Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Ambush on Americans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • snapper
    replied
    Now Kazhi or whatever the Afghan President calls himself want to talk with Pakistan...

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    What a coincidence...or is it dog whispers?;)
    Just read Admiral Mullen's quote... "The Haqqanis are a veritable arm of the ISI".

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Rusty Walker View Post
    Here is my latest article. I am new here and will try to get more involved with the threads. In the meantime, this might be partially relevant: Part II :
    Pakistan
    Hi Rusty

    Going through your essay and it resonates with my thinking.

    but I see General Kayani and associates as misguided in old strategies that need updating – these military men are not evil, they need (elected) civilian government control. Governments should conduct diplomacy and make policy- military should then follow government directives on policy.
    IOW the military needs to go back to the barracks. The big question is how can that be achieved ?

    - Embarassing the regime after OBL seemed to have brought out the people but it was short lived and anything more might be counter-productive.
    - Economic collapse gets the people into the streets protesting for change.

    IINM the regime controls close to 50% of the economy already so there is no gurantee this would change things too much but it would make life a lot harder for the citizens.

    Public complacency assures the status quo. If the public does not challenge policy reports like this, policy will default to the self-referenced ”Elites.” The current foreign policy of Pakistanis not determined by the Pakistani voting public, or the elected administration, it is determined by the military and ISI.

    If the ultimate power leverage lies with the military, regardless of the government calling itself a democracy, it is serving at the military’s pleasure.
    This is precisely the problem, very few people or at least it seems that way are aware and voice their views. The bulk are kept under control through misinformation failing which, then intimidation.

    perhaps a nation’s savior might step up; a civilian elected leader who has the courage to challenge the status quo. Pakistan needs to decide.
    Might be a long time coming. If it happens how could such a person keep themselves safe from the jihadis as well as the army.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Oct 11,, 22:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Very interesting blog you have there Sir.But could you please stop by our introduction section and say a few words about yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rusty Walker
    replied
    Here is my latest article. I am new here and will try to get more involved with the threads. In the meantime, this might be partially relevant: Part II :
    Pakistan

    Here is Part I:
    http://criticalppp.com/archives/57762

    Rusty Walker
    Last edited by Rusty Walker; 03 Oct 11,, 15:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    The PA and ISI will never let the Haqqanis getting evaporated. They are supposedly a key strategic asset for the PA.

    There is ONLY one thing that the world can do to stop/kill the radical mullahs from hitting across the globe time and again, while operating from Pakistani soil - Denuke the PA.
    Nothing else will stop them. It is the PA/ISI that enabled 9/11. And they still thrive today, aided by the money of the same American tax payers who lost their own in that attack.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Well Sir,you saw it before many.You made others see it as well .
    All this time the officials basically lied or in the best case they lied by omission.Where's the puke emoticon?
    Anyway,what's done is done.I hope you have a good plan to take those nukes.Let's enjoy the show and place the bets.Mine is 5 years before the dogs chew their bones.I mean this literally.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2
    replied
    cyppok Reply

    "...I don't think the Durand line problems will go away... After the U.S. leaves all those wonderful militants will try to liberate Afghanistan up to the Indus river from Pakistan domination..."

    Geez...ya think?

    Ask those in the Musharraf administration and prior how Durand Line negotiations went with the Afghan taliban government before 9/11.

    Those loons in Islamabad already reap the whirlwind and it shall only become worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyppok
    replied
    Very cool article. Partition of Afghanistan post-pull out I take it. Its one of those things that could be likened to the following cartoon.

    A man sitting at the table looking at the stake with a fork and knife and a parasite from the stake looking at the man with the same fork and knife in hand.

    The problem of having a terrorist insurgency is to amalgamate a complete network that is under that insurgency into your country, is what the Pakistanis are in essence going to practice. It sounds so stupid, only a downright imbecile whom has people around him telling him he is a genius could have thought this up. What happens when those insurgents go from religious to nationalist, or religiously nationalist?...
    Pakistan Seeks Control Of Its Afghanistan Endgame
    I don't think the Durand line problems will go away... After the U.S. leaves all those wonderful militants will try to liberate Afghanistan up to the Indus river from Pakistan domination...

