Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPakistan Condemns "Cowardly" US Attack; 11 Dead
ISLAMABAD - Pakistan said on Wednesday an "unprovoked and cowardly" air strike by U.S. forces had killed 11 Pakistani soldiers on its border with Afghanistan and undermined the basis of security cooperation.
The soldiers were killed at a border post in the Mohmand region, opposite Afghanistan's Kunar province, late on Tuesday as U.S. coalition forces in Afghanistan battled militants attacking from Pakistan, a Pakistani security official said.
The U.S. military said in a statement issued on Wednesday that it had coordinated the artillery and air strike with Pakistan, but was investigating further.
The incident came as frustration is rising in Kabul and among Western forces in Afghanistan over Pakistani efforts to negotiate pacts to end militant violence on its side of the border. NATO says such deals lead to more violence in Afghanistan.
In its strongest criticism of the U.S. military since joining the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism, the Pakistani military condemned the killing of the 11 paramilitary soldiers, including an officer. If confirmed, it would be the most Pakistani soldiers ever killed in an attack by U.S. forces.
The attack "hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror," the military said.
"Such acts of aggression do not serve the common cause of fighting terrorism," it said in a statement.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani also condemned the attack.
"We will take a stand for sovereignty, integrity and self-respect and we will not allow our soil (to be attacked)," he told parliament.
Earlier, a Pakistani security official said the soldiers were killed after militants had launched an attack into Afghanistan.
"The militants launched a cross-border attack into Afghanistan ... our soldiers were killed in a counter-offensive by forces in Afghanistan," said the official, who declined to be identified.
In response, the U.S. military said the counter-offensive had been aimed at anti-Afghan militants and Pakistan had been told in advance -- part of an operation "had been previously coordinated with Pakistan."
"Shortly after the attack began, coalition forces informed the Pakistan army that they were being engaged by anti-Afghan forces in a wooded area near the Gorparai checkpoint," the statement said.
"At that same time, an unmanned aerial system also identified anti-Afghan forces firing at coalition forces. In self-defense, coalition forces fired artillery rounds at the militants."
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the incident took place in a border area that has long been a shared U.S.-Pakistani concern.
"Because we know that the border region is used as a seam by the enemy, we have any number of coordination measures and mechanisms in place for working with the Pakistani military because we are sensitive to that," he told reporters.
SUSPICION
A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said they attacked U.S. and Afghan forces as they were setting up a position on the Pakistan side of the border, and eight Taliban were killed and nine wounded in subsequent U.S. bombing.
The militant spokesman, Maulvi Omar, said by telephone he had heard that U.S. aircraft had also bombed a nearby Pakistani post, while the Taliban had captured seven Afghan troops and shot down a helicopter.
Many al Qaeda and Taliban militants took refuge on the Pakistani side of the border after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.
A new Pakistani government has been negotiating with elders of ethnic Pashtun tribes to get them to press the militants to give up a campaign of violence in Pakistan in which hundreds of people have been killed over the past year.
The government, which came to power after supporters of staunch U.S. ally President Pervez Musharraf were defeated in a February election, is led by the party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, killed in a suicide attack in December.
Afghanistan and its Western allies say peace pacts in Pakistan's border regions enable militants to regroup and step up cross-border attacks from Pakistani sanctuaries.
Pakistan supported the Taliban until the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, when it threw its support behind the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism.
Despite that, Pakistan has been unable to shake off suspicion that elements within its security forces help the Taliban, or at least turn a blind eye as the militants organize their insurgency from Pakistan.
Pakistan denies the accusations, saying it has lost about 1,000 soldiers battling militants in border areas that have never come under the control of any government.
Additional reporting by Shams Mohmand and Paul Eckert in Washington; Writing by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Robert Birsel and David Fox
© 2008 Reuters
20 Comments so far
Show AllThe New York Times has more:
The dead included a major and were all from the Mohmand Rifles, a paramilitary detachment of the Frontier Corps, the force deployed in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, a security official said, speaking in return for customary anonymity. Officers in the Frontier Corps are generally assigned from the Pakistani Army.
Pakistani Frontier Guards, (in the US they would be called Customs and Border Patrol) are a Paramilitary group. Better armed and trained than street cops, lacking body armour, air support and tanks, so not Army.
Pakistani Tribal Area Police, resposible for patrolling and Law and Order in the NTA, are a Paramilitary group. Better armed and trained than street cops, lacking body armour, air support and tanks, so not Army.
Pakistan only has about 50 different Government Agencies, that maintain their own, heavily armed and trained, Paramilitary Groups for Enforcement.
Then, there are the Tribal Levies, adjunct to the Pakistani Army. These are Units of local Tribal groups, trained, armed and commanded by officers of the Pakistani Army, or the Interior Ministry, or the NTA Authority, that are used in areas, where locals are "sensitive" about the presence of armed groups, like the Pakistani Army, not of the local tribal group.
