PDA

View Full Version : NATO Airstrike on Pakistan kills 28 military personnel



skuthorp
11-26-2011, 03:01 PM
As a result of airstrikes on 2 Pakistani outposts the main supply route to Afghanistan, the Khyber Pass has been closed. Maybe this will haste the withdrawal from Afghanistan because it becomes politically unsustainable locally.
"PAKISTAN - NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing as many as 28 troops and plunging U.S.-Pakistan relations deeper into crisis.Pakistan retaliated by shutting down vital NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, used for sending in nearly half of the alliance’s shipments by land.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/11/26/19022661.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/12088054/pakistan-stops-nato-supplies-after-deadly-raid/

WX
11-26-2011, 03:08 PM
It had to happen sooner or later. Was it a NATO airstrike or a US airstrike though?

skuthorp
11-26-2011, 03:15 PM
Under Nato responsibility it seems, but not stated whose hardware so far.

CWSmith
11-26-2011, 03:26 PM
I understand that our involvement with Pakistan is suppose to be one of constructive engagement born from our initial cold war needs, but I have long thought that we sell ourselves too cheaply in the process. We should demand more from them or admit they are not our friends.

skuthorp
11-26-2011, 03:49 PM
Pakistan has ordered a review of all arrangements with the US and NATO. Support for ISAF was always a balancing act in Pakistan, this event may have tipped it in favour of those hostile to the west. I do not think that the Afghanistan campaign is possible without the cooperation of Pakistan.

Tylerdurden
11-26-2011, 03:53 PM
PNAC play card.

WX
11-26-2011, 04:02 PM
When you bomb another country you've got to expect some blowback. Most countries would consider it an act of war, the US certainly would.

CWSmith
11-26-2011, 04:06 PM
Pakistan has ordered a review of all arrangements with the US and NATO. Support for ISAF was always a balancing act in Pakistan, this event may have tipped it in favour of those hostile to the west. I do not think that the Afghanistan campaign is possible without the cooperation of Pakistan.

But isn't the other side of the coin the fact that the US is funding a military elite in Pakistan? How do they fare when we turn back our support? And has our involvement kept them from selling nuclear arms around the world?

Tylerdurden
11-26-2011, 04:17 PM
Been reading some of the PAK articles and they seem bent on that it was revenge for the Crackdown on CIA assets. Perception is reality.

WX
11-26-2011, 04:23 PM
There is always more to the story.

Tylerdurden
11-26-2011, 04:26 PM
Yep, I am wondering if the can get a major world war going to suppress dissent in time as timing is everything with legitimacy.

The Bigfella
11-26-2011, 04:30 PM
Yep, I am wondering if the can get a major world war going to suppress dissent in time as timing is everything with legitimacy.

Woo, woo..... they are getting closer

skuthorp
11-26-2011, 04:45 PM
TD, when it comes to a choice between a stuff up and a conspiracy it's usually a stuff up. It only turns into a conspiracy as those responsible try to cover their a55es.

skuthorp
11-27-2011, 01:52 AM
Strike seems to have been 2.5K inside Pakistan but NATO claims a special forces operation in Afghanistan came under fire and they called in air cover. At night I presume but military GPS's can probably place position to half a meter or so. Unless of course the precise position of the Afghan/Pakistan border is not defined and I seem to remember the the two countries have not actually agreed where it is.

Tylerdurden
11-27-2011, 07:59 AM
Pak orders US to vacate airbase within 15 daysPakistan on Saturday ordered the United States to vacate a controversial airbase within 15 days and closed NATO supply lines into Afghanistan in response to a deadly cross-border NATO air strike.

The order refers to Shamsi, the remote desert outpost in southwest Pakistan reportedly used as a hub for covert CIA drone strikes, which Pakistan previously told the United States to leave in June.


Earlier today, at least 28 Pakistani soldiers were killed today when NATO helicopters and combat jets fired on two border posts in the country's northwest, prompting army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to direct his troops to prepare for "an effective response" even as authorities cut off all supplies for US forces in Afghanistan.

