US Defends Airstrikes That Pakistan Says Killed 11 Soldiers

WASHINGTON — U.S. airstrikes into Pakistan that may have accidentally killed allied fighters have upset the already fragile relations between Washington and Islamabad over how to stem violence in the lawless border region.

Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell defended the bombing Wednesday and said it was too early to know whether the strike killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary forces, as alleged by the angry Pakistani Army.

"Every indication we have is that this was a legitimate strike against forces that had attacked members of the coalition," he told a Pentagon press conference.

Other U.S. officials said earlier Wednesday that three aircraft launched about a dozen bombs into Pakistan after militants attacked coalition forces in a wooded area near a checkpoint. Conflicting reports about the Tuesday clash were being sorted out by the U.S. military.

U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where Pakistan's government also lodged a diplomatic protest.

"The United States regrets that actions ... on the night of June 10 resulted in the reported casualties among Pakistani forces who are our partners in the fight against terrorism," a U.S. Embassy statement said. It expressed condolences to the families of the dead.

Rick Barton, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the incident comes at a bad time, when the new Pakistani government is already overwhelmed trying to find its way.

"The bad news with this kind of an incident is that it really distracts from the more important transition that's going on in Pakistan and it could really be exploited as an organizing tool to get people back to thinking the United States is the root cause" of problems in their country, Barton said.

"It could easily be used as a provocation for some of the groups that are most anti-American and are outside the government as well," he said.

The incident has inflamed anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan, where a new government is trying to reach out to tribal leaders in the border region to negotiate a peace deal. U.S. officials have expressed skepticism about the plan, and there have been repeated questions about Pakistan's commitment and ability to battle terrorists known to be hiding in the mountainous terrain.

As recently as Monday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, repeated U.S. fears that if left unchecked, the ungoverned border region will likely spawn the next attack on U.S. soil. That area is also where some believe Osama bin Laden is hiding.

Mullen, who has visited Pakistan three times since February, has talked at length with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who replaced stalwart U.S. ally President Pervez Musharraf as Pakistan Army chief last year.

The government, Mullen said, recognizes the challenge and is looking for the best way to handle it.

"I am learning as I go that these tribal areas are extraordinarily complex. There's no simple answer," said Mullen, adding that the U.S. wants peace agreements that can be enforced so that no insurgents cross the border.

Details of the incident remain murky.

U.S. forces said they used unmanned drones to follow the insurgents, then fired on them. It was not clear if the jets crossed into Pakistan's airspace.

In a statement, Combined Joint Task Force 101, based in Bagram, said coalition forces used the unmanned aircraft to maintain "positive identification of the enemy" firing at coalition troops.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the operation was coordinated with the Pakistani forces.

The Pakistani army said the coalition airstrike hit a post of the paramilitary Frontier Corps and was a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act."

It launched a strong protest and reserved "the right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression," the military said in a statement.

The State Department said Wednesday it had no details of the incident but added that it could "understand" Pakistani anger if innocent lives had been taken.

"Loss of innocent life is obviously a tragedy," said Gonzalo Gallegos, a department spokesman. "It's something we all try to avoid."

___

Associated Press Writers Matthew Lee and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

(This version CORRECTS Barton's first name to Rick instead of Rich)

Comments

[arvay]

I'm not a military expert, but I suspect that this sort of thing would be far more rare if we had adequate numbers of troops in Afghanistan, say the 150,000 that are now in Iraq.

With enough troops, we'd be able to really seal the border, I suspect, rather than rushing around in whack-a-mole fashion. Bottling up the remnants of the Taliban (which should never have survived the initial attack, another Bush blunder) would save us from marring relations with Pakistan, which might work harder at eliminating these extremists if they were working solely to make trouble in their country. Anyway, it would be their problem to fix.

[piper1233]

This air strike killing iranians, and the response by Bush and the boys is another reason why Impeachment as well as criminal charges should be considered aginst him. During the last months of his failing administration, with sustainsiated reports on how he recklessly led the country into an uneccessary war with fabricated 'intellegence. Over 4000 dead soilders, countless wounded, massive numbers of suicides by war survivers and unanimous desent by the populas; Bush is setting the stage for another unprovoked counter productive war. which he will leave to his predecessor. a clear message should be sent by congress and the senate that they will not allow bush to propel us deeper into the abyss while he rides off into the sunset. Maybe the media will correct its lack of scutiny during the days leading up to the Irac war and start some comprehensive coverage of this rogue administration.

