[quote]Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan said an attack by the American-led NATO force based in Afghanistan that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers had triggered “rage” in the nuclear-armed nation and reversed progress in repairing ties with the U.S.
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in a phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday explained decisions made by the Cabinet’s defense committee to close border crossings to trucks shipping supplies for the U.S. military in Afghanistan and order American personnel out of the Shamsi Airbase in Baluchistan province within 15 days, according to an e-mailed statement from the foreign ministry.
Khar told Clinton of “the deep sense of rage felt across Pakistan at the senseless” loss of life, the statement said. The air attack on border posts “negates the progress made by the two countries on improving relations and forces Pakistan to revisit the terms of engagement,” yesterday’s statement cited Khar as saying.
The U.S. and Pakistani governments have been trying to stabilize their relationship after a year that included Pakistan’s detention of a Central Intelligence Agency contract employee for killing two Pakistanis, the U.S. raid that that killed Osama bin Laden in May, and public accusations by top U.S. officials that Pakistan’s army is actively aiding militant groups that the U.S. defines as terrorist.
Clinton in an October trip to Pakistan told the country’s leaders they must show results from cracking down on guerrilla sanctuaries or risk further pressure from Congress to cut off billions of dollars in aid and to mount U.S. attacks against militants’ hideouts on Pakistani soil.
Western Aid
After expressing “a lot of displeasure and anger” the U.S. and Pakistan “will ultimately go back to negotiations in the next three to four weeks,” said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based political analyst. “A complete breakdown in the relationship doesn’t suit the interests of either country.”
Pakistan’s dependence on western aid means it can’t afford “to take things to a point of no return,” Rizvi said. For its part, the U.S. needs to keep open supply routes for its troops in Afghanistan and it needs Pakistan’s help in containing al- Qaeda and keeping pressure on the Taliban, he said.
Hundreds of trucks carrying supplies for North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops were backed up at Pakistan’s main border crossings with Afghanistan yesterday, the Associated Press reported. The CIA uses Shamsi to launch drone aircraft that target militants in the remote region near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, the Washington Post reported June 15.
Unmarked Border
In the Nov. 25 attack, NATO helicopters and a fighter aircraft fired at Pakistani border posts on the mountainous frontier between Afghanistan’s Kunar province and the Pakistani district of Mohmand, according to a statement posted on the Pakistani army’s website. The attack is at least the fourth on a Pakistan border facility by NATO forces in 15 months.
Afghan and Pakistani Taliban factions regularly attack U.S. and other NATO forces from their bases in Pakistan and try to slip back across the frontier for protection from NATO retaliation. ISAF has at times asserted a right of “hot pursuit” of Taliban guerrillas into Pakistani territory, while Pakistan has objected, calling such actions a violation of its sovereignty.
The Pakistan-Afghanistan border passes through rugged mountains and desert terrain and is unmarked over most of its more than 2,600-kilometer (1,600-mile) length. The two countries dispute the border’s location in many areas.
Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff Parvez Ashfaq Kayani said Nov. 26 the attack was a “blatant and unacceptable act,” and demanded urgent action against those responsible.
Deaths ‘Deplorable’
NATO offered condolences and sympathy to the families of the Pakistani soldiers killed in a “regrettable incident” along the Afghan-Pakistani border, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said.
Rasmussen said he had written to Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani “to make it clear that the deaths of Pakistani personnel are as unacceptable and deplorable as the deaths of Afghan and international personnel,” he said in an e- mailed statement yesterday. NATO and the U.S. said the incident is being investigated.
Clinton was “deeply saddened by the event and conveyed the U.S. government’s desire to work with Pakistan to resolve the issue,” according to the statement issued by Pakistan’s foreign ministry yesterday.
“This incident puts General Kayani in a very difficult position among his troops,” Talat Masood, a retired army lieutenant general and security analyst in Islamabad, said in an interview. “I don’t think both allies will go to the tipping point, but it makes things even worse at a time when the Obama administration was trying to restore a working relationship with Pakistan after the Osama bin Laden incident.”
Caught in the Middle
U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said on “Fox News Sunday” that U.S. troops are “caught right in the middle” of the ongoing conflict and that it should be left to the Afghans. “This is a terrible theater that we have been unable to find a clear path toward reducing terrorism,” he said.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, the former ambassador to China, said on the Fox program that “our expectations have to be very, very low in terms of what we can get out of the relationship.” He said he would tie U.S. aid to a successful working relationship. Anything short of that would warrant looking for “a new partner in the region,” he said.
Pakistani Support Needed
“It’s not the kind of situation where you can just cut off all assistance, because we do need their support in the region,” Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday.”
U.S. forces attacked areas in the border districts of Kurram and North Waziristan in September last year, killing what Pakistan said were several of members of its paramilitary Frontier Corps, an army-led force that guards much of the border.
