The friendly fire and price of friendship
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Air Commodore Muhammad Zakiul Islam
IT has been reported widely by the Reuters and other news agencies that 11 Pakistani servicemen including one officer have been killed late on Tuesday, the 10th June by the US forces on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The timing of the incident couldn't have been any worse than this. Beset with mounting domestic problems with a tenuous coalition government and multiple centres of power, the Pakistanis have condemned the "unprovoked and cowardly" act by their otherwise traditional friend and partner in the present war on terror, the USA. In military parlance, it could be termed as a Friendly Fire or was it?
In the fog and friction of war, such mistakes are not uncommon in the battlefield. But given today's technological development and smart and real-time intelligence and communication system, accidents like these ones will be considered highly undesirable and deplorable both by the attackers and the victims. The US possesses one of the most modern and sophisticated intelligence systems through their network of strategic and tactical spy satellite, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other apparatus scouring every nook and corner of the earth. In fact, it used to boast earlier that, given a clear sky and legible writing, the US spy satellites could even read the number plates of cars on the road!
What then went wrong? There are widely different and conflicting versions of the incident from the Pakistani and the American forces. The incident occurred at a border post in the Mohmand region opposite to Kunar province of Afghanistan. According to the Pakistani account, their forces took control of a border outpost on top of a hill which was earlier occupied by the Afghan Government forces but decided to vacate it after reaching an agreement between them. When the Afghans were returning, they came under attack by the militants. The Afghans then requested for air strike from the coalition forces. But the air strike hit the Pakistani Frontier Corps forces instead inside the Pakistani border.
The US version of the incident differs substantially. According to them, a patrol of the coalition forces was on reconnaissance mission in that area. While this party came under attack, it returned the fire and called in for air support. According to them, the 'anti-Afghan militants' then took position inside Pakistan where they came under attack from the coalition air support.
The misgivings over, and confusions about the whole episode have been further compounded by the fact that the coalition forces have forwarded evidence in support of their claim that the air attack was 'legitimate' and also the fact that the operation continued for more than few hours. Obviously, there was miscommunication or serious lack of it between the two friendly forces operating in the area.
However, there are otherwise reports of frustration and concern among the NATO and other coalition elements of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF). Of late, it has been reported that Pakistan is trying to negotiate peace and amicable settlement with the militant groups to bring about peace within its borders. But the observers feel that such efforts, rather than producing any tangible results, are causing and promoting more violence by the militants across the border in Afghanistan.
In fact, such issues are not a new one. Right from the beginning of the anti-terrorist campaign in the region, the US-led forces have been seeking consent from Pakistan to lead-pursuit including air strikes into its territories in search of militants and terror-suspects on their own, a request Pakistan has been steadily denying. It has constantly held the view and expressed its resolve that any such operations ought to be joint ones, and with the knowledge, consent and participation of the Pakistani forces.
One would, of course, remember that the geography and history, to a great extent, of what constitutes the common region between Pakistan and Afghanistan had been 'God forsaken' and somewhat perplexing right from the days of Alexander, the great, and continued to be so through the days of the British Raj, the Russian misadventure and the present times . The rugged land and its inhabitants remained to be unconquerable and untamable. In the backdrop of such a combination of inhospitable man and nature, it will be often difficult to differentiate between the two F's - friend or foe. Also noteworthy is the fact that the relation between the two neighbours, Afghanistan and Pakistan, has often remained alternately encapsulated in the two F's.
Meanwhile, US President George Bush had been touring the Arabian Peninsula, refreshing and renewing old friendship and in search of finding new ones and has had made two trips there in less than six months. No doubt, he will find many a willing running mates so long as his mission is aimed at finding genuine friends and not dotting and identifying foes and fall guys. But the Presidential initiative has come rather late in the last year and during the wee days of Presidency. Instead of launching the IFF ( Identification: Friend or Foe), the much touted "either with us or with them" syndrome, the powerful US initiative and energy could be usefully utilised for finding willing partners and mobilising world opinion for reaching a permanent solution to the many vexing issues including Palestine.
No matter whatever enthusiasm and shade and shred of fundamentalism (!) Mr. Bush might have displayed in the Israeli Knesset on its 60th Anniversary, there is no denying of the fact that all the stake-holders in the Middle East peace process are all different people to day - different from those who ruled and lived in the Arab countries, in Israel and Washington DC. Most of today's Arab leadership, sovereigns and elected inclusive, are open-minded, progressive and forward-looking. They and their people, the Palestinians, the Israelis and America et al agree to the right to life of the people of Palestine and of Israel. Establishment of an independent Palestine is a sine qua non for establishing peace in the Middle East and elsewhere. Unless one understands this central theme, one is likely to miss the point willynilly. Once bestowed upon, with the Statehood, it is generally expected that the State of Palestine and its leaders together with the people will behave as responsible and abiding citizens of the world community.
In temporal life, everything has a price. The hapless Pakistani soldiers paid for the friendship through their life. Every year, scores of young Palestinians and Israelis are paying the highest price for a secured future and a secured homeland and because of the absence of it. It is time the world community comes forward and honours the sacrifice of these young people by finding permanent solution and lasting peace in the Middle East. The lone super power and the enlightened leadership in the Arab world would have to contribute and play the central role.
