View Full Version : Tensions Flare Between US and Pakistan After Strike
This could get ugly...
Richard :munchin
Tensions Flare Between US and Pakistan After Strike
NYT, 26 nOV 2011
Pakistani officials said on Saturday that NATO aircraft had killed at least 25 soldiers in strikes against two military posts at the northwestern border with Afghanistan, and the country’s supreme army commander called them unprovoked acts of aggression in a new flash point between the United States and Pakistan.
The Pakistani government responded by ordering the Central Intelligence Agency to vacate the drone operations it runs from Shamsi Air Base, in western Pakistan, within 15 days. It also closed the two main NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, including the one at Torkham. NATO forces receive roughly 40 percent of their supplies through that crossing, which runs through the Khyber Pass, and Pakistan gave no estimate for how long the routes might be shut down.
A NATO spokesman said it was likely that allied airstrikes caused the Pakistani casualties, but said an investigation had been ordered to determine the cause.
In Washington, American officials were scrambling to assess what had happened amid preliminary reports that allied forces in Afghanistan engaged in a firefight along the border and called in airstrikes. Senior Obama administration officials were also weighing the implications on a relationship that took a sharp turn for the worse after a Navy Seal commando raid killed Osama bin Laden near Islamabad in May, and that has deteriorated since then.
(cont'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/world/asia/pakistan-says-nato-helicopters-kill-dozens-of-soldiers.html
No Supplies should equal No money.
When they announced the border closing we should have announced the suspension of money - with a real nice flowery political message saying we were sure a political solution could be found.
No Supplies should equal No money.
When they announced the border closing we should have announced the suspension of money - with a real nice flowery political message saying we were sure a political solution could be found.
You'd think the honchos would take that COA automatically.
I'm sure that the US Ground Force Commander, unable to read a map and unaware he was near the border, decided to begin a firefight with the Pakistani Army (who was asleep in their barracks, peacefully napping) and then use the VERY loose rules on CAS and target identification in Afghanistan to bomb them. Repeatedly.
After all, Pakistan has been an honest broker and trustworthy partner in that theater. I could never imagine that they would fire on US Forces, for any reason.
greenberetTFS
11-27-2011, 13:59
No Supplies should equal No money.
When they announced the border closing we should have announced the suspension of money - with a real nice flowery political message saying we were sure a political solution could be found.
Pete,
How much you want to bet we will offer "MORE"(:() money to make peace with them...........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
After all, Pakistan has been an honest broker and trustworthy partner in that theater. I could never imagine that they would fire on US Forces, for any reason.
:p :munchin
Hilarious.
Tensions were already strained and Pakistan has wanted to get rid of drone operations long ago. Now this gives them the leverage to do just that. The supply lines is a double blow squeezing manpower and operational assets out of their country. Seems like they appear ready to make other alliances, or strengthen those they might have already been leaning towards.
Tensions were already strained and Pakistan has wanted to get rid of drone operations long ago. Now this gives them the leverage to do just that. The supply lines is a double blow squeezing manpower and operational assets out of their country. Seems like they appear ready to make other alliances, or strengthen those they might have already been leaning towards.
Silver lining is that maybe they'll stop importing knives.
TOMAHAWK9521
11-27-2011, 15:18
It also closed the two main NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, including the one at Torkham. NATO forces receive roughly 40 percent of their supplies through that crossing...
...and where Pakistan coincidentally gets 100 percent of their supplies.
alright4u
11-27-2011, 17:21
In Oct 69 I did an area study on the country. Our unit had the small teams capable of jumping in and setting the timer and hauling ass. Not much more need be said. Pakistan was mainly Urdu speaking if I recall. The truth is that the Britanica had the best INFO then. Also National Geo.
I always wondered why Pakistan was our AO back then? We must have known much more even back then as compared to what we admit?
DesertRat
11-27-2011, 21:17
Sounds like things are fixing to get a lil western with pakistan.
ddoering
11-28-2011, 05:29
Pete,
How much you want to bet we will offer "MORE"(:() money to make peace with them...........:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
We should offer them part of our smallpox stockpile.....
greenberetTFS
11-28-2011, 06:44
We should offer them part of our smallpox stockpile.....
