Pakistan declined to join investigation into NATO airstrike: Pentagon

US department of defense says attack has had chilling effect on the US relationship with Pakistan.


Huma Imtiaz December 02, 2011
Pakistan declined to join investigation into NATO airstrike: Pentagon

WASHINGTON: US on Friday said that Pakistan had been invited to join an investigation into the cross border North Atlantic Treaty Organistaion (Nato) bombing of a Pakistani check post. However, Pakistan had elected not to participate in the investigation.

A Nato air strike – which Pakistan terms as ‘deliberate’, took place in the early hours of November 26, when Nato air craft providing close air support to ground troops attacked a Pakistani check post and then subsequent support troops which rushed to the site located in Mohmand on Pak-Afghan border. The attack killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers and wounded a further 12.

(Read: ‘Unprovoked’: DGMO gives details of aerial assault)

Addressing a press conference at the Department of Defense, the Pentagon Press Secretary George Little in response to a question said that the relationship with Pakistan was critical. “We are partners with Pakistan … We will be working over time to resolve our differences over this and other matters.”

Captain John Kirby, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, said that the Nato airstrike “has had a chilling effect on our relationship with the Pakistani military.”

Referring to General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani’s letter to his troops, Captain Kirby said, “Every sovereign nation has the right of self-defense and the right to order their troops to defend themselves. So do we. We respect that right of his.”

(Read: Kayani’s bold move: ‘Pakistani troops will return fire if Nato attacks again’)

In response to a question about Pakistan’s decision to cease co-operation with the US and Afghan forces along the border, Kirby said that they hoped that they would be able to continue the kind of coordination and communication that they had been working on with Pakistan before this incident. “There had been a lot of effort put into our coordination on border control centres with Pakistanis before this incident, we hope that the same level of effort can continue."

Regarding the Nato airstrike, Little reiterated, that this was "not in any way, shape or form an intentional attack by US military on Pakistan.”

Kirby said that the incident was a military engagement, and declined to provide further comments, saying the matter was still under investigation.

The two spokespersons also declined to comment directly on the effect of the Nato supply routes closure on US troops, calling it a logistical matter. Captain Kirby said that the US had alternatives and options.

Warren Weinstein and al Qaeda

In response to a question on Warren Weinstein and the authenticity of al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zwahiri's claim that the kidnapped aid worker was in their custody, Captain Kirby said that they could not comment on the al Qaeda report yet.

(Read: Al Qaeda claims kidnapping of Weinstein in Pakistan)

Little though called for Weinstein's immediate release.

COMMENTS (52)

numbersnumbers | 12 years ago | Reply

QUESTION: What does Pakistan gain by not participating in a joint investigation? ANSWER: The Pakistani officers at the joint communication center (where the foul-up occurred) won't have to testify in an open forum when communication logs and on-site recordings of this entire event at the centre will be played back and reviewed!

Maddy Khan | 12 years ago | Reply

Pakistan Army is as usual runing off and dont want to be investigated for anything. Howcome they woke up one fine morning and realized that US is not a friend, how about the hundreds of people we have sold to US, billions of dollars they get to sign arm deals and buy planes.. so much to list but...

I wish my this country can have a well structured, obedient to parliment, and a properly audited army.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