What's new

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

What would Pakistan have achieved by cooperating, given the constraints on its role in the investigation, as proposed by the US?

Would Pakistan been allowed to change the US officer leading the investigation? No.

Would Pakistan been allowed to independently summon individuals and records and data to question and analyze? No.

So what would Pakistan's participation in the investigation accomplish?

i didn't mean that......pakistan showed no co operation in diplomacy too, they refused to open the blockade....now US will source its supplies from outside and pakistan will get nothing.......pakistan should have pushed for a public apology and compensation, and could have used the blockade to obtain more favourable terms from the US, but they did nothing, and now pakistan is left with nothing.......war in afghanistan remain unaffected......
 
.
.................. I find it hard to believe that there was not a single voice in the US government that understood Pakistani culture and argued against the policies and rhetoric towards Pakistan we have seen so far.

Why would you find it hard to believe? Influential contacts such as those you mention are developed over years and decades of informal contacts. Pakistan should have maintained such links with effort comparable to other countries such as Israel and India.
 
.
i didn't mean that......pakistan showed no co operation in diplomacy too, they refused to open the blockade....now US will source its supplies from outside and pakistan will get nothing.......pakistan should have pushed for a public apology and compensation, and could have used the blockade to obtain more favourable terms from the US, but they did nothing, and now pakistan is left with nothing.......war in afghanistan remain unaffected......
NATO is drawing down in 2014 - either way Pakistani transporters have to plan for a future without revenues from transporting NATO supplies. They either do it now or they will have to do it in two more years.

The act of the blockade, withdrawal from Bonn, vacation of Shamsi are pretty clear signs about what Pakistan wanted from the investigation - I am not sure how much clearer Pakistan could make that.

---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

Why would you find it hard to believe? Influential contacts such as those you mention are developed over years and decades of informal contacts. Pakistan should have maintained such links with effort comparable to other countries such as Israel and India.
I am not talking about lobbyists, I am talking about individuals with an understanding of the cultures and mindset in the nations that the US is engaged in.

The US has been in Afghanistan for 10 years, Pakistan's nuclear program has been a major issue for the US for even longer - how is it possible that in all this time the US has been unable to find people with a good understanding of Pakistan to help guide its policy making process?

From what I understand, Robin Raphel is one individual with such an understanding of Pakistan, but has been pushed to the sidelines and her opinions overruled ..
 
.
Two quick thoughts... the "blow by blow" account of the action is very telling. It shows to a slight degree the chaos and lack of information that combat almost always entails. Things get very confusing, very quickly. There were undoubtedly some communications failures. And to me, at least, it appears obvious that the whole thing was started by a nearby encounter with legitimate enemy soldiers, but the firefight spread to involve PAKMIL, if I may use that abbreviated term without disrespect, as I don't think disrespect is intended... it's handy shorthand.

Secondly, it is obvious to me that there will be a significant percentage of people here that will forever assume the ISAF forces "wanted to kick some Pakistani rear end" and were out for illegal blood; totally violating ROE, putting their hard-earned careers at extreme risk, and also flirting with courts-martial and jail, because that is where they'd end up if they decided to go rogue and intentionally create a catastrophic international incident.

Again, it would be like me lobbing a Sparrow missile into East Germany and knocking down an Ilyushin airliner because "I hate commie East Germans." I may have hated them, but I also respected them, honored the orders my superiors gave me, had no desire to start a war, and I also highly valued my career and livelihood.

Let's be honest - there's no love lost between the average Pakistani and ISAF trooper, but at the same time, they are professionals. The Western Allies in WW2 weren't pals with the Soviets, but they had a common enemy and did not kill each other.

This still doesnt explain the passage of wrong coords, the continuation of the attack for more than 90 minutes and utter disrespect for human life (what was the highest number of taliban killed inside Afg by you guys during a single attack - you killed 24 guys, damn it).

Didnt it seem a bit odd to your soldiers (again what were the highest number of terrorists you had killed inside Afg at any one instance), two posts side by side, on high ground, so many 'Talibans' at one place that too inside over (not under) ground bunkers. As a norm, i am suer you must be knowing it, that talibans or terrorist dont 'stay and fight,' they do not engage in prolonged engagements, that;'s the basic thing taught during anti-terrorist training, instead they would 'hit and run', why didnt any of your so 'experienced' and 'professional' officers/commanders/men thought about it during the entire 90 minutes is just beyond my understanding. Damn, Chogy, i have been in combat and i am sure you also have, isnt it strange? No excuse, whatsoever can justify this lapse, or may be you should admit that your military is not professional rather just a mob and a band of (street) thugs!

i agree that chaos and confusion are the part and parcel of any battle, but with F-15s, gunships, surveillance crafts, C-130s and ground forces on your side, the chaos and confusion was ONLY left for our side to bear; you guys on the other hand were DUCK SHOOTING us for pete's sake, or else that 'chaos and confusion' sure had stopped you guys from 'enjoying' the kill!