    The problem with a semi-civil-war in Pakistan is once it crumbles and detonates the nuclear stockpiles have to be controlled... There is no doubt in my mind those Tribal Area jihadist go the route of Baluchistan nationalists, except with extreme vengeance. While the U.S. is there it is hated, once it leaves Pakistan wins the most hated award.
    Last edited by cyppok; 03 Oct 11,, 07:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    US, Pakistan no longer fighting the same war | The Sunday Guardian | Oct 2 2011

    Editorial

    Eye-opening reportage in the New York Times reveals details about an incident on 14 May 2007 when US military officers and Afghan officials were ambushed by Pakistani Frontier Corps soldiers, their hosts, soon after they finished a seemingly cordial meeting to settle a border dispute. An American major was killed in the attack, and three officers were wounded. But with the Afghan war still raging the US administration kept silent to promote the fiction that all was well in its relationship with the Pakistan.

    It is this policy of appeasement that has emboldened Pakistan to continue its support to terrorist groups and use them as a strategic tool against both India and Afghanistan, and as well as the United States. The fervently anti-American Haqqani network of insurgents operates from inside northwest Pakistan, under benevolent ISI protection. Some may say that it is audacious on Pakistan's part to play a double game with its principal benefactor, but then as former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said recently, his country allows the Haqqani network to operate from its soil because it wants to stop India from creating "an anti-Pakistan Afghanistan". ISI policy is based on the assumption that once the US leaves in the not too distant future, the spoils of war will be Islamabad's to take, if it is ready. Its objective is to seize Kabul with a victorious Haqqani network, which already holds sway in at least five Afghan provinces.

    Things have changed considerably between the US and Pakistan in the last four years. The breach in trust can no longer be clothed in false words. The US operation against Osama Bin Laden was proof that Washington feels deeply betrayed by Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen recently told Congress that the Haqqani network is a "veritable arm" of the ISI.

    A recalcitrant Pakistan does not appear intimidated. Its response is shrill rhetoric about a US threat to its security. It has started raising the China bogey. Any sort of military action against Pakistan does not seem to be in the offing, as it would be suicidal on the part of the US President to open another war front in an election year. There has been some talk about aid cut-off and sanctions, apart from demands that Pakistan declare the Haqqani network a terrorist organisation. It seems having made undiplomatic facts clear, both governments are working to apply Band Aid to the cracks. But this is an alliance whose time has passed. There is nothing strategic about it anymore, as America and Pakistan are no longer fighting the same war, although they are present on the same battlefield. South Asia is in the throes of change that could be as radical as anything witnessed in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by n21 View Post
    Haqqani/ Taliban is a "plain clothes " division of Pakistan Army. And the Pakistan Army is the Pakistan state.

    Pakistan Army's troops will never be a threat to the Pakistan (Army) state.
    That would explain the coups d'etat . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    The attack, in Teri Mangal on May 14, 2007, was kept quiet by Washington, which for much of a decade has seemed to play down or ignore signals that Pakistan would pursue its own interests, or even sometimes behave as an enemy.
    Not any longer it would appear. Slowly the skeletons are tumbling out of the closet.

    Leave a comment:


  • n21
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    We all know that Pakistan, particularly the ISI has 'radical Islamic' contacts; it would be amiss of them if they didn't as they are a threat to the Pakistani State itself.
    Haqqani/ Taliban is a "plain clothes " division of Pakistan Army. And the Pakistan Army is the Pakistan state.

    Pakistan Army's troops will never be a threat to the Pakistan (Army) state.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    We all know that Pakistan, particularly the ISI has 'radical Islamic' contacts; it would be amiss of them if they didn't as they are a threat to the Pakistani State itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Ambush on Americans

    Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Ambush on Americans


    KABUL, Afghanistan — A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.

    An American major was killed and three American officers were wounded, along with their Afghan interpreter, in what fresh accounts from the Afghan and American officers who were there reveal was a complex, calculated assault by a nominal ally. The Pakistanis opened fire on the Americans, who returned fire before escaping in a blood-soaked Black Hawk helicopter.

    The attack, in Teri Mangal on May 14, 2007, was kept quiet by Washington, which for much of a decade has seemed to play down or ignore signals that Pakistan would pursue its own interests, or even sometimes behave as an enemy.

