NATO's Shame - NATO Aware it was Firing at Pakistani Troops
- Thread starter Windjammer
- Start date
its easy to be critical when not in the hot seat. I dont think kayani that bad at all. oh btw for cheng i bet americans will say in their report oh we were fed duff information and blame afghanis for the mess.
I put this as a fresh thread and then remembered that some were questioning Kayani etc on this thread. Well we all accept that America is an enemy and not well wisher of pakistan. Our enemies enemy is therefore a freind why do Americans want to get rid of kayani. That should be sufficient for us to want him to stay. I also pointed to him being similar to obama yesterday in that he waits for the enemy to make its mistake and then takes full advantage. Isnt that what PA are doing? Do they not have the upper hand? I think we stick with Kayani and support our PA and ISI the ones that have done so much to defend us.
Read the article below and let me know
How Far Will the US Go to Target Pakistan's Military?
Was the Attack on Pakistani Outposts Deliberate?: How Far Will the US Go to Target Pakistan's Military?
Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:07
by:
Shaukat Qadir
This past June I posted an article by Anatol Lieven on Facebook. For those who are not familiar with his name, Anatol is from the UK and numbers among the few journalists whom I always enjoy reading. I have met Anatol a few times and he is the kind of person who likes to get acquainted with the psycho-social environment of the people he writes about. Written in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s execution, Anatol’s article was critical of the US approach to the region, particularly Pakistan.
Among those responding to this post was an American whom I would rather not embarrass by naming; so let’s just call him X. Admitting that he hadn’t read through Anatol’s article and was judging its contents by earlier articles of the author, he went on to add, “let me put this as simply as possible, for you to understand. The US has concluded that the Pakistan army is part of the problem, not the solution; and that the interests of the Pakistan army are not identical with those of Pakistan. Consequently, the US has decided that the Pakistan army has to be cut to size and, if in the process of doing so, the Pakistan army is destroyed, so be it. And, I agree”.
The first thing that hit me was the arrogance of his statement. The “US has decided (on behalf of, and for, the people of Pakistan) that its army’s interests and theirs are not identical”, and will, on behalf of, and for Pakistan, cut its army to size! Typical arrogance expected of the American establishment. The only issue was that this American had hitherto seemed pretty level-headed and very far from arrogant. Nor was he a Mansoor Ijaz or even an expatriate American. I commented on the arrogance of his words, to which he chose not to respond. However, I did not take the contents of his comment very seriously; not at that time.
The “Memo-gate” Scandal
Most readers will be familiar with this scandal, so I will cover just the bare outline of the incident from my perspective. On October 10th, Mansoor Ijaz, a multi millionaire American of Pakistani origin, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times which, as it was expected to do, set Pakistan’s political landscape on fire.
His op-ed titled, “Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadist spies”, as the title indicates, ostensibly seemed to target the ISI and the Pakistan military for maintaining ties with Jihadists. However, it mentioned the fact that in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s execution, he was contacted by a “senior diplomat”, who was known to be close to Pakistani President, Zardari. Apparently, Zardari feared the possibility of a military coup. Everybody knew that the senior Pakistani diplomat referred to Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US.
Smoldering ruin of a border outpost inside Pakistan attacked by US helicopters. 24 Pakistani soldiers died here and at a second mountaintop outpost in an unprovoked US massacre
They had, between the two of them drafted a memo requesting US President Obama’s help by asking Admiral Mullen to warn off the Pakistani army chief, Gen Kiyani and, in return Zardari would put in place a “new security team” of Obama’s choice, close down the “S” Wing of the ISI, which was responsible for Strategic Ops, including maintaining links with the Haqqani Network. Ijaz hinted at the fact that the memo promised much more.
All hell broke loose in Pakistan with everybody denying knowledge of everything, including Admiral Mullen. Accusations flew back and forth, till Mullen regained his memory and Gen James Jones confirmed that he had conveyed the memo to Mullen. Then the actual Memo appeared on the blog of the prestigious Journal, Foreign Policy!
To the horror of all Pakistanis, their worst fears proved true. Between Zardari and Haqqani, the two had even been prepared to compromise on Pakistan’s holiest of “holy cows”; the nuclear program!
Haqqani was sacked; Zardari sorely troubled.
But Mansoor Ijaz wasn’t done yet. In another op-ed, he asserted that the Zardari-Haqqani duo had advance notice of US intention to execute Osama bin Laden on May 2nd! But this was in early December; lots more transpired in between his first provocation and the last.