The attack, the worst single incident of its kind in one decade, looked set to plunge US-Pak relations, already deeply frayed, further into crisis.

A major and a captain of the Pakistan Army were among those killed when NATO aircraft fired at the borders posts in Baizai area of Mohmand tribal region at 2 am.

Pakistan stops NATO supplies after raid kills 28 Fifteen more personnel were wounded and the death toll could rise as some of the injured were in a serious condition, several officials said.

A military statement said the NATO aircraft "carried out unprovoked firing" on the border posts.

Pakistani troops "effectively responded immediately in self-defence to NATO/ISAF's aggression with all available weapons".

http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2011/11/pak-orders-us-to-vacate-airbase-within.html

Tylerdurden
11-27-2011, 08:03 AM
Woo, woo..... they are getting closer


Don't be upset Ian, Your getting what you wanted along with your buddies. You did everything you could to make sure it could not be stopped and harassed and ostracized anyone who actually gave a damn and wanted to change things. Your reward for being a blind follower is on its way. Bon Appetite.

peterAustralia
11-27-2011, 08:03 AM
Here is a possible scenario.

The Pakistanis spotted the Nato special forces across the border, they assumed they were Taliaban (the Taliaban are fighting the pakistani army), so the Pakistanis fired upon then. The Nato special forces (or coalition forces if you prefer that term) then request fire support, because they think the Taliban are firing at them. Nato does the air strike and they kill their allies.

The thing is, this was an established Pakistani Military Border Base, Surely the coordianates of this base would have been in the maps of all the relevant people. Surely the helicopeter pilots had digital maps that show where the border is. I can only assume that they are used to firing across the border. All in all I am pretty sure this is just a stuff up, but a huge stuff up

I think the consequences of this are huge. The elements of the Pakistani government that advocate being pro US are going to have a very very hard time of making their arguements heard. Instead the elements of th Pakistani government and military that say the US is the problem, they will be gone from Afghanistan anyway in 3 years or so, thus we can tell them to get stuffed, will feel vindicated. Remember also that Pakistan has a huge strategic ally in China. China has money so any financial positives that the US can provide, China can match. China has a land border and road connection with Pakistan.

There were also many drone attacks by the US in Pakistan, that on occasion get it wrong and kill civilians.

Yes there was the killing of OBL, where they did not trust the Pakistanis, and launched a raid into their county without asking.
There was also that 'diplomat' in Karachi that killed 2 car jackers that were out to steal his car. He shot both of them dead. Turns out he was a CIA agent with a pistol, infra red camera and more, after a while he was quietly let go.

Also part of the history of US-Pakistan relations was the the US put sanctions on Pakistan for attempting to build a N-Bomb. The fact that Pakistan was developing one as a response to their strategic enemey in India developing a N-Bomb was forgotten.

Also afte 9/11 there were remarks, possibly untrue, but along the lines of, if Pakistan does not support the US in Afghanistan, then the US would bomb Pakistan into the stone age. This is what Mushareff said was spoken, however it was denied. Also before 9/11 the Taliban were seen as good guys by the US as they brought stability to the region, then they changed their mind overnight.

My point is that Pakistan has many grievances with the US. Is there a degree of fault on the Pakistani side, yes. But the US has not played its cards very well.

Tylerdurden
11-27-2011, 08:10 AM
At some point most people learn the hard way there are no coincidences. Accidents do happen but it is much rarer than most people think. If you cannot or will not feed the world it is better to kill them before they get too rambunctious. They have announced their plans in print, video and audio for decades now. Built monuments to their goals. No offense but blind men should not cross the freeway without guidance and the bold blind men are usually the first to get hit. My favorite is the blind man who tells everyone else to cross and waits for the thuds. Special place in hell for them.

SMARTINSEN
11-27-2011, 08:12 AM
Also before 9/11 the Taliban were seen as good guys by the US as they brought stability to the region, then they changed their mind overnight.
You are wrong there, Peter.