How sad. What are we doing still mixed up in tribal warfare on the friggin Pakistan/Afghanistan border? Osama bin Laden was there 6+ years ago.Do we even know who the "enemy" is? I doubt it. But I can assure you we're creating more. It appears again that the US likes to fire guns and drop bombs just to intimidate folks. The US proved in Laos/Cambodia that we are capable of bombing the shit out of people for no particular advantage.
Mike Corbeil
yes i agree...it all in the end makes Watergate look like a very minor "affair" indeed....either way it's depressing beyond words..it might be worth re-examining the Iran-Contra affair also in lew of the fact that Iran is being lined up as the next target..with the same customary "machine" of political maneuvering..(Reagan...yikes...as bad as it sounds ..at least he had a sense of humour...)
Wrt the 'paramilitary soldiers' questioning in some of the above posts, I figure that if the Pakistani govt says these are Pakistani soldiers, then that's good enough for me, especially when we don't have more information about who they precisely are.
" chrisB June 11th, 2008 7:14 pm
funny thing to me is that it appears as if the Taliban are the only ones telling the truth..
..."
Yes, I had the same thought. The U.S. and NATO have lied plenty of times when they spoke in ways very similar, quasi-identical to what's said of U.S. military and NATO statements in this article.
"and we don't talk with terrorists..unless they have a spokesman…in which case we do talk to them…or are the Taliban not terrorists?..in which case are we fighting them because we couldn't find any terrorists and it seemed a shame to go all that way and not fight some-one..without making too light of the situation…"
I don't know that they're terrorists, but know that the Bush-Cheney cabal, and during the presidency of Bill Clinton, officially called Al Qa'ida a terrorist organization, while adding that they're associated with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; or were, that is. Otoh, I have read in some articles which I believe were at www.globalresearch.ca over the past few years that the Taliban had been used for terrorist like acts, or else for fighting in some countries other than Afghanistan; and I think that was them being used by Al Qa'ida, I suppose, and the U.S. (covertly).
Most people have by now read about the U.S., the CIA (along with the Pakistani ISI) anyway, Al Qa'ida and I believe Taliban (mujahideen, I believe) during the 1980s in Afghanistan and for fighting against the Russian forces, and their allies in Afghanistan. It's evidently a topic the U.S. govt and its ruling elites prefer not to talk about in public though.
But the Taliban certainly weren't involved in any terrorism against the USA or West, worked very well with the UN for the eradication of the cultivation of poppies and heroin production, which surely angered some, if not many, Western elites, as well as Afghan drug "lords". Bush stated prior to launching the war machine against the Taliban in October 2001 that they had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, but that warring on them, outing their regime was supposedly justified because they had association with Usama Bin Ladin and were refusing to hand him over, but which they only did for a little while and based on the demand that if they complied, then he had to receive a fair trial, etcetera. They came to offer to hand him over to Pakistan, which was already allied with the Bush-Cheney cabal in the WoT, and it refused to take Usama Bin Ladin; a refusal the Bush-Cheney cabal likely knew about, I believe anyway.
They never really wanted to capture Usama Bin Ladin. The U.S. still, today, has no charges against him for the 9-11 attacks. He also first denied having had any responsibility, which is why many counter-terrorism experts found it very odd that he later, in Nov. or Dec. 2001, reversed, back-tracked, suddenly claiming responsibility. I had found that to be very odd, for as the CT experts explained, terrorists relates to political grievances not being settled and the terrorist acts are to emphasize that these grievances need a just settlement. So they logically, strategically claim responsibility when they are responsible for such acts.
There are many unanswered questions about the 9-11 attack and the doings and lack of doings of the Bush-Cheney cabal with respect to these attacks and all of the warnings that were received since early 2001 about attacks being planned and for striking against the USA; one or more having been about the plan to possibly hijack commercial aircraft to use them like "missiles". I think it was John Ashcroft who had stopped using the standard manner of flying and as of July 2001, if not even earlier; having told an inquiring reporter, perhaps of Reuters, that the reason was due to the FBI's warning about commercial aircraft being hijacked and used as missiles, or the belief that this'd be likely. The Bush-Cheney cabal had also ordered the FBI to stop investigating terrorist suspects already in the USA and who the FBI strongly believed were planning serious attacks against and within the USA. ETCETERA.
The real terrorists are the state ones in the West; and their ruling elites, "of course". I believe we could call even Bush's treatment of the U.S. Constitution, as 'just a piece of paper', he said, as an act of terrorism; for we know that he meant to say that he totally disregards it, which is unconstitutional and criminal. And they sure do seem to have been doing little other than terrorizing Americans and the rest of Earth; besides the Israeli leadership and other demented, ... allies.
Every one of their LIES is an act of terrorism. Well, with a slight difference from the manner of non-state terrorists, who usually claim responsibility for their acts.
can you say Laos/Cambodia circa 1968?