NATO (read US) helicopters and aircrafts attack the twin posts at Salala
On November 26th, NATO aircrafts and helicopter gunships launched an attack on the recently constructed twin-posts “Volcano” and “Boulder” in Salala region of the Mohmand Agency in Pakistan. Of the 40 soldiers, including two officers, occupying these posts, 26, including both officers, were killed and 14 wounded. Not a single soldier escaped unscathed.
These posts were constructed in September 2011, before the onset of winter about 2 ½ kilometers inside the Durand Line1 for the express purpose of preventing movement on either side of the Durand Line by Pakistani Taliban. As per international agreements, the Afghan government was informed of the intention to construct these posts and map coordinates along with specifications were provided. In the period when these posts were under construction, ISAF/NATO helicopters often kept surveillance over them from across the Durand Line to ensure these weren’t violating specifications.
Since these were “anti-infiltration” posts, they had no overhead protection nor were they equipped to respond to an air attack. The only weapon capable of effective anti-aircraft fire was an antiquated 12.7 MG. Knowing the kind of firepower that NATO/ISAF forces could retaliate with, it is preposterous to imagine that anyone at the post would engage a NATO helicopter first.
The contention that NATO helicopters were pursuing Taliban is also singularly unconvincing. Anybody who has some idea of how Taliban operate is aware that they move in ones and twos to collect at a given RV, attack and immediately disperse. Even if they intended to remain together to carry out another attack the next night, they would find a hideout in a valley; certainly not on the top of a ridge.
The final excuse presented by NATO forces for this massacre is that some Taliban probably engaged them with a rocket and, their response, resulted in the confusion. While the excuse offered is plausible but it too is given the lie by two facts: a) the manner of the attack as described by the survivors and b) we are talking about the most high-tech aircraft in the world. Would they not know exactly where the Pakistani posts are?
The survivors state that a helicopter flew over, fired a couple of flares to view them all, and then flew away. A few minutes later, some more helicopters and aircrafts appeared, kept lighting up the posts with flares, and firing at us indiscriminately. Major Mujahid tried contacting HQs but couldn’t (communication must have been jammed) and finally ordered the gunner of the 12.7 MG to retaliate. A helicopter killed the gunner with its MG fire. Mujahid took the place of the gunner, was targeted by a rocket that killed him and destroyed the 12.7. Thereafter, we were targeted individually.
Whatever excuses are offered, it was a deliberately planned massacre that ended in a Turkey shoot.
Now, the only question that arises is why?
All Pakistan is outraged at the slaughter by US helicopter gunships of 24 Pakistani border troops
An Analysis
June this year, I wrote an article published under the title, “Who is gunning for Pakistan’s top generals”. I had become convinced by then that the western, particularly American mainstream, media was targeting Pakistan’s army chief and the ISI chief.
It was not till we were well into Memogate that I adverted to the comment made by X; which I referred to earlier. Could it really be true?
Let’s review the facts. Now Mansoor Ijaz, a dubious character by any standards, claims to have been the conduit in numerous negotiations on behalf of the US and Pakistan. However, the continued utility of such a conduit lies in his anonymity, certainly not his notoriety! So, apart from whatever havoc he created in Pakistan’s domestic scene, he has also ensured the termination of the one role that ensured his entry in the US corridors of power. He must have had a compelling reason to do so.
If the fire he lit was intended to tarnish the military’s image, it did succeed to a very limited extent but it back-fired far more on Pakistan’s president. Did he then go whole hog to denounce Zardari in the hope of instigating a military coup, hoping that would embarrass the military? If so, he failed again.
But one thing is beyond dispute. Ijaz is an American, with no ties, no stakes in Pakistan. With such a high profile and such high stakes in the US, he certainly can’t afford to be an agent of the ISI. On the other hand, if he is an agent of the CIA, he would be as safe as houses.
Since he, individually, may have lost something but certainly hasn’t gained anything, at least not on the face of it, he must have had some compelling reasons to expose this charade. His compulsions could not, equally certainly, be Pakistani, in origin. Whatever the source of his compulsions, they had to be American. The same would apply to Admiral Mullen’s memory loss and subsequent recovery of his memory.
Let’s move on and attempt to examine the Salala attack.
My understanding of how things work in ISAF/NATO HQ in Afghanistan is that any officer can initiate the request for a “routine” operation, based on unidentified information received. The lowest level at which such an operation can be approved is at one-star level. In routine, thereafter, this “approved” request will travel up channels; it may or may not even be seriously viewed thereafter and, very rarely is it questioned.