Pakistan closed its frontier for 10 days to the NATO- contracted trucks that haul food, uniforms, construction material and other “non-lethal” supplies from its port of Karachi into Afghanistan. Pakistan re-opened the border after a joint investigation with U.S. officials and a NATO apology for the attacks.
NATO oversees the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, in Afghanistan. The Nov. 25 incident “has my highest personal attention and my commitment to thoroughly investigate it to determine the facts,” said the ISAF commander, Gen. John R. Allen, in an e-mail. “My most sincere and personal heartfelt condolences go out to the families and loved ones of any members of Pakistan Security Forces who may have been killed or injured.”
Cameron Munter, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, said “the United States will work closely with Pakistan to investigate this incident,” according to a statement from his embassy.
--With assistance from James Rupert in New Delhi, Peter Chapman in Brussels, Eltaf Najafizada in Kabul and Jesse Hamilton, Margaret Talev and Bob Drummond in Washington. Editors: Mark Williams, Ann Hughey.
To contact the reporters on this story: Haris Anwar in Islamabad at [email]hanwar2@bloomberg.net[/email]; Anwar Shakir in Karachi at [email]ashakir1@bloomberg.net[/email]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at [email]msilva34@bloomberg.net[/email][/quote]
[url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-27/pakistan-says-air-attack-erases-progress-in-repairing-u-s-ties.html[/url]
Fuck off Pakistan.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;33470047]
Fuck off Pakistan.[/QUOTE]
Well, they do have a right to be mad at us.
Although this is going to fuck over the war effort a lot, at least until NATO can find alternate supply routes.
To those rating me late, the earlier thread had nothing to do with cutting supply lines.
They have every right to be upset, but ultimately they're fucking over regular troops and other operations because of this shit.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;33470250]"the nuclear-armed nation"
Fear mongering, much?[/QUOTE]
ACTUALLY Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to assure that India didn't use it's nuclear weapons in it to begin with due to their hatred for eachother.
I think the list of countries with nukes is, US, Russia, North Korea, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, Britain, and China. And various post-soviet states likes Serbia and such have a few floating around on the blackmarket.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33470531]Does Pakistan even have any delivery systems?[/QUOTE]
Not a good one, they'd be screwed if they tried anything, I don't think they even have the range to hit the U.S and if they did we have better counter measures anyway.
Though seriously, we can be done with the middle east, as much as I want to get rid of terrorism and help people become better countries, but they can't leave things like communism, dictators, kings, that such until they become in the state of developing out of a third world country, democracy can't work in a third world country, they have to grow up a bit first and it'll happen on its own. And as far as terrorism goes, we've kind of given them a good punch in the nads by killing a good deal of their important leaders, ironic how these same leaders say they should die for their cause yet none of the leaders are doing these suicide bombings or anything, they hide and run like the scum they are.
[QUOTE=The one that is;33470630]ACTUALLY Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to assure that India didn't use it's nuclear weapons in it to begin with due to their hatred for eachother.
I think the list of countries with nukes is, US, Russia, North Korea, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, Britain, and China. And various post-soviet states likes Serbia and such have a few floating around on the blackmarket.[/QUOTE]
Fairly certain he is pointing out that the fact that nuclear weapons were even mentioned is irrelevant.
Pakistan and India are sort of in a mini-Cold War situation for the past few decades. India and Pakistan have nukes just to keep each other from being too cocky.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;33470083]Well, they do have a right to be mad at us.
Although this is going to fuck over the war effort a lot, at least until NATO can find alternate supply routes.[/QUOTE]
Afghanistan is land locked and the countries that surround it aren't actually bastions of US friendliness.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;33470083]Well, they do have a right to be mad at us.
Although this is going to fuck over the war effort a lot, at least until NATO can find alternate supply routes.[/QUOTE]
I can understand why they're mad, but cutting our supply lines is a childish move on their part, and counteractive to their fight against the taliban.
[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;33470682]Fairly certain he is pointing out that the fact that nuclear weapons were even mentioned is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
True.
Pakistan depends heavily on U.S. foreign aid. If American troops are killed because of a shortage of supplies resulting from this, the American public will explode.
With the growing protests in Pakistani cities, I'm beginning to think there is no way that this can end well.
Meh, America will just keep doing whatever the hell they want to do.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;33470083]Well, they do have a right to be mad at us.[/QUOTE]
Not really, no, considering the massive amount of money they've received from us since the War on Terror began.
And then there's the fact that they had just 7 months ago the most wanted man in the world living comfortably in a fortified house in Abbottabad, one of the largest cities in the country that acts as their most prestigious military nexus, just 31 miles away from their capital, miraculously undisturbed and somehow having conveniently gone unnoticed by the government.
With all that in mind, it seems they're not such staunch opponents of the Taliban and violent Islamic fundamentalism as they claim to be. So really, if anyone should be mad, it should be us. At them. For more than one thing.