IT has been reported widely by the Reuters and other news agencies that 11 Pakistani servicemen including one officer have been killed late on Tuesday, the 10th June by the US forces on the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The timing of the incident couldn't have been any worse than this. Beset with mounting domestic problems with a tenuous coalition government and multiple centres of power, the Pakistanis have condemned the "unprovoked and cowardly" act by their otherwise traditional friend and partner in the present war on terror, the USA. In military parlance, it could be termed as a Friendly Fire or was it?
In the fog and friction of war, such mistakes are not uncommon in the battlefield. But given today's technological development and smart and real-time intelligence and communication system, accidents like these ones will be considered highly undesirable and deplorable both by the attackers and the victims. The US possesses one of the most modern and sophisticated intelligence systems through their network of strategic and tactical spy satellite, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other apparatus scouring every nook and corner of the earth. In fact, it used to boast earlier that, given a clear sky and legible writing, the US spy satellites could even read the number plates of cars on the road!
What then went wrong? There are widely different and conflicting versions of the incident from the Pakistani and the American forces. The incident occurred at a border post in the Mohmand region opposite to Kunar province of Afghanistan. According to the Pakistani account, their forces took control of a border outpost on top of a hill which was earlier occupied by the Afghan Government forces but decided to vacate it after reaching an agreement between them. When the Afghans were returning, they came under attack by the militants. The Afghans then requested for air strike from the coalition forces. But the air strike hit the Pakistani Frontier Corps forces instead inside the Pakistani border.
The US version of the incident differs substantially. According to them, a patrol of the coalition forces was on reconnaissance mission in that area. While this party came under attack, it returned the fire and called in for air support. According to them, the 'anti-Afghan militants' then took position inside Pakistan where they came under attack from the coalition air support.
The misgivings over, and confusions about the whole episode have been further compounded by the fact that the coalition forces have forwarded evidence in support of their claim that the air attack was 'legitimate' and also the fact that the operation continued for more than few hours. Obviously, there was miscommunication or serious lack of it between the two friendly forces operating in the area.
However, there are otherwise reports of frustration and concern among the NATO and other coalition elements of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF). Of late, it has been reported that Pakistan is trying to negotiate peace and amicable settlement with the militant groups to bring about peace within its borders. But the observers feel that such efforts, rather than producing any tangible results, are causing and promoting more violence by the militants across the border in Afghanistan.
In fact, such issues are not a new one. Right from the beginning of the anti-terrorist campaign in the region, the US-led forces have been seeking consent from Pakistan to lead-pursuit including air strikes into its territories in search of militants and terror-suspects on their own, a request Pakistan has been steadily denying. It has constantly held the view and expressed its resolve that any such operations ought to be joint ones, and with the knowledge, consent and participation of the Pakistani forces.
One would, of course, remember that the geography and history, to a great extent, of what constitutes the common region between Pakistan and Afghanistan had been 'God forsaken' and somewhat perplexing right from the days of Alexander, the great, and continued to be so through the days of the British Raj, the Russian misadventure and the present times . The rugged land and its inhabitants remained to be unconquerable and untamable. In the backdrop of such a combination of inhospitable man and nature, it will be often difficult to differentiate between the two F's - friend or foe. Also noteworthy is the fact that the relation between the two neighbours, Afghanistan and Pakistan, has often remained alternately encapsulated in the two F's.
Meanwhile, US President George Bush had been touring the Arabian Peninsula, refreshing and renewing old friendship and in search of finding new ones and has had made two trips there in less than six months. No doubt, he will find many a willing running mates so long as his mission is aimed at finding genuine friends and not dotting and identifying foes and fall guys. But the Presidential initiative has come rather late in the last year and during the wee days of Presidency. Instead of launching the IFF ( Identification: Friend or Foe), the much touted "either with us or with them" syndrome, the powerful US initiative and energy could be usefully utilised for finding willing partners and mobilising world opinion for reaching a permanent solution to the many vexing issues including Palestine.
No matter whatever enthusiasm and shade and shred of fundamentalism (!) Mr. Bush might have displayed in the Israeli Knesset on its 60th Anniversary, there is no denying of the fact that all the stake-holders in the Middle East peace process are all different people to day - different from those who ruled and lived in the Arab countries, in Israel and Washington DC. Most of today's Arab leadership, sovereigns and elected inclusive, are open-minded, progressive and forward-looking. They and their people, the Palestinians, the Israelis and America et al agree to the right to life of the people of Palestine and of Israel. Establishment of an independent Palestine is a sine qua non for establishing peace in the Middle East and elsewhere. Unless one understands this central theme, one is likely to miss the point willynilly. Once bestowed upon, with the Statehood, it is generally expected that the State of Palestine and its leaders together with the people will behave as responsible and abiding citizens of the world community.
In temporal life, everything has a price. The hapless Pakistani soldiers paid for the friendship through their life. Every year, scores of young Palestinians and Israelis are paying the highest price for a secured future and a secured homeland and because of the absence of it. It is time the world community comes forward and honours the sacrifice of these young people by finding permanent solution and lasting peace in the Middle East. The lone super power and the enlightened leadership in the Arab world would have to contribute and play the central role.