While I have no way of knowing exactly what happened in NATO/ISAF or Pentagon/CIA, the impression that I got from the body-language and the response of senior military personnel of ISAF/NATO/Pentagon, is that this “hit” was not sanctioned at the highest level. Certainly not by the so-called American C-in-C; maybe not by the recently appointed Chairman Joint Chiefs; and perhaps not even the Commander NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Is it possible that there are “rogue elements” within the US military which could order and execute such a massacre on their own? I think so; if this is an attack by such rogue elements; it wouldn’t be the first time and, perhaps not the last time.
But it would explain why so much time was required to “investigate” the incident. An inquiry should, in my view, not have taken more than 48 hours to find out what happened and who was responsible; OK, if they’re slow and very meticulous, let’s say one week. By no stretch of imagination should it require four weeks!
Unless, the Chairman immediately realized what had really happened and the need for wasting time; time for things to cool down a little; time to discover whose a$$ was exposed; whose to cover and who, if anyone, was to be hung out to dry!
I am convinced that the Pakistan army, its top brass, and the ISI are being subjected to a well-planned, coordinated psychological warfare campaign; “and if in the process it (the Pakistan army) is destroyed, so be it”!
But it keeps backfiring! The attack on Salala should have destroyed the army but, while there is a seething rage within the rank and file of the army and considerable recriminations leveled at the top brass, there is also the awareness that if anyone in Pakistan is going to say NO to US demands; it won’t be the president or PM, it can only be the army chief; there are other reasons too but this is the most powerful one.
The army responded strongly, firmly, and without losing its cool; but the gloves are off now. The US is, at best, a “frenemy”; not a friend, closer to an enemy, and it is up to the US to prove otherwise. There are still critics of the army wondering, with good reason, why it did not respond to the attack, while it was in progress. The breakdown of communication is understandably responsible for this but I do not think that scrabling the Pakistan air force at that time would have helped.
In fact that might have been exactly what the person ordering the US attack on Salala might have hoped for. Consequent to an air battle with the Pakistan air force, we could well have been at war with the US. And, in that eventuality, what happened at Salala and why, might have become irrelevant.
I fear, however, that the US psy-war campaign against Pakistan army isn’t quite over yet.
On December 5th, Eli Lake, perhaps the one journalist most well connected with Pentagon/CIA wrote an article titled “America’s shadow state in Pakistan”. It’s artistically subtle in its accusations; but being Pakistani and a former soldier to boot, maybe I am biased. But very interestingly, M. K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat responded to it in his, “Why someone is blackmailing Kayani”. Now he, certainly isn’t biased, but he is bright and balanced; not a Paakistani-hater. Let me conclude by quoting him.
“Surely, someone in the know of things on the US’s intelligence operations in Pakistan gave him a peep into…’someone’ very special of the stature of David Petraeus….someone is softly, gently rocking Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Kayani, suggesting it’s time to wake up from the reverie. After all, Iran just showed how to shoot down America’s latest stealth drone aircraft. And Kayani just told his men in the border with Afghanistan that they could shoot at what they want…. And Lake reminds us gently that all these deadly US inroads into the ISI’s bowels began when Kayani was heading the ISI….slips in the intriguing thought as well that Musharraf “handpicked Kayani as his replacement as Army chief ….So, the ISI’s pro-American “T-Wing” was formed during Kayani’s stewardship….Lake informs us that Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of US Joint chiefs of staff, was known back in Washington among the folks as the “Kayani whisperer”…. Why is someone in a key position in the US security establishment in Washington deliberately slandering Kayani at this point? I think, with Haqqani gone out of the loop, with President Asif Zardari probably stepping down soon….It seems increasingly that Washington has no Plan B. The setback has come as an avalanche. The Pakistan military has turned the table squarely on the US….how the US doesn’t hesitate to degrade the state structures of even its allies if American interests are involved. If this was the ruthless fate that visited ISI - an organization that is considered second only to Mossad - I shudder to think what would be the case with lesser mortals like, say, we Indians who live on vegetables and fruits. At the end of the historic “defining partnership” between US and India, will anything be left of our Bharat mata?”
Read the article below and let me know
How Far Will the US Go to Target Pakistan's Military?
Was the Attack on Pakistani Outposts Deliberate?: How Far Will the US Go to Target Pakistan's Military?
Mon, 12/19/2011 - 13:07
by:
Shaukat Qadir
This past June I posted an article by Anatol Lieven on Facebook. For those who are not familiar with his name, Anatol is from the UK and numbers among the few journalists whom I always enjoy reading. I have met Anatol a few times and he is the kind of person who likes to get acquainted with the psycho-social environment of the people he writes about. Written in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s execution, Anatol’s article was critical of the US approach to the region, particularly Pakistan.
