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

[Thorough Pro]

and no Indian consulates in Afghanistan

You don't sell your martyers. Pakistan should ask for the culprits.

 

[Developereo]

Irfan Husain | Opinion
[...]
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.

Someone should forward a copy of this excellent article by Brian Cloughley to Mr. Hussain.

Cross-Border Incident

by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
[...]
Pakistan was told it would not have equal status in the inquiry, so declined being relegated to an inferior position, because it was made clear that its members of the inquiry board would not be allowed to examine the most important information. There was no question of being permitted anything like equivalent representation. Can you imagine the Pentagon allowing a Pakistani officer to question US air force pilots who carried out the air strikes? Or access the record of computer exchanges? Or interview any of the US special forces involved in the ground operation?

There wasn’t the remotest chance of that. It was insulting to even suggest that Pakistan might accept such terms. But that’s typical of the way that ‘allies’ are treated by Washington.

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.

If he is comparing what Pakistan claims is a premeditated murder, albeit by rogue cowboys, of 24 men to an ordinary suburban fender bender, then the author has truly lost the plot!

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

In an election year? With six out of seven opposition candidates beating the drums of war (on Iran)? Obama might as well put on a hippie costume and put flowers in his hair!

 

[iPhone]

Hi,


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---.
.

that is one reason, another is it was payback for the attack on US forces in afghanistan that Mullen convieniently blamed the ISI for. Just like drone attack on tribal gathering was payback for keeping RD locked up that long.

 

[MastanKhan]

Develepereo,

Indeed---these are terrible times to be opposing the united states of america---. Obama is in deep sh-it---american forces are facing defeat in afg---leaving iraq in shambles is going to bite them in the future. The republicans have nothing but hate for pakistan and iran---and the saudis have signed a 30 billon dollar defence contract with the u s.

Biden has declared taliban as the friends of the united states---Zardari and Haqqani tried to sell the assets of pak millitary to the u s---these are intriguing times.

 

[Developereo]

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.

Going a bit off-topic, but I disagree with that thesis. The military's job is to win battles. Managing the subsequent occupation is a different proposition. You do that by

a) winning the hearts and minds of the conquered peoples, or
b) pulverizing their spirit by brute force

The military can do option b), but option a) falls squarely within civilian strategists' domain. It is not the US military's job to win hearts and minds. All they can do is to provide an area and a period of stability so that the civilians can do their thing.

 

[iPhone]

Why’s it so hard to say ‘sorry’?

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


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.


Why

you know this apology thing, I dont know why people are so hung up on it, would it change anything? as mentioned by many here before that apology from the US would be akin to admiting fault, therefore they wont do it.

But I would mention another aspect of why obama wont apologize. Consider he's a black president in a white political circle in washington. He has to appease the whites in there. Therefore, sometimes he must act more tough than his white counterpart would have had, to fit in with the rest.

Also consider that obama asked Iran to return the US drone. And Iran said, suck it. Now he has to apologize to Pakistan? Republicans are already lynching him for not ordering an airstrike against Iran. It's election year on top of everything. He's not gonna wanna appear weak in front of the rowdy republicans and the american public.

Occassionally at work, we get a minority supervisor in a white dominant workforce. And that asshole usually ends up being the worst of the supervisors as he tries to impress the other whites to fit in and be accepted.

 

[Developereo]

Develepereo,

Indeed---these are terrible times to be opposing the united states of america---. Obama is in deep sh-it---american forces are facing defeat in afg---leaving iraq in shambles is going to bite them in the future. The republicans have nothing but hate for pakistan and iran---and the saudis have signed a 30 billon dollar defence contract with the u s.

Biden has declared taliban as the friends of the united states---Zardari and Haqqani tried to sell the assets of pak millitary to the u s---these are intriguing times.

Yes, I agree the US is in a very unpredictable mode right now.

I am skeptical of the theory that this attack was sanctioned at a high level. Firstly, I think it was just some low level rogues, and secondly, I don't see the US generals using the Pak embargo as an excuse to exit Afghanistan. They want to leave as victors, not with their tail between their legs because they were forced to by Pakistan's actions.