Codename Operation Menu
wiki it.
The Pak generals need more bribes. Once they are paid they will shut their mouths.
A little late and now that we are broke ,we finally are ready to deal with those attacked us and their protectors. Our geniuses that run this country are beyond retarded, they could learn from the retarded.
This clears things up even further:
George W. Bush gave the Taliban $43 million in May, 2001.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
This will clear things up. Pakistan has always bankrolled the Taliban.
I've read the Pashtum tribes on the Pakistan border are loyal to no one and they are the most miltant tribes in the area. No wonder Pakistan has been trying to negotiate with them.
"A new Pakistani government has been negotiating with elders of ethnic Pashtun tribes to get them to press the militants to give up a campaign of violence in Pakistan in which hundreds of people have been killed over the past year."
Then what does the US do? They step in the middle of it all and shoot while not really knowing whom they are shooting at!
It's really time to end this war! The US left weapons there when the Pakistanis forced the Russians out, and now what? The US is the enemy now! Next our soldiers will be killed with our own weaponry.
loved chrisB's post....
"...frustration is rising in Kabul and among Western forces in Afghanistan over Pakistani efforts to negotiate pacts to end militant violence on its side of the border."
so, therefore, Pakistan should NOT try to end militant violence on its own side of the border??? maybe the U.S. wants Pakistan import all militants from Afghanistan. Then, there will no violence in Afghanistan, and the U.S.A. will look really good because they have stopped the fighting. Of course the militants will all cross the border like good little militants, and fight the Pakistanis instead. Yes. That would be a great decision by the Pakistani government. Do what the imperialists want - who cares about their own national security, when they can fight for U.S. national security instead???
Just another example that all imperial adventures are bound to fail eventually...
With an ally like the US...who needs enemies....The pakistanis now know what wedding parties from baghdad to kabul have experienced....
funny thing to me is that it appears as if the Taliban are the only ones telling the truth..
"A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said they attacked U.S. and Afghan forces as they were setting up a position on the Pakistan side of the border, and eight Taliban were killed and nine wounded in subsequent U.S. bombing."
even tho it gets the US off the hook..and admits to taking losses....and they have a Spokesman..that folks can ring up for quotes and information about troop movements casualty reports and operations etc...
and we don't talk with terrorists..unless they have a spokesman...in which case we do talk to them...or are the Taliban not terrorists?..in which case are we fighting them because we couldn't find any terrorists and it seemed a shame to go all that way and not fight some-one..without making too light of the situation...
and are the Pakistani taliban different from the afghan taliban or are the pakistani taliban just afghan taliban in pakistan...
anybody else getting a head-ache....what's wrong with this picture
"the Pakistani military condemned the killing of the 11 paramilitary soldiers, including an officer. If confirmed, it would be the most Pakistani soldiers ever killed in an attack by U.S. forces." -- Kamran Haider
Paramilitary at wikipedia:
A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which are not regarded as having the same status.
These "soldiers", made to seem by this article as Pakistani regulars, are actually soldiers of some unspecified Pakistani militia.
What this looks like to me is, the Taliban in Pakistan ARE the paramilitary this article nondescriptly refers to, and they are working in conjunction with the Pakistani military AND are within their ranks more loyal locally, though of course their leadership is owned by the Chief Militant Musharaff.
This propaganda piece seems to incite for the geostrategically clueless, the notion that Pakistan be a new front in the war of terror. Pakistani's by reading this might be militarized, feel their government cares about Paramilitaries, so much so as to scorn the US for it's cross border bombardment. The reality of course being the Pakistani government is setting up Pakistani's to facilitous murder and could not care less that the soldiers who were killed were killed.
When Bush resorts to Nuclear Terror Bombing Americans, this little twixt with the Pakistani's will be one more false flag mission to mislead the People from their biggest threat, the increasingly automated US military machinery and explosives.
I wonder what the total oc "coalition" forces killed by the USA are? I know a number of Canadians have been killed by "friendly but retarded" fire.
"To be an ememy of the United States is dangerous; to be a friend is fatal." Bye, bye, Mushy Musharraf.
Reminds me of something I once heard from a British World War 2 veteran: "When we fired, the Germans ducked. When the Germans fired, we ducked. When the Americans fired, everyone ducked."
"Pakistan said on Wednesday an "unprovoked and cowardly" air strike by U.S. forces had killed 11 Pakistani soldiers on its border with Afghanistan and undermined the basis of security cooperation."
"The militants launched a cross-border attack into Afghanistan … our soldiers were killed in a counter-offensive by forces in Afghanistan," said the official, who declined to be identified."
"A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said they attacked U.S. and Afghan forces as they were setting up a position on the Pakistan side of the border, and eight Taliban were killed and nine wounded in subsequent U.S. bombing."
well that's me confused..so it was friendly fire? or not? and they rang up a spokesman from the Taliban to check??
ok ...er....nope sorry still confused