Enough of American and NATO Terrorists

[Areff]

Pakistanis Have Had Enough of American and NATO Terrorists

Submitted by Tair-e-Lahoti on November 30, 2011 – 11:05 pm



PKKH Editorial || By M. Zainulabedin Ameer

Pakistan is not budging from its stance against American and NATO terrorists operating from Afghanistan. Since the Salala check post assault that was carried out by NATO terrorists early on Saturday morning (26th November), Pakistan has put an end to all military co-operations with the CIA. America refuses to apologize for killing 30 Pakistani soldiers in the incident, and to make things worse they have embarked on a disinformation campaign in order to justify their actions. However, the NATO terrorists were at it again on Tuesday; Geo.tv has reported that Pakistani troops investigating the Salala check post after Saturday’s incident came under fire, and once again, it was unprovoked. Up till the filing of this article, there were no more details.

The American and NATO terrorists sitting in Afghanistan have had little to say in defense of what transpired on Saturday morning, but they have largely insisted that they came under attack from the Mohmand area. It’s absolutely ludicrous for them to claim that they were retaliating to attacks from the Pakistani side, and that too by flying almost 3 kilometers into Pakistani territory to attack a check post that had a Pakistani flag clearly visible.

The NATO terrorists remain engaged for more than two hours with a fighter jet, 2 helicopters and boots on the ground. Pakistan Major Mujahid Mirani and his soldiers from the 7th Azad Kashmir Regiment were outgunned and outnumbered. Yet they mounted a two-hour defense before being almost entirely wiped out in cold blood. Efforts of this kind without backup support due to being positioned at the 8,000 feet mountain peak are highly commendable.

In an area from where militancy had been eradicated months ago, Pakistani troops only had resources to help them monitor conditions in the Mohmand area. However, with their limited array of equipment they responded to the American and NATO terrorist assault, but it is not clear if any significant damage was inflicted. America refuses to reveal which unit attacked the check post.

Almost immediately following the assault, NATO supply routes were blocked in what seems a permanent disengagement from America’s so-called War on Terror. Additionally, America has been given 15 days to vacate the Shamsi Airfield, and Pakistan has refused to extend the deadline.

As things have proceeded rapidly in Pakistan in terms of responding to American and NATO terrorists, the country remains a united army of 180 million people. NATO terrorists should not forget that Pakistan is fully capable of responding to aggression despite technological disparity. While a list of options is being prepared for civilian and military decision-makers, the Pakistani Prime Minister is expected to take the final decision representing the joint will of national leadership. Additionally, the Pakistani leadership is currently making preparations to activate international legal mechanisms to sue the CIA for border violations and slaughter of civilians.

[Areff]

US Attack On Pakistan: Calculated Move Or Blunder?

Submitted by NK on November 30, 2011 – 11:36 pm



I think it just appears, it seems that there is a huge disconnect between what the US Government in Washington talks about in terms of peace and stability in the region, and what the US military commanders are doing on the ground in Afghanistan.

I’ve just come out of a four hour briefing by the Pakistani military given to the Pakistani media here in Islamabad, and they just gave us a timeline and some video footage of what exactly transpired in the early hours of November 26 on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and it just seems very obvious and very clear from whatever they’ve shown us, that this was a deliberate act of attacking the Pakistani military, and it appears the purpose was to draw the Pakistani military into some sort of escalation, a military escalation that would result in direct military engagement between the US lead NATO’s ISA force (ISAF) and the Pakistani military. We were told by the Pakistani commanders that during this battle that went on for about two hours they considered escalating the situation but the commanders on the other side deescalated it very quickly. But from whatever information that they have, it is quite obvious that two Pakistani check posts were deliberately attacked.

Now, why the United States are doing this, I think it’s very clear that two or three points to be considered: number one is that the United States military is facing a horrible defeat across Afghanistan. Maybe the most of the people cannot really understand that depth and the dimension of this statement; it is really horrible what is going on on the Afghan side, the very fact that after 10 years there is actually a complete political and military breakdown and if not for the current presence of international forces in Afghanistan, would be seen a complete chaos and mess in Kabul and elsewhere in that country. So, it is really a terrible situation, it is just seems that the US military leadership is intended on shifting the entire blame for that mess onto Pakistani shoulders.

