With the attack on border posts and the allegations that followed, the U.S. has considerably undermined its own position and strengthened the Pakistani military establishment's rhetoric.
In one fell swoop, the United States has squandered whatever gains it had made on May 2 by way of forcing the Pakistani nation to question the main arbiter of its destiny — the military establishment — and the choices it has made.
The raid that killed Osama bin Laden was a breach of sovereignty the Pakistanis were able to live with but what happened in the wee hours of November 26 along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is not just difficult to stomach but has also allowed the Pakistan Army to reclaim the national narrative.
Some of the most die-hard critics of the Pakistan Army were out on the streets protesting against the U.S. That they were also demanding a welfare state instead of a security state was lost on the onlookers who have generally been willing to buy into any anti-U.S. rhetoric, preferring to blame the outside hand for much that ails Pakistan instead of reconciling to some of the nation's own flawed policies.
This time they had good reason. The U.S. had lived up to its reputation of being a brute force by entering Pakistani airspace and strafing two Pakistan Army outposts. Two parallel narratives are emerging and given that facts are invariably at a premium in this region — particularly in matters of security and strategy — not many here believe the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF) assurance of a thorough investigation.
What is undeniable, and not even disputed by the coalition forces in Afghanistan, is that 24 Pakistan Army soldiers were killed and 13 injured in the ISAF strafing on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. The U.S., the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the ISAF were quick to regret the incident but no apology was forthcoming though there were enough indications in the Pakistani discourse that the least the coalition forces could do was apologise.
In the bruised and battered Pakistani mindscape, the writing on the wall was clear: Their lives were cheaper than western lives, particularly American. This further fuelled the anger among a people who have had their lives turned upside down by the American desire for retribution post 9/11, and what is seen as Washington's multiple ambitions in the region: military bases and a permanent presence — more than the usual diplomatic level — in Afghanistan to contain China and Iran, exploit the gas and mineral wealth in the region, and keep a watch on Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
As days passed by, positions hardened and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar was quoted as telling the Senate's Standing Committee on Foreign Relations that an apology would not suffice. A day earlier, Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO) Ishfaq Nadeem had described the attack as an “unprovoked act of blatant aggression” which was “not unintended.”
The Pakistani version goes thus: “After midnight on November 26, two or three helicopters appeared and started engaging ‘Volcano' post, smashing all communication systems. In response, the ‘Boulder' post engaged helicopters with anti-aircraft guns and all available weapons. The helicopter also attacked the post and communication was lost. By then all channels of coordination had been activated. We informed them about the attack and the helicopters were pulled back but they returned a while later and resumed firing that went on till 2.15 a.m.”
According to the DGMO, all Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were violated by the ISAF and the NATO. As per the SOPs, both sides have to inform the other ahead of a military operation within 10 km of the border. In fact, the other side is then supposed to block possible escape routes that terrorists may use. But that night, none of these coordination mechanisms were activated by the two distrusting allies.
Pakistan maintains that the positions of the posts had been conveyed to the ISAF through map references. They could not be mistaken for terrorist sanctuaries because the other side had been provided all available information about the number of posts and their locations. The men at the posts were uniformed and the posts well-defined. Also, the Pakistan Army claims NATO was monitoring transmissions that night and knew they had hit ‘Volcano' checkpost.
The NATO account — unofficial though — is that the incident took place when close air support was sent in on request by ground forces — a combined group drawn from coalition forces and Afghan troops — to the Eastern Kunar area of Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan after they were fired upon from the Pakistani side.
Without going into details of what kind of operation was being undertaken in Eastern Kunar — which has seen considerable crossfire this summer due to cross-border incursions by Pakistani Taliban groups led by Maulana Fazlullah (Radio Mullah) — ISAF spokesman Carsten Jacobson said the troops were operating in a very rugged part of the country. “It is in a part of the country where the borderline is not 100-per-cent clear. The Durand Line does not show 100 per cent the border on the ground. The forces were operating in Afghanistan.”
It is the ISAF's contention that the coalition forces may have been lured into attacking Pakistani outposts in a calculated manoeuvre by terrorists who use the uncertainty of the border to their advantage. However, Pakistan has countered this argument with a demand for display of casualties suffered by the ISAF.
