Pakistan fury at deadly US strike

#1
Pakistan's Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that Islamabad says killed 11 of its troops.

The incident took place inside Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan.

The US military confirmed it had used artillery and air strikes after coming under fire from "anti-Afghan" forces.

The incident comes as relations between the US and Pakistan militaries have been hit by mounting tensions.

The soldiers' deaths occurred overnight at a border post in the mountainous Gora Prai region in Mohmand, one of Pakistan's tribal areas, across the border from Afghanistan's Kunar province.

Eight Taleban militants were also killed in the clashes, a Taleban spokesman said.

'Cowardly act'

If the 11 deaths are confirmed, it would be the worst incident of its kind since US and Nato-led forces began fighting militants in Afghanistan in 2001.

Prime Minister Gilani condemned the deaths, telling parliament: "We will take a stand for the sake of this country's sovereignty, for the sake of its dignity and self-respect".

"We do not allow our territory to be used. We completely condemn this, and will take it up through the foreign office."

Pakistan's military called it a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act".




Pakistan-US relations hit a low
Meeting feared Pakistani militant

The US military said in a statement that coalition troops had come under fire from "anti-Afghan forces" in a wooded area near the Pakistan border.

The statement said artillery and air strikes had been co-ordinated with Pakistan, but that the incident was being investigated.

A spokesman for a pro-Taleban militant group in Pakistan said it had launched an attack on US and Afghan army troops trying to set up a border control post.

"We launched an attack on them from several sides and caused serious harm - and then the US and Nato forces began a series of air strikes," said the spokesman, Maulvi Umar.

Lawless border

There is increasing anger in Pakistan at US strikes on its territory which have killed more than 50 people this year, says the BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad.

Both US forces and Nato-led coalition forces are operating in Afghanistan, with Nato focused mainly on peacekeeping and reconstruction and the US troops working more directly to combat militant activity.


Advertisement
Funerals have been held for the 11 soldiers who died

Taleban fighters have a strong presence in the border areas of the tribal districts and local administrators have little power there, although security forces keep a presence on the border.

There is rising frustration among the Afghans and foreign troops at Pakistani efforts to negotiate peace deals with pro-Taleban militants on its side of the border.

Afghan and US-led forces accuse Islamabad of not doing enough to deny Taleban militants a hiding place in Pakistan's tribal areas and to stop them from infiltrating the border into Afghanistan.

They are worried that the Pakistan government's recent peace talks with the militants there will only give the Taleban more room for manoeuvre.

Pakistan denies the accusations, saying it has lost about 1,000 soldiers fighting militants in the tribal border areas
 
#2
Just to get peoples opinions on this.. shouldn't the coalition be working with the Pakistanis. Whats the point of giving them all that money and military equipment if we don't communicate with them. Surely the coalition still needs Pakistan's support. No ones is arguing the self-defence of the US ARMY. But at least know where your friendlies are!
 
#4
pvtePile said:
Just to get peoples opinions on this.. shouldn't the coalition be working with the Pakistanis. Whats the point of giving them all that money and military equipment if we don't communicate with them. Surely the coalition still needs Pakistan's support. No ones is arguing the self-defence of the US ARMY. But at least know where your friendlies are!
The coalition IS working with the Pakistani government. The coalition IS communicating with them. In fact RoE involving the Pakistani border has it's very own song and dance, which is long and frustrating when you're on the end of a radio waiting for an airstrike you called 30 munites ago.

As for the term "friendlies". Please dont for one minute assume that every soldier dressed in a Pakistani uniform falls into this category.

It's very easy for all the armchair generals on the internet to form an opinion and make a call. Spend a week out there, pound the ground, fly the airspace and one will have a better understanding of what really goes on.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Funny how 8 militants got killed in the same attack. I'm assuming they were very close indeed to the Pakistani border post?

Maybe they were stopping by for a cup of tea with the border guards having just crossed the border?

Why did the border guards not kill them instead of waiting for us to do it.

And no, I'm not an Armchair General thank you, I'm an Office Desk Field Marshall. You can call me 'sir'.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Maybe the Pakistani Government just has to SAY that to keep in with its anti-US friends?

They'll still have to keep in with the US-led coalition, though. Otherwise where would they get all that aid money?
 
#7
Ah, but you aren't a fully-fledged ally of The US until you have had a blue-on-blue with their pilots.
Welcome to the coalition Pakistan.
 
#8
Dummyround said:
The coalition IS working with the Pakistani government. The coalition IS communicating with them. In fact RoE involving the Pakistani border has it's very own song and dance, which is long and frustrating when you're on the end of a radio waiting for an airstrike you called 30 munites ago.

As for the term "friendlies". Please dont for one minute assume that every soldier dressed in a Pakistani uniform falls into this category.