And for that I think they are trying to escalate the situation in the border area. Now, there are some other suspicions as well, as you know the Pakistani military has been conducting the operations in the border area, and these operations have been very deep and very sorrow. In fact the two Pakistani check posts that were attacked are located in one of the 7 tribal agencies, this one is called Mohmand agency and it was completely cleared. And when I say completely I mean, and according to Pakistani commanders, they say it was 100% cleared from all militant activity and it was communicated to US military leadership in Afghanistan on September 11, that was the 10th anniversary of 9\11. It was communicated to the American side that at least at this one agency there is absolutely no militant activity, and yet we have this operation that takes place and they attack the Pakistani check posts, and they claim that they received fire from the Pakistani side and of course they are unable to provide any evidence that would prove that there was fire from the Pakistani side at all.

[Areff]

In fact during the earlier communication and during the briefing that I’m just alluding to, that took place a few minutes ago and concluded few minutes ago, the Pakistani commanders actually provided details of communication that took place between them, and the Pakistani commanders during and immediately after the attack and it’s quite clear that the Americans actually did not even know exactly, if there was fire from the Pakistani side, where it was exactly, they provided one information initially and then 15 or 20 minutes later they said – no it came from the exact place where the Pakistani military check posts are located. It’s a devised logic, really: this was the conclusion of the Pakistani commanders.

So, it really looks like the US is trying to pull out of Afghanistan, it’s leaving behind chaos. So, what could be the implications of this particular move? Do you think that for instance the Pakistani Government would try to perhaps smooth over the implications, or perhaps it really amounts to something like total breakup of the relations with the United States?

Well, the communication is still there, the communication is still going on, there hasn’t been any breakdown in the communication, but from all these steps that the Pakistani Government and military has taken in the last two days it is quite obvious that, as the Prime Minister said, it will never be as usual between Pakistan and the US. We can say that the military aspect of Pakistani cooperation with the US in Afghanistan post 9\11 has ended. I think we’re seeing a major turning point, I think both the Americans and the Pakistani side politically are trying to sort of underplay but nobody is actually coming out, you don’t see any American official or any Pakistani official coming out on TV cameras to say – we’ve ended all that we’ve had after 9\11 over the past 10 years.

But practically, if you go through the list of things that have taken place over the last 48 hours it is quite obvious, I mean the supplies to NATO and the US military have been completely stopped indefinitely and we are hearing from the Pakistani officials that it is prominent tending, a complete review of relations with the US military in Afghanistan. We’ve seen other steps have been taken, there is a huge probability that Pakistan will not participate in the Bonn Conference in Germany early next month on the future of Afghanistan. It is a major step, we’ve seen the Pakistani diplomacy for the first time getting very active, antagonistic way towards the US; we’ve seen the Pakistani Foreign Minister get on the line with the Chinese Foreign Minister, with the Russian Foreign Minister, with other countries in the region; we’ve seen at least one member the NATO alliance – Turkey, actually breaking away completely from the official stance of NATO and completely backing the Pakistani’s position.

[Areff]

So, we’re seeing a number of things happening are completely different and of course let’s not forget the fact that for the first time in this 10 years the Pakistani Government has formally written to UN secretary-general and Pakistani complain, protest, and details of what exactly happened, copies of that, have been distributed to all the permanent and non permanent members of the Security Council and the UN’s General Assembly. So, it is a very altogether different situation. Yes, there is no complete breakdown in communications with the US but we can safely say that whatever relationship both Washington and Islamabad build in terms of cooperation in Afghanistan after 9\11 is no longer there.

The breakdown of relations with Pakistan, do you think that it is still a blunder on the part of the United States or is it a calculated move?

I would likely go in favour of it being a calculated move. But having said that I must just tell you that you must understand there are diverse viewpoints and competing power centers in Washington DC, and nobody knows that frankly better than Pakistani officials because they have been dealing with that, with the Americans, and they are saying this very openly that they see that disconnect between various power centers in Washington DC with regards to the relationship with Pakistan, there are those power centers in Washington DC that would like to engage with Pakistan, they know it’s a difficult relationship but they would like to engage, but then there are also those power centers, who strangely have been pushing to a military escalation with Pakistan.