Among those responding to this post was an American whom I would rather not embarrass by naming; so let’s just call him X. Admitting that he hadn’t read through Anatol’s article and was judging its contents by earlier articles of the author, he went on to add, “let me put this as simply as possible, for you to understand. The US has concluded that the Pakistan army is part of the problem, not the solution; and that the interests of the Pakistan army are not identical with those of Pakistan. Consequently, the US has decided that the Pakistan army has to be cut to size and, if in the process of doing so, the Pakistan army is destroyed, so be it. And, I agree”.
The first thing that hit me was the arrogance of his statement. The “US has decided (on behalf of, and for, the people of Pakistan) that its army’s interests and theirs are not identical”, and will, on behalf of, and for Pakistan, cut its army to size! Typical arrogance expected of the American establishment. The only issue was that this American had hitherto seemed pretty level-headed and very far from arrogant. Nor was he a Mansoor Ijaz or even an expatriate American. I commented on the arrogance of his words, to which he chose not to respond. However, I did not take the contents of his comment very seriously; not at that time.
The “Memo-gate” Scandal
Most readers will be familiar with this scandal, so I will cover just the bare outline of the incident from my perspective. On October 10th, Mansoor Ijaz, a multi millionaire American of Pakistani origin, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times which, as it was expected to do, set Pakistan’s political landscape on fire.
His op-ed titled, “Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadist spies”, as the title indicates, ostensibly seemed to target the ISI and the Pakistan military for maintaining ties with Jihadists. However, it mentioned the fact that in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s execution, he was contacted by a “senior diplomat”, who was known to be close to Pakistani President, Zardari. Apparently, Zardari feared the possibility of a military coup. Everybody knew that the senior Pakistani diplomat referred to Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US.
Smoldering ruin of a border outpost inside Pakistan attacked by US helicopters. 24 Pakistani soldiers died here and at a second mountaintop outpost in an unprovoked US massacre
They had, between the two of them drafted a memo requesting US President Obama’s help by asking Admiral Mullen to warn off the Pakistani army chief, Gen Kiyani and, in return Zardari would put in place a “new security team” of Obama’s choice, close down the “S” Wing of the ISI, which was responsible for Strategic Ops, including maintaining links with the Haqqani Network. Ijaz hinted at the fact that the memo promised much more.
All hell broke loose in Pakistan with everybody denying knowledge of everything, including Admiral Mullen. Accusations flew back and forth, till Mullen regained his memory and Gen James Jones confirmed that he had conveyed the memo to Mullen. Then the actual Memo appeared on the blog of the prestigious Journal, Foreign Policy!
To the horror of all Pakistanis, their worst fears proved true. Between Zardari and Haqqani, the two had even been prepared to compromise on Pakistan’s holiest of “holy cows”; the nuclear program!
Haqqani was sacked; Zardari sorely troubled.
But Mansoor Ijaz wasn’t done yet. In another op-ed, he asserted that the Zardari-Haqqani duo had advance notice of US intention to execute Osama bin Laden on May 2nd! But this was in early December; lots more transpired in between his first provocation and the last.
NATO (read US) helicopters and aircrafts attack the twin posts at Salala
On November 26th, NATO aircrafts and helicopter gunships launched an attack on the recently constructed twin-posts “Volcano” and “Boulder” in Salala region of the Mohmand Agency in Pakistan. Of the 40 soldiers, including two officers, occupying these posts, 26, including both officers, were killed and 14 wounded. Not a single soldier escaped unscathed.
These posts were constructed in September 2011, before the onset of winter about 2 ½ kilometers inside the Durand Line1 for the express purpose of preventing movement on either side of the Durand Line by Pakistani Taliban. As per international agreements, the Afghan government was informed of the intention to construct these posts and map coordinates along with specifications were provided. In the period when these posts were under construction, ISAF/NATO helicopters often kept surveillance over them from across the Durand Line to ensure these weren’t violating specifications.
Since these were “anti-infiltration” posts, they had no overhead protection nor were they equipped to respond to an air attack. The only weapon capable of effective anti-aircraft fire was an antiquated 12.7 MG. Knowing the kind of firepower that NATO/ISAF forces could retaliate with, it is preposterous to imagine that anyone at the post would engage a NATO helicopter first.
The contention that NATO helicopters were pursuing Taliban is also singularly unconvincing. Anybody who has some idea of how Taliban operate is aware that they move in ones and twos to collect at a given RV, attack and immediately disperse. Even if they intended to remain together to carry out another attack the next night, they would find a hideout in a valley; certainly not on the top of a ridge.