[watchingthings]

Dang!....that was only collateral damage.......why can't they understand that? We only meant to hit the basement....not the ground floor.

[Alethia]

Wonderful Y2KCockRoach!

[Y2KCockroach]

To "Libertarian78", who posted at 6:55 pm. You're kidding, right? The idea that China is afraid of the U.S., (in its own neighborhood) is nonsense. In four years the U.S. hasn't been able to suppress a gang of RPG-toting Arab teenagers in flip-flops, and yet you think that anyone is fooled by their stated "willingness" to antagonize the Chinese? Unlike every other country that the U.S. has attacked in the past fifty years, the Chinese have a real army, with real weapons, and real knowledge of how to use them. Accordingly, the idea that the U.S. could attack on China's doorstep, or that it could attack one of China's allies without a nasty response from the Chinese is delusional. Now, maybe Bush and his ilk don't know how to read a map, but the Chinese do, and they aren't going to allow the Americans to redraw the far East map without their blessing. With the American economy flat on its back, with government spending and debt skyrocketing, with the military over-extended (insert reference to RPG-toting Arab teenagers here), and with a dearth of allies who at this point give a sh*t about the U.S., you think that the Chinese are afraid of us? Yeesh. Take a few minutes, and go look at the other items on HuffPo today, including Angela Merkel flipping Bush off re Iran and the Chinese hacking Congress' computers. Yeah, they're all afraid of us........

[Libertarian78]

I think the question is the following - are the Chinese gonna help Pakistan openly or covertly against US attack on Afg-Pak border areas. The Chinese know that they run a high risk (almost a certainty) of CIA finding out about their adventure.

A related question is - are the Pakistanis gonna go to the Chinese for help? Pakistanis have a American Express Black credit card with a limit of $10 bn each year from the US.
They are just gonna make a whole lot of noise about these bombings to look legit to their own citizens - that is all they have done. I think most Pakistani military brass are not really cozy with the jihadis except the few who come from the area.

China is silent on these bombings.

BTW, on a related situation, I don't see Chinese ships stoming Taiwan - because it is a protectorate of the US.

China will never engage the US militarily unless they attack Chinese territories.

I hate any war, but I don't like the jihadis either. I personally feel, the U.S. should totally leave the middle east alone. As far as the energy security goes, give a ton of cash to Universities with top ten science and engineering programs in the US and forget about it - it will be done.

I am just commenting based on reality on the ground

[DocJerome]

"As far as the energy security goes, give a ton of cash to Universities with top ten science and engineering programs in the US and forget about it - it will be done."

I agree totally. That is the kind of radical change that must take place. Enough coddling the oil and car industries, they are stringing us along so they can control and claim all profits on their time table. Between the Universities and the private sector, many innovative products will be invented along the way, spawning new businesses and markets.

Time to move on.

[DocJerome]

Indeed, China is not afraid of the big bad wolf, . . . who should be. After observing the complacency of the American people and the leadership of the country demonstrating a thorough lack of intellectual capacity, no country with strong leadership and a solid military should fear the US. China isn't the only country stealing information from the USA, how about Israel. At this point, it may be just handed to them by members of our own government, as they thwart any efforts to even acknowledge this fact.

[Alethia]

It would be ideal if the relationship between India and Pakistan got so good, that together, they could tackle the problems of the region, along with other countries of South Asia.

History tells us that before 1947 in a united India, the current region that straddles the Pak-Afghan border was as wild and woolly as it is now. Untamed!

[Alethia]

It has gotten the USA nowhere by bombing countries and getting into two disastrous wars: Vietnam and Iraq.
I well remember the ill-fated campaign to start bombing Cambodia because the Vietcong guerrillas of Vietnam had established some bases there...and we all know what a horrible tragedy ensued in Cambodia! Not to speak of the humiliation of a lost war for the USA in SouthEast Asia.

We must learn from our past that it's better not to try to police the world. It many times is counterproductive. I agree with the idea of bringing in militants into a negotiating process if they lay down arms. It has worked in Northern Ireland. It can work in Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

There is, no doubt, a definite threat to world security on the Afghan-Pak border. And you may hate Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other country. But if you allow pique and emotion to rule your actions, you will never win.