 

[Mav3rick]

Going a bit off-topic, but I disagree with that thesis. The military's job is to win battles. Managing the subsequent occupation is a different proposition. You do that by

a) winning the hearts and minds of the conquered peoples, or
b) pulverizing their spirit by brute force

The military can do option b), but option a) falls squarely within civilian strategists' domain. It is not the US military's job to win hearts and minds. All they can do is to provide an area and a period of stability so that the civilians can do their thing.

I somewhat agree, but the US military has failed to win the war as Afghanistan is still not under their control, only total control can be considered victory especially if US policies stay implemented after their departure. However, it is evident that the US is begging the Talibaan for dialogues to give them a respectful exit strategy.

Ofcourse even then the exit would not be respectful as the world bears witness that the US bows down to those that she so vehemently claimed were the terrorists! They even branded freedom fighters as terrorists. With their trend they may just declare Washington a terrorist!

 

[Xeric]

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.

In 45 minutes even a "Runner" (Each Platoon included a number of messengers or runners, at least two and sometimes three. These men were tasked with carrying the verbal orders of the Platoon Commander to any Squads out of direct control, or to neighbouring units. They also provided a link back to Company Headquarters. While armed with a rifle the runner's role was not primarily a combat one. Rather his task was to deliver his message accurately to the intended recipient and return to his commander with the reply or situation report. This had to be done in the midst of battle when units could quickly and unexpectedly shift location, and of course in the face of enemy fire.) could have knocked some sense into the battle commanders, what to talk about the WGS-2 as part of the Global Broadcast System (GBS) used the US Central Command in Afghanistan!

BTW, employment of "Runners" was a WW-2 'technology'.

----

With this preamble i once again ask Americans to choose between the (only) two available reasons behind Nov 26 tragedy:

-Incompetence

-Premeditation

 

[Developereo]

But I would mention another aspect of why obama wont apologize.

There's no reason to bring such things into this discussion.

It's a matter of Democrats v/s Republicans. Democrats are viewed as being weaker on national security. Republicans portray themselves as the red-blooded champions of America's defence. Hence Obama will be doubly reluctant to apologize where a war hero like McCain, for example, could have done so without rebuke.

 

[lem34]

There's no reason to bring such things into this discussion.

It's a matter of Democrats v/s Republicans. Democrats are viewed as being weaker on national security. Republicans portray themselves as the red-blooded champions of America's defence. Hence Obama will be doubly reluctant to apologize where a war hero like McCain, for example, could have done so without rebuke.

But when in power Republicans have tended to have policies more favorable to Pakistan??

 

[untitled]

But when in power Republicans have tended to have policies more favorable to Pakistan??

And Pakistan usually has a General in the hot seat .... Coincidence ?

 

[lem34]

And Pakistan usually has a General in the hot seat .... Coincidence ?

Maybe cos AIPAC have more of a hold on democrats??

 

[untitled]

Maybe cos AIPAC have more of a hold on democrats??

You mean republicans ?

 

[regular]

In 45 minutes even a "Runner" (Each Platoon included a number of messengers or runners, at least two and sometimes three. These men were tasked with carrying the verbal orders of the Platoon Commander to any Squads out of direct control, or to neighbouring units. They also provided a link back to Company Headquarters. While armed with a rifle the runner's role was not primarily a combat one. Rather his task was to deliver his message accurately to the intended recipient and return to his commander with the reply or situation report. This had to be done in the midst of battle when units could quickly and unexpectedly shift location, and of course in the face of enemy fire.) could have knocked some sense into the battle commanders, what to talk about the WGS-2 as part of the Global Broadcast System (GBS) used the US Central Command in Afghanistan!

BTW, employment of "Runners" was a WW-2 'technology'.

----

With this preamble i once again ask Americans to choose between the (only) two available reasons behind Nov 26 tragedy:

-Incompetence

-Premeditation

Sir! there is no question of incompetence the only option left is Premeditation and Delibration on the US/NATO part...and our Army knowz it very well that whatever is cooking within their evil mindz.....