U.S. Troops Supposedly Strike Village in Pakistan

[El Brujo]

I'm not sure how big of a deal this is or what the ramifications will be, but I figured it was newsworthy so here you are:

Edit* I can't get the link to work, could someone else try? Just google:

Pakistan reacts with fury after up to 20 die in 'American' attack on its soil

[Admiral Piett]

Address not found.

[El Brujo]

Okay, here's the article.

Relations have become increasingly fraught between the US and Pakistan, which is struggling to control Islamist militants. Photograph: John Moore/EPA

The war in Afghanistan spilled over on to Pakistani territory for the first time yesterday when heavily armed commandos, believed to be US Special Forces, landed by helicopter and attacked three houses in a village close to a known Taliban and al-Qaida stronghold.

The surprise attack on Jala Khel was launched in early morning darkness and killed between seven and 20 people, according to a range of reports from the remote Angoor Adda region of South Waziristan. The village is situated less than one mile from the Afghan border.

Local residents were quoted as saying that most of the dead were civilians and included women and children. It was not known whether any Taliban or al-Qaida militants or western forces were among the dead.
Furious official Pakistani condemnation of the attack followed swiftly, amid growing concern that the Nato-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan could spread to Pakistan, sparking a region-wide conflagration.
Owais Ahmed Ghanisaid, the governor of North-West Frontier province, adjoining South Waziristan, said 20 people had died and called for retaliation. "This is a direct assault on the sovereignty of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan expect that the armed forces ... would rise to defend the sovereignty of the country and give a befitting reply," he said.
The foreign ministry in Islamabad termed the incursion "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory" and a "grave provocation" which, it said, had resulted in "immense" loss of civilian life.

"Such actions are counterproductive and certainly do not help our joint efforts to fight terrorism. On the contrary, they may fuel the fire of hatred and violence we are trying to extinguish."

"This is a very alarming and very dangerous development," said a former senior Pakistani official. "We have absolutely been telling them [the US] not to do this but they ignored us."

US and Nato commanders say Taliban and al-Qaida fighters use the unruly, semi-autonomous tribal areas of Pakistan to stage attacks on coalition forces inside Afghanistan and create "safe havens" where they are immune from attack. Nato and civilian casualties in Afghanistan have reached record levels in the past 12 months in the face of a spreading Taliban offensive.

US forces have used missile-carrying drones - unmanned aerial vehicles - to attack militant targets inside Pakistan in the past. But yesterday's assault, involving up to three helicopters and infantry commandos, marked the first time the fight has been taken directly to the enemy on Pakistani soil.

Major-General Athar Abbas, a spokesman for the Pakistan army, said Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) had carried out the raid. "Two helicopters of Isaf landed very early in the morning and conducted a raid on a compound there. As per our report, seven civilians were killed in this raid."

But a Nato spokesman denied involvement. "There has been no Nato or Isaf involvement crossing the border into Pakistan," a Nato spokesman, James Appathurai, said. There were unconfirmed reports that the incursion was carried out by US Special Forces, which are not under Isaf command and can operate independently. A US military spokesman at the Bagram base near Kabul did not deny an attack had occurred but declined to comment.

Tensions between Pakistan's new civilian government and the US have been running high following American accusations that rogue elements in Pakistan's top spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, were feeding classified information on coalition troops to Taliban fighters. Washington has also repeatedly accused Islamabad of failing to do enough to curb militant activity.

The strains have been exacerbated by a political crisis in Pakistan following last month's forced resignation of President Pervez Musharraf and the collapse of a power-sharing agreement between the ruling Pakistan People's party (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister. An election to find a replacement for Musharraf is scheduled for Saturday, with the PPP chairman, Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir Bhutto's widower, expected to win.

In a further sign of instability, militants opened fire yesterday on prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's car, in an apparent assassination attempt, near Islamabad. The assailants, firing from a roadside embankment, hit the driver's side window twice. Gilani was not in the car at the time.
Today he was due to meet David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who is visiting Pakistan.

[Surgeon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/04/pakistan
Interesting. No evidence that it was coalition troops, but who else would be coming in by helicopter? :hmmm:

So far all there is to go by is the word of the Pakistanis. Not quite enough to judge...

[Gumpfendorfer]

They are making a serious attempt to catch Osama, thank god, finally. After years of neglect and outsourcing it to Pakistan and some warlords. The only way Bush can save his presidency and to prevent that Pakistan goes down as well. There is little Pakistan can do and it probably has the consent of the Pakistan Government anyway.

[Mikelus Trento]

They are making a serious attempt to catch Osama, thank god, finally. After years of neglect and outsourcing it to Pakistan and some warlords. The only way Bush can save his presidency and to prevent that Pakistan goes down as well. There is little Pakistan can do and it probably has the consent of the Pakistan Government anyway.