And it just seems that this year we’ve seen at least two major steps taken to speed up this kind of confrontation, of course the leaders attack is one of them. There was the May attack of course in Abbottabat targeting Osama Bin Laden, where the Pakistanis contended and say we’ve cooperated in giving the Americans crucial information about the career, that eventually led to Osama Bin Laden’s location, but when the time came to claim the credit for the operation the American side and specifically the CIA decided to claim all credit and sort of create a situation, where the doubts are created about the complicity of Pakistani military in allegedly hiding OBL.

So, it’s quite obvious that there are competing power centers in Washington, but as far as the American presence in Afghanistan is concerned, I think we are seeing a strange overlap, we have Afghan warlords, and we have US military commanders, and we have US intelligence commanders and all the interests of all frequenters overlap on one point, and that is to sort of be very antagonistic toward Pakistan and to blame Pakistan completely for the complete breakdown in whatever project that the US and its local allies were pursuing in Afghanistan. I mean Pakistan is being blamed for everything from attacks on the US Embassy to attacks on coalition soldiers, even in the regions that are very far away from the Pakistani border. So, it seems quite premeditated.

[Areff]

Should we allow Nato free rein to attack and kill people?

The airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers is just the latest in a series of mistakes that raise doubts about Nato's credibility

Pratap Chatterjee
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 13.30 GMT



An unmanned Predator drone of the type operating along the Afhanistan-Pakistan border. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex


Why did Nato forces kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border post in the Mohmand region, some 300 yards across the frontier from Afghanistan early on Saturday morning? The US military claims the attack was in response to hostile fire, and the Pakistanis are demanding proof of that.

There is a very simple explanation of what happened: the US military makes deadly mistakes all the time, and for all its technological wizardry and tremendous firepower, it has very little intelligence on the ground.

"There are many questions that need to be answered," an editorial in the New York Times pronounced:

"Who first fired on the American-Afghan force? Pakistan's army is far too cozy with the Taliban. Were fighters sheltering near the Pakistani outposts? What about Pakistan's claim that the Nato strikes continued for two hours even after Pakistan alerted allied officials? What needs to be done differently going forward?"

In New York and Washington, this is standard fare. We can't trust the Pakistanis, they are with the terrorists. But can we trust Nato or the US military? There are numerous examples of firing on civilians, killing children and even deliberately targeting and assassinating individuals who turn out not to have been the people they were claimed to be. And that is in Afghanistan, a country where the US has easy access.

A US air force investigation into the killing of 23 civilians in Uruzgan province in February 2010 concluded that it was a tragic mistake. "Information that the convoy was anything other than an attacking force was ignored or downplayed" by the Predator crew, whose reporting was "inaccurate and unprofessional", the investigation by a two-star army general reported.

In September 2010 Nato claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin – the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan – in a drone strike. Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, and Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, have confirmed that Amin is alive and well and that the dead man was Zabet Amanullah.

Those are just two of the better documented examples: In February 2010 Nato admitted killing 12 civilians in Helmand. The following day it admitted to killing five civilians in Zhari district of Kandahar. Just last week, it admitted killing seven civilians, most of them children, in the same district of Kandahar.

In Pakistan, the US record is even murkier. I work at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism where we have documented the killing of more than 175 children and as many as 600 other civilians inside Pakistan by the CIA.

So before we jump to conclusions that the Mohmand strike was a result of the Pakistani military's relationship the Taliban, we need to ask ourselves a much more basic question: should we be allowing Nato, let alone the CIA, free rein to attack people and kill them – especially when their attacks are based on what is clearly very poor intelligence in the field?

[Areff]

Pakistan military ordered to return fire if attacked by Nato forces

Pakistan's army chief issues new directive following recent deaths of 24 soldiers in Nato helicopter assault on border posts

Saeed Shah in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 December 2011 12.26 GMT



Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, has told his troops that any aggression should be responded to 'with full force, regardless of the cost and consequences'. Photograph: Aamir Qureshi/AFP/Getty Images


Pakistan's military commanders have ordered their troops to return fire if they come under attack from Nato forces, raising the prospect of further deadly clashes along the country's border with Afghanistan.

General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's army chief, gave the new order in response to the recent deaths of 24 soldiers when their border posts came under fire from Nato helicopters.

Kayani is under immense pressure from within his own ranks over the two-hour bombardment by the helicopters of an ally, to which the Pakistani air force did not respond. The incident piled further humiliation on a military still stung by the US special forces operation in May that killed Osama bin Laden deep inside Pakistan.