The final excuse presented by NATO forces for this massacre is that some Taliban probably engaged them with a rocket and, their response, resulted in the confusion. While the excuse offered is plausible but it too is given the lie by two facts: a) the manner of the attack as described by the survivors and b) we are talking about the most high-tech aircraft in the world. Would they not know exactly where the Pakistani posts are?
The survivors state that a helicopter flew over, fired a couple of flares to view them all, and then flew away. A few minutes later, some more helicopters and aircrafts appeared, kept lighting up the posts with flares, and firing at us indiscriminately. Major Mujahid tried contacting HQs but couldn’t (communication must have been jammed) and finally ordered the gunner of the 12.7 MG to retaliate. A helicopter killed the gunner with its MG fire. Mujahid took the place of the gunner, was targeted by a rocket that killed him and destroyed the 12.7. Thereafter, we were targeted individually.
Whatever excuses are offered, it was a deliberately planned massacre that ended in a Turkey shoot.
Now, the only question that arises is why?
All Pakistan is outraged at the slaughter by US helicopter gunships of 24 Pakistani border troops
An Analysis
June this year, I wrote an article published under the title, “Who is gunning for Pakistan’s top generals”. I had become convinced by then that the western, particularly American mainstream, media was targeting Pakistan’s army chief and the ISI chief.
It was not till we were well into Memogate that I adverted to the comment made by X; which I referred to earlier. Could it really be true?
Let’s review the facts. Now Mansoor Ijaz, a dubious character by any standards, claims to have been the conduit in numerous negotiations on behalf of the US and Pakistan. However, the continued utility of such a conduit lies in his anonymity, certainly not his notoriety! So, apart from whatever havoc he created in Pakistan’s domestic scene, he has also ensured the termination of the one role that ensured his entry in the US corridors of power. He must have had a compelling reason to do so.
If the fire he lit was intended to tarnish the military’s image, it did succeed to a very limited extent but it back-fired far more on Pakistan’s president. Did he then go whole hog to denounce Zardari in the hope of instigating a military coup, hoping that would embarrass the military? If so, he failed again.
But one thing is beyond dispute. Ijaz is an American, with no ties, no stakes in Pakistan. With such a high profile and such high stakes in the US, he certainly can’t afford to be an agent of the ISI. On the other hand, if he is an agent of the CIA, he would be as safe as houses.
Since he, individually, may have lost something but certainly hasn’t gained anything, at least not on the face of it, he must have had some compelling reasons to expose this charade. His compulsions could not, equally certainly, be Pakistani, in origin. Whatever the source of his compulsions, they had to be American. The same would apply to Admiral Mullen’s memory loss and subsequent recovery of his memory.
Let’s move on and attempt to examine the Salala attack.
My understanding of how things work in ISAF/NATO HQ in Afghanistan is that any officer can initiate the request for a “routine” operation, based on unidentified information received. The lowest level at which such an operation can be approved is at one-star level. In routine, thereafter, this “approved” request will travel up channels; it may or may not even be seriously viewed thereafter and, very rarely is it questioned.
While I have no way of knowing exactly what happened in NATO/ISAF or Pentagon/CIA, the impression that I got from the body-language and the response of senior military personnel of ISAF/NATO/Pentagon, is that this “hit” was not sanctioned at the highest level. Certainly not by the so-called American C-in-C; maybe not by the recently appointed Chairman Joint Chiefs; and perhaps not even the Commander NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Is it possible that there are “rogue elements” within the US military which could order and execute such a massacre on their own? I think so; if this is an attack by such rogue elements; it wouldn’t be the first time and, perhaps not the last time.
But it would explain why so much time was required to “investigate” the incident. An inquiry should, in my view, not have taken more than 48 hours to find out what happened and who was responsible; OK, if they’re slow and very meticulous, let’s say one week. By no stretch of imagination should it require four weeks!
Unless, the Chairman immediately realized what had really happened and the need for wasting time; time for things to cool down a little; time to discover whose a$$ was exposed; whose to cover and who, if anyone, was to be hung out to dry!
I am convinced that the Pakistan army, its top brass, and the ISI are being subjected to a well-planned, coordinated psychological warfare campaign; “and if in the process it (the Pakistan army) is destroyed, so be it”!
But it keeps backfiring! The attack on Salala should have destroyed the army but, while there is a seething rage within the rank and file of the army and considerable recriminations leveled at the top brass, there is also the awareness that if anyone in Pakistan is going to say NO to US demands; it won’t be the president or PM, it can only be the army chief; there are other reasons too but this is the most powerful one.
