Chaos: Pakistan wants U.S. drone base shut after NATO attack kills 26 Pakistani troops

posted at 5:00 pm on November 26, 2011 by Allahpundit

Such is the state of U.S./Pakistan relations that no one seems fully confident this was accidental. Is there another “alliance” in the world of which that could be said — where one country wipes out two dozen troops from the other and it’s not instantly clear it was a terrible miscalculation instead of a response to some shadowy provocation?

Is it “friendly fire” if the two sides aren’t really friendly?

“It seems quite extraordinary that we’d just nail these posts the way they say we did,” said one senior American official who was in close touch with American and NATO officials in Pakistan and Afghanistan early Saturday. “Whether they were going after people or whether there was some firing from the Afghan side of the border, then the Pakistan side, we just don’t know. It’s real murky right now. Clearly, something went very wrong.”

The American ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, called an emergency meeting and expressed regret over the Pakistani casualties. And Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, offered condolences to families of the dead and promised an investigation. “This incident has my highest personal attention and my commitment to thoroughly investigate it to determine the facts,” he said in a statement.

The strikes, which Pakistani officials said had involved both helicopters and fighter jets, took place overnight at two military posts in Salala, a village in Pakistan’s Mohmand tribal region near the border with Kunar Province in Afghanistan. At least 40 soldiers were deployed at the posts, which according to Pakistani officials were established to repulse cross-border attacks by Afghan militants and the Taliban. Pakistani military officials said NATO aircraft had penetrated roughly a mile and a half into Pakistan to make the strikes.

If you’re thinking this might be a jihadi operation that Pakistan’s trying to pin on NATO, no dice: A NATO spokesman says it’s “highly likely” that coalition aircraft were responsible. (Why would the Taliban or the Haqqanis want to attack Pakistan at this point anyway?) As punishment for the incident, Pakistani leaders have cut supply lines into Afghanistan and ordered the U.S. to scram from its drone base in southern Pakistan within 15 days. And opposition leaders are already screaming about ending their “support” for the war on terror, so if you’re one of the many people who wonder what things in Afghanistan would look like without Pakistani “help,” good news — we might be about to find out.

I’ll give you three scenarios about what might have happened in the hope/expectation that knowledgeable readers will rule some out in the comments. One: Hot pursuit. NATO was chasing some jihadi outfit, they crossed the border, then we crossed the border after them. It’s happened before and Pakistani troops have ended up dead in the process. But not dozens of Pakistani troops; the sheer volume of casualties plus the fact that NATO surely knows there are checkpoints near the Durand Line makes it hard to understand how this was a case of mistaken identity. Maybe they killed some troops accidentally and then took fire from the others? Or maybe they took fire as soon as they crossed the border? Two: Deliberate targeting. The Times reported six weeks ago about the sustained escalation in mortar fire at American units from across the border in Pakistan. The troops interviewed for the piece made no bones about their belief that the Pakistani military was involved. Ten days after that story was published, the Pentagon made the charge formally. Maybe last night’s attack was NATO’s way of sending a message in the guise of a friendly fire incident. Problem is, doing it this visibly and spectacularly forces the Pakistani leadership to retaliate, as they’ve now done by revoking base rights. Would the White House really risk their drone program just to take out a few Pakistani troops for supporting jihadi mortar fire? Could be that the drone program’s been so successful that they were planning to wind it down anyway, just because there’s almost no one left to target. But Obama’s always preferred stealth operations to spectacles. If he wanted to send a message, he could do it without making Pakistan lose face.

Three: It really was a crazy accident. Gen. Allen met with Pakistani Gen. Kayani on Thursday, just one day before the incident, to discuss greater coordination. Less than a month ago, the White House decided that its (insane) new strategy in Afghanistan was to somehow convince Pakistan to bring the Taliban and the Haqqanis to the bargaining table for talks. If we’re still of the mind that Pakistani cooperation is essential to getting out of the war as quickly and cleanly as possible, mowing down their soldiers en masse seems … counterproductive. So yeah, it probably is an accident — assuming accidents on this scale are even possible. Any Air Force readers willing to weigh in? How likely is it that NATO jets and choppers might not recognize whom they’re engaging on the ground, even when they know there are “allied” checkpoints in the area?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It’s all right. We’ll just do what the Russians do when their helicopters blow away a company of Pakistani soldiers. Or when the Chinese do so.

Oh that’s right. It doesn’t happen with Chinese and Russian helicopters, because they have the good sense to not wage war on someone else’s soil without a declaration of war.

Something has gone seriously askew with our foreign policy.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Heck of a job there, Barry. Heck of a job.

stenwin77 on November 26, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Perhaps Pakistan should stop aiding and abetting our enemies at the same time they take our money?

Hmmm.

mythicknight on November 26, 2011 at 5:09 PM

See what happens next week on the all new… Everybody Loves Barry Show.
-

RalphyBoy on November 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Fourth: They opened fire on Americans.

pedestrian on November 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Oh that’s right. It doesn’t happen with Chinese and Russian helicopters, because they have the good sense to not wage war on someone else’s soil without a declaration of war.

Something has gone seriously askew with our foreign policy.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Would a declaration of war have made some practical difference in this case?

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Second look at India…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 26, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Oh that’s right. It doesn’t happen with Chinese and Russian helicopters, because they have the good sense to not wage war on someone else’s soil without a declaration of war.

EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? What kind of RonPaulia fantasy otherworld are YOU inhabiting?!?! Have you ever heard of Chechnya??? Ever hear of South Ossetia??? Ever hear of Tibet???

Why don’t you crack open a newspaper and read about current events?

quikstrike98 on November 26, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Would a declaration of war have made some practical difference in this case?

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 5:17 PM

At very least, it aids in keeping count.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Based on past incidents but no other knowledge, I would assume the Taliban passed through Pakistani troops on their way into Afghanistan, and passed through them on the way back as well with us in pursuit. The Paki troops who prefer the Taliban to us opened fire on our helocopters and we retaliated with the “presumption” that anyone firing at helocopters is not friendly to the US.

The Paki frontier troops can serve as a friendly screen for the Taliban. To assume that frontier troops in Pakistan are our allies is sadly a bad assumption. To assume anyone shooting at helocopters is not our friend is a better one.

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Not to worry. It’s all okay. Noproblem.

Barry is on top of it; he’s concerned about all the important stuff….

Obi’s on the golf course again and worrying about when the NBA season is gonna start.

marybel on November 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Oh that’s right. It doesn’t happen with Chinese and Russian helicopters, because they have the good sense to not wage war on someone else’s soil without a declaration of war.

Something has gone seriously askew with our foreign policy.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:06 PM

If the Pakistanis opened fire on American forces then they will obviously respond. I suspect that is what happened and the return fire may have been deliberate at some level, or not.

I think we should leave Afghanistan but that isn’t the same thing as saying that US forces can be targeted by anyone with impunity.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I think we’re sending a message that we don’t want to look at any more of those ridiculous trucks. It’s the start of the get-a-Peterbilt campaign. Or maybe it’s just another incident designed to facilitate a quicker withdrawal from the region. Or, maybe the stinkin’ Paki Army was facilitating attacks against our troops and we got damned tired of it.

I’m going with A.

BKeyser on November 26, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Helicopter not helocopter

(I may not know how to spell it but I know better than to shoot at one.)

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM

If the Pakistanis opened fire on American forces then they will obviously respond. I suspect that is what happened and the return fire may have been deliberate at some level, or not.

I think we should leave Afghanistan but that isn’t the same thing as saying that US forces can be targeted by anyone with impunity.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:29 PM

They (allegedly) fired at foreign forces, operating without their permission, within the internationally recognized boundaries of their own territory.

How exactly are they at fault?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:32 PM

At very least, it aids in keeping count.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Did China make a formal declaration of war before attacking India in 1962? Did the Soviet Union make one before invading Afghanistan? Have either Russia or China made any formal declaration of war since WWII? Don’t think so.

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 5:33 PM

They (allegedly) fired at foreign forces, operating without their permission, within the internationally recognized boundaries of their own territory.

How exactly are they at fault?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:32 PM

The “enemy” does not have helicopters. If they are firing at helicopters, they know it is us. We would not just shoot down a Canadian aircraft that strayed into US airspace near the border without trying to contact them.

They were quite prepared to kill Americans when they decided to shoot.

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Clearly, our only appropriate measured response to this provocation must be in form of about $2 billion more in military aid.

SlaveDog on November 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM

They (allegedly) fired at foreign forces, operating without their permission, within the internationally recognized boundaries of their own territory.

How exactly are they at fault?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Short explanation.

They are supposed to be an ally. If Canadians or Italian aircraft fly over the United States the US air force doesn’t open fire.

When you shoot at people they stop being your friend.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:36 PM

EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? What kind of RonPaulia fantasy otherworld are YOU inhabiting?!?! Have you ever heard of Chechnya??? Ever hear of South Ossetia??? Ever hear of Tibet???

Why don’t you crack open a newspaper and read about current events?

quikstrike98 on November 26, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Sorry?!?! Is there a territorial dispute between the US and Pakistan that I am unaware of? Because I can’t find a sovereign nation called Tibet, nor Chechnya… not according to the CIA at least.

What Russians and Chinese do on their own soil is their own damned business.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:37 PM

If Canadians or Italian aircraft fly over the United States the US air force doesn’t open fire.

When you shoot at people they stop being your friend.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Lot of Canadian and Italian warships conducting S&D operations over US soil, are they?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:38 PM

They (allegedly) fired at foreign forces, operating without their permission, within the internationally recognized boundaries of their own territory.

How exactly are they at fault?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Maybe not fault as you say but certainly cause (if the above is true).

anuts on November 26, 2011 at 5:40 PM

We would not just shoot down a Canadian aircraft that strayed into US airspace near the border without trying to contact them.

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM

This wasn’t a civilian airliner. This was a military chopper, conducting combat operations over sovereign soil, defended by troops of that sovereign state, presumably in uniform.

And if the Canadians did that, and blew away a company of our troops, you damn well better expect some answers from the Canadians, and some assurances that there will be changes in their foreign policy to assure that it never happened again.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:41 PM

The Times reported six weeks ago about the sustained escalation in mortar fire at American units from across the border in Pakistan.

from the NYT article

In this climate, American officers were in a difficult position when describing the attacks. Many, especially those who might be identified, painstakingly tried not to blame Pakistan directly.

“I don’t have the smoking gun,” said Col. Edward T. Bohnemann, who commands the 172nd Infantry Brigade, which has hundreds of American soldiers in outposts near the border. “Do I have my thoughts, just because it happens so often? Yes, I have my thoughts. But there isn’t a smoking gun.”