It's very easy for all the armchair generals on the internet to form an opinion and make a call. Spend a week out there, pound the ground, fly the airspace and one will have a better understanding of what really goes on.
Well Sir, taking your argument no one has a right to an opinion because they were not the one making the call. I would urge you to have more faith in other peoples judgements.

Cross border bombings is a fairly frequent activity. I am not for one minute saying it is unfounded. What I am proposing is that activities such as this is making it difficult for the Pakistani government to justify their support to the people of Pakistan: who are under constant pressure, economically and security wise.

Not every Pakistani soldier does understand the reasons for their involvement or support for the coalition. But that doesnt mean they dont have the discipline of command. Similarly, not every ANA member is entirely committed to the cause either. What is your answer to that sir. Kill them all?

Sir, the presence of the army close to the proximity of the fighters does not prove that they were helping them. Why does you view have to be tainted. If the same bombing happened in Afghanistan, the unfortunate death of the soldiers would be known as a blue on blue. Why not now?
 
#9
I'm sure everyone here is aware that a huge proportion of insurgents in afghanistan and indeed Iraq are not natives of those countries. Indeed a large number of insurgents in Afghanistan have been identified as having originated from Pakistan. If the Pakistan regime had things under control then allied forces would not have to resort to dealing with them ourselves.

I also agree with Biped's comments, Clearly the guards at the border are either in colusion with insurgents or are simply incompetent (although the prior is more likely) and therefore deserved to be "removed".
 
#10
Dummyround said:
The coalition IS working with the Pakistani government. The coalition IS communicating with them. In fact RoE involving the Pakistani border has it's very own song and dance, which is long and frustrating when you're on the end of a radio waiting for an airstrike you called 30 munites ago.

As for the term "friendlies". Please dont for one minute assume that every soldier dressed in a Pakistani uniform falls into this category.

It's very easy for all the armchair generals on the internet to form an opinion and make a call. Spend a week out there, pound the ground, fly the airspace and one will have a better understanding of what really goes on.
pvtePile said:
Well Sir, taking your argument no one has a right to an opinion because they were not the one making the call. I would urge you to have more faith in other peoples judgements.

You can have any opinion you want. But if I think yours is balls I'll come out and say it. What is your opinion based on? An article you read or the 10 miles of rocky desert terrain you have walked this week? Or maybe the fire fight you were involved in last Monday? Or was it the F-15 you were flying in on Sunday? Opinions? Have at it with your bad self.

Cross border bombings is a fairly frequent activity. I am not for one minute saying it is unfounded. What I am proposing is that activities such as this is making it difficult for the Pakistani government to justify their support to the people of Pakistan: who are under constant pressure, economically and security wise.
Justification? How about a request for 20 BILLION dollars from the world wide community, with 10.2 BILLION coming from the US?

Not every Pakistani soldier does understand the reasons for their involvement or support for the coalition. But that doesnt mean they dont have the discipline of command. Similarly, not every ANA member is entirely committed to the cause either. What is your answer to that sir. Kill them all?
Soldiers? They do not need to understand. It's fairly simple, you follow the orders of those appointed over you. And in the cases of the border guards that I have seen their loyalty is not to the command, and certainly is not to discipline.

Sir, the presence of the army close to the proximity of the fighters does not prove that they were helping them. Why does you view have to be tainted. If the same bombing happened in Afghanistan, the unfortunate death of the soldiers would be known as a blue on blue. Why not now?

Nowhere in my post did I say that they were helping the fighters. My view on the world is not tainted, but my view on the world is based on what I have seen and what I have done and NOT by what I read in a paper, see on TV or read on a forum.
My replies in bold for your arm chair entertainment, sir.
 
#11
DummyRound said:
It's very easy for all the armchair generals on the internet to form an opinion and make a call. Spend a week out there, pound the ground, fly the airspace and one will have a better understanding of what really goes on.
Just in case that wasn't clear only DR is allowed to post on this site in future as he is the all seeing eye and oracle of all matters to do with everything. Oh and by the way his dad is bigger than your dad! :roll:
 
#12
western said:
DummyRound said:
It's very easy for all the armchair generals on the internet to form an opinion and make a call. Spend a week out there, pound the ground, fly the airspace and one will have a better understanding of what really goes on.
Just in case that wasn't clear only DR is allowed to post on this site in future as he is the all seeing eye and oracle of all matters to do with everything. Oh and by the way his dad is bigger than your dad! :roll:
Ah yes, my intent versus your perception. Put your hand bag down ducky, you'll have my eye out. As for Dads, mine was a right fat cnut so chances are he was bigger. Slower, but bigger 8O
 
#13
On the subject of perception what were you doing out there, pounding the ground or flying the airspace?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top