Also, the question why did the choppers come back after being pulled out on being told they were attacking Army posts, persists.
Pakistan also maintains that the area had been cleared of terrorists following a military operation in September in the Mohmand agency in the wake of repeated attacks on security posts by militants who move across the border with ease. In fact, the two posts that were pulverised had been set up only recently to prevent Fazlullah — who had unleashed a rein of terror in the picturesque Swat Valley before escaping to the Nuristan and Kunar areas of Afghanistan — from infiltrating and attacking Pakistani outposts and border villages.
Though, according to those who attended the DGMO briefing, Major-General Nadeem did not dwell on what possible objective(s) NATO/ISAF sought to achieve with this “deliberate attack,” the understanding across the board is that this was no mistake or accident, call it what you may. As the former Ambassador to the U.S., Tariq Fatemi, asked in one of the various television discussions on the issue, how can the Americans claim to have made a mistake when they have drone technology that, according to them, can kill terrorists with very few civilian deaths? “This is not the bullock cart age.”
Another apprehension is the possibility of this being an ISAF effort to test the waters on conducting hot pursuits inside Pakistan. Sceptical about the attack being a deliberate act, senior journalist Najam Sethi pointed out that “if this was a deliberate act, then our response was also deliberate. Our security establishment seemed to have prepared for such pressure tactics and therefore the swift response in closing NATO supply lines, asking the Americans to vacate Shamsi airbase…”
This, to him, does not augur well for either side as it means “both establishments are indulging in strategic war gaming.” This is not what allies do to each other and he is apprehensive that this game can slip out of either side's hands at any point.
However, the former Interior Secretary, Rustam Shah Mohmand, who hails from the very tribal agency of Mohmand where the attack took place, is of the view that the relationship will be back on track in a few weeks. “Both countries are dependent on each other.” While Pakistan needs the aid that the U.S. provides, Washington needs Islamabad to bring some semblance of normalcy to Afghanistan.
The inevitability of getting back together is probably why Pakistan's initial steps to articulate anger were developments that the U.S./NATO/ISAF can live with. Closure of supply lines to Afghanistan does not immediately impact the coalition forces as they had built alternate routes in anticipation of such a stand-off and the U.S., according to general understanding, had stopped using the Shamsi airbase for launching drone strikes sometime back.
Questions are being raised as to why the Air Force was not called in that night to counter the attack, but the DGMO indicated that this would have “escalated the scale of the incident.” Also, given the disparity between Pakistan's military prowess and the combined strength of the NATO forces, a political response was preferred — though the civilian leadership was informed about the incident only after daybreak.
However, that line appears to be changing with Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani suspending the “command of chain system” so that any soldier or officer in a particular situation can act without waiting for orders from the top.
This ‘strike-without-permission' green signal to the rank-and-file is likely to escalate tensions along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and is a clear signal that the civilians will be out of the loop. Not that evidence was ever needed.
Keywords: Pak-US ties, NATO attack
In response to Shahid
You refer to Afghanistan - go to Kabul. Ask the womenfolk there how
they were and how they are. See how they tell you how they're much
better with the Taliban out of power.
You refer to Iran - Iran is a classic example of a rogue state that
aims for an Islamic caliphate. Which is why it ill be dangerous for
them to have nukes. In any case, this is the age of non-proliferation.
Nukes are no longer a viable option. In cases like these, the Right to
Equality doesn't apply.
Your comments about "non-state actors" in Dharamsala is laughable. How
many cases have you witnessed of His Holiness the Dalai Lama
threatening to attack "the infidels"? How many times has he or his
followers "praised the glorious acts" of those that oppose China or
even protest against the Chinese govt in issues other than Tibet?
You seem to dispute the concept of "civilized countries" - what, are
you next gonna say that according to your perception its alright to
bomb nightclubs contd...
Reply to Bayravin
Let us keep aside which is a civilized country and which is not (as it depends upon one's perception)and the definition of civilized country. My comment is not about Pakistan (i am not a Pakistani, if you care to know), but the hypocritical attitude of US and its stooges towards the loss of life. NATO killed 24 Army personnel in cold blood and is still killing, everyday, innocent people and children in name of fighting terror and spreading democracy. You will not find these in Western media and neither you will hear at least condemnation from these western countries for such incidents.
