Yesterday I theorized that the airstrike on a Pakistani border station that killed 26 could have had been the result of three possible circumstances; 1) Hanlon’s Razor, 2) front-line forces so accustomed to think of the Pakistanis as their enemy that due diligence is neglected, or 3) the path of least strategic resistance to getting the Pakistani border re-opened is throwing soldiers under the bus. Grandpa Bluewater astutely noted that the possibilities were not mutually exclusive.
And so it goes, in a NYT article entitled “U.S. Report Faults Two Sides in Deadly Pakistan Strike“:
A United States military investigation has concluded that checks and balances devised to prevent cross-border mishaps with Pakistan failed to avert a deadly NATO airstrike last month in part because American officials did not trust Pakistan enough to give it detailed information about American troop locations in Afghanistan.
A report by the inquiry concluded that mistakes by both American and Pakistani troops led to airstrikes against two Pakistani posts on the Afghan border that killed 26 Pakistani troops. But two crucial findings — that the Pakistanis fired first at a joint Afghan-American patrol and that they kept firing even after the Americans tried to warn them that they were shooting at allied troops — were likely to further anger Pakistan and plunge the already tattered relationship between the United States and Pakistan to new depths…
The episode, the worst in nearly a decade riddled with fatal cross-border blunders, underscored gaping flaws in a system established in recent years to avoid such mistakes. American officials acknowledged that the policy of not divulging to Pakistan the precise location of allied ground troops in Afghanistan — for fear Pakistan might jeopardize their operations — contributed to the accident and underscored what the chief investigator called an “overarching lack of trust between the two sides.”
The party of the first part distrusts the party of the second part because that party is sheltering and providing material aid and comfort to those who are killing members of the party of the first part. The party of the second part distrusts the party of the first part because that party is aware of the party of the second part’s perfidy.
Thus, both sides are to blame.
What is that expression? With friends like that, you need no …
Paul
Religion of pieces, Pakistan edition.
It would be counter to the Christmas spirit of hope and love and all those other good Christian beliefs to express my thoughts about our Muslim “friends” in Pakistan.
But I which them Merry Christmas anyway, and hope that numerous explosive devices fall from Santa’s sleigh or other airborne vehicles as gifts to those who have been bad this year.
As far as the Whacki-Pakis are concerned, I don’t trust them as they have proven to be underhanded and without honor. They knew OBL was in their country and stood by as he & his ilk continued to kill our troops. They have given shelter to the Haqquani and others engaged in direct conflict with our soldiers.
Sorry, if I was in charge, the SOP would be “shoot first and ask questions later” as I would rather have our troops judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Merry Christmas to all from Boston….especially to those away from home, serving deployed and their families. You are in our thoughts and prayers.
They try to play in the middle of the street and then act surprised when they get run over.
I’d be fine with the Paks, and Iran, and the Af’s, having an upfront seat to how 150 million degrees feels like. Frak ‘em.
None of these three are our friends, in fact are to varying degrees actively our enemy -either us (or since we have a Boy Who Would Be King as the CinC) or Israel need to eliminate them as a threat to us and our true ally’s.
What sux about the deal is those who aren’t our enemies….thousands of Iranians yearning to be freed from Beady Eyes and the Mullahs, Afghanis I met who despise the Taliban and average Ahmeds who want to be able to live peacably….They would be those who suffer for the sins of others if we were to take out the bad guys. It is a unfortunate situation and as usual, the little guy pays the price.
It is an unfortunate situation, though I heard the same words over forty years ago when we were in VN.
At least the VN were not like the Islamic (esp. Arab) Terrorist bungholes. We should not have been in SEA (or so I now believe), nor do we need to sacrifice another 50,000 troops.
The Little Guy always pays the price.
One Wall is enough.
We regret the fact that your half-trained troops saw fit to fire on our patrol, leading to said half-trained troops assuming room temp.