"I want to emphasise and leave no ambiguity in the rules of engagement for everyone down the chain of command," Kayani said in a letter to his troops.

"When under attack, you have full liberty of action to respond with all capabilities at your disposal. This will require no clearance at any level.

"I have very clearly directed that any act of aggression will be responded to with full force, regardless of the cost and consequences."

The communique, issued in Urdu, will be read out by local commanders to their soldiers.

Kayani also said that the air force did not respond to the Nato attack "due to breakdown of communication with the affected posts".

The move effectively transforms the role of more than 100,000 Pakistan troops deployed along its western border from counterinsurgency to border protection duty.

The Nato attack happened on the border between the Afghan province of Kunar and the Mohmand part of Pakistan's tribal area. The border posts were 300 metres inside Pakistani territory.

Pakistan claims the attack was "unprovoked" and continued even after it alerted Nato to the fact that its post was coming under fire.

US officials have claimed a combined Afghan and US special forces squad operating close to the border came under fire from suspected militants on the Pakistani side, and that they responded by calling in air support.

But a senior Pakistani military officer said US officials supplied the wrong co-ordinates for the proposed strike, and then launched the attack "without getting clearance from the Pakistani side".

"It was an unprovoked and indiscriminate attack by US helicopters and fighter jets," he said.

He denied an account by American officials, carried in Friday's Wall Street Journal, that they had checked the location with Pakistan first and the fatal strike had been given the go-ahead.

An investigation by the US military is under way.

In retaliation for the incident, Pakistan has blocked the transit of Nato supplies through its territory, ended the US use of an airbase and is boycotting next week's high-level international meeting on Afghanistan in Bonn.

Pakistan's co-operation is considered vital to stabilising Afghanistan and pushing the Taliban into peace talks.

[Areff]

Senate Unanimously Approves Resolution Against NATO Attacks

Submitted by NK on December 2, 2011 – 5:58 pm



The Senate unanimously approved resolution against NATO attacks, stating that NATO’s attack deserves condemnation and the attacks hit Pakistan’s sovereignty.

The body also rejected NATO’s plea of misunderstanding and said that such reasons are not acceptable, adding that such attacks would not be tolerated in the future.

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani ordered to halt NATO supply. “We have no hostility with any country, but never want peace in the region at country’s cost.” she added.

---

China Accuses US Of Fanning Terror By Pakistan Attack

Submitted by NK on December 2, 2011 – 5:50 pm


Ruling party’s top newspaper says Washington has violated international law.

BEIJING, China—China’s top state newspaper on Tuesday accused the United States of flouting international law and fanning terrorism after a NATO attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, and it warned that the Islamabad’s grip on security could be dangerously weakened.

The condemnation in the People’s Daily, the main newspaper of China’s ruling Communist Party, kept up Beijing’s angry words in support of its partner, Pakistan, whose prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, has said that “business as usual” with the United States was over after the attack on Saturday.

NATO called the killings a “tragic, unintended incident,” and U.S. officials said NATO and American investigatons will determine what happened in the attack in northwest Pakistan.

But the People’s Daily said the attack already laid bare deeper problems in the U.S. approach to militant threats.

“Above all, we must be clear that the United States and NATO have trampled on international laws and rules,” said a commentary in the newspaper.

“The risk in fighting terror this way is that it will ignite latent sympathy and support for terrorism, as well as hurting many innocent people and damaging international law,” said a commentary in the Chinese-language newspaper.

“The soil nurturing terrorism will become even more fertile, and the space for terrorism to spread even broader,” it said.

The commentary came after the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei voiced “shock” over the assault, and the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi offered Beijing’s “firm support” to his Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar.

But there are no signs as yet that China is prepared to go beyond rhetorical support to take on a bigger role as a security partner of troubled Pakistan.

The close ties between China and Pakistan reflect long-standing shared wariness of their common neighbor, India, and a desire to hedge against U.S. influence across the region.

But the mutual vows of the Sino-Pakistani “all-weather friendship” only go so far, analysts have said. Beijing does not want to risk entanglement in volatile Pakistani politics, risking its own interests and alienating India, an increasingly important trade partner and regional power.

The People’s Daily commentary said the killings of the soldiers could inflict lasting damage.

“Islamabad’s grip on domestic security will also be weakened,” it said. “This will not only work against the war on terror, it could also leave the risk of long-term turmoil.”