The army responded strongly, firmly, and without losing its cool; but the gloves are off now. The US is, at best, a “frenemy”; not a friend, closer to an enemy, and it is up to the US to prove otherwise. There are still critics of the army wondering, with good reason, why it did not respond to the attack, while it was in progress. The breakdown of communication is understandably responsible for this but I do not think that scrabling the Pakistan air force at that time would have helped.
In fact that might have been exactly what the person ordering the US attack on Salala might have hoped for. Consequent to an air battle with the Pakistan air force, we could well have been at war with the US. And, in that eventuality, what happened at Salala and why, might have become irrelevant.
I fear, however, that the US psy-war campaign against Pakistan army isn’t quite over yet.
On December 5th, Eli Lake, perhaps the one journalist most well connected with Pentagon/CIA wrote an article titled “America’s shadow state in Pakistan”. It’s artistically subtle in its accusations; but being Pakistani and a former soldier to boot, maybe I am biased. But very interestingly, M. K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat responded to it in his, “Why someone is blackmailing Kayani”. Now he, certainly isn’t biased, but he is bright and balanced; not a Paakistani-hater. Let me conclude by quoting him.
“Surely, someone in the know of things on the US’s intelligence operations in Pakistan gave him a peep into…’someone’ very special of the stature of David Petraeus….someone is softly, gently rocking Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Kayani, suggesting it’s time to wake up from the reverie. After all, Iran just showed how to shoot down America’s latest stealth drone aircraft. And Kayani just told his men in the border with Afghanistan that they could shoot at what they want…. And Lake reminds us gently that all these deadly US inroads into the ISI’s bowels began when Kayani was heading the ISI….slips in the intriguing thought as well that Musharraf “handpicked Kayani as his replacement as Army chief ….So, the ISI’s pro-American “T-Wing” was formed during Kayani’s stewardship….Lake informs us that Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of US Joint chiefs of staff, was known back in Washington among the folks as the “Kayani whisperer”…. Why is someone in a key position in the US security establishment in Washington deliberately slandering Kayani at this point? I think, with Haqqani gone out of the loop, with President Asif Zardari probably stepping down soon….It seems increasingly that Washington has no Plan B. The setback has come as an avalanche. The Pakistan military has turned the table squarely on the US….how the US doesn’t hesitate to degrade the state structures of even its allies if American interests are involved. If this was the ruthless fate that visited ISI - an organization that is considered second only to Mossad - I shudder to think what would be the case with lesser mortals like, say, we Indians who live on vegetables and fruits. At the end of the historic “defining partnership” between US and India, will anything be left of our Bharat mata?”
Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
I heard this was the with such time NATO has fired on Pakistani soldiers, why is this time special? Why take issue with this incident and let the other seven slide?
it would appear that this attack was delibarate
Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Tbh I don't really understand either side's reasons behind the attack. The Pakistani side say this was a DELIBERATE attack by NATO who attacked for hours to kill Pakistani soldiers, the question is WHY??? why would NATO, aware of the serious ramifications this would cause, attack and kill these Paksitani soldiers achieving nothing? It makes no sense whatsoever.
#
try reading the 10 pages and you should have the answers to all your questions. actually no just read the last 3 pages and all you should be able to work it out
Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
I'm sorry but this just doesn't ring true. If you knew how these forces worked you'd know that this would have to go so far up the chain of command that this line of thinking just cancels itself out. To fire a shot from a attack help you have to seek permission from a brigade commander (usually a 1-2 star general) and these guys aren't cowboys, they are fully aware of the consequences every shot could have.
“Only 29% of non-military US supplies go through Pakistan”: Report
Shipping goods through NDN, airlifting higher as much as $40,000 than through Pakistan land routes.
WASHINGTON: As supply routes in Pakistan remain closed in the aftermath of the NATO airstrike that led to the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers, a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee report says that “American strategy is focused on Central Asia in part as a response to the challenges of transiting supplies through Pakistan for the Afghan war.”
According to the new SRFC report, the US has increasingly relied on the Northern Distribution Network to send non-military supplies to Afghanistan since 2009. “Close to 75 per cent of ground sustainment cargo is now shipped via the NDN.” The NDN, according to report, is made up of three land routes. “One stretching from the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti, through Baku, Azerbaijan, across the Caspian Sea, and into Central Asia; one from the Latvian port of Riga through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan; and a final route that originates in Latvia and travels through Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and passes into Afghanistan via Tajikistan.”