You can trust that we are in good hands with men like COL Ed Bohnemann on the border. He is a helluva great guy and I know him well.

ted c on November 26, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Lot of Canadian and Italian warships conducting S&D operations over US soil, are they?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:38 PM

If they did the United States would be helping them or they wouldn’t be an ally. On 911 lots of US civil aircraft were diverted to Canada because the US wouldn’t let them into American airspace. Canadian aircraft as well were not allowed into American airspace, and Canada stepped up and helped, they didn’t start shooting. Thats an ally. Its not a difficult concept.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Maybe not fault as you say but certainly cause (if the above is true).

anuts on November 26, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Uh huh.

Much like how our foreign policy might not be the fault of 9/11, but was rather… a cause?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Wow. At least the leftist rag I read this story in first, hours ago, said “ALLEGEDLY” killed. Now, even the Washington Post is giving the our forces the benefit of a doubt, and you aren’t, Allahpundit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/nato-attack-allegedly-kills-24-pakistani-troops-prompting-islamabad-to-retaliate/2011/11/26/gIQAEqBHzN_story.html

Virus-X on November 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM

And if the Canadians did that, and blew away a company of our troops, you damn well better expect some answers from the Canadians, and some assurances that there will be changes in their foreign policy to assure that it never happened again.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Canadians wouldn’t be shooting at American troops in the first place.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM

If they did the United States would be helping them or they wouldn’t be an ally.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Pakistan an ally now, are they?

Because I’m pretty sure if we felt the need to conduct operations over Canadian or Italian soil, we wouldn’t have to keep them in the dark about it.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Self defense.

BKeyser on November 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM

We are hurtling toward a war. Not just with Pakistan, but on many other fronts. It will devolve with lightning speed and be on many fronts. Cyber, conventional, unconventional, economic…all of it. I believe it has already started.

ted c on November 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Pakistan an ally now, are they?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM

No they are not and thats why if they shoot at American forces they should be dealt with harshly and if they shelter and supply terrorists they should be targeted.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Canadians wouldn’t be shooting at American troops in the first place.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Really? So, if Canadian helicopter troops were (for whatever reason) conducting operations in North Dakota, and our troops (for whatever reason) fired upon them, are you saying the Canadian troops would have the good sense/manners to not return fire, and/or withdraw?

Sounds like you give the Canadian military more credit for self-restraint than our own military.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Another option is that NATO was deliberately provoked by the Pakis to create an international incident that would kill the alliance. With our relationship dead, the Pakistanis would be free to cuddle up to their new best buds the Chicoms, who just happen to be in Pakistan right now conduction war games:

http://goo.gl/wOX39

ReaganWasRight on November 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM

So, if Canadian helicopter troops were (for whatever reason) conducting operations in North Dakota, and our troops (for whatever reason) fired upon them, are you saying the Canadian troops would have the good sense/manners to not return fire, and/or withdraw?

Sounds like you give the Canadian military more credit for self-restraint than our own military.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20110321/nato-canadian-convoy-shooting-recommendations-110321/

The Canadian troops then tried to continue down the road, but the Afghan army blocked them with their vehicles and fired at the Task Force Kandahar convoy.

“Most of the ANA soldiers fired into the air, but several TFK vehicles were struck by bullets,” Wright said.

The Canadians did not return fire. No one was hurt in the incident.

“This situation was not escalated because of the actions that he took,” Wright said, referring to the Canadian corporal.

I think they are as professional as American troops and this is hardly the first incident with Pakistanis firing on American forces.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Who says the U.S. doesn’t have the permission of the Afghan government to protect its sovereignty? My gut instinct is the second scenario, that we’re sick and tired of their military arming and supporting mortar attacks over the border. “Oopsy… our bad.”

John the Libertarian on November 26, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Is there another “alliance” in the world of which that could be said — where one country wipes out two dozen troops from the other and it’s not instantly clear it was a terrible miscalculation instead of a response to some shadowy provocation?

Yes, there is in fact. It’s called the USS Liberty Incident.

keep the change on November 26, 2011 at 5:55 PM

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:41 PM

If a canadian military helicopter strayed across the border, we would contact them before firing because they are real allies. The people who shot at these helicopters knew it was one of ours and assuming they shot first, they shot at them because they do not consider us allies.

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Not Smart power……but FREAKING Smart Power!!!

10 years of jacking around in this mountainous 7th century hellhole, thousands of American lives lost, precious American blood spilled for what?

These goat herders and robed thugs just want to kill and live in caves. LET THEM.

We NEVER INTENDED to really win this war……..so what was the point? To get Bin Laden? Really?…….he was suspected to be there for what 6 years before anything was done about it? Obama knew for a fact Bin Laden was there in that house for HOW LONG?…..6 MONTHS?

Boys and Girls………..WHAT A WASTE.

Either nuke the bad guys over there and let the Generals win or get the crap out of there and let them kill each other like they love to do. In fact, sow discord among them to HELP THEM keep occupied.

PappyD61 on November 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Reset.

BallisticBob on November 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Oh that’s right. It dozen’t happen with Chinese and Russian helicopters, because they have the good sense to not wage war on someone else’s soil without a declaration of war.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Russia declared war on Chechnya and Georgia? China declared war on Tibet?