    The reconstruction of the attack, which several officials suggested was revenge for Afghan or Pakistani deaths at American hands, takes on new relevance given the worsening rupture in relations between Washington and Islamabad, which has often been restrained by Pakistan’s strategic importance.

    The details of the ambush indicate that Americans were keenly aware of Pakistan’s sometimes duplicitous role long before Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate last week that Pakistan’s intelligence service was undermining efforts in Afghanistan and had supported insurgents who attacked the American Embassy in Kabul this month.

    Though both sides kept any deeper investigations of the ambush under wraps, even at the time it was seen as a turning point by officials managing day-to-day relations with Pakistan.

    Pakistani officials first attributed the attack to militants, then, when pressed to investigate, to a single rogue soldier from the Frontier Corps, the poorly controlled tribal militia that guards the border region. To this day, none of the governments have publicly clarified what happened, hoping to limit damage to relations. Both the American and Pakistani military investigations remain classified.

    “The official line covered over the details in the interests of keeping the relationship with Pakistan intact,” said a former United Nations official who served in eastern Afghanistan and was briefed on the events immediately after they occurred.

    “At that time in May 2007, you had a lot of analysis pointing to the role of Pakistan in destabilizing that part of Afghanistan, and here you had a case in point, and for whatever reason it was glossed over,” he said. The official did not want to be named for fear of alienating the Pakistanis, with whom he must still work.

    Exactly why the Pakistanis might have chosen Teri Mangal to make a stand, and at what level the decision was made, remain unclear. Requests to the Pakistani military for information and interviews for this article were not answered. One Pakistani official who was present at the meeting indicated that the issue was too sensitive to be discussed with a journalist. Brig. Gen. Martin Schweitzer, the American commander in eastern Afghanistan at the time, whose troops were involved, also declined to be interviewed.

    At first, the meeting to resolve the border dispute seemed a success. Despite some tense moments, the delegations ate lunch together, exchanged phone numbers and made plans to meet again. Then, as the Americans and Afghans prepared to leave, the Pakistanis opened fire without warning. The assault involved multiple gunmen, Pakistani intelligence agents and military officers, and an attempt to kidnap or draw away the senior American and Afghan officials.

    American officials familiar with Pakistan say that the attack fit a pattern. The Pakistanis often seemed to retaliate for losses they had suffered in an accidental attack by United States forces with a deliberate assault on American troops, most probably to maintain morale among their own troops or to make a point to the Americans that they could not be pushed around, said a former American military officer who served in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    “Looking back, there were always these attacks that could possibly be attributed to deliberate retaliation,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his job does not permit him to talk to journalists. Pakistani forces had suffered losses before the May 14 attack, he added.

    As with so many problems with Pakistan, the case was left to fester. It has since become an enduring emblem of the distrust that has poisoned relations but that is bared only at critical junctures, like Teri Mangal, or the foray by American commandos into Pakistan in May to kill Osama bin Laden, an operation deliberately kept secret from Pakistani officials.

    The attack in 2007 came after some of the worst skirmishes along the ill-marked border. By 2007 Taliban insurgents, who used Pakistan as a haven with the support of Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment, were crossing the border, frequently in sight of Pakistani border posts, and challenging the Afghan government with increasing boldness. American and Afghan forces had just fought and killed a group of 25 militants near the border in early May.

    To stem the flow of militants, the Afghan government was building more border posts, including one at Gawi, in Jaji District, one of the insurgents’ main crossing points, according to Rahmatullah Rahmat, then the governor of Paktia Province in eastern Afghanistan.

    Pakistani forces objected to the new post, claiming it was on Pakistani land, and occupied it by force, killing 13 Afghans. Over the following days dozens were killed as Afghan and Pakistani forces traded mortar rounds and moved troops and artillery up to the border. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, began to talk of defending the border at all costs, said Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the senior American general in Afghanistan at the time.

    The border meeting was called, and a small group of Americans and Afghans — 12 men in total — flew by helicopters to Teri Mangal, just inside Pakistan, to try to resolve the dispute. They included Mr. Rahmat. The Afghans remember the meeting as difficult but ending in agreement. The Pakistanis described it as cordial, said Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier and a military analyst who has spoken to some of those present at the meeting.