Citing figures from the US Transportation Command, only 29 per cent of cargo goes through Pakistan, whereas 40 per cent goes through the NDN, and the rest is shipped by air. However, the committee report says that the NDN is not an ideal replacement for current supply routes in Pakistan. The NDN only allows goods to be sent to Afghanistan and not back, and also only allows for the transit of non-lethal supplies. “Sensitive and high-technology equipment is transported by airlift.”
The NDN supply route also costs the United States more money. An additional $10,000 is spent on sending a 20-foot container to ship via the NDN as opposed to sending it through Pakistan. Airlifting supplies into Afghanistan is the costliest – with an additional $40,000 per 20-foot container spent on sending it by air.
The report also highlights the challenges faced by the United States in allying with Central Asian states. “In many cases, the United States is forced to rely on highly corrupt, authoritarian governments in countries whose populations are suspicious of US intentions.” Citing fears that Russia and China has about US involvement in the region, the report says that China is “even more nervous about the risk of instability in Afghanistan should the United States and its partners fail to help stabilise the country.”
Recommendations presented in the report including striking a balance between security and political priorities in Central Asia, working on regional cooperation especially in controlling narcotics trafficking, and working on the New Silk Road vision, outlined by Secretary Clinton earlier this year, and helping connect South and Central Asia via Afghanistan.
-------------------------------
US spending cuts “reduce” not “freeze” aid
US spending plan for fiscal 2012, which began October 1 the House of Representatives approved the bill on Friday and the Democratic-run Senate approved it on Saturday.
The legislation allocates $850 million for a fund to help Pakistan’s military develop counter-insurgency capabilities to fight Islamist militants within its borders. This is actually a slight increase from last year’s $800 million but less than the $1.1 billion President Obama requested for the fund in 2012.
However, a massive defense bill Congress passed on Thursday freezes 60 per cent of this amount, or $510 million, until the US defense secretary provides lawmakers with assurances that Pakistan is working to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs). US lawmakers say that many Afghan bombs that kill US troops are made with fertiliser smuggled by militants across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.
No number was included for economic aid to Pakistan, leaving the Obama administration to specify the amount in consultation with Congress. This is a comedown for Pakistan; in each of the past three years, about $1 billion or more in economic aid for
Pakistan was written into spending bills, in part to meet pledges made under 2009 legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar.
Economic as well as security aid was made conditional on Pakistan’s cooperation in fighting militants such as the Haqqani network. Many lawmakers have been calling for aid to Pakistan to be reduced since US special forces found and killed al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town May 2
Uzbekistan restrictions waived to facilitate supply to US troops in Afghanistan
The legislation would allow the United States to waive restrictions on aid to Uzbekistan if the Secretary of State certifies this is needed to obtain access to and from Afghanistan. US military aid to Uzbekistan has been restricted since 2004 because of its poor human rights record. But the United States is also expanding US use of the central Asian country as a route to supply troops in Afghanistan.
The legislation also included a requirement that the Secretary of State report to Congress on any diversion of US aid for “corrupt purposes” in Uzbekistan.
Shipping goods through NDN, airlifting higher as much as $40,000 than through Pakistan land routes.
WASHINGTON: As supply routes in Pakistan remain closed in the aftermath of the NATO airstrike that led to the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers, a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee report says that “American strategy is focused on Central Asia in part as a response to the challenges of transiting supplies through Pakistan for the Afghan war.”
According to the new SRFC report, the US has increasingly relied on the Northern Distribution Network to send non-military supplies to Afghanistan since 2009. “Close to 75 per cent of ground sustainment cargo is now shipped via the NDN.” The NDN, according to report, is made up of three land routes. “One stretching from the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti, through Baku, Azerbaijan, across the Caspian Sea, and into Central Asia; one from the Latvian port of Riga through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan; and a final route that originates in Latvia and travels through Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and passes into Afghanistan via Tajikistan.”
Citing figures from the US Transportation Command, only 29 per cent of cargo goes through Pakistan, whereas 40 per cent goes through the NDN, and the rest is shipped by air. However, the committee report says that the NDN is not an ideal replacement for current supply routes in Pakistan. The NDN only allows goods to be sent to Afghanistan and not back, and also only allows for the transit of non-lethal supplies. “Sensitive and high-technology equipment is transported by airlift.”
The NDN supply route also costs the United States more money. An additional $10,000 is spent on sending a 20-foot container to ship via the NDN as opposed to sending it through Pakistan. Airlifting supplies into Afghanistan is the costliest – with an additional $40,000 per 20-foot container spent on sending it by air.
