US stabs Pakistan in the back, again

[FarCenter]

* 24 Pakistani troops killed as NATO helicopters, fighter jets attack two military outposts in Mohmand

* NATO supply trucks, fuel tankers stopped

YAKKAGHUND: NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing as many as 24 troops and plunging US-Pakistan relations, already deeply frayed, further into crisis.

The attack is the worst single incident of its kind since Pakistan uneasily allied itself with Washington in the days immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks on US targets. “This is an attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty,” said Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. “We will not let any harm come to Pakistan’s sovereignty and solidarity.”
The Foreign Office said it would take up the matter “in the strongest terms” with NATO and the US. The commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, General John R Allen, said he had offered his condolences to the family of any Pakistani soldiers who “may have been killed or injured” during an “incident” on the border. A spokesman for the force declined further comment on the nature of the “incident” and said an investigation was proceeding. The US embassy in Islamabad also offered condolences. “I regret the loss of life of any Pakistani servicemen, and pledge that the United States will work closely with Pakistan to investigate this incident,” ambassador Cameron Munter said in a statement.

Link

[unionworks]

1. fuck pakistan.

They seemed to have no problem hiding Bin Laden all those years.

[MADem]

2. While we paid them, hand over fist, for support/assistance--and they screwed us.

I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for that government, either. Or the frigging military there.

Some of the people are great--the leadership, not so much.

[FarCenter]

3. We'll either be paying them more for the priviledge of staying in Afghanistan or

we won't be paying them anything and we'll be leaving the area soon.

[MADem]

9. It's harder to get there without them, certainly--but not impossible.

We're winding down there anyway.

[Arctic Dave]

4. I say fuck them all. Who cares what uniform they wear or don't wear.

Or country. I'm sick of all their shit.

[saras]

5. You really believe we weren't paying them for keeping Bin Laden?

[MADem]

8. No. The suggestion is asinine. nt

[Response]

7. Bloodlust?

Do you believe that this was payback for hiding Bin Ladin or hope it to be so.

I would like to hear why the US killed Pakistani troops and not get caught up in reprisal killings or just rampant carnage. If it is either the latter or former then it is indeed time for the US to pull out.

[unionworks]

16. "pull out"

Just like when we had our barber pole red white and blue striped dick knee deep in the mud of vietnam! Dejafreakin' vu!

[JCMach1]

6. More to this story... the CIA has been at war with the ISI since Obama took office

We don't know the full-story about this and probably never will.

i.e. doubtful if this is just a friendly fire incident...

[MADem]

10. A few resources/links would help your assertion. nt

[JCMach1]

11. I rest my case- please note, this wasn't released when I posted this

...Afghanistan officials claimed Sunday that Afghan and NATO forces were retaliating for gunfire from two Pakistani army bases when they called in airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, adding a layer of complexity to episode that has further strained Pakistan’s ties with the United States.

The account challenged Pakistan’s claim that the strikes were unprovoked... http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/9102087-418/afghanistan-says-nato-forces-were-fired-on-in-pakistan-attack.html

...But a report in Monday's Wall Street Journal -- denied by Islamabad -- said the Nato jets and helicopters responded to firing from a Pakistani post on the ill-defined Afghan border.

The article, which followed a similar report by Britain's Guardian newspaper, cited three Afghan officials and one Western official as saying the air raid was called in to shield allied forces targeting Taliban fighters.

Nato and Afghan forces "were fired on from a Pakistani army base", the unnamed Western official told the Wall Street Journal. "It was a defensive action."

An Afghan official in Kabul was quoted as saying: "There was firing coming from the position against Afghan army soldiers who requested support and this is what happened."... http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Pakistan-border-fire-provoked-Nato-raid-Reports/Article1-774941.aspx

This is still only part of the story...

Video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVntlZFTTFs&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SPC0FE62BD433D09C2

There is an excellent BBC Documentary out about how Pakistan has been playing a double game:

..."The ISI of course... must take responsibility for the fact that some of these camps were still up and running including perhaps the camp that, that was responsible for training the 7/7 attackers."

Yet initially the evidence of Pakistan's double role was largely disregarded.