Nevertheless, I agree with your larger point. We should either declare defeat in Afghanistan or carve a path through Pakistan from the Indian Ocean to the Afghanistan border and blow away anything that moves within artillery range.

elfman on November 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

take a look at the map by province in Afhellistan.

pretty much shows all the mayhem is coming from…….PAHKEESTAHN.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

What a waste…………nice going politicians, you are wasting lives and treasure just like Vietnam.

PappyD61 on November 26, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Either nuke the bad guys over there and let the Generals win or get the crap out of there and let them kill each other like they love to do. In fact, sow discord among them to HELP THEM keep occupied.

PappyD61 on November 26, 2011 at 5:59 PM

If all they killed was each other, I would agree; but, if we leave, the Taliban and Al Quida will come back to Afghanistan and start plotting more 9/11′s and reopen their terrorist training bases. Who will let us back into landlocked Afghanistan the next time they kill 3000 innocent civilians just trying to live their lives in peace?

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 6:05 PM

If a canadian military helicopter strayed across the border, we would contact them before firing because they are real allies. The people who shot at these helicopters knew it was one of ours and assuming they shot first, they shot at them because they do not consider us allies.

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM

This chopper didn’t “stray” over the border… it was conducting combat operations there, presumably without notifying Pakistan.

And how do you know what individual troops would do? If one of them panics, does that then give the Canadians authority to blow a company of our men away?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM

I’m going with you on this one. I believe we were shot at first.

BigAlSouth on November 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Another option is that NATO was deliberately provoked by the Pakis to create an international incident that would kill the alliance. With our relationship dead, the Pakistanis would be free to cuddle up to their new best buds the Chicoms, who just happen to be in Pakistan right now conduction war games:

http://goo.gl/wOX39

ReaganWasRight on November 26, 2011 at 5:48 PM

I’m cool with that. We need CLARITY in our foriegn policy now more than ever. Let Pakistan fall into China’s sphere. It will only drive India into our sphere of influence, which we’ve been working to do for years now (yeah we are in a quasi-cold war with China).

I say, we increase our military and economic cooperation and integration with India, in the hopes we develop a strategic alliance with India like we have with Japan, Britian, Canada and Australia. If we can add India to that group it would be beneficial to the world and allow us to hold China’s rise at bay with an even faster growing India.

Pakistan and Afghanistan can go to hell for all I care.

milemarker2020 on November 26, 2011 at 6:10 PM

he Taliban and Al Quida will come back to Afghanistan and start plotting more 9/11′s and reopen their terrorist training bases

They don’t need a country all their own to plot terrorist attacks. They can plot those out of an apartment. And who knows how many of those apartments are already in the US. The Taliban is a political entity that wants to govern territory. The Al Qaeda element that carried out 9/11 can function in any country. Terrorist cells are all throughout the world. So spending 4 billion dollars a month in Afghanistan achieves nothing with respect to national security.

keep the change on November 26, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Russia declared war on Chechnya and Georgia? China declared war on Tibet?

Nevertheless, I agree with your larger point. We should either declare defeat in Afghanistan or carve a path through Pakistan from the Indian Ocean to the Afghanistan border and blow away anything that moves within artillery range.

elfman on November 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM

According to Russia, Chechnya is Russia. And apparently our Department of State agrees with them. Same thing with China and Tibet.

Georgia a bit of a stickier issue, but Russia lays claims to it, and they have at least a decent argument. Certainly more decent than any territorial claims anyone might make about Pakistan.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Sorry?!?! Is there a territorial dispute between the US and Pakistan that I am unaware of? Because I can’t find a sovereign nation called Tibet, nor Chechnya… not according to the CIA at least.

What Russians and Chinese do on their own soil is their own damned business.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Tibet _used_ to be a country. It was invaded by China and conquered. It is now a province of China. You can read about it here.

Chechnya is a bit more complicated due to the disillusion of the U.S.S.R. and the later questionable status of many of the old soviet republics. They declared independence from the Russian Republic after the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia said no. Two wars were fought over it. You can read about them here.

Next time, you should do a bit more research before posting. :) :) :)

(And I suspect that you knew about Tibet, at least.)

Theophile on November 26, 2011 at 6:13 PM

And how do you know what individual troops would do? If one of them panics, does that then give the Canadians authority to blow a company of our men away?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

If its the tenth time ‘the troops panicked‘, then yes.

We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck you know. Everyone here, including you knows that the Pakistanis are hostile and that they have fired on US forces before.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 6:14 PM

We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck you know. Everyone here, including you knows that the Pakistanis are hostile and that they have fired on US forces before.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Fired on US forces… conducting combat missions over a sovereign nation.

I think you must have forgotten that last part.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:18 PM

If you’ve ever watched war porn vids on youtube, you already know that the pilots have to just about wait for a legal team of lawyers to give them permission to fire on a target, so it’s going to be really interesting when more facts become available.

OxyCon on November 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

If all they killed was each other, I would agree; but, if we leave, the Taliban and Al Quida will come back to Afghanistan and start plotting more 9/11′s and reopen their terrorist training bases. Who will let us back into landlocked Afghanistan the next time they kill 3000 innocent civilians just trying to live their lives in peace?