    The Americans say the experience was like refereeing children, but after five hours of back and forth the Pakistanis agreed to withdraw from the post, and the Afghans also agreed to abandon it.

    Then, just as the American and Afghan officials were climbing into vehicles provided to take them the short distance to a helicopter landing zone, a Pakistani soldier opened fire with an automatic rifle, pumping multiple rounds from just 5 or 10 yards away into an American officer, Maj. Larry J. Bauguess Jr., killing him almost instantly. An operations officer with the 82nd Airborne Division from North Carolina, Major Bauguess, 36, was married and the father of two girls, ages 4 and 6.

    An American soldier immediately shot and killed the attacker, but at the same instant several other Pakistanis opened fire from inside the classrooms, riddling the group and the cars with gunfire, according to the two senior Afghan commanders who were there. Both escaped injury by throwing themselves out of their car onto the ground.

    “I saw the American falling and the Americans taking positions and firing,” said Brig. Gen. Muhammad Akram Same, the Afghan Army commander in eastern Afghanistan at the time. “We were not fired on from one side, but from two, probably three sides.”

    Col. Sher Ahmed Kuchai, the Afghan border guard commander, was showered with glass as the car windows shattered. “It did not last more than 20 seconds, but this was a moment of life and death,” Colonel Kuchai said.

    As he looked around, he said, he saw at least two Pakistanis firing from the open windows of the classrooms and another running across the veranda toward a machine gun mounted on a vehicle before he was brought down by American fire. He also saw a Pakistani shot as he fired from the back seat of a car, he said. The rapid American reaction saved their lives, the two Afghan commanders said.

    The senior American and Afghan commanders had been driven out of the compound and well past the helicopter landing zone when a Pakistani post opened fire on them, recalled Mr. Rahmat, the former governor. The Pakistani colonel in the front seat ignored their protests to stop until the American commander drew his pistol and demanded that the car halt. The group had to abandon the cars and run back across fields to reach the helicopters, Mr. Rahmat said.

    His account was confirmed by the former United Nations official who talked to the unit’s members on their return that evening.

    Those who came under fire that day remain bitter about the duplicity of the Pakistanis. Colonel Kuchai remembers the way the senior Pakistani officers left the yard minutes before the shooting without saying goodbye, behavior that he now interprets as a sign that they knew what was coming.

    He insists that at least some of the attackers were intelligence officers in plain clothes.

    Mr. Rahmat remains incensed that back in Kabul an attack on a provincial governor by Pakistan was quietly smothered. There was never any Afghan investigation into the ambush, for fear of further souring relations.

    Official statements from Kabul and NATO went along with the first Pakistani claim that insurgents were behind the attack. NATO did not call for an investigation by Pakistan until two days later.

    General McNeill, who is retired, remembers the episode as the worst moment of his second tour as commander in Afghanistan, not only because he knew Major Bauguess and his family, but also because he never received satisfactory explanations in meetings with his counterpart, the Pakistani vice chief of army staff, Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hyat.

    “Ahsan Hyat did not take it as seriously as me in asking, ‘Have we done as much as we could, and how could we have done it differently?’ ” he said.

    Lt. Gen. Ron Helmly, who led the Office of the Defense Representative at the American Embassy in Pakistan at the time, was told that the Pakistani soldier who opened fire was unbalanced and was acting alone, yet he was left acutely aware of the systemic shortcomings of Pakistani investigations.

    “They do not have a roster of who was there,” said General Helmly, who is retired. “It was all done from mental recollection.” The Pakistani soldiers who fired from the windows consistently claimed that they were firing at the Pakistani gunman, he said.

    Both Generals Helmly and McNeill accept as plausible that a lone member of the Frontier Corps, whether connected to the militants or pressured by them, was responsible, but they also said it was possible that a larger group of soldiers was acting in concert. The two generals said there was no evidence that senior Pakistani officials had planned the attack.

    As for the Afghans, they still want answers. “Why did the Pakistanis do it?” General Same of the Afghan Army said. “They have to answer this question.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/wo...ewanted=1&_r=1

    Some really amazing stuff this.
    Last edited by Tronic; 27 Sep 11,, 05:47.
Working...
X