According to the former British Ambassador to Afghanistan Sherard Cowper Coles: "Somehow because the Pakistani dimension was too difficult, too enormous, we just sort of shut it out and pretended that by pushing the insurgents around Helmand or out of bits of Helmand, that was somehow solving the problem."

The series reveals that by 2009 evidence of a double cross was too strong to be further ignored.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, who headed a secret review of Pakistan's role for President Obama, describes briefing the President: "I spoke pretty much non-stop for about 45 minutes, and then we spent another hour, hour and a half, talking about it...

"I told the President Pakistan was double-dealing us and that the Pakistanis had been double-dealing the United States and its allies for years and years, and they were probably going to continue to do so." ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/10_october/26/pakistan.shtml

[MADem]

13. Excellent documentation. Top shelf. Thanks for taking the time.

Bruce Riedel is certainly plain-spoken, isn't he! I will say I've shared his views for some time, now.

You know who's got to be thrilled? India!

[JCMach1]

18. Of course...

[eridani]

12. Lots of historical ignorance here.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W1oY9ZRf2mgC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=chomsky+pakistan+%22The+movement+began+with+former+president%22&source=bl&ots=dP7ekwXFsh&sig=1QiL1DJybWd5gQ6r_R0jjZh_Gck&hl=en&ei=223TTtWYL8ibtwfluIW5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


From Washington's perspective, any democracy that emerges has to be one subordinated to U.S. interests. The United States wants Lebanon to become a commericial and financial center run for the wealthy. One of the reasons that Hezbollah became so powerful is that the Lebanese government government did essentially nothing for poorer Shiites in south Beirut and south Lebanon. Hezbollah's prestige comes not just from leading the guerrilla forces that drove Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, but from providing social services--health, education, financial aid. For many Lebanese, Hezbollah is the government. As with other Islamic fundamentalist movements, that's the basis for its enormous popular support. You don't want to have nonstate actors, especially military ones, inside a state, but unless the fundamental problems are dealt with, that's going to happen. It's almost inevitable. In fact, the United States and Israel substantially helped create Islamic fundamentalist extremism by destroying secular nationalism. If you destroy secular nationalism, people aren't going to just say, "Okay, cut my throat." They're going to turn somewhere else. And that somewhere else has been extremist religious fanaticism.

In fact, sometimes these movements are actively encouraged. Since the Second World War, the United States has been the world's strongest outside supporter of extremist Islamic fundamentalism. Washington's oldest and most valued ally in the Arab world is Saudi Arabia. Iran looks like a democratic heaven in comparison.In Pakistan, which is now a major center for radical Islamism, the movement began with former president Muhammad Zia ul Haq, who was strongly supported by the Reagan administration. In fact, all though its tenure, the Reagan administration pretended that Zia wasn't developing nuclear weapons. Of course they knew that he was. But every year they would religiously certify that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons because they wanted to support their radical, extremist, fundamentalist friend. They knew perfectly well that Saudi Arabia was funding the extremist madrassas, the religious schools that undermined the Pakistani educational system, which had been pretty good beforehand. People like Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, now deplore that you can't get students to study the sciences because schools teach only the Koran. That wasn't true in the past. All of these developments were supported by the Reagan administration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Pakistan is now the convenient scapegoat to blame for losing another war.

It's just another face-saving move by the administration to cover the loss.

[gratuitous]

15. Indeed, and any crimes against humanity are just the icing on the cake

Because the U.S. is so exceptionally exceptional, we can blow folks to smithereens for any reason or no reason at all. The Afghanis know this, and point at their enemies in Pakistan. The Pakistanis are getting familiar with this principle, and will no doubt point the Golem at their adversaries over in Afghanistan.

And when the inevitable retribution strikes us for our murderous ways, we can kvetch and whine about those terrorists who hate us for our freedom. Which means more fat defense contracts for industries willing to murder by remote control. So it's all good, and there will be plenty of folks on all sides of the political spectrum to endorse the retail killing. Is there any other way these events could unfold? The answer increasingly appears to be no. Mindless murders mean money.

[unionworks]

17. "We Give Them Money

...are they grateful? No, they're spiteful, and they're hateful, Let's drop the big one, and see what happens..." - Randy Neuman