If your reasoning in case of "non state" actors shall be taken, then China has every right to attack India because of the activities of "non state" actors in Dharmasala.
In response to Shahid: You are opinion is rational but incomplete. The fact that Osama Bin Laden was found in Pak is so incomprehensible within the context of your argument. By refusing to take responsibility for so many acts conducted by its 'non-state' actors who reside in the heart of Pakistan, Pakistan loses all credibility. Yes, the only choice left for others is to target the 'non-state' actors within your border. And, when the army is mixed-in with these 'revolutionary gangs', accidents happen, and it is so ironic that Pakistan refuses to participate in finding out the 'root-cause' of this incident. Either Pakistan chooses to be a part of the civilzed countries, or will perish in a decayed state.
Pakistanis should start thinking of being 'Pro-Pakistan' instead of 'anti-anything'.
In my opinion its time that the SARC countries should build the bridges of friendship and common agreement of trade and welfare revolution to become the superpower of Asia. A common currency like the Euro Shengan Eu union could resolve free movement of persons and removal of fake currency. An intellectual revolution of rationality with nationality of common objectives burying the heights of enimity will make a prosperous peaceful nation to harness our gifts of nature.
Since Osama killing and recent 24 soliders death in both incidents undigestable to Pakistan controlling militants group and have direct touch with military that has been evidented many times. These two issues become very sensitive and question of sovergenity of the state in the view of militant more than citizen of that country. Similarity in both the incidents supported by host country (as US officials said) lead to more break on government and military and fundmental groups who wants suck blood of US after lost their international leader in their own soil. We can expect or suspect again it may come under military regime to bring back its damaged image in international level to prove that will not tolerate outside nation military presence and operation within its boundary to satisfy militant group. Intellectual, industrialist, students, politicians and Media’s should fight for democracy (if it happens).
Slowly we come to know the true colors of US.
One of the most selfish players in the universe.
All should stand united and declare" US " as a
ROGUE STATE.
To divert from recession misseries back at Home US is Indulging
in such Cheap moves.
Pakistan do not have any other alternate.
They are married to US they cannot DIVORCE at this stage.Any wrong,hasty move will have a drastic impact on their Economy.
christopher
Reply to Aritra: Before replying to other's comment i request you read it first properly. I am not concerned whether Pakistan is right or wrong. I am only concerned with innocent lives lost and are losing everyday. I am concerned with the double nature of US and its western allies in dealing with other countries, particularly Islamic countries. Do you think US or its allies will sit queitly if something similar happens to their army? I cited Iran incident as an example case to show the dual nature of these so called international organisations. What is NATO doing in Afghanistan even after Osama got killed? To Kill innocent people and children (read Hindu news of Nov 26, 2011) in name of fighting terror? Why western countries are objecting to Iran having nuclear weapons? Which country or which land Iran has occupied or attacked forcely. US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel all have nuclear weapons. Why not enforce sanctions on them? Your views, i must say, are prejudiced.
In response to Shahid: 1.Whatever happened to the fact of "one world"? Why are you trying to create a schism between "Muslims" and "Western countries"? Why hasn't Pakistan approached the UN (Pakistan IS a UN member) or the ICJ itself? 2.the Iran episode was different. People know Iran to be a fiercely anti-Western+US state. So people had reactions at the ready for such an incident. Pakistan is viewed as an important ally in the war against terror. You cannot deny the fact that there hasn't been an investigation that can decisively show that NATO disregarded Pakistani communications in attacking the Pakistani outposts. There isn't any proof to back up the fact that the Pakistani Military did NOT okay the strike co-ordinates. You must admit that the Pakistani version of the incident is unbelievable at face value. Why would NATO suddenly attack the positions of an ally? As for the NATO version, why did the gunships return for a replay after standing down for the first time?. Both the versions are unacceptable at face value. What is clear, is however, that there was a serious incident on that night, which might very well be the precursor of a clear and present danger to stability in the region. If you really wish for peace, if you aren't a hardliner and a fanatical Army backer, you will stand down from your anti-Western and divisive viewpoint and look at the incident through a neutral prism, admitting all versions and judging for yourself which one is tenable, or try to construct that version which is tenable.