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 6:05 PM

I doubt it. Thanks to Bush (since Obama has continue his policies), Al Qaeda has been decimated. Besides, we have reoriented our laws and our intelligence agency to target terrorist organization that would plot against us. I like the approach we had with Yemen. We didn’t send troops there to try to create a democracy. We just worked with and without the government there to target the terrorist. This can continue in Afghanistan.

If these nations, like Afghanistan or Pakistan want to stay in the Middle Ages, I say let them. Countries like India that want to modernize, we should help become advanced economies and regional superpowers that no one messes with. U.S. policy should be to make India a regional superpower able to project power into these backward nations like Afghanistan and Iran (we have to make sure they don’t get nukes).

Pakistan already has nukes, but if we build up India the right way, it will be a cold war stale mate with India playing the role of the U.S. and Pakistan the USSR. And we know how that ended.

milemarker2020 on November 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM

(And I suspect that you knew about Tibet, at least.)

Theophile on November 26, 2011 at 6:13 PM

I know enough to know that at least both the PRC and Taiwan never gave up any territorial claims against Tibet. I don’t know if they were ever seated at the UN, but somehow I doubt it. And I don’t know if the US ever recognized them diplomatically or not, although once again, I doubt it.

And as far as I know, the US has never recognized a nation-state called Chechnya, even before the existence of the Soviet Union.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

It’s funny to think how much the left always accused Reagan of pushing the world towards WWIII. Or accusing Bush of starting needless wars.. that he was making the world unsafe. That our actions were inspiring terrorists to fight against us.

Hey, but Bachmann and Cain.. you know, they just aren’t Presidential material.

JellyToast on November 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

conducting combat missions over a sovereign nation.

I think you must have forgotten that last part.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:18 PM

I don’t give a damn about their sovereignty!

You want to host terrorists on your soil, then you are defacto in a state of war with the nation you are attacking. If you then start shooting at the armed forces of the same nation then that is a casus belli. This isn’t some silly game where we lose points if we go over the goal line.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Tibet _used_ to be a country. It was invaded by China and conquered. It is now a province of China. You can read about it here.

Theophile on November 26, 2011 at 6:13 PM

And the Sioux used to be _used_ to be a nation too…

Tibet was first integrated with China into the Yuan Empire by the Mongols, who had also invaded China. Blame the Mongols.

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I don’t give a damn about their sovereignty!

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Then remind me again just why they should give a damn about ours…

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Joe Biden to give names and home addresses of the pilots in 5… 4… 3… 2…

Seven Percent Solution on November 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Blame the Mongols.

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 6:22 PM

A practice I try to engage in at every opportunity… 8)

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Maybe there was/were a/some HVT(s) at the base(s) that was/were too big to let pass…

Aquateen Hungerforce on November 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Then remind me again just why they should give a damn about ours…

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM

They don’t, and never have.

Thats why they back terrorists and played host to Bin Laden.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Much like how our foreign policy might not be the fault of 9/11, but was rather… a cause?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Respectfully, that’s confusing lunacy with reason.

Our foreign policy, at its very worst, is not the cause or fault for murderous lunacy imposed on thousands of civilians.

That blowback nonsense is Ron Paul territory of associating rational behavior with irrational consequences.

Shooting back after being shot at does not qualify as irrational.

anuts on November 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Maybe there was/were a/some HVT(s) at the base(s) that was/were too big to let pass…

Aquateen Hungerforce on November 26, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Maybe there was a HVT that the Pakis didn’t want us to get to close to.

pedestrian on November 26, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Dear hill and bho will get on this STAT. Why oh why are we still sending funds to pakistan? They. along with all the rop type countries find anything they can to stick it to us. I have no use for any of them. Hang on people, things are gonna get nasty. Wonder, does bho have a hand in this to see he is re-elected in 2012, another war beyond previous wars?
L

letget on November 26, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Why oh why are we still sending funds to pakistan?

letget on November 26, 2011 at 6:44 PM

we buy intel and basing rights from them. Looks like the price on both has just gone into “No Sale” range.

ah well.

ted c on November 26, 2011 at 6:48 PM

This administration does not have a clue. The civilians in charge are typical LBJ democrats who back channel mixed messages.

You have to let the guys running Pakistahn know that firing on US troops in any form will not be tolerated. Then, when rogue military officers do fire on us the Paki leader will hand down the punishment on the guilty party.

Our civilians executing this war are stepping all over each other and Obama is kissing everyone’s a$$ so what do you think these cave men in Pakistahn are going to do?

Vince on November 26, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Shall we invoke the 72-hour rule?

Perhaps allow some time to conduct at least a preliminary investigation to draw preliminary conclusions?

The main stream media has too much power.

Key West Reader on November 26, 2011 at 7:02 PM

That blowback nonsense is Ron Paul territory of associating rational behavior with irrational consequences.

anuts on November 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM

What? That US support of dictators in the ME, like the House of Saud, overthrowing duly elected governments, as in Iran, bombing Arab lands in Iraq, and waging undeclared war in sovereign Pakistan might p!ss off the locals is nonsense? That we couldn’t foresee that those locals might band together, and come looking for a little revenge?