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
And we should be more wary towards them in the future.
Someone please explain, because I've heard so many different things about this. Does Pakistan supply data for the drone strikes? And did they supply data for this particular attack?
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;33481802]Someone please explain, because I've heard so many different things about this. Does Pakistan supply data for the drone strikes? And did they supply data for this particular attack?[/QUOTE]
They're supposed to give us data, like what areas we should be focusing on in terms of activity, what kinds of targets we should expect in these areas, etc.; but we also collect data from intelligence sources, satellites, etc., and a lot of the data they provide us with just concerns their border with Afghanistan. I don't think anybody unofficial really knows yet where the data in this instance came from. So we'll just have to wait and see what developments arise.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33471398]I can understand why they're mad, but cutting our supply lines is a childish move on their part, and counteractive to their fight against the taliban.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, they seem to be more towards supporting the taliban than fighting it.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;33482154]Honestly, they seem to be more towards supporting the taliban than fighting it.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but at the present moment, their government claims to be against the Taliban, regardless whether they actually perceive them as a threat, or if they are simply intimidated into fighting them because of the presence of NATO forces in the region.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;33482154]Honestly, they seem to be more towards supporting the taliban than fighting it.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about their government, but certainly not the civilian population. Pakistan has lost thousands, both civilian and military, to suicide bombers, many of them from the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Pakistani government and ISI might not necessarily be called stalwart US allies but it would be a huge mistake to assume the Pakistani people support Taliban or al-Qaeda.
[QUOTE=The one that is;33470630]ACTUALLY Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to assure that India didn't use it's nuclear weapons in it to begin with due to their hatred for eachother.
I think the list of countries with nukes is, US, Russia, North Korea, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, Britain, and China. And [B]various post-soviet states likes Serbia[/B] and such have a few floating around on the blackmarket.
[/QUOTE]
The fuck
Since when was Serbia post soviet state?
[QUOTE=Zambies!;33470047][url]http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-27/pakistan-says-air-attack-erases-progress-in-repairing-u-s-ties.html[/url]
Fuck off Pakistan.[/QUOTE]
Fuck off? why doesn't NATO fuck off? We bombed them for years using drones, ignore their sovereignty, and kill civilians. No wonder the people are fucking mad. And it's not like this stuff has happened in the past, they've put up with a lot of shit.
[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;33482432]The fuck
Since when was Serbia post soviet state?[/QUOTE]
-snip, didn't read the damned thing-
[QUOTE=fox '09;33484519]Fuck off? why doesn't NATO fuck off? We bombed them for years using drones, ignore their sovereignty, and kill civilians. No wonder the people are fucking mad. And it's not like this stuff has happened in the past, they've put up with a lot of shit.[/QUOTE]
Easy rebuttal in 3. 2. 1.
Bombed them for years. Granted by Pakistan
Ignore their sovereignty. They fucked up big time with Bin Laden being less then a few clicks away from a massive military installation
Kill civilians. Maybe they should stop feeding shitty data.
For those uninformed, the strike was called in by Afghani troops.
The fact that the immediate reaction was to shut down the borders and kick the US out really screams set up to me. Considering how thoroughly corrupt Pakistan and Afghanistan both are, especially within the military, I'd be shocked if this was just an accident.
[QUOTE=fox '09;33484519]Fuck off? why doesn't NATO fuck off? We bombed them for years using drones, ignore their sovereignty, and kill civilians. No wonder the people are fucking mad. And it's not like this stuff has happened in the past, they've put up with a lot of shit.[/QUOTE]
Normally I'd be inclined to agree but they are a nuclear armed state that so far hasn't shown itself capable of securing its nukes with any real certainty.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;33484583]Easy rebuttal in 3. 2. 1.
Bombed them for years. Granted by Pakistan
Ignore their sovereignty. They fucked up big time with Bin Laden being less then a few clicks away from a massive military installation
Kill civilians. Maybe they should stop feeding shitty data.[/QUOTE]
Bin Laden or not, we still ignored their sovereignty. It's not like we haven't bombed them without permission in the past either.
whether we should of done the raid and bomb without permission is a good question - but I was talking about the people of Pakistan, not necessarily the goverment.
Granted permission or not, I don't think it matters to the people when civilians die. My point is you could argue that the goverment acted simply out of public opinion, which is entirely reasonable.
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;33485191]Normally I'd be inclined to agree but they are a nuclear armed state that so far hasn't shown itself capable of securing its nukes with any real certainty.[/QUOTE]
You can still work with them, but not by stirring up negative public opinion by bombing them.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33481752]Not really, no, considering the massive amount of money they've received from us since the War on Terror began.
[/QUOTE]
"We killed them, but we payed them so it's all OK"?
If they were really that mad they should stop taking NATO money.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.