"Even at the time it was seen as a turning point by officials managing day-to-day relations with Pakistan," but attack was "glossed over" to maintain the relationship with Islamabad. A fine lot of good that did. "Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Attack on Americans," by Carlotta Gall for the New York Times, September 27:
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.[...]
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. [...]
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....
They are already backpedalling over the latest attack:
Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week that an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington, according to American officials involved in U.S. policy in the region.
"Overstated" and "misperceptions"- like Islam is a religion of peace?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/adm-mullens-words-on-pakistan-come-under-scrutiny/2011/09/27/gIQAHPJB3K_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
Obviously.
The administration has long sought to pressure Pakistan, but to do so in a nuanced way that does not sever the U.S. relationship with a country that American officials see as crucial to winning the war in Afghanistan and maintaining long-term stability in the region.
Sometimes I wanna laugh out loud, but I'm afraid I would be chokin' on my own bile.
An American major was killed and three American officers were wounded, along with their Afghan interpreter.
Of the four heros, the Moslem interpreter is the one worth noting here. Think of it: sure, he was making good money what with the combat pay, but he still had to hang out with Infidels and pretend to like them and make the appearance that he was helping them. Most important, it took a lotta guts for him to call in a strike against his own position.
The only consolation besides the combat pay was that at least one Infidel died.
*** 33:21 ***
I was tempted to say that our perverted relationship with Pak is a metaphor for our inability to come to grips with Moslems in general, but I couldn't.
Cuz Pak is nothing more than a simple example of that perversion.
"Pakistan's Jihad continues"
By Bill Roggio
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/09/pakistans_jihad_continues.php#ixzz1ZFsm7IS3
This happened in 2007? And we are only reading about it now?
This is both good and bad.
We should have heard about it in 2007; when this story was supressed it meant that the U.S.-Pakistani "relationship" mattered more than the lives of American servicemen.
The interesting part is that it is surfacing now. This would seem to indicate that the U.S. government is getting really sick of Pakistan. The "relationship" is about to change, big time.
US confronts Pak with proof of ISI's terror link
http://zeenews.india.com/news/south-asia/us-confronts-pak-with-proof-of-isi-s-terror-link_733908.html
Pak will retaliate to any US misadventure: Report
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pak-will-retaliate-to-any-us-misadventure-report/188311-56.html
Pakistan IS a misadventure. It was founded on a false dream and should never have separated from India.
It is good that these hardcore fundamentalists separated from India, otherwise India would have been in more trouble. Its a gangarin part of India best amputed.
The same article was flagged at New English Review.
With a suitable headline and introductory remarks by the sardonic Hugh Fitzgerald, which are worth reading.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/38119
Monday, 26 September 2011
'And No Longer Will The Public Be Kept In The Dark About The Full Extent Of Pakistani Treachery But Let The Public Know More Of The Truth About Pakistan'
I advise those who have not already done so, to click on the link to the original story in situ at the NYT.
Why?
Because there are Comments, 98 of them, and they make interesting reading.
There are many openly-identified Muslims - mostly Pakistanis - who are screaming and yelling and throwing sand as hard as they can, doing the best that they can to prevent this story from having its full - and devastating - effect on the Infidel American mind.
There are other Muslims in masks, hiding behind Western names, similarly throwing sand.
There are intelligent non-Muslim Indians, whether from India or speaking as Indian immigrants in the Americas, who are offering intelligent sympathy to the Americans and saying bleakly 'I told you so'.
There are lots of Americans who are hopping mad and would like to see all US 'aid' to Pakistan and involvement in Pakistan - and Afghanistan - cut off, like, yesterday.
Quite a few Islamosavvy posters among the non-Muslim Indian and American posters.
There are some hopelessly deluded American commenters, but I think the tide is turning.
Pakistani Muslim behaviour - whether from the state of Pakistan as a whole, or from individual Pakistanis (e.g. the Times Square bomber) has just become so outrageous, so obviously treacherous and malevolent - that it cannot be ignored by anybody except the most terminally stupid and wilfully self-deceiving.
I should add, a propos those Comments to this article at the NYT, that the thing that really has the Muslim commenters screaming like stuck pigs, and pouring out taqiyya and slander and nonsense at a great rate, is the fact that some among the non-Muslim Indian commenters and American commenters are drawing the obvious conclusion: that the USA should cut the connection with lying, murderous, jihad-plotting-and-sponsoring Islamic Pakistan, and instead form an alliance with majority-Non-Muslim India. the Muslims hate, hate, hate that idea like poison. They cannot bear the idea that the USA, 300 million strong, and India, over a billion strong and most of that non-Muslim, should team up...potentially, to resist the Jihad.
It terrifies them. They will say anything, do anything, to prevent it from happening.
Which means that it ought to happen.
First of all Islam is never guilty of wrong doing. Second Islam is always the victim. And finally Islam need not obey two laws. Sharia Law is the law of Islam and no other law counts be it civil or religous law. Just ask any Muslim they'll tell you.
So with that understood "two Muslim counties will always join together against any kuffar country".
Now what was that about cutting off Pakistans U.S. funding.? "What do you mean your also cutting off Afghanistans U.S. funding. What? You're going to cut off all of Islams funding.? But wait Pakistan and Afghanistan are not guilty".
Go ahead my Muslim friends laugh, dance, and rejoys the people you are killing are only Americans. But take warning, one day America will wake-up. One day Americans will see through Islams counterfit crusade and will start its offensive to defend itself.....
Again.
Bottom Line.
Never.
Trust.
A.
Muslim.
______
Solution?
Make them stomp on the Koran, while being recorded.
THAT is the iron-clad test.