Insofar as:
the US has not played its cards very well.
to continue your metaphor, I cannot fathom why are continuing to play out a loosing hand.

John Smith
11-27-2011, 08:16 AM
And we thought the world was a less dangerous place.

LeeG
11-27-2011, 08:19 AM
to continue your metaphor, I cannot fathom why are continuing to play out a loosing hand.

I wonder if it's the momentum of an operation that becomes a bureaucracy with attendant contracts and timelines that have less and less to do with the mission.

Tylerdurden
11-27-2011, 08:19 AM
And we thought the world was a less dangerous place.

It is. For the 1%, It's just the 99% who are screwed.

Syed
11-27-2011, 08:32 AM
NATO forces were not chasing militants: DG ISPR (http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=27364)


RAWALPINDI: Military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas while speaking to Geo News said NATO could not make the excuse that they were chasing terrorists across the border because the area where the attack took place had been cleared. ...

Tylerdurden
11-27-2011, 08:35 AM
Thanks Syed. Best wishes to you and yours. Please keep you head down.

Syed
11-27-2011, 08:44 AM
Thank you, Mark

skuthorp
11-27-2011, 09:14 AM
Likewise syed, things are getting a bit out of hand.

Y Bar Ranch
11-27-2011, 09:50 AM
NATO forces were not chasing militants: DG ISPR (http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=27364)
This, from the leadership that had Osama Bin Laden living within shouting distance of their main military academy? Puh-leeze.

Hot Air
11-27-2011, 09:59 AM
The Pakistan military watches the Taliban come and go across the border, lets them fire on Nato forces from close proximity to their border posts - and then cries boo hoo when they get zapped.

Tylerdurden
11-27-2011, 10:00 AM
This, from the leadership that had Osama Bin Laden living within shouting distance of their main military academy? Puh-leeze.

The Osama fantasy is a myth. Strictly Hollywood all the way. He was dead long ago or a miracle boy living over a decade with advanced kidney disease with little or no care. I can see the tall bastard running through the mountains with his crew dragging a doctor, meds and dialysis gear right behind. The general public will accept just about anything these days without question. Quick run outside there is a UFO hovering taking pictures too.

The Bigfella
11-27-2011, 05:26 PM
Woo wooo.... they are coming to take him away, away.

Syed
12-05-2011, 03:29 AM
As an aftermath of the air attacks;

The United States is vacating an air base in Pakistan used by American drones, (http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/05/us-vacating-shamsi-air-base-says-cameron-munter.html)

purri
12-05-2011, 03:39 AM
Kilcullen has nailed it.

Syed
12-05-2011, 04:02 AM
Kilcullen has nailed it.

Link??

PeterSibley
12-05-2011, 04:07 AM
Possibly here .http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/crunch-time-in-afghanistan-pakistan

Conclusions
To conclude, it might be impolite but it's certainly not inaccurate to say that our policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan have, until early last year, been marked by woolly and wishful thinking, and a tendency to seek quick, neat solutions to intractable, messy and long-standing problems. The vital requirement now is to be clear-eyed about what we need to do, how much it will cost, and how long it will take. We need to be straight with the American people and our allies (including Afghans and Pakistanis) about this.
In Afghanistan, we have an immediate crisis to deal with. We need to stop the rot and regain the initiative before we can hope for long-term progress. That progress will come at a cost, and it will involve the four key tasks of preventing another 9/11, protecting the Afghan people, building sustainable institutions and then handing-off the effort to them.
In Pakistan, we need to stop asking ourselves the question "Is Pakistan an enemy or an ally?" Pakistan is NOT the enemy. But we have enemies -- as well friends -- in Pakistan. We need to identify those friends and enemies, and empower our friends to deal with our enemies. This is a classic diplomatic strategy, and an essential enabler for it is to build a —partner in Pakistan -- something that will mean, amongst other things, that we need to help Pakistani civilian politicians gain control over their own national-security establishment, and we need to impose a much more stringent set of limitations on strikes into Pakistani territory.
Things aren't hopeless, but they are extremely serious. This is the critical year: the situation is still salvageable, but we must act now to put the AFPAK enterprise onto a sound footing before it's too late.

purri
12-05-2011, 05:01 AM
Link??

