killing our men for more than 90 minutes and despite all the exercise of sharing the coord/intelligence, liaison officers, hotlines etc, still failing to stop the attack and then displaying a blatant refusal to offer an apology - atleast that's how an average Pakistani thinks.

Come now - both Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, and the initial stages of the Afghanistan campaign, all demostrated the epitome of the military arts, using warfighting methodologies that make Hart or anybody else seem like schoolchildren by comparison. The speed, precision, and yes lack of destruction have never before been seen in modern war.

Please Read about Col. John Boyd and his theories on war - Sun Tzu couldn't tie that guy's shoes.

The New American Way of War

And that's why Captain David B Snodgrass, US Army has so vigorously contested THE RELEVANCE OF MILITARY HISTORY TO THE TEACHING OF MODERN WARFARE. Read it, it's written by an American solider.

Capt Snodgrass probably knew what rejecting Hart, Clausewitz and their ilks (Saner warfare) would do to the US military (Mad Elephant Warfare), and therefore wrote the above research paper.

The OODA loop

Oh come on, Chogy, i am already fed up of this RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) stuff. i know how your 7 x Stryker Brigades (Net Centric Warfare) enabled were employed in Iraq and what message Desert Storm conveyed to the world - the US military is the world leader in RMA, so there's no need to quote wikipedia.

i exactly know who Boyd is. i also know that how his OODA Loop model was developed during the Korean War. i have my own study of how according to Boyd, decision-making occurs in a recurring cycle of observe-orient-decide-act and blah, blah..(dont stimulate my RMA nerve, i 'll ruin this thread with it's single lecture )

And i am also quite clear on Network Centric Forces (the one that employ the OODA Loop) and its various levels (Network Controlled Warfare Capability, Network Enabled Capability, Network Assisted Warfare Capability), and i am saying all this without even opening the links you have provided.

So let's stop teaching each other and concentrate on the issue at hand - why on the God's earth did American forces failed to make use of the above quoted technologies and techniques (strategies) in its essence and did what they did on Nov 26, and then having knowing it now, why dont they feel like apologizing?

I understand about 10% of what Boyd used to teach in detail. The man was an immensely deep thinker who stepped on a lot of shoes, and thus is not famous. He also has a dedicated display in the U.S. Marine Corps School of Land Warfare. His warfighting strategems were what allowed General Franks to invade Iraq in 2003 with less than 1/2 of the manpower that Schwartzkopf had in Desert Storm. And those 2003 forces were rolling tanks through Baghdad while the Iraqi generals were insisting they were winning the fight.

Summary -- Victories with a miniscule (by comparison to past campaigns) cost.


The current conflict is so far from "total war" it's not comparable. To do so is to ignore reality.

Both of these I have already addressed. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you did. U.S. maneuvering and warfare is based primarily upon Boyd's matured warfighting vision.

And that's why;

- i stressed upon the importance of 'Battlefield Awareness' (and the reasons why it is dangerous to allow 'those who are not qualified' to play with weapons).

- i implored you to read Captain David B Snodgrass' paper (link quoted above)

- the militaries world over still take into account the theories of guys like Sun Tzu, Moltke, Hart etc, ofcourse in addition to Col Boyd (the guy was a genius, modern warfare is indebted to him).

Because if this hadn't been the case they wouldnt have said this:

“You know guns don’t kill people, stupid mother******s with guns kill people.” (i hope Chogy will take no offence and Mods please, it's just a quote, so take it as such).

 

[Xeric]

Chogy,

The strategies used by the american generals were third rate and horrendous----if----these were the generals representing Genghis Khan's army and they did the same during his time----he would have tied their bodies to horses and ripped them apart for their incompetence---if these american generals were the generals of the roman forces----the ceasars would have put skewered these generals on a metal wooden stake right through their sphincter muscle----and let them stay there to be made an example of---.

Schwarzkopf could have also rolled in with 1/3rd the troops ----taking out baghdad with 1/3rd less troops is not the big deal----don't you american soldiers get it by now---conquering a nation was the easy part----it was after the invasion where you failed---.

Even if there were 1/3rd of1/3rd troops invading iraq---they would have succeeded---but where the american millitary failed was in the occupation----they had never concquered a middle eastern nation before and were clueless to what to expect after the conquest----.

Only if they had the common sense to ask ohter nations what to expect after the fact---they would not have ended up killing a million and half more muslims since the take over----.

The american millitary has taken the word stupidity to a newer level---Chogy---when you invade a nation aND concquer it---you own it---everything---LOCK STOCK AND BARREL---that is yours---AND THE PEOPLE---THEY ARE YOUR SLAVES NOW----DO YOU GET IT BUDDY----READ MIDDLE EAST HISTORY---THEY ARE YOUR SLAVES NOW---EVERYTHING IN THEIR LANDS BELONGS TO YOU---law and order---govt---millitary rule---civil rule---it is all yours----.