[Areff]

You Too, (Indian Army) Brutus?

Submitted by NK on December 2, 2011 – 5:34 pm



You heard about a US attack on Pakistan’s western border on Saturday. What you don’t know is what India did moments later in the east. But Pakistanis were ready on the eastern border.

LAHORE, Pakistan—Soon after the NATO attack on two Pakistani military posts that killed two officers and 22 soldiers on Saturday, Indian army opened fire on Pakistani posts in Krishna Ghati Sector.

This attempt was swiftly foiled by the ever vigilant Pakistani forces. Indian guns were silenced within two hours. The two attacks are, by no means, coincidental.

Indo-US nexus has common objectives. Both are apprehensive of China’s rapid growth as world’s economic and military power while simultaneously both are dead against Pakistan’s nuclear status. They fully realize that if Pakistan would emerge stronger, their dream to contain China would not materialize.

It was in this context that the US decided to build India as China’s counterweight in the region. It is an open secret that America is keen to assign it a major role in Afghanistan before it leaves.

It is high time our civil and military leaderships took stock of ground realities and revisited their India and US policies. Our parliament should say a big ‘No’ to government’s decision of granting India the status of a Most Favored Nation (MFN). If this decision is not reversed, the time is not far when Indian businessmen would dominate trade in Pakistan rendering our industrial sector dead. Any future relationship with India must be linked to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and the solution should be acceptable to the Kashmiri people.

Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state and its armed forces are one of the five best professional and well-trained armies in the world. It must not allow either the allied forces in Afghanistan or India to take liberty of violating our frontiers.

A strong message should be sent to India and the US through diplomatic channels that if any future violation of Pakistani borders are carried out, it would be given a matching and effective response. It is encouraging to note that the military and political leaderships are on one page as far as US/NATO/ISAF attacks on Pakistan are concerned and they have spoken with one voice.

There could be no better opportunity than today to tell the Americans that if those responsible for Saturday’s attack were not punished, Pakistan will be forced to pull out of the so-called international war on terror.

[Areff]

Gen. Kayani Suspends “Chain-of-Command” in Case of Aggression

Submitted by Masroor on December 2, 2011 – 1:53 am



Masroor Mian | PKKH

According to the latest news feeds pouring in from Rawalpindi, the Pakistani Army Chief has suspended the regular chain-of-command system and all forward operating units have been ordered to retaliate in case of aggression from the eastern border with Afghanistan. The implementation of this order allows Pakistan Army units based at checkpoints along the Afghan border to retaliate in case of any NATO/US incursions without seeking permission from the military high command.

Pakistan had recently blocked the NATO supply routes into Afghanistan due to the unprovoked NATO/US attack on a Pakistani checkpost which left 25 soldiers dead. Relations between the two forces have been tense since the attack and NATO’s belligerent behaviour has left it in a dangerous Afghanistan with an evenly irked nuclear powered neighbour.

The Afghan End-Game certainly seems to be approaching at a blistering rate and international powers have already started siding with the fast emerging winner. With more non-cooperation measures, such as the evacuation of Shahbaz air base (Jacobabad) & the withdrawal of fly over rights, looming on the horizon relations between the US led NATO and Pakistan are destined to take a new low.

[Areff]

Nato Strike Pre-Planned Move: DG MO

Submitted by NK on December 8, 2011 – 8:35 pm



DG Military Operations Maj Gen Ashfaq Nadeem Thursday said Nato airstrike was pre-planned. Briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Defence, the DG MO said that after the attack on Salala checkpost, it was wrongly informed that Volcano check post had been hit. He said that when the Company Commander rushed to the check post he saw that Nato helicopters had returned and kept the firing assault on until the two check posts were completely destroyed. The Senate Standing Committee on Defence meeting was chaired by Javed Ashraf Qazi.

[Areff]

Pro-US Groups Responsible For Afghan Shia Carnage

Submitted by Aurangzeb on December 8, 2011 – 7:52 pmNo


A new trend of attacks in Afghanistan aims at helping Pentagon and CIA prolong their stay in the country. New culprit to watch: Afghan warlords working with CIA.



SPECIAL REPORT | Thursday | 8 December 2011 | Afghan Analysis Unit

KABUL, Afghanistan—The coordinated attacks on Afghan Shias on Tuesday appear to be the handiwork of US-allied Afghan warlords out to create conditions to prolong the stay of US military and intelligence in the country. Under this scenario, pro-US warlords and contractors linked to CIA appear to be key suspects.

