NATO Admits Deadly Attack on Pakistan

Los Angeles Times photo trucks held up by closure of Pakistan-Afghan border

NATO has admitted it is “highly likely” it was responsible for an attack by warplanes and helicopters that killed dozens of Pakistan soldiers on an Afghan border post near Mohmand. Pakistan forces returned fire.

Reuters and Al Jazeera said the toll could reach or exceed 30. It was deadliest attack on Pakistan forces by NATO since it invaded neighboring Afghanistan after 9/11.

"Pakistan's sovereignty was attacked early this morning," said Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. "This is our Pakistan and we have to defend it," told the Wall Street journal.

“Close air support was called in, in the development of the tactical situation, and it is what likely caused the Pakistan casualties,” Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for NATO said. He apologized.

News reports said NATO forces were involved in an anti-Taliban operation in the Khyber region of northwestern Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Relations between Islamabad have deteriorated as the war seems to drone on without end. And U.S. military and government officials have accused Pakistan of giving some of the ammunition and other aid it delivers to anti-Afghanistan government groups.

In some cases NATO forces allegedly were killed with these munitions.

Pakistan was outraged by the Navy Seal attack inside its territory that resulted in the execution of Osama bin Laden.

Afghan President has simultaneously criticized the U.S. for allegedly killing civilians not involved in the conflict.

In the U.S., support for the war has declined as casualties climb at the same time American commanders say they are winning. Intense pressure to cut government spending adds to the pressure to pull out of the graveyard of empires.

Pakistan, meanwhile, said it returned fire on the attack early Saturday. There was no information on NATO suffered casualties.

“Pakistani troops effectively responded immediately in self-defense to NATO’s aggress with all available weapons,” its military said in a statement.

Fighting Erupts Between Pakistan and NATO

Simmering relations between Pakistan and NATO erupted nto fighting early Saturday when American choppers killed 25 soldiers at a border post near the town of Jamrud.  More Pakistan troops were wounded.

Dawn, the BBC, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, the Times of India and others reported the attack, which was followed immediately by the closure of the main transport route into Afghanistan. They quoted Pakistani TV, military and government officials.

The attack occurred in the same area where Pakistan forces have been fighting the Taliban.

NATO said it was aware an incident had occurred but it didn’t have details.

Relations between Islamabad and Washington have grown increasingly tense. Pakistan is accused of providing some support to anti-Afghan governments.

The U.S. incursion into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden outraged our main ally in the Afghan war. In turn the fact that Pakistan had allowed the author of the 9/11 attacks to hide in its territory for years made things even worse.

This was at least the second such incident, but the previous one involved only two dead and the two sides worked it out.

Does The Blood From Syria Lead To Moscow

Those choosing to blame the U.S. and the U.N. for not stopping the hospital murders in Syria need to review the Soviet role. Is it another Hungary, just in a different style?


They began throwing their weight around in Syria decades before the fall of the Soviet Empire. Without their weapons would there be a toll of several thousand in what is nearly a civil war?


Indeed, Russia was only the Soviet Union for about 70 years but its defeat by the West was a humiliation it has not lived down. The nationalism it appears to be returning to lasted more than 400 years, and even preceeded the Russian empire. The Tsar was known as the “Tsar of all the Russias.”


There is no doubt Russia is preventing the U.N. from blasting Bashar Al-Assad from power, what would be an easy job compared to Libya. Syria is much smaller geographically, and is surrounded mostly by Turkey, Iraq and Israel.


Why does Vladimir Putin take this stand? His critics say it is because Russia is returning to its nationalist heritage.


Moscow plans to restore a naval base in Syria near Tartus next year to handle modern warships. The port has been left to rust for years.


Moscow also supplies weapons to Damascus, though whether it will get paid remains unknown.


Putin’s government has put itself in such a gridlock with Arab League countries facing increasing demands for democracy it is trying diversions like supporting admission of Palestine to UNESCO. Should they support allowing Palestine into the U.N. that might mean something.


Perhaps the play given Ria Novosti to a story about the Arab League calling for peace talks to begin within 15 days indicates Putin understands Al-Assad will fall, and it will be two losses in a row for Moscow when it betted on the wrong horse.


Putin’s critics, including Mikhail Gorbachev, accuse him of trying to draw the former republics back into its circle.


Gorbachev, who stood up against the Communists to end their rule, opposed Putin’s decision to run for president again. He said Putin’s United Russian party reminded him of the Communist Party, and he feared the repression of old would be brought back.


He told Der Spiegel that Putin was “dragging the country into the past, when it is on fire with modernization.”


Putin this week denied any ambition to restore the former empire and told Western critics “to mind their own business,” the kind of diplomacy no doubt taught at the KGB.


So far Putin has met with only moderate resistance from the U.S. and Western Europe but it would not be a surprise if the U.N. becomes a verbal battlefield like the one that existed during the Cold War.


Can Moscow expect to be invited into NATO? Perhaps entry into the World Trade Organization. But even being in trade organizations do not rule out restrictions being imposed base on human rights’ issues or monopolistic policies originating from poorly hidden nationalistic tendencies.