It is the most natural, easily predicted reaction in the world. Anyone who didn’t take it into account, has no business being involved in foreign policy.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:12 PM

As it rolled in across the wires!
=================================

O/T,a tad,

Intell Alert
*************

Pakistan blocks NATO supplies to Afghanistan following strike on military checkpoint that killed 25 troops – Reuters
22 Min.ago
Update
——-

Death toll in NATO Pakistan cross-border raid now at 25 with 14 wounded – Pakistani military officials via Reuters
47 Min.ago
Update
——-

Death toll in NATO attack on Pakistan military border post put at 13 or 14 troops by different sources – Reuters
1 Hr.ago
Update
=======

8 Pakistani soldiers reportedly killed in NATO helicopter shelling – Dawn.com
3 Hrs.ago
Update
=======

Pakistan military: NATO helicopters fire on checkpoint in northwest, casualties reported – AP
3 Hrs.ago
==========

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 3:08 AM

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 7:14 PM

They don’t, and never have.

Thats why they back terrorists and played host to Bin Laden.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM

So is it your argument that, since the creation of the state of Pakistan, we have been at war with them?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Intell Alert Update Part 2,ClusterFark!
—————————————

Pakistan’s Foreign Office calls NATO/ISAF raid a ‘flagrant violation of its sovereignty’ as death toll rises to 28 – Reuters
32 Min.ago
Update

http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

Pakistan: 25 troops dead in NATO helicopter attack
Updated 3 minutes ago
Nov 2011
**********************
**********************

The helicopters attacked two checkpoints around 1,000 feet apart from each other, one of them twice, and two officers were among the dead, said a government official in Mohmand and a security official in Peshawar, the main city in Pakistan’s northwest.

The U.S. helicopter attack that killed two Pakistani soldiers on Sept. 30 of last year took place south of Mohmand in the Kurram tribal area. A joint U.S.-Pakistan investigation found that Pakistani soldiers fired at the two U.S. helicopters prior to the attack, a move the investigation team said was likely meant to notify the aircraft of their presence after they passed into Pakistani airspace several times.
(More………………..)
—————————

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45442757/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/pakistan-troops-dead-nato-helicopter-attack/

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 5:59 AM

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Intell Alert Update 3,on who in NATO,fired!
Oops,its on Hopey’s Watch!
————————–

US helicopters kill 14 Pakistani troops on Afghan border
Nov 26 2011
***********
***********

US attack helicopters killed 14 Frontier Corps troops manning a border outpost along the Afghan border, according to Pakistani military officials.

The US helicopters struck an outpost in the Baizai area of the Taliban-controlled tribal agency of Mohmand, Pakistani officials said. The attack took place at the Salala check post, which is just over a mile on the Pakistani side of the border.

“NATO helicopters carried out an unprovoked and indiscriminate firing on a Pakistani check post in Mohmand agency, casualties have been reported and details are awaited,” Pakistani military spokesman told Reuters. Up to 14 Pakistan troops are said to have been killed and seven more have been wounded.
(More….)
===========

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/11/us_helicopters_kill.php

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 6:31 AM

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 7:15 PM

undeclared war in sovereign Pakistan might p!ss off the locals is nonsense? That we couldn’t foresee that those locals might band together, and come looking for a little revenge?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:12 PM

They have been p!ssed off since about 624 A.D.

They haven’t stopped attacking since then, and when we occupied most of the Muslim states they stopped for a time. After the west retreated from empire they resumed the attacks.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:18 PM

So is it your argument that, since the creation of the state of Pakistan, we have been at war with them?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:14 PM

It actually goes back a lot further than that. They are at war with the infidel and that never ends according to their own law and religious texts. I know its difficult for you to understand a people who take their religion seriously because most Christians in the west don’t. The Muslims do take it seriously.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:21 PM

They have been p!ssed off since about 624 A.D.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Once again, absolute and utter nonsense.

America was, at one, time, the hero of large swaths of the Arab people, because we were the ones encouraging Britain and France to end their colonial ways. Pakistan sought US assistance in negotiations for the division of India. Turkey was a stronger ally through the Cold War than any number of nations in Christendom.

Pakistan is a state… they are not a religion. Learn to deal with them as such, or you strike out on the road for failure.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I know enough to know that at least both the PRC and Taiwan never gave up any territorial claims against Tibet. I don’t know if they were ever seated at the UN, but somehow I doubt it. And I don’t know if the US ever recognized them diplomatically or not, although once again, I doubt it.

And as far as I know, the US has never recognized a nation-state called Chechnya, even before the existence of the Soviet Union.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 6:21 PM

You are correct. Since you posted the text above, I have been reading up on Tibet and it is complicated. LOL!

They were an Empire for a long time! Then, they had a long history of inter-connectedness with China. Then, they had a de-facto independence. Then China invaded. It’s one of those deals where it could go either way. (I personally always stand for the right of the people to be able to secede.) It just depends on how far you go back to talk about autonomy- Empire, Inter-connectedness, part of China or de-facto independence. They, literally, have had every level of relationship possible with China over the years. Like I said, it’s complicated.

Theophile on November 26, 2011 at 7:35 PM

America was, at one, time, the hero of large swaths of the Arab people, because we were the ones encouraging Britain and France to end their colonial ways.

Funny, as I recall they attacked the US in the Barbary Wars. No Israel then to blame it on and no occupation troops in Saudi Arabia, no colonialism, no Iraq war.

Turkey was a stronger ally through the Cold War than any number of nations in Christendom.

Having an enemy like the Soviets on your doorstep does tend to concentrate the mind. No more soviet threat, no more friendly Turks.