LMAO.........:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
Found this news quote in a Fox News article about the incident. Has to be the stupidest quote ever. We need them for peace talks with Warlords.
A complete breakdown in the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is considered unlikely. Pakistan relies on billions of dollars in American aid, and the U.S. needs Pakistan to push Afghan insurgents to participate in peace talks.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/27/afghan-officials-fire-from-pakistan-led-to-attack/?test=latestnews#ixzz1f0Z4jyrZ
Peace talks are favored by parties seeking peace with other belligerants. If you are obviously winning, and believe you are going to win no matter what, you aren't going to care about peace talks or their outcome; it's irrelevant. Did we seek Peace Talks on day 2 of the Gulf War? Iraq Invasion? Afghanistan November 2001? No. The idea probably seems rediculous to you, doesn't it... Why seek peace when you're busy rearranging their country with large quantities of ordanance. Vietnam? Korea? Oh, yes, lets sit down and work out our differences like gentleman.
The fact that we are actively trying to make peace through diplomacy, and the Taliban are not, probably speaks volumes as to the eventual winners of that conflict.
Oldrotorhead
11-28-2011, 21:09
Found this news quote in a Fox News article about the incident. Has to be the stupidest quote ever. We need them for peace talks with Warlords.
What? This fine news organization isn't correct? They get their interns from the same Journalism schools as CBS, NBC and CNN. Those same interns write what the teleprompter tells the talking heads to say. Sometimes Al Jazeera tells a more accurate story. Not always but sometimes.:D
Afghans say commando unit was attacked before airstrike was called on Pakistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afghans-say-unit-was-attacked-before-airstrike/2011/11/28/gIQAX6ZY5N_story.html?hpid=z1
"............Both sides said they believed they were attacking insurgents along the border. A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border......................"
Basenshukai
11-29-2011, 22:41
Afghans say commando unit was attacked before airstrike was called on Pakistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afghans-say-unit-was-attacked-before-airstrike/2011/11/28/gIQAX6ZY5N_story.html?hpid=z1
"............Both sides said they believed they were attacking insurgents along the border. A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border......................"
And the Commandos are being truthful and are correct. And, yes, as soon as fire shot across the border the PAKMIL was consulted and they affirmed that there were no friendlies (I use that term loosely) in the area. The resulting "confusion" is nothing more than PAKMIL doing the wrong thing and getting caugh doing it. Period.
Or a Paki set up.
This could be true because of all people the Pakistani's want the US out of Afghanistan ASAP.
What the Islamic world doesn't see is that these very PAKMIL,ISI folks helped people like the haqqani's whose actions have led to the death of a lot more American Servicemen that PAKMIL's dead tally seems like a joke.
China will as usual say this shouldn't be done to our allies,this and that shouldn't be done to their sovereignty.
Truth is post Soviet withdrawal in 1989 anti-american sentiments have been very high among'st the Pakistani people.Also due to the exposure of PAKMIL,ISI towards all the radicals from around the world during that period radicalization within the pak army,ISI has always been on the rise.
Recently I read a book titled "Inside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda" by a Pakistani Journalist the Late. Syed Saleem Shahzad.This book is a shocker that exposes the role of the Pakistani military establishment,the ISI,more shocking is how post 9/11 SSG(Pakistani Army SF) personnel are leaving their units and joining groups such as Iliyas Kashmiri's 313 Brigade.The book doesn't seem to be a farce because the journalist was murdered and in a way that everyone including foreign elements pointed fingers towards the ISI for the murder.This book is definitely worth a read.
blacksmoke
12-04-2011, 02:36
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/02/world/asia/pakistan-nato-airstrikes/index.html?hpt=wo_c2
How can Pakistani militants and soldiers be in the same vicinity without fighting each other or stopping them? The article says Pak gave permission for a strike 6 miles away. They don't even have GPS so who knows what is located where better? And how is this such a national issue when the groups are killing way more police and military on a much more regular basis?