The warlords are part of the government and work closely with US military and CIA. This new terror wave serves to push a weak Obama administration to heed military’s desire for a prolonged engagement.


Pakistan can’t be implicated in the attack because Islamabad wants foreign forces to leave and Tuesday’s attacks only serve to provide US military another excuse to stay. So, it is important to understand who benefits from this new trend in attacks, especially targeting Afghan Shias. Afghan resistance groups did not indulge in sectarian attacks since the start of the conflict in 2001. Question is: if they didn’t do it for a decade, why now?

Raising sectarian tensions in the region is part of US military psy-ops to mobilize majority Sunni countries against Shia Iran. Sectarian attacks were unheard of before US military and intelligence teams landed in Iraq in 2003. Some factions of the Taliban did indulge in atrocities against Afghan Shias in late 1990s. But in the ten years since the removal of the Afghan Taliban government, there hasn’t been a single attack targeting Shias.

Afghan warlords, US military and CIA are increasingly acting as a single front in Afghanistan. They are trying to open a new war front with Pakistan and are suspected of having killed former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani because his agenda was closer to Pakistan’s and his peace efforts with Pashtuns and Taliban ran contrary to the interests of warlords and the interests of US military in a long term presence in the country. [See Rabbani Was Killed By US, Afghan Proxies And Pakistan Should Accuse Pentagon, CIA Of Rabbani Murder].

To bring Pakistan under pressure, the US and Afghan commentators are trying to link the carnage to a defunct Pakistani sectarian group. But it is easy to debunk this theory.

Today, sectarian tension in Pakistan is almost limited to the southwestern city of Quetta, where a specific Pakistani ethnic group, the Hazaras, is routinely attacked. Security officials say these attacks are part of terrorism targeting Balochistan, where Afghan-based terror groups have tried unsuccessfully for years to destabilize the strategic southwestern Pakistani province. Another sectarian hotspot is Parachinar on the Afghan border, where tensions appear to be a result of instability and war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has not faced major sectarian attacks in the past twelve years mainly because the country has been successful in containing violent sectarian groups, both Shia and Sunni, which were largely funded by Arab countries and Iran for proxy warfare. This year did not witness any incident in Pakistan during Ashura. In the past these groups indulged in small acts of intimidation inside the country, such as assassinating rivals. And in any case, these amateur groups never acted outside Pakistani borders. While extremist thinking does exist, organized sectarian groups no longer pose the same level of threat as they did in the 1990s, for example.

An anonymous caller to western news organizations has claimed that the coordinated anti-Shia attacks in three Afghan cities was the work of a long-defunct Pakistan-based group that has never acted outside the country before.

No one has verified the caller but US media and Afghan officials were quick to jump on this ‘evidence’ to implicate Pakistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai played smart after the attacks. He cancelled his UK trip and skillfully diverted attention toward Pakistan. By doing this, he protected his inept and corrupt security services and the equally incompetent foreign security forces that can’t even secure the capital.

Islamabad must take a tough stand on the repeated unsubstantiated accusations that Afghan officials hurl at Pakistan. Already we are dealing with Afghan safe havens where anti-Pakistan terrorists plan and execute attacks on us, and the Afghan soil is being used against us. Islamabad has already provided US-controlled Afghanistan many trade concessions under the Transit Trade Agreement, often hurting our business. Pakistan should be ready to withdraw facilities under that deal if Kabul’s anti-Pakistan posture persists.

Source: PakNationalists.com

[Areff]

Pakistan Upgrades Air Defences On Afghan Border

Submitted by NK on December 9, 2011 – 4:46 pm4 Comments





ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has upgraded its air defence system on the Afghan border to make it capable of shooting down aircraft, after Nato strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, a security official told AFP on Friday.

“Now we have a fully equipped air defence system on the Afghan border. It has the capability to trace and detect any aircraft,” the official in Peshawar told AFP by telephone.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the step had been taken to avert air incursions from Afghanistan and to respond to any future air strikes.

“The system has also been upgraded to immediately respond after detecting any aircraft or helicopter and to shoot it down,” he added.

Pakistan shut its border to Nato supply convoys on November 26, the same day as the deadliest single cross-border attack of the 10-year war in Afghanistan.