P.S. Please bear my language - the matter is very sensitive/emotional for us.
 
.
..............
I am not talking about lobbyists, I am talking about individuals with an understanding of the cultures and mindset in the nations that the US is engaged in............................

From what I understand, Robin Raphel is one individual with such an understanding of Pakistan, but has been pushed to the sidelines and her opinions overruled ..

I am not talking about lobbyists either. They are paid d1ckwads (sorry) and just about as effective.

I do not want to take this thread off topic, but please think about exactly how does the process of creating "individuals with an understanding of the cultures and mindset in the nations that the US is engaged in" actually work, so that enough of them are in place well before they are needed, not just one or two (like RR) who can be isolated by individuals understanding other countries and cultures with opposing interests?

There is much more to it, Sir, than just saying "someone should have known better". WE have to create those persons, if you truly understand what I have said above. (If we don't as until now, we pay the price too.)
 
.
I have been repeatedly saying that it only a matter of time. It is a big Play, some elements in ISI feeding Taliban backdoor to take Muslim sympathy and USA getting upset over that.
 
.
I have been repeatedly saying that it only a matter of time. It is a big Play, some elements in ISI feeding Taliban backdoor to take Muslim sympathy and USA getting upset over that.

Iranians have been alleged to be feeding the Taliban, and some other groups too. Heck Gulf state individuals have been accused to be funding AQ & taliban. Its not just ISI / Pakistan. Pakistan has not the resources to keep feeding the Taliban alone, heck US taxpayers money is also feeding the Taliban.

Then why point just at ISI, you guys can't see others doing the same or Indians can't think about anyone else other then ISI/ Pakistan ??
 
. .
I am not talking about lobbyists either. They are paid d1ckwads (sorry) and just about as effective.

I do not want to take this thread off topic, but please think about exactly how does the process of creating "individuals with an understanding of the cultures and mindset in the nations that the US is engaged in" actually work, so that enough of them are in place well before they are needed, not just one or two (like RR) who can be isolated by individuals understanding other countries and cultures with opposing interests?

There is much more to it, Sir, than just saying "someone should have known better". WE have to create those persons, if you truly understand what I have said above. (If we don't as until now, we pay the price too.)
All that is well and good - but if you are to argue, as you often do, that the US is 'extremely diligent in planning, accounts for all eventualities etc.' then the failure in this case in not being able to recruit/develop a cadre of individuals with a good understanding of Pakistan suggests that the US is not by any means 'as diligent in planning for all eventualities' as you often claim it is.

Does the US not have objectives in Pakistan? Does the US not seek to maintain a long term relationship with Pakistan (or used to at least)? If so, how can the US be excused for not recruiting the proper individuals to support its supposed 'long term objectives in engaging Pakistan'?

And if the US does not, or did not, see any potential long term objectives in engaging Pakistan and developing a long term relationship with it, then the US would not have cared for any 'individuals that Pakistan groomed' in any case.

The point I am making here is that US foreign policy formation does not appear to be very 'informed', to say the least.
 
.
Iranians have been alleged to be feeding the Taliban, and some other groups too. Heck Gulf state individuals have been accused to be funding AQ & taliban. Its not just ISI / Pakistan. Pakistan has not the resources to keep feeding the Taliban alone, heck US taxpayers money is also feeding the Taliban.

Then why point just at ISI, you guys can't see others doing the same or Indians can't think about anyone else other then ISI/ Pakistan ??

because Pakistan is the only country right now in the subcontinent which is taking dollars and weapons from americans to fight Taliban and not to become a translator or mediator between Taliban and USA. It is true that there is huge support for Taliban and al qaida in Gulf but Gulf is sent to turmoils in so called fake revolution and other side Israel is watching them. It is a big game.
 
.
All that is well and good - but if you are to argue, as you often do, that the US is 'extremely diligent in planning, accounts for all eventualities etc.' then the failure in this case in not being able to recruit/develop a cadre of individuals with a good understanding of Pakistan suggests that the US is not by any means 'as diligent in planning for all eventualities' as you often claim it is.