If you had done the job right from day one---you would not have ended up killing a million and a half muslims---. These iraqis were not looting and plundering their nation after the war----they were technically stealing from you---the american forces---because everything in the land goes to the victor by default in the middle east---.

So---please let us not brag about this victory over a third world nation---please let us not gloat over it----. Those were the plains----the desert sands----no place for the enemy to hide----you start from oneend with a bulldozer and bury them all----like they did in the first GW----.

How about the battle in the high mountains----where there is no helicopter rescue----how about the defeat from a rag tag millitia---where did the ooda loop go in afg---. The comments of the iraqi generals tells you what an incompetent army the americans were fighting against-----.

Winning the battle is no big deal for the U S, Chogy---nobody at present can win a battle with the U S---it is in the winning of a war---where they have been defeated in iraq and now in AFG---it is the war----the americans don't have the heart to win a war---. Their strategists really don't know to win a war----.

i am glad to see that atleast there is one individual (apart from who thanked me, but didnt share their thoughts) on this thread who understands what i am yapping about.

 

[regular]

I guess the rling elites of US and NATO are infact not humanz but looks like Deamons or Aliens from Mars......have no human feelings and merciless........

 

[Safriz]

I guess the rling elites of US and NATO are infact not humanz but looks like Deamons or Aliens from Mars......have no human feelings and merciless........

Its due to their reliance on second hand information....Obama hasnt been to Pakistan....and same goes for most senate members....and yet they think what they do for Pakistan is best...and they are fighting a war in Pakistan...Any good commander in chief will at least visit his battlefield.

 

[BATMAN]

NATO troops late to notify seniors: US CentCom | MSN Arabia News

WASHINGTON: US military s Central Command in its investigation has revealed that it took 45 minutes for a NATO operations center in Afghanistan to notify a senior allied commander attack on Pakistani check-posts in Mohmand Agency, The New York Times reported.NYT report stated that once alerted, the commander immediately halted American attacks on two Pakistani posts. But by then, military communications between the two sides had sorted out a chain of errors and the shooting had already stopped. The delay raises questions about whether a faster response could have spared the lives of some Pakistani soldiers, the report said.An unclassified version of the 30-page report, released Monday by the military s Central Command, also revealed for the first time that an American AC-130 gunship flew two miles into Pakistani territory to return fire on troops that had attacked a joint American-Afghan ground patrol just across the border in Afghanistan.The NYT report further stated that American officials said the first allied mistake was that NATO had not informed Pakistan about the patrol, so the Pakistani soldiers would not have known to expect allied forces nearby. NATO and Pakistani forces are supposed to inform each other about operations on the border precisely to avoid this kind of mistake.

According to the reported version, it seems Pakistani forces are quite alert and present on their posts and don't even let a single movement go un-noticed.

I hope by this.. it will also pur an end to the 'do more' mantara.
Infact, i'm expecting US to say 'do not do much more'

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why’s it so hard to say ‘sorry’?

Irfan Husain | Opinion | From the Newspaper (10 hours ago) Today

I WAS in the United States when the deadly Nato attack on two Pakistani border posts killed 24 soldiers.

When asked by a radio interviewer to explain the furious reaction in Pakistan, I responded by asking him how Americans would have reacted had a similar number of their soldiers been killed by Pakistani troops.

I went on to suggest that US politicians from both parties would have demanded immediate retaliation. They would certainly have rejected a Pakistani offer to investigate such an incident, and the public and the media would have put huge pressure on the Obama administration to bomb targets in Pakistan.

The truth is that both countries are now so suspicious of each other that neither is willing to accept the other’s version of events. But by refusing to participate in the American inquiry, our generals have made it clear that they are not interested in reaching the truth, but in scoring points.

The report produced by the American inquiry into the incident makes it clear that to a large extent, the Nov 27 tragedy was entirely avoidable. Neither side transmitted crucial information to the other because of the trust deficit between them. And even when it became clear to the American side that their soldiers had attacked a Pakistani security post, it took 45 minutes for the information to reach senior officers who immediately ordered a halt.

However, to read criminal intent into this chain of events is to enter the world of self-delusion and paranoia. What could the Americans possibly gain by deliberately killing Pakistani soldiers? Many conspiracy theorists assert that Washington wanted to “teach Pakistan a lesson”.

A lesson about what, though? That they have overwhelming military superiority? Surely that point was driven home in the May 2 raid in Abbotabad that took out Osama bin Laden without our bloated military and security apparatus even being aware of the two-hour long American presence.