Our blood is blood, your blood is water. This is the attitude of US and NATO. Out of 200 countries in this world, not even one country has the guts to stand up against these rogue organizations. Forget about whose lives have been taken, forget about which country is suffering at their hands, just remember that these rogue countries can do the same thing to us or to any other country. Then what will be our response? Just lodging a strong protest with US Embassy? Or do we have the guts to take excatly the action? When some handful of people stormed the British embassy in Iran (no life was lost), every western country condenmed the incident and EU increased the sanctions on Iran. Why no one is saying a word about this incident. Where is Amnesty International, where is International Court of Justice, above all where is UN? Will they only respond when their citizens are attacked? Every wonder why Muslims hate these countries?
A beautifully written piece by Ms.Anita Joshua.With both sides taking very rigid stands,the situation seems to be precariously balanced
waiting for a small spark.The US,NATO forces and the ISAF all trying to defuse the situation,still remain unmoved in the matter of an
apology and still testing the waters as to how far they can go.
Pakistan on the other hand is milking the situation fully and is all set to hike its demands for military and monetary aid.The US will
definitely capitulate and not only restore the earlier cut imposed but generously increase the aid.
Refusal by the US to offer any apology after the incident signifies one major change - reduced American dependence on Pakistan for providing supplies to the NATO forces in Afganistan. However, Pakistan is still dependent on the US for monetary aid. As such, the crisis will fizzle out and the Pakistan will again be friends with the US after receiving promises of more monetary aid.
To say that Pak army is back is misleading. The army was only piggy riding. As for Keyani authorising his soldiers to retaliate against an attacker, I wonder if Pak army is capable of handling any form of insurgency let alone fight the prowess of ISAF. I must add here that all Pak army is about making a business enterprise of an oppurtunity provided by 9/11. They had no desire or inkling to resolve the issues in Afghanistan. An army is tested in battle not during peace. A diabolic game that should not be misread.
One can sympathize and empathize with the Pakistani emotions. US the strongest ally and its lacky NATO should be protecting Pakistani lives not taking them (even in a collateral damage situation). But in this woeful moment, the Pakistani Government, Military and the people are forgetting the tragedy they showered on Mumbai. It is poetic justice that they cop what they gave. If the people are genuinely interested in rooting out terrorism and foreign forces out of their land, there should be an Pakistaki uprising like the Arab spring. This for all of us is only wihsful thinking, the Pakistani psyche is always itching for war and not peace.
There is no question of believing Pakistan's side of the story. As they say you can fool all the people some time and some people all the time but not all the people all the time. India is 'some people' being fooled is India but US is altogether a different ball game. Pakistan will eventually pay the utmost price for it's terrorist activities. Is it surprising that we are closing in on the Mayan prediction of Dec 21 2012 doomsday!!!
Yet another game played by the Paks. Their skills of lying and deception are second to none, and their self-delusion is legendary. Yet, will there be a rapprochement in a few weeks time? Well, is the sky blue?
Well,In my view the entire melodrama is just a propaganda exhibited by both the US and the Pakistan.The Pakistan wants to carry along with the general anti-US sentiments of its denizens,as the elections are near.On the other hand,the US wants to emphasize that they are not dependent on their ally.Their actions depicts their character as a BIG BROTHER.
So,the real sufferers are those 23 who died,,else everything is a show.
And there is more to come.....
All these rabble rousing by the Pakistani military is only to salvage their hurt pride - the military is in stupor after the death of Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad - they want to extract maximum mileage out of the incident of NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. After the drama is stage managed, the things will fall back where it always remained. Without foreign aid simply the military cannot sustain it's supremacy in the muddled landscape of Pakistani. They will continue to support terrorists to further their interests at all costs, and will remain a threat to the Asian region's ambition of peaceful co-existence. With China cozying up to their game plan, Pakistani military establishment does not worry much if their ranting wean away future support from US and NATO nations. This temporary set back they can well afford to suffer. The Pakistani Army was, is and will continue to call all the shots giving three hoots to the democratic institutions there.
This incident which killed 27 Pakistani soldiers and injured many
others is extremely heinous on the part of U.S and its allied forces.