Because it's election year.

[Erik]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/04/pakistan
Interesting. No evidence that it was coalition troops, but who else would be coming in by helicopter? :hmmm:

So far all there is to go by is the word of the Pakistanis. Not quite enough to judge...

American officials have already admitted they put American soldiers on Pakistan territory.

Before (to our knowledge), they have only be doing air strikes which apparently isn't considered a violation of sovereignty but putting soldiers on the ground is.

[Surgeon]

American officials have already admitted they put American soldiers on Pakistan territory.

Can you please link this? Google doesn't want to cough it up :hmmm:

[Erik]

Can you please link this? Google doesn't want to cough it up :hmmm:

I can't link my original sources, because they are in Dutch.

But a quick Google:

U.S. officials told Martin a small team of commandos crossed the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan to go after an al Qaida cell operating out of a village less than a mile from the border. The officials said the cell was using the village as a base to plan and conduct cross border raids into Afghanistan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...r=HOME_4409288

[Каие]

Bollocks i think it is propaganda.

[Tiwaz]

Problem is, pakistani people might not have given their consent. And their government is not stupid enough to say it's just A-OK to have US troops attacking Pakistani villages and towns.

So in the end, this is rather counterproductive for USA to do. It will further drive extremist groups forward in Pakistan.

[Gumpfendorfer]

Yes and no, Tiwaz. There is a double standard here. The Taliban are always supported quite vocally, but when asked whether Pakistani's like to live under Taliban rule, the answer is no. It has more to do with a staunch anti Americanism, which is quite understandable. Pakistan and the USA has been quite an unhappy marriage, for both by the way.

And far too late, but finally the realization is emerging in Pakistan that the Taliban have opened up the attack on Pakistan itself. Two/three years too late though. The civil government has little choice to play along since they still cannot trust the Pakistan Army to go after the militants all out. Half a million soldiers are available, they are hardly doing anything serious. They only try to finish of the rogue elements within the Taliban movement.

If nothing is done before the winter season, Nato/USA will be forced to go into Pakistan in 2009 to take them out themselves. That is going to get messy.

[Каие]

Problem is, pakistani people might not have given their consent. And their government is not stupid enough to say it's just A-OK to have US troops attacking Pakistani villages and towns.

So in the end, this is rather counterproductive for USA to do. It will further drive extremist groups forward in Pakistan.

You act surprised, this battle was un-winnable from the beginning, even if we invaded Pakistan, they would simply go north and the process is repeated.

[Carach]

good on the americans. its not like the lawless lands theyre launching strikes on (..or rather, might be) are actually under any kind of control from the government of Pakistan

[Mithie]

good on the americans. its not like the lawless lands theyre launching strikes on (..or rather, might be) are actually under any kind of control from the government of Pakistan

Sovereignty is sovereignty, Carach. Sovereignty applies to South Ossetia, and it applies to Pakistan. You can't have double standards.

Part of what it means to be sovereign is the right to not having foreign military forces come into your land to kill your citizens.

[Carach]

Sovereignty is sovereignty, Carach. Sovereignty applies to South Ossetia, and it applies to Pakistan. You can't have double standards.

Part of what it means to be sovereign is the right to not having foreign military forces come into your land to kill your citizens.

ah yes, but Georgia wasnt harbouring any Russian national enemies was it? South Ossetians hadnt attacked russia and then used excuses of being part of georgia to escape punishment...... so on so forth.. and to follow on:

Sovereign integrity...

america's not annexing bits of land, it doesnt look to do so either. Its enemy isnt the government of Pakistan - as is the case with russia/georgia.

[Каие]

america's not annexing bits of land, it doesnt look to do so either. Its enemy isnt the government of Pakistan - as is the case with russia/georgia.

Sovereignty is Sovereignty. You'd think the US would at least ask permission and seek a mandate considering their harsh words against Russia.

[danzig]

Sovereignty is Sovereignty. You'd think the US would at least ask permission and seek a mandate considering their harsh words against Russia.

Perhaps but one has to consider even if Pakistan goverment said ok...would do they do so out in the open and risk becoming the a target by the own elements in their country they are hard pressed to control? I find it difficult to believe there isnt some sort of looking the other way privately while attacking in public incidents like this. You are right though sovereignty is sovereignty but there is no linkage of this to georgia despite the attempts by the ivans.

[Каие]

good on the americans. its not like the lawless lands theyre launching strikes on (..or rather, might be) are actually under any kind of control from the government of Pakistan

Sovereign integrity...

[eizo]

well if US troops killed a of civilians again that i am sure they had a good reason