Even our jingoistic TV chat show hosts would recognise the fact that the Americans need Pakistani cooperation to conduct the war in Afghanistan. As the long queues of Nato container trucks currently lining roads leading out of Karachi will attest, the US needs the supply routes through Pakistan to supply its troops. In addition, Pakistan permits American planes to use its airspace. Other areas of cooperation include intelligence sharing and the use of the Shamsi airbase.

Given all this, why would the Americans jeopardise an already prickly relationship with its reluctant ally by deliberately killing our soldiers? This interpretation of the events of Nov 27 makes absolutely no sense.

But what also makes no sense is the American refusal to apologise. What would it cost Obama to just say sorry so both sides can move on? After all, the official inquiry report does contain a pretty damning list of procedural flaws and tactical errors committed by American troops and their commanders.

True, the report does allege that Pakistani soldiers mistakenly engaged a joint Afghan-US patrol close to the border; but it also makes it clear that Pakistan had not been informed of the operation, so our soldiers apparently mistook them for intruding Taliban fighters. This led inexorably to the tragic chain of events that has caused a deep — and possibly irreparable — rupture in our relations with Washington.

Given the high stakes involved, why don’t the Americans just apologise? In England, I notice that even when somebody accidentally bumps against a pedestrian on a pavement, both apologise repeatedly. Even if a person is not at fault, he’ll still say ‘sorry’.

The Americans have already expressed their regrets over the incident. Why can’t they just take the small step necessary to turn this into a formal apology? As they have already offered to pay compensation to the families of the dead soldiers — an offer rejected by our generals — it isn’t that an apology would have any financial implications.

An apology often disarms the other person. The other day, a driver accidentally reversed into our car, causing a small dent.

But before I could berate him for his stupidity and demand the cost of repairs, he accepted it was entirely his fault, and apologised. After that, I found it hard to stay angry, and left, advising him to be more careful in the future.

An American apology would allow both sides to press the reset button on their relationship and salvage a measure of cooperation, if not cordiality. It would also enable US and Pakistani military representatives to sit down and exchange information about the precise location of security posts, and of patrols carried out on both sides of the border. They could also work out better and quicker communication protocols.

Thus far, mistrust has prevented an open exchange of information, but having seen how deadly this can prove to be, it is high time for greater openness. Unfortunately, both sides are insisting on behaving like sulky kids: each feels wronged and refuses to take the steps necessary to bridge the gap.

One would have thought that being a superpower, America would have the self-confidence to apologise without feeling diminished. But sadly, it seems wisdom does not necessarily go hand in hand with power.

Pakistan’s relationship with America has always been a transactional one. There is no common ground that unites them. Only self-interest has bound them together in a series of alliances over the years. The Pakistan military, in particular, harbours a number of grievances against its American benefactor, and has succeeded in disseminating them widely, thanks to its close links with sections of the media.

Our powerful generals have made their displeasure known by a series of steps, including the embargo slapped on the transit of Nato supplies, the shutdown of the Shamsi airbase, and a halt in coordination between the two sides at the Pak-Afghan border.

We also boycotted the Bonn conference on Afghanistan.

Now, the ball’s in the American court. The easy way out would be to just say ‘sorry’ and move on.

Why

 

[MastanKhan]

i am glad to see that atleast there is one individual (apart from who thanked me, but didnt share their thoughts) on this thread who understands what i am yapping about.

Xeric,

My friend, for years I have been crying out---you cannot mess with the u s---it is a bull elephant and it crushes everything that comes in its path---without any thought an consideration---. Its retaliation increases manifold with the resistance it receives---.

You must remember how often I have talked about pakistanis not doing enough to stop the u s from getting into afg---. Today it is only 24 pakistani soldiers killed and see the level of pain pakistan has---and these soldiers were killed in combat----now imagine the pain of the iraqis---their ---50000---60000 soldiers were buried alive in their trenches when the americans forces moved with their tanks fitted with blades in front of them during the first gulf war---.

You know the funny thing is----how many of the pakistanis were bragging over here---some VERY SENIOR MEMBERS---WE ARE NOT IRAQIS----WE WILL TELL THE U S HOW TO FIGHT----. Remember the senior member talking about pakistani pilots winning against the american flyers in excercizes---and just on that basis they wanted to challenge the might of the u s---.

Now we know where we stand----the truth is painful, it hurts, it is demeaning---. For the americans---they say---dude---sh-it happens---so what---we killed 24 of your soldiers---lucky you---be glad we didnot take 240 of your soldiers---we could have done that too---.

You cannot befriend the angel of death and destruction---you will always be better off to keep it away from your borders---be respectful of its powers and let it be.

 

[Thorough Pro]

No, need for a harsh tone. Rumsfield took the responsibility for the shameful abuse and torture at a senate hearing but it wasn't that he issued such directives. Unless you're going by Kerry and other democrats accusation on rumsfield and bush's policies which lead to the torture.