Pakistan should not let U.S exploit their base any further and should
not open those supply lines in the future . Just because U.S provided
financial aid of billion dollars to any country it doesn't mean it can
breach that states sovereignty whenever they want and kill innocent
people of the same country for which those billion dollars are
meant.It's high time Pakistan should realize that U.S is one of those
brute countries which can go to any extent to further their cause and Pakistan in the name of billion dollars has been made marionette and
is been played handsomely by U.S causing the life of its civilians and
soldiers.
If the United States' action was deliberate then I must say it was presumptuous and lacked adequate concerns for its regional fallout. Pakistan is in a very volatile state and actions such as this is going to strengthen the hands of the extremists who will then play it up to garner support for their activities and legitimize their anti-West, anti-India propaganda. The USA is not a regional player nor are the NATO countries, therefore immediate consequences of any terrorist backlash that its unilateral actions or collective actions of the NATO will flare up will have to be borne by countries neighbouring Pakistan. I know, India can't openly talk about this but we must ask the US to refrain from such action in the future. The international community should realize that their effort to bring peace in the Af-Pak region would be futile if it is not centred on empowering and sustaining a civilian led dispensation in Pakistan.
I think that the post were deliberately attacked by the ISAF as they must have been either giving cover fire to allow the taliban to hide or they may have been attacking the ISAF themselves and so the ISAF must have attacked the post to teach the Pakistanis a lesson for the future. this is good for the international community to understand the duplicity of the pakistanis and in the long run the pakistani army must choose to either support the ISAF or lose their people.
The folly Americans have committed is comparable to the folly Vajpayee committed in 1998 when he started the nuclear arms race, confident that Western conspiracies would keep Pakistan from running and it would be a one country race. It's net result was that all of India's conventional superiority was taken out of the equation. America's and India's greatest asset in Pakistan is confusion, and this incident has reduced confusion. Democracy exists in republics, the army is the guarantor of the republic. The nation understands that it is the army and only army that can stand up to foreign bullying. Among all the pro-army choruses going on in Pakistan, we know who are the sincere ones. Even the grandson of Ghaffar Khan has jumped on the pro-army bandwagon, but the nation is not that naive anymore.
When push comes to shove, popular support for the army would overwhelm the American support for Zardari. Haqqani learned that the hardway.
1. It is not in American interests to create a discord intentionally and thus, have repercussions that we are seeing now. 2. Americans made a mistake and what makes them arrogant enough not to apologize unconditionally is - they were fired upon and they do not care much about Pakistani lives/ military. 3. Diplomacy may entail compromises, but when the cornerstone of a relationship is just adjustments, this is bound to happen. Pakistanis look at America as a rich infidel whose help is needed to survive in a tough neighbourhood. Americans look at Pakistanis as fanatic lot who will double cross them and who can be for regional needs[Afghanistan]. 4. This is all mostly fodder for local consumption, the two will get back to the nasty-clinging-to-each-other, very soon. Obama will not apologize because then, Democrats will be painted as weak by the roster of republicans who have begun mud slinging to get nominated. Pakistanis don't want to look submissive.
What is the different between the so-called terrorist and the US+NATO force? Life of any human is the same whether it's Pakistani, Indian or American. What would US or any other country do if it happens to their fellowman? Expressing regrets or an apology is merely an eyewash. What if 9/11 or 26/11 terrorists express regret or issue an official apology, would we leave them? No way! Those who are responsible for it must also be ready to face the consequences. Justice must be done irrespective of race,nationalities,..etc. Otherwise, we are no different from animals.
If Ms Joshua is under the opinion that the Army was ever 'out of the saddle' or ever dropped the reins of Pakistan's national narrative, then she is rather optimistic. Their track record has shown and will continue to show that the Army will be the prime arbiter, visibly and invisibly. Their Army is not a professional institution. If it were so, Asfaq Kayani would have made way for his senior most second-in-command, to foster morale and upward mobility within its ranks. All professional and disciplined armies reflect this trait, however competent the top general may be.
