eeerrrr hello......the US is in Pakistan because it has its own ulterior motives and goals to achieve, not Pakistan's, they couldn;t give two cents about Pakistan.
Again, you are using your absurd logic to justify US presence in Pakistan, tell me what training it is the PA needs to fight AQ or TTP. The PA knows all too well how to perform its duties, they don;t need US boots on its soil.
I would argue there are different levels of US presence in Pakistan. I am well aware of the tensions over US contractors and other diplomatic and non-diplomatic officials possible engaged in espionage, but in the case of the US trainers, US forces are attached to various training camps and are involved in training the FC and others.
And it would be foolish to assume that one knows everything worth knowing. Military forces around the world have training exchange programs, and there is nothing wrong with learning from the different experiences of the Americans, British, Australians and Germans. In any case, the GoP invited them in, they did not kick the door in and force us to allow them to train the FC. At the end of the day they are in Pakistan at our invitation.
This presence will have serious effects when we are trying to win hearts and minds in the local area. This is clearly not going to happen now, especially when the TTP will clearly make maximum gain from this by highlighting they were right all along that US troops are in Pakistan and helping to kill Pakistanis.
I m no supporter of TTP in Pakistan however, we need to tread carefully on who should be allowed in Pakistan and the US is not one of the countries that should as their presence will not be aken lightly in the area where these attacks have happenned.
I agree their presence will have a negative impact, which is why their presence has been kept low-key so far, and why these trainers were reportedly dressed in civilian clothes with cameras to disguise themselves as reporters. But just because a j-ahil awaam may not understand the sacrifice these soldiers offered while assisting Pakistan does not mean those of us capable of more 'rational thought' not try to rationally analyze and understand the situation.
Or do you consider yourself part of the 'j-ahil awaam' that is more obsessed with an emotional knee jerk reaction of blaming the soldiers, instead of recognizing the sacrifice of the soldiers?
Most reports suggest that the soldiers wore civilian Pakistani clothes to disguise themselves. The precautions taken to hide their identity to me indicates that the Taliban got lucky with this attack, since the preparation involved in setting up a suicide attack rules out any 'instantaneous response' to news that Americans were seen boarding the convoy.
This description in the NYT suggests that the US trainers were in the middle of the convoy, flanked by FC vehicles. It is possible that the vehicle was not targeted because of the US trainers, since the bomber was aiming at the center of the convoy to maximize casualties, since that would allow the blast to also hit the vehicles in front and rear of target vehicle.
To disguise themselves in a way that is common for Western men in Pakistan, the American soldiers were dressed in traditional Pakistani garb of baggy trousers and long tunics, known as shalwar kameez, according to a Frontier Corps officer.
They were wore local caps that helped cover their hair, he said.
Their armored vehicle was equipped with electronic jammers sufficient to detect remote-controlled devices and mines, the officer said. Vehicles driven by the Frontier Corps were placed in front and back of the Americans as protection, he said.
Troop Deaths Draw Focus to U.S. Presence in Pakistan - NYTimes.com
The only way I can see this as being directed specifically at US trainers is if they had planned and announced in advance that US trainers would be accompanying the Pakistani convoy, something I doubt the US troops would do, but it is a possibility. If very few people knew in advance that they would be traveling with the convoy, those 'few' should be the subject of intense scrutiny.