Pakistan is a state… they are not a religion. Learn to deal with them as such, or you strike out on the road for failure.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I will deal with them as they are, not as liberal theory tells us they should be.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:36 PM

White House: Senior officials pledge to work with Pakistan to investigate troop deaths – @AP
1 Hr.ago

http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-senior-officials-pledge-to-work-with-pakistan-to-investigate-troop-deaths/2011/11/26/gIQAGuZizN_story.html

Updated Sat Nov 26 2011 at 6:20PM
———————————-

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 7:36 PM

The timing couldn’t be more perfect! Let’s defund the military NOW! /sarc

Where is 0bama crowing over this victory? Think about it. ;o)

DannoJyd on November 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Pakistan is a state… they are not a religion. Learn to deal with them as such, or you strike out on the road for failure.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM

If you do not understand that islam and government in these countries are inextricably intertwined, then you are either sadly misinformed or deliberately ignorant.

The only reason the Arabs loved the Americans was because of our support to get the Brits and French out of those countries in order that they could revert to their sharia law inspired form of government. Look how well that is working in the Middle East.

Others have said this and you just seem to want to skip over it: The muslims want nothing less than an islamic Caliphate that rules the world. And that includes your sorry behind as well as everyone else. They don’t recognize borders, they don’t believe in democracy, they want nothing other than to kill or subjugate the infidels. We either fight and crush them on their territory or have to fight them on our own. I prefer that we conduct those operations in their own hell-holes before they turn our country into another one.

AZfederalist on November 26, 2011 at 7:43 PM

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Funny, as I recall they attacked the US in the Barbary Wars.

What? Islam is now responsible for piracy???

Gotta think pirates predated Mohammed. Pretty sure I remember reading about the Romans having to deal with pirates also.

Or, perhaps Mohammed actually had a time machine. That would explain a lot, I suppose.

Having an enemy like the Soviets on your doorstep does tend to concentrate the mind. No more soviet threat, no more friendly Turks.

Less friendly. Just like less friendly Germans, Italians, and French.

Well, maybe not the French… they really weren’t that friendly to begin with.

I will deal with them as they are, not as liberal theory tells us they should be.

They are a nation-state, not a religion. And that’s not liberal theory that says that… it’s your own State Department, and the entire international order.

The very same international order, by the by, that has you pledging allegiance to the flag of the USA, not the flag of Christendom.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Others have said this and you just seem to want to skip over it: The muslims British want nothing less than an islamic Caliphate Empire that rules the world. And that includes your sorry behind as well as everyone else. They don’t recognize borders, they don’t believe in democracy, they want nothing other than to kill or subjugate the infidels. We either fight and crush them on their territory or have to fight them on our own. I prefer that we conduct those operations in their own hell-holes before they turn our country into another one.

AZfederalist on November 26, 2011 at 7:43 PM

A different possible perspective, though a bit outdated.

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 7:49 PM

or you strike out on the road for failure.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM

JohnGalt23:Too late,(sarc).
=============================

Gunmen torch NATO tanker in Pakistan
Added: 1 hour ago Occurred On: Nov-26-2011
*******************************************
********************************************
(Image)

Unidentified gunmen have attacked a NATO oil tanker carrying fuel for US-led forces in Afghanistan and set it ablaze in Pakistan’s northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Press TV reports.

The armed men opened fire on the tanker near Tedi Bazar area of Jamrud Tehsil in the province on Saturday. The driver of the vehicle was injured in the incident.

The assailants later fled the scene.

Police cordoned off the area after the incident and launched a search operation to arrest the perpetrators.

Militants in the rugged tribal areas have staged violent attacks in recent months, torching hundreds of NATO vehicles and containers destined for foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Also on Saturday, Pakistan accused US-led forces after NATO helicopters fired on two military checkpoints in the country’s northwest, killing 28 Pakistani soldiers.

The Pakistani government then retaliated by closing the border crossings used by the foreign forces into landlocked Afghanistan.

Link:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/212324.html
=========================================

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6d_1322348482

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 7:49 PM

They are a nation-state, not a religion. And that’s not liberal theory that says that… it’s your own State Department, and the entire international order.

And the difference between liberal theory and the state department is what exactly? They are one and the same and the State department frequently works against American interests and that is well known.

The very same international order, by the by, that has you pledging allegiance to the flag of the USA, not the flag of Christendom.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:45 PM

The fact that you are so ignorant that you cannot tell the difference between Islam and Christianity is just sad. One wants to kill or subjugate you and the other wants to give out pamphlets.

I am not a Christian but I do value my own skin. The difference is rather obvious if you are not deluded by liberal ideology.

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Others have said this and you just seem to want to skip over it: The muslims want nothing less than an islamic Caliphate that rules the world.

AZfederalist on November 26, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Absolute and utter bullsh!t.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in this world don’t give a damn about the Caliphate or any other matter of politics, other than the politics necessary to avoid them suffering harm at the hands of their own government. A concern, by the way, that is hardly restricted to Muslim nations.

Most Muslims want a full belly, a safe living space, and the ability to raise a family. Most Muslim nations want just what other nations want; power. As it turns out, the nations they most often find themselves vying for power with are… other Muslim nations.

Imagine that.

They don’t recognize borders, they don’t believe in democracy, they want nothing other than to kill or subjugate the infidels

So… Iran-Iraq war… weren’t fighting over borders, were they? Guess those Saudis were fully prepared to integrate with Baghdad in 1990, huh?