The government also ordered the United States to leave the Shamsi air base in the southwest, widely reported as a hub in the covert CIA drone war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s border area with Afghanistan.

Pakistan gave tacit support to the programme, but no US drone strike has been reported on Pakistani soil since November 17.

The November 26 attacks brought the fragile Pakistani-US alliance to a fresh low, already reeling from an American stealth raid that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2.

It was after that raid, conducted by US Navy SEALs who flew in from Afghanistan, that Pakistan first upgraded its defense systems on the border.

US President Barack Obama has expressed condolences over the November 26 border deaths, insisting it was not a “deliberate attack” by Nato as claimed by the Pakistani army.

[Areff]

Pakistan boots USA Terrorists out of Shamsi Airbase




Frontier Corps has taken the control of Shamsi Airbase here on Saturday. According to the sources 51 US troops have vacated the airbase and their luggage has been shifted to Afghanistan and FC took the control of base. The base was previously used by the UAE leaders as they have been allotted hunting areas by the government of Pakistan in the vicinity of the base. Pakistan government has ordered US to vacate the base after the Nato attack on country’s check-posts in Mohmand agency of tribal region which led the killing of 24 soldiers.

[Areff]

How CIA Was Expelled From Pakistan’s Shamsi Airbase

Submitted by Aurangzeb on December 12, 2011 – 7:21 pm

As Pakistani soldiers took positions around the base two days before the deadline, US military conveyed to a reluctant CIA that this was the end of its decade-long expedition in Pakistan.




SPECIAL REPORT | Monday | 12 December 2011

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The events of the weekend of 10 and 11 December show how a reluctant and arrogant CIA was forced to leave a base in southwestern Pakistan amid fears that Pakistani military might seize sophisticated equipment on the base used to operate drones. The American intelligence agency was also let down by the waning resolve of the US government and the military, both of whom conveyed to the agency they would not contest a Pakistani move to seize the base and all of the equipment on it if the facility was not vacated by the midnight of Sunday, December 11, Pakistan standard time.

If CIA had any doubts about Pakistani resolve to expel American agents from a base in southwestern Pakistan, those doubts ended when Pakistani soldiers took position around the base two days before end of the deadline yesterday.

CIA officers at the base, in Kabul and back in the US were resisting pressure from the White House and the State Department to leave Pakistan in accordance with the deadline given by Islamabad. They were hoping for a last minute break that would allow them to keep some kind of presence in the strategic base that provides easy access to Iranian, Pakistani and Afghan air spaces.

This reluctance was part of the agency’s overall intention of not leaving Afghanistan and the region at any cost, despite popular US demands to end the war.

Pakistan had a bitter experience with the arrogance of CIA officials operating in Afghanistan, which is their biggest base of operations in the world today, and wanted to take no chances.

The CIA had ignored an earlier Pakistani request, in May, to leave the base. Islamabad waited then but did not pursue the matter in deference to the United Arab Emirates, an ally whose royal family leased what was a simple airstrip back in 1992 for use as a landing point for its private hunting trips. In October 2001, the UAE leased the base to CIA with the consent of Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

But this time, Pakistan had a contingency plan for the worst case scenario. In case CIA agents refused to leave, the Pakistani military was going to storm the base and expel CIA and its agents and technicians by force and seize whatever CIA drones found parked on the base.

When the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corp units assumed positions around the base on Dec. 8, CIA operatives knew they had to leave by the midnight of Dec. 11, the end of the two-week deadline given by Pakistani federal government. There was no way CIA was going to risk its prized equipment falling in Pakistani hands.

Unlike CIA, the US military decided early on not to take chances. Transport aircraft belonging to US military started arriving as early as Dec. 4 to take away soldiers and equipment. US military officers also conveyed to CIA that they would not resist or help CIA counter any move by Pakistani military to seize the base.

Finally, the last US transport plane left the base at 1500 hours on Sunday, Pakistan time. CIA agents on the ground destroyed bunkers and barracks and some equipment to render them useless for Pakistanis.

US media outlets linked to CIA are trying to downplay the impact of this move on CIA’s operations in the region.

The expulsion of CIA and its drones from the base marks an end to the decade-long CIA footprint on Pakistani soil. Tens of CIA agents have already been expelled by Pakistan earlier this year.