The report also highlights the challenges faced by the United States in allying with Central Asian states. “In many cases, the United States is forced to rely on highly corrupt, authoritarian governments in countries whose populations are suspicious of US intentions.” Citing fears that Russia and China has about US involvement in the region, the report says that China is “even more nervous about the risk of instability in Afghanistan should the United States and its partners fail to help stabilise the country.”
Recommendations presented in the report including striking a balance between security and political priorities in Central Asia, working on regional cooperation especially in controlling narcotics trafficking, and working on the New Silk Road vision, outlined by Secretary Clinton earlier this year, and helping connect South and Central Asia via Afghanistan.
-------------------------------
US spending cuts “reduce” not “freeze” aid
US spending plan for fiscal 2012, which began October 1 the House of Representatives approved the bill on Friday and the Democratic-run Senate approved it on Saturday.
The legislation allocates $850 million for a fund to help Pakistan’s military develop counter-insurgency capabilities to fight Islamist militants within its borders. This is actually a slight increase from last year’s $800 million but less than the $1.1 billion President Obama requested for the fund in 2012.
However, a massive defense bill Congress passed on Thursday freezes 60 per cent of this amount, or $510 million, until the US defense secretary provides lawmakers with assurances that Pakistan is working to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs). US lawmakers say that many Afghan bombs that kill US troops are made with fertiliser smuggled by militants across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.
No number was included for economic aid to Pakistan, leaving the Obama administration to specify the amount in consultation with Congress. This is a comedown for Pakistan; in each of the past three years, about $1 billion or more in economic aid for
Pakistan was written into spending bills, in part to meet pledges made under 2009 legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar.
Economic as well as security aid was made conditional on Pakistan’s cooperation in fighting militants such as the Haqqani network. Many lawmakers have been calling for aid to Pakistan to be reduced since US special forces found and killed al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town May 2
Uzbekistan restrictions waived to facilitate supply to US troops in Afghanistan
The legislation would allow the United States to waive restrictions on aid to Uzbekistan if the Secretary of State certifies this is needed to obtain access to and from Afghanistan. US military aid to Uzbekistan has been restricted since 2004 because of its poor human rights record. But the United States is also expanding US use of the central Asian country as a route to supply troops in Afghanistan.
The legislation also included a requirement that the Secretary of State report to Congress on any diversion of US aid for “corrupt purposes” in Uzbekistan.
It also costs a lot of money—up to $400 a gallon, by military estimates.
But the Pentagon is stuck with the expense for the foreseeable future, especially given the recent deterioration in U.S.-Pakistani relations."We're going to burn a lot of gas to drop a lot of gas," said Capt. Zack Albaugh, a California Air National Guard pilot deployed with the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. He spoke just before a recent mission to supply a remote base near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, scene of cross-border rocket attacks that have heightened regional tensions this fall.
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
Either, they are cow boys.. or hateful blinds.. who failed to see what they are shooting at!
Even the blinds could see the hilltop bunkers in Pakistani territory, with Pakistan flag is infact Pakistan army's checkpost.
Only an uneducated cowboy would keep shooting blindly and ignore the consequences.
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Please don't act like a typical Indian apologist.
The chopper crew deliberately gave wrong target coordinates to superior command. Superior command cleared the (fake) coordinates with Pakmil and gave the go-ahead to engage. Chopper crew then mowed down the Pakistani soldiers.
Now, all the chopper crew has to do is come up with a credible excuse for the wrong coordinates: fog of war, didn't see flags, etc. etc.
Fieldmarshal
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
ur forgetting bindian that we have not yet blocked the air corridor that nato/isaf uses.
if we stop the over flights the whole nato/isaf war machine will grind to a halt as 100% nato weapon supplies pass through Pakistan and with the blockade of the land route their only life line is the air corridor. more than 200+ ac use it daily and the over whelming majority of them are cargo ac.
they after the bonn conference know where they stand in afghanistan and now it is as clear as day light to the americans that with out Pakistan they are goin no where.
we have other cards to play as well but i cant discuss them as this being an open forum.
all in all son we have them by the balls and they know it.
PoKeMon
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 3,443
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
I doubt anyone else is as erudite as you are...sir.
regular
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 0
Sir! The chopper crew never gave wrong coordinates but the NATO supreme command gave us the wrong coordinates...Pakistan never let them go ahead within its territory even there are wrong coordinates...Cuz NATO never have been allowed to enter into our territory. They were told to remain within their own territory....there is no question of coordinates. Their fire was coming inside our territory and they were warned two times during the 2 hourz firing at our posts but they didn't stop...Even a child can judge that it was 200% delibrate attack.....We love if NATO fight with us ...we will turn NATO into stone age too....Insha-Allah....
Similar threads