[Alethia]

Reminder # 1: Pakistan has lost at least 1,000 soldiers in the fight against Al-Qaeda since 2002- more than any other coalition member.

Reminder #2; Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Reminder # 3: China and Pakistan (like the USA and Pakistan) have been solid allies for 45 years. (An attack on one is an attack on both kind of scenario)

Reminder # 4: If you attack Pakistan, you attack China.

We, the USA, better talk more with our allies, the Pakistanis, to resolve issues between us, rather than be gun happy!

[SlithyTove]

There is one and only one reason China and Pakistan are allied -- their mutual regional rivalry with India. There is not otherwise a great deal of love lost between the two.

India and Pakistan have gone at each other full tilt several times (and India and China have once) in open war without the third nation intervening on the battlefield. China has an Islamic separatist problem of its own in Xinjiang Uyghur, and does not have any great self-interest at stake in overextending itself for Pakistan.

Let's not confuse this alliance forged by realpolitik with the kind of relationship, say, that the US and Israel have with each other.

[rwe2late]

Unfortunately, OBAMA has also said he would authorize bombing attacks inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, as part of the so-called "war on terror".

Such illegal and unilateral actions by the US ought to cease, despite what Obama, Bush, Cheney, and other jingoists proclaim.

[Burfee]

It is astounding that U S is pouring billions in to Pak and this the kind of cooperation we get from a failing state. Until Pak govt and its army eschews terrorism as its state's policy against its neighbhors, it will be sliding dowm the abyss. Pak army has vested interest in harboring terror groups because it uses this looming terrorist threat against U S and others to garner more financial and military aid. Financial aid is pocketed by corrupt military leaders. Yet Bush keeps praising Pak's cooperation, this is full of B.S. Intead of sabre rattling against Iran, the real evil is Pak military and ISI.

[BadCompany]

With all the fist bumping going on, how can one tell who is taliban and who is Pakistani?
They asked for it.

[Agnim]

1. Pakistan will have to do more to exercise most completely the sovereignty it claims for its 'bad lands'; because others will!

2. If a nation allows its territory to be used as a launching pad for attacks on others, then that nation becomes JUST AS GUILTY as the attackers.

3. From where and from whom are the islamists in Pakistan's Bad Lands getting their arms?

4. The bungling Bush is giving Pakistan billion$, which is being used to fund the Taleban.
That is appeasement!

5. Pakistan needs to disarm every last Taleban and expel every last foreigner, who is in Pakistan for terror trainer.
And Pakistan's time is running out!

[darthdarcy]

The Pakistani ISI is aiding and abetting, training and supplying the Taliban and al-Qaeda..

The ISI Chief Ahmed helped pay for 9/11 when he sent Mohamed Atta $100,000.00 to fund 9/11...

So it's not surprising Pakistani Troops are in the midst of those who attack coalition members..

That why we have to attack Iran..!

See what I mean..?

[basta]

Iran? No, I don't see what you mean.

[BadCompany]

I see what dd means.

[NYCrex]

I'm still confused after all these years with the Iraq war as to why a soldier is called a troop. I always think a troop is a group of soldiers, so when I hear 11 troops were killed, I think it's more than 11 people. Why is it wrong to say 11 soldiers were killed? If you're a person actively serving in the Army, do you call yourself a troop? As in, "I'm a troop in the United States Army." Would anyone like to educate me on the semantics of armed services titles? I'd really appreciate it.

[basta]

A troop is a military unit, originally a small force of cavalry, subordinate to a squadron and headed by the troop leader. Cavalry soldiers of private rank are called troopers. Today, troop has different specific meanings in different armed forces.

Generally, soldiers may be referred to as troops.

[BadCompany]

I wonder the same thing.
I've guessed that it is typically bizarre military-speak.
Maybe not.
It could just be typically bizarre corporate media-speak.

[JoeBlough]

Troop makes them sound less human. That way, when you lose one, it's not a big deal. It's pyschology.

[JoeBlough]

You would think after seven years of war, we would have figured out how to fight it. I feel sorry fot the next country we invade. But, we are winning!