And much much worse than what you mentioned happened to Iraqi prisoners in there. Many such ten times worse pictures and videos were withheld from the media.

Where did you find the harsh tone in my post? Even if you did, my apologies. I was just stating the facts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"US is shyt-slinged by every weak Nation?" --> meaning, "We hate the USA when they use stuff like JDAM, thermal night vision, F-15E's and F-117's, and Spectre gunships, because we don't have any counter to those lethal platforms? Or are those sentiments aimed at U.S. foreign policy in general? Both?

I think Xeric's larger point is valid, and you sort of acknowledged this earlier when you referred to the Vietnam War's legacy in impacting current ROE's, in the sense that they have been made much more flexible.

And this goes beyond mere 'anti-Americanism', if that is what you were implying - while the focus of Xeric's argument and this thread is the incident with the Pakistani posts, the US has come under criticizm for 'ROE's that are TOO flexible' from multiple quarters and in multiple theaters.

We had the same complaints in Iraq, and Karzai pretty much asks the US to end night raids and stop bombing and killing Afghan civilians almost every other day. In terms of 'blue on blue', as pointed out already, this is not the first incident in which US forces have killed Pakistani soldiers along the border.

You take all of that together and I believe it amounts to some pretty overwhelming evidence that the 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude, when US forces are under even perceived risk, is pretty prevalent.

 

[MastanKhan]

Why’s it so hard to say ‘sorry’?

Irfan Husain | Opinion | From the Newspaper (10 hours ago) Today

I WAS in the United States when the deadly Nato attack on two Pakistani border posts killed 24 soldiers.

When asked by a radio interviewer to explain the furious reaction in Pakistan, I responded by asking him how Americans would have reacted had a similar number of their soldiers been killed by Pakistani troops.




One would have thought that being a superpower, America would have the self-confidence to apologise without feeling diminished. But sadly, it seems wisdom does not necessarily go hand in hand with power.

Pakistan’s relationship with America has always been a transactional one. There is no common ground that unites them. Only self-interest has bound them together in a series of alliances over the years. The Pakistan military, in particular, harbours a number of grievances against its American benefactor, and has succeeded in disseminating them widely, thanks to its close links with sections of the media.

Our powerful generals have made their displeasure known by a series of steps, including the embargo slapped on the transit of Nato supplies, the shutdown of the Shamsi airbase, and a halt in coordination between the two sides at the Pak-Afghan border.

We also boycotted the Bonn conference on Afghanistan.

Now, the ball’s in the American court. The easy way out would be to just say ‘sorry’ and move on.

Why

Hi,

What the u s needed was a diversion from the memo gate---there were other issues as well----. Here is the thing to understand---the u s doesnot make these kinds of mistakes just like that----if it was one bomb---one run made and multiple bombs dropped and all the soldiers were killed at one time---I will go by the u s explanation----.

But this strike was stretched over two hours---they came back again and again---. There was a reason behind this strike---.

The generals are tired of fighting this war---they knew that this kind of strike would create a major fiasco in relation with pakistan----which would result in embargo of goods----which would put undue pressure on the supply line----thus put pressure on the troops---and then the millitary would talk to the congress and senate---this war cannot be prolonged---there is no supply route----bring the soldiers home---.

VP Biden comes out ans ays that the taliban ae our buddies---Obama puts sanctions on paying funds to pakistan---it s a tangled web.

 

[Thorough Pro]

For firing back in self defence ??? Because thats what USA believes its troops did..

If you can just take your head out of your A$$, then maybe, just may be you'll be able to understand some of it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hi,

What the u s needed was a diversion from the memo gate---there were other issues as well----. Here is the thing to understand---the u s doesnot make these kinds of mistakes just like that----if it was one bomb---one run made and multiple bombs dropped and all the soldiers were killed at one time---I will go by the u s explanation----.

But this strike was stretched over two hours---they came back again and again---. There was a reason behind this strike---.

The generals are tired of fighting this war---they knew that this kind of strike would create a major fiasco in relation with pakistan----which would result in embargo of goods----which would put undue pressure on the supply line----thus put pressure on the troops---and then the millitary would talk to the congress and senate---this war cannot be prolonged---there is no supply route----bring the soldiers home---.

VP Biden comes out ans ays that the taliban ae our buddies---Obama puts sanctions on paying funds to pakistan---it s a tangled web.

Panetta is also Secretary of Defence currently - this is the same guy that shot down the US Ambassador and DoS objections over drone strikes the day after Raymond Davis was released by Pakistan, and chose to bomb a gathering of tribal elders and political agents to 'teach Pakistan a lesson'.