Mr Sibley has posted the correct link. BTW I heard Kilcullen yesterday on local (national) radio and first abt 4 yrs ago. He is a brutal realist on US adventurism and other matters and does not resile from facts.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-05-2011, 05:20 AM
Syed, I would be very interested in any comments that you may like to make on this bit:

"A powerful faction within the Pakistani national security establishment (some elements of the Army, and parts of the intelligence service) persists in sponsoring extremists such as the Afghan Taliban, and tolerating terrorists like AQ and LeT. This long-standing pattern arises from three key motivations: religious radicalism within the younger generation of the officer corps, a desire to maintain extremist actors as a non-conventional counterweight to Indian regional influence, and a fear of abandonment by the international community (as happened in 1989 after the Soviet-Afghan war and, arguably, again in 2002 as our attention was diverted to Iraq).

"We must either reduce this motivation (by reforming the military or convincing it that state collapse and extremist takeover, not war with India, is the real threat) or reduce the power of the national-security state to continue its sponsorship and tolerance of extremism, or both. This demands that we move our relationship with Pakistan away from a transactional basis and assuage Pakistan's fear of abandonment. This, in turn, requires that we involve regional actors -- primarily India, but also Iran and China -- in viable regional security arrangements. Again, we need to be honest with ourselves about how difficult this will be, how much it will cost and how long it will take. It will indeed be difficult -- but half-measures haven't gotten us anywhere.

"All this suggests that the most appropriate diplomatic strategy is to identify, within Pakistan, our friends and allies (civilian democratic political leaders, some officials, and much of the Pakistani people) and our actual enemies (primarily, factions within the Pakistani national security establishment, religious radicals and terrorists) and act to increase the number and influence of our friends while reducing the power of our enemies. Our first objective should be to help the democratically elected civilian leaders gain control over their own national security establishment, a state-within-a-state that currently operates virtually outside civilian control. We should then work with the Pakistan government to help it resolve the Baluch and Pashtun tribal uprisings, reduce Taliban influence and terrorist safe haven, counter religious extremism, and extend a legitimate and effective presence throughout the country."

The United States cannot "reform the Pakistani military" and it is a bit late to be setting out to try "convincing it that state collapse and extremist takeover, not war with India, is the real threat". Nor do I see how the USA will be able to "reduce the power of the national-security state to continue its sponsorship and tolerance of extremism, or both".

These are both desirable objectives, no doubt at all. But the intelligence and security establishment in Pakistan clearly sees the world in quite a different way to most other people - a recent Economist special supplement on Pakistan really boiled down to that newspaper's frustration with the absurd belief system that operates within Pakistan's military establishment.

The only practical place to start is with India - Pakistan tensions. These are immense and are not well understood by anyone else. The Bombay attacks were one example of a terrrorist group setting out to increase these tensions for its own ends and it was as sucessful in that as al-Qaeda were in creating tension between the USA and the Mosle world.

What would work to reduce these tensions? Evidently, some form of international intervention to calm things down over Kashmir and some form of free trade agreement to integrate the two economies.

Kashmir is to India and Pakistan what Jerusalem is to Israel and the Arab states. Not enough people see this.

skuthorp
12-05-2011, 06:41 AM
The Australian government has, maybe under US pressure, agreed to sell uranium to India, one of the biggest arms importers around and whom have just tested a new LR missile popularly dubbed 'the China Killer. Latest news is that Pakistan is demanding we sell it to them as well. Some military academics here think that if provoked India would launch a full scale attack before Pakistan breaks down completely. Doesn't bear thinking about really.

PeterSibley
12-05-2011, 06:53 AM
Why would India attack ? It's all about poor bloody Kashmir anyway . How about an independent Kashmir ... ah that's right , neither side will agree .

carioca1232001
12-05-2011, 07:28 AM
......The only practical place to start is with India - Pakistan tensions. These are immense and are not well understood by anyone else. The Bombay attacks were one example of a terrrorist group setting out to increase these tensions for its own ends and it was as sucessful in that as al-Qaeda were in creating tension between the USA and the Mosle world.

What would work to reduce these tensions? Evidently, some form of international intervention to calm things down over Kashmir and some form of free trade agreement to integrate the two economies.

No good looking in hindsight....but it does offer some insight into Pakistanīs current plight.

With a short lull here and there, Pakistanīs political leadership has predominantly rested with the military, a short-sighted lot who lacked popular support, and were thus enticed to grab the lifeline thrown them by foreign interests (read Western Block).

With a return to civilian govt., these wounds have begun to experience the painful phase of healing, which does take time.

In comparative terms, Egypt has received enormous sums in financial aid over the last 20 years than Pakistan has, so why does Pakistan not demand an equal footing in matters that interest the West ?

Talks are underway for India-Pakistan conceding each other 'Most Favoured Nation' status in matter of trade. The current Pakistani leadership is subjecting all agreements between Pakistan and the US/NATO/UN to greater scrutiny

Time to stop doing things for free, and learn from India as to how one goes about doing this !!

Is there a chance of the US/NATO bombing Pakistan back to the stone age ? Doubt it


.Kashmir is to India and Pakistan what Jerusalem is to Israel and the Arab states. Not enough people see this.

Kashmir is the India-Pakistan scapegoat !

Syed
12-05-2011, 12:13 PM
Kashmir is to India and Pakistan what Jerusalem is to Israel and the Arab states. Not enough people see this.

Pakistan's geographical existence would be doubtful with the Kashmir under Indian control. The Indus water treaty (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf) may fail sooner or later, so Kashmir is the bone of contention from the day one and it will remain so till an amicable settlement is reached. All other solutions are like trying to cure a malignant cyst with pain killers.

skuthorp
12-05-2011, 03:17 PM
Thanks Syed, I should have realised that water was part of the mix, first time i've heard of it, it's usually cast in exclusively religious terms here.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-05-2011, 03:41 PM
Pakistan's geographical existence would be doubtful with the Kashmir under Indian control. The Indus water treaty (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf) may fail sooner or later, so Kashmir is the bone of contention from the day one and it will remain so till an amicable settlement is reached. All other solutions are like trying to cure a malignant cyst with pain killers.

Thank you, Syed.


I should make that "Jerusalem plus the river Jordan."

A fundamental point which I had completely missed.

Y Bar Ranch
12-05-2011, 03:56 PM
Pakistan's geographical existence would be doubtful with the Kashmir under Indian control. The Indus water treaty (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf) may fail sooner or later, so Kashmir is the bone of contention from the day one and it will remain so till an amicable settlement is reached. All other solutions are like trying to cure a malignant cyst with pain killers.
So every country should demand control of the headwaters of its major rivers, and be permitted to go to war over them? Not going to happen.

The Baglihar Dam issues between Pak and India were adjudicated by the World Bank, and both parties agreed to abide by the final verdict. Are you saying Pakistan is reneging on that?

By the way, more storage capacity upstream could have saved lives during the horrific floods experienced this past year.

carioca1232001
12-05-2011, 05:56 PM
Good one, Y Bar Ranch !

Kashmir is definitely the 'excuse' for people in that part of the world, be they Indian or Pakistani, especially those whose main concern is to distance themselves from reality and stay put in their respective fox-holes.

Yeah, and there could be oil in Kashmir ......... which is definitely worth scrapping about, would you not think so ? !

Ardeshir Cowasjee is a Zoroastrian-origin - and non-Muslim - Pakistani whose writings one may not agree with 100%, but they do make some sense :

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/27/what-makes-a-regional-chaudhry.html