Do you know how ridiculously bigoted this sounds?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:53 PM

So………where is all the Liberal hand-wringing from the Do-Gooder/Bleed’n Heart’rs over this,and you know da drill,if it
was Bush,

it would be Progressive Hyper-Ventalation Astro-Turfed Manufactured
Outrageous Outrage,across the Marxist Socialist Media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 7:54 PM

So… Iran-Iraq war… weren’t fighting over borders, were they? Guess those Saudis were fully prepared to integrate with Baghdad in 1990, huh?

Do you know how ridiculously bigoted this sounds?

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Let’s see, Iran/Iraq, who was led by an islamic theocracy and who by a semi-secular strongman? What was the purpose of Iran attempting to expand its borders?

Do you realize how ridiculously naive your positions sound?

AZfederalist on November 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM

sharrukin on November 26, 2011 at 7:50 PM

And the difference between liberal theory and the state department is what exactly? They are one and the same and the State department frequently works against American interests and that is well known.

You are slipping into tin foil territory.

While I admit that the Department of State is frequently wrong, thus resulting in negative utility re: US interests, they do so out of error, not out of malice. It sounds like you are suggesting otherwise. Eerily reminiscent of some Birchers I have crossed paths with.

And the difference, in case you haven’t spent any time around an IR dept. is that theoreticians spend their time theorizing. State Department professionals actually do the work in the trenches.

Something tells me I can trust their recognition of Pakistan as a state more than I can your claim of it as a religion.

One wants to kill or subjugate you and the other wants to give out pamphlets.

I’m told the same was once said in this country of my religion, Roman Catholicism. It was as bigoted then, as it is now.

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Will there ever come a day when America and the rest of the World can define the enemy with one word?

iSlam is the enemy of civilization as a whole.

When can we say it out loud?

Key West Reader on November 26, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Obama, himself has unleashed the doctrine of iSlam on the entire World.

We will pay the price.

And, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits…. for what he has wrought.

Key West Reader on November 26, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Let’s see, Iran/Iraq, who was led by an islamic theocracy and who by a semi-secular strongman? What was the purpose of Iran attempting to expand its borders?

AZfederalist on November 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Uh, I believe that, if you actually read about it, you’ll find that Iraq invaded Iran… not the other way around.

Do you realize how ridiculously naive your positions sound?

If your going to play the naivete card, you might avtually want to make sure you know who started the Iran-Iraq war.

Just a suggestion…

JohnGalt23 on November 26, 2011 at 8:06 PM

And, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits…. for what he has wrought.

Key West Reader on November 26, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Key West Reader:Yuppers,remember dis!!:)
—————————————-

News Media Montage
===================

Obama saying he would attack terrorists in Pakistan
Jan.5 2008
*************

Clip of Obama saying if the U.S. knows there are terrorists in Pakistan and Pakistan won’t get them or give the U.S. permission to attack them, then he would attack them anyway! This is illegal under international law (duh!)
================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

canopfor on November 26, 2011 at 8:11 PM

milemarker2020 on November 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I am not sure who would give you overflight access to bomb camps in Afghanistan or where you would base your drones to attack individuals if you pull out of Afghanistan. Pakistan would not give us access again almost surely. Al Queda would consider it a great propaganda victory to reestablish themselves in that country and proclaim they defeated us like they did the Soviets. That may help raise their recruiting and their fund raising. Clearly it would give them free control of the opium trade to fund their activities.

I would rather prop up an unstable Afghan ally and keep Al Queda on their heels. Meanwhile, an alliance with India to squeeze the Pakistani military if they insist on conquering Afghanistan via proxies and allowing free rein to those planning attacks in the west as long as they are not attacking the pakistani military is fine by me. If we have to conduct more drone raids into Bulukistani parts of Pakistan (Quetta) to get the Al Queda leaders, that is also fine by me. Besides, Karzai might become more reliable if we quit proclaiming that we are leaving even if they cannot defend themselves.

KW64 on November 26, 2011 at 8:25 PM

The trouble with Islam

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 26, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Afghanistan and Pakistan don’t mean a damn thing to the Pashtun. Even in military uniform, a young man in Pakistan that is Pashtun owes more loyalty to Pashtunwali than any government official.

Combo option: It was a legitimate attack on insurgent forces in Afghanistan that decided to egress into Pakistan and unite with fellow tribesmen to attempt to survive the air strike.

If we did fly over the border and bomb them and a few dozen “innocent” Pakistani military I’m impressed our ROE permitted it.

blankminde on November 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Something has gone seriously askew with our foreign policy.

JohnGalt23

That’s not the only thing that’s gone askew.

xblade on November 26, 2011 at 9:00 PM

” Is there another “alliance” in the world of which that could be said — where one country wipes out two dozen troops from the other and it’s not instantly clear it was a terrible miscalculation instead of a response to some shadowy provocation?”

USS Liberty comes to mind. It took a little while to work out the details on that whole thing.

angelat0763 on November 26, 2011 at 9:48 PM

If your going to play the naivete card, you might avtually want to make sure you know who started the Iran-Iraq war.

Just a suggestion…

JohnGalt23

JohnGalt, might as well give it up. An old saying says that when an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he either stays mistaken or honest. The war-mongers made their choices long ago.

angelat0763 on November 26, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2