That phrase was used in the context of operational eventualities in the field, as far as I recall.

Does the US not have objectives in Pakistan? Does the US not seek to maintain a long term relationship with Pakistan (or used to at least)? If so, how can the US be excused for not recruiting the proper individuals to support its supposed 'long term objectives in engaging Pakistan'?

Yes, yes, and the individuals you mention would be derided as "spies" and "traitors". What I had in mind above was quite different, but let that discussion be taken up elsewhere if you please.

And if the US does not, or did not, see any potential long term objectives in engaging Pakistan and developing a long term relationship with it, then the US would not have cared for any 'individuals that Pakistan groomed' in any case.

The point I am making here is that US foreign policy formation does not appear to be very 'informed', to say the least.

Your point about formulation of foreign policy is quite valid but please keep in mind that that is exactly how USA works, with many points of view interacting with each other all the time. It takes a different kind of mindset to understand this process, and another one to influence it from within effectively.
 
.
This still doesnt explain the passage of wrong coords, the continuation of the attack for more than 90 minutes

Are you claiming that the soldiers should have thought "Wow, these guys are hanging out longer than normal, they must not be Taliban!" Come on, that is silly.

The way to wage war is to pound with overwhelming force and firepower. That's how you win.

and utter disrespect for human life (what was the highest number of taliban killed inside Afg by you guys during a single attack - you killed 24 guys, damn it).

There have been dozens of engagements with the real enemy with a magnitude much greater than this clash. Look it up.

Again, in battle, you hit, hit hard, keep hitting. This isn't a medeival jousting match. There's nothing supposed to be fair about it.


i agree that chaos and confusion are the part and parcel of any battle, but with F-15s, gunships, surveillance crafts, C-130s and ground forces on your side, the chaos and confusion was ONLY left for our side to bear; you guys on the other hand were DUCK SHOOTING us for pete's sake, or else that 'chaos and confusion' sure had stopped you guys from 'enjoying' the kill!

This is simply crude and not worthy of a response. You think the average soldier enjoys killing people? And you claim prior military service?

I've already realized that there's not a thing I can say to convince people that these troops were not out there "laughing and enjoying the turkey-shoot of Pakistani soldiers" and that this image has sadly been burned into the minds of millions of people via pop media imagery and verbal descriptions of the "blood-thirsty ISAF animals". Thus we are presumed to be "street thugs" and much worse. And it's one of the reasons I've avoided this topic. Too much emotion.

I don't know how else to say it. Negligence, yes. Intent, no. No soldier or group of them is going to unilaterally create a horrendous international incident and risk everything so they can "satisfy their lust for Pakistani blood."
 
.
Why would you find it hard to believe? Influential contacts such as those you mention are developed over years and decades of informal contacts. Pakistan should have maintained such links with effort comparable to other countries such as Israel and India.

unlike india and israel.....whoever lobbies for pakistans interest while being in USA gets in trouble from US authorities.Didnt you read a recent news when somebody lobbying for kashmir in favour of pakistan in USA was arrested?
 
.
One thing always surprizes me..There have been multiple incidents where US soldiers have killed personnel of other nationalities in friendly fire while fighting alongside them.
But i havent heard of incidents the other way round...US soldiets killed by other nationalities in friendly fire.
Not that i.am after US blood or something...all human life deserves respect..but.just wondering.
 
.
because Pakistan is the only country right now in the subcontinent which is taking dollars and weapons from americans to fight Taliban and not to become a translator or mediator between Taliban and USA. It is true that there is huge support for Taliban and al qaida in Gulf but Gulf is sent to turmoils in so called fake revolution and other side Israel is watching them. It is a big game.

We tried to become the mediator right at the start of the conflict, Americans refused since they wanted war and wanted to occupy a country. Pakistan is the only country which has lost more then what any western nation has lost in Afghanistan.

And kindly update your knowledge, there is no Turmoil in the Gulf part, no regime changes have happened. Tunisia, Egypt & Libya are all in Africa and Middle East can be used also for that. Gulf states are fit and fine and are funding the Taliban much more then anyone can else. And US is the only country which is the attacker, occupier, fighting the Taliban, leading the occupational forces and in the end the same US tax payers money/ $$$$s are trickling down to the Taliban who are fighting the US. Heck US is the only country which is fighting the Taliban as well as funds them too. Ironic.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom