Pakistan fired at US/Afg Border Troops first

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by alfred_the_great, Nov 29, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    • Like Like x 1
  1. So what? Pakistani troops fired at armed men acting suspiciously, at night, near a Pakistani Army position on a very dangerous and porous border. Isn't that what sentries are meant to do?

    Did you read the rest of the unattributed and for American consumption article? It would appear the US then spent 90 minutes attacking the outposts from the air in spite of Pakistani appeals to stop. No one knows where this took place or what the int was- it would appear sentries opened fire from a recognised border post and where then malletted from the air.

    Shifting the blame onto the (now dead and wounded) Pakistani soldiers in the outpost does not seem the right thing to do and will definitely not mollify the Taliban leaning elements in Pakistan.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. No, not really. Sentries aren't supposed to brass up anyone who looks like they might be enemy.

    Agree with the rest of your post though.
     
  3. At the end of the day, the US have been wanting to make an enemy out of Pakistan. After this, Pakistan are, rightly, a bit pissed off and relations between the yanks and Pakistan have worsened, give the yanks a good opportunity to invade Pakistan (they have invaded countries for lesser things). So let see the US get themselves invading Pakistan and stop all this fake diplomacy that we know the yanks don't normally use.
     
  4. Annoying Pakistan when they control one of the two supply routes for the troops you have based in a landlocked country is pretty damn stupid and I doubt the US would do anything that boneheaded on purpose. However, given their liberal ROE and "yippie kie ay motherfucker let's blow shit up" approach to incoming this is hardly surprising. That said, if anyone forced this it was Pakistan. it makes the current regime more popular at home and lets them extort a lot more out of the US as the price of re-opening the supply lines.

    But invasion ? No way. The Pakistanis have a basic but fully functional set of nukes and strong links to Saudi Arabia. No way will the US be stupid enough to get involved in that.

    But it gets worse: the Russians are already leaning on the northern route prior to presenting a list of demands for keeping that open. I reckon BMD bases in eastern europe are top of the list. "Never start a land war in Asia" - words to live by.
     
  5. And nuclear weapons...
     
  6. A war in Pakistan may just be what the yanks are after

    1) Neutralise Pak Nukes - US never enjoyed the thoughts of Pakistan having them
    2) Secure Baluchistan - Very mineral rich, boarders Iran, and have access to warm water ports near the mouth of the Gulf
    3) Take away Chinas strongest Asian ally - Thereby making the US/India the only game in town V China
    4) I guess give their arms companies much more investment as Iraq/Afghan winds down
     

  7. You're not wrong in that the US would like to do what you say, but I don't believe they have the money, troops or political will to get involved in a protracted occupation of yet another country where the locals hate them. And I can't see them risking catching a nuke with one of the large Afghan bases either. If Pakistan vapourises a US military installation following an overwhelming US assault (for if the US attacks it will be overwhelming) the US has some very unplatable choices to make, none of which will end well. Glassing cities in reprisal for an attack on a military target is out, glassing bases which will probably be empty by then will be pointless. The neighbours will throw a track anyway at the fallout and blame the US for being so stupid as to pick a fight with a nuclear state.

    Plus it would upset Saudi Arabia a lot, and I don't believe Washington is ready to do that either.
     
  8. Which is nominally friendly. I've no problem with them acting like they did, but then they need to man up and accept that that armed men, firing suspiciously at night, on a very dangerous and porous border might get some fire returned to them. They can't have it both ways.
     

  9. frankly who cares? There is no way on earth that we will get involved in a conflict in Pakistan so if the septics want to go there then let them
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Possibly, if the American/Afghan forces were firing at/in the direction of the check point.
     
  11. Alfred - so you reckon if the US dropped bombs and killed 24 of our blokes in a blue on blue the UK would just man up and get on with it? I reckon that would probably spell complete collapse of public support in UK and early withdrawal.

    Pakistan is up in arms over this, regardless of the leaked and unattributed Washington Post story, 24 soldiers were killed by their allies. Hard to sell an unpopular war when your own allies are bombing you. No one comes out of this with much glory - telling them to man up is probably not what the strategic message from Washington is at the moment!
     
  12. It didn't happen on Op GRANBY... (Warriors and A-10), and while the Italians were spitting feathers over the Cavalese deaths (US EA-6B crew, flying below minimum altitude, kill 20 skiers and then destroys evidence to cover their arrses) it didn't involve them leaving NATO or kicking the Americans out.
     
  13. ####A lot of anti American sentiment being expressed here!

    My credit card was cloned by some Pakis in a petrol station.

    So I am very happy for the Americans to bomb the shit out of them.

    In fact, I hope they do it again, but do a better job next time.

    Only 24? Tut tut! Not good enough!