My compliments to Anita Joshua for a well deliberated article. I also appreciated the responses from the readers. Two points emerge. First, it is becoming obvious that Gen Ashfaq Kayani is gradually moving in to formally take over the government like previous army chiefs have done. The whole 26 November episode seems fishy! Was it a deliberate plot? The ISAF plus NATO possess the latest surveillance cum intelligence gathering mechanisms hence it is difficult to believe that they mistakenly attacked the Pakistani army posts. And second, India has surrendered to Pakistan's highly successful terrorism campaign by refusing to implement counter-terrorism doctrine measures due to vote bank concerns. If we consider Pakistan to be a leading terrorism player, we too are equally - if not more - guilty by "cooperating" with it. The Kashmir Valley has become a mini Pakistan today with our connivance.
Why does Washington need Islamabad to bring normalcy in Afghanistan? This idea doesn't work out anymore and everyone involved knows it well. Also why this is still considered as the only option? As someone rightly said America's actions can be put somewhere between hedging and engagement, and not containment. And Pakistan's actions will always be under pressure, either from its allies or from the terrorists.
Most of the problems that has beeen bedeviling Pakistan, including losing its eastern wing, are the direct result of army meddling in the affairs best left to political leadership. Like a quote "I'm a dog chasing cars. I don't have plans. I just do things. I'm not a schemer" Pakistan army has now caught the car. Like the dog of course, Pak army don’t know how to drive cars, it had no idea what to do with it without the umbilical of American support. Pakistani Army establishment might have won the battle as an arbiter of the nation destiny, but it has lost the war.
Army (Gen Musharraf), under political pressure from USA, gave way to the "puppet" PPP Government with Mr 10% corrupt Zardari, who has confiscable assets both in USA and UK and can thus be easily subjected to blackmail/armtwisting, as President. As the events have proven, it was a mistake, and the army is trying its poor best to correct it as today it truly represents the "democratic" side of Pakistan with soldiers and officers recruited from all walks of life and all classes of people. Democracy is a Western concept. Given the corrupt Senate and House of Representatives, it is hardly working in USA which, along with UK and EU, is fast becoming Totalitarian Democratic Police State. So how can anybody expect such concept to work in economically poor, lliterate and "class" riddled Pakistan subjected to "feudal" rule under the garb of "Democracy" by a handful of the "Landed, Rich Beautiful and Famous"?
This incident is simply the trigger of a process that was, in any case, moving towards an eventual denouement. From an Indian strategic perspective, this is both good news and bad news. The bad news is that Pakistani army is likely to enlarge its support for terrorism in India and elsewhere; and the politicians who were fighting an uphill battle to keep the peace process trudging forward will now be powerless to prevent it from grinding to a halt. The good news is that Pakistani support for terror has now been completely exposed in the world (and even in the elite circles of India, like the editors of this paper). The loss of high tech weaponry and financial support also reduces the ability of the Pakistani army to undertake new adventures.
This is another gem from Ms Joshua. Clearly, the Civilian Government in Paksitan had its own agenda i.e to appear pro-Military,after the memogate fiasco. Hence, instead of allowing Imran Khan to take credit, they were very quick to grandstand themselves by immediately announcing non-participation at the Bonn Summit and cancellation of access permits for Nato supplies. Clearly, the Military has been losing ground in Pakistan and they fear the fate of the Military in Turkey and Arab Contries, post the recent Arab Spring protests. The US bombing has been a 'Godsend' and the Generals must be toasting their victory at their Gymkhana clubs!
Anita Joshua's opinion piece is missing one salient point. India has, on more than one occasion, claimed that Pakistani forces fired across the LoC and other marked borders to provoke the Indian forces. In the light of that historical background, the contention of ISAF commanders that their forces were fired on first from the Pakistani side has some credibility. The Pakistani Army command seems to resort to such provocation whenever it suits them. Perhaps they do underestimate the reaction of the other side, as it seems to have happened on this occasion. This sort of reaction is just what the Pakistan Army and ISI want in order to whip up public sentiment in their country and as a consequence divert attention from their own shortcomings or other misdeeds. Does this sound plausible? Let us not be too quick to blame the ISAF or US forces.
Given India's experience with Pakistan, it is difficult to believe them. Ultimately, it is Pakistan which will suffer most as a result of this incident.
Please Email the Editor