After NATO strike, Pakistan adjusts rules of engagement

ISLAMABAD Fri Dec 2, 2011 5:20pm EST

A student holds a placard during an anti-American demonstration near the U.S. consulate in Karachi, December 2, 2011.    REUTERS/Athar Hussain

A student holds a placard during an anti-American demonstration near the U.S. consulate in Karachi, December 2, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Athar Hussain

Related Video

Related Topics

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's commanders in the wild Afghan border region can return fire if under attack without waiting for permission, the army chief said on Friday, a policy change that could stoke tensions after Saturday's NATO strike killed 24 Pakistani troops.

Exactly what happened in the attack is unclear. Two U.S. officials told Reuters early indications were that Pakistani officials had cleared the NATO air strike, unaware they had troops in the area. A Pakistani official denied this.

The attack sparked fury in Pakistan and further complicated U.S.-led efforts to ease a crisis in relations with Islamabad, still seething at a secret U.S. raid in May which killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and stabilize the region before foreign combat troops leave Afghanistan in 2014.

"I do not want there to be any doubt in the minds of any commander at any level about the rules of engagement," Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani said in a communique on Friday.

"In case of any attack, you have complete liberty to respond forcefully using all available resources. You do not need any permission for this."

A military source explained that this amounted to a change in the rules for Pakistani forces guarding the Western border against militant movements to and from Afghanistan.

"In the past, we were only guarding ourselves or reacting against militants," said the source, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

"We have given our posts some more space to respond. If they are under attack, they should not wait for orders from above on whether to return fire or not."

The increase in autonomy for local commanders is likely to raise tensions in the unruly and mountainous border region, which is porous and poorly marked. Militants and tribespeople alike move back and forth daily.

"There are certain inherent risks in the delegation of authority," said defense analyst and retired general Talat Masood. "There could be unintended consequences."

Exactly what happened at the Pakistani posts along an unruly and poorly defined border is still unclear.

Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression -- an accusation the top U.S. military officer flatly rejected in an interview with Reuters.

Two U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination center had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.

The U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to confirm details first reported by the Wall Street Journal, said an Afghan-led assault force that included U.S. commandos came under fire from an encampment along the border with Pakistan.

The commandos thought they were being fired on by militants but instead the fire came from Pakistani troops, they said.

A Pakistani military official categorically denied that account, saying the aircraft had already engaged when Pakistan was contacted.

"Wrong information about the area of operation was provided to Pakistani officials a few minutes before the strike," said the official, who was not authorized to speak to the media.

"Without getting clearance from the Pakistan side, the post had already been engaged by U.S. helicopters and fighter jets. Pakistan did not have any prior information about any operation in the area."

In a statement on its public relations website, Pakistan's military said that its response to the NATO strike was hampered by an inability to scramble its aircraft in time.

"The response could have been more effective if PAF (Pakistan Air Force) had also joined in. However, it was no fault of PAF," the statement said.

"The timely decision could not be taken due to breakdown of communication with the affected posts and, therefore, lack of clarity of situation, at various levels, including the Corps Headquarters and GHQ (General Headquarters)."

The Pentagon has declined to comment on details from the investigation until it is complete. Pentagon spokesman George Little acknowledged at a news conference that Pakistan had been asked but "elected to date not to participate" in the inquiry.

SOUND AND FURY

The United States and NATO have promised to investigate the incident, expressing regret on the deaths of Pakistani soldiers but the White House said it was premature to consider an apology when an investigation was still in its early stages.

Pakistan has shown its anger over the attack by blocking ground supply routes for NATO forces in Afghanistan, and pulling out of an international conference in Germany next week on Afghanistan, depriving the talks of a central player in peace efforts.

"I think it's safe to say that the incident has had a chilling effect on our relationship with the Pakistani military. No question about that," said another Pentagon spokesman, Captain John Kirby.

Western leaders have urged Islamabad to rethink its decision to boycott the conference, but the Pakistani parliament's national security committee Friday endorsed the decision.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan's contributions to regional peace efforts have not been appreciated and his country has become a scapegoat for the "failings of international policies in Afghanistan."

"Clearly, there is a limit to our patience. Cooperation cannot be a one-way street," he said.

In Karachi, calls for defiance laced Friday prayer sermons.

"This (the NATO attack) is sheer cruelty and the rulers and the public must join hands to defend our country," an imam said at the Jamia Masjid mosque in an upscale neighborhood. "It's time we decide that we can spend our lives as poor people but not as slaves of Western powers.

"We should have complete faith in Allah, and if you follow Islam in the true spirit, we will have no problems surviving even if the U.S. and Western powers don't like us."

At a rally by the militant group Sipah-e-Sahaba, some 2,000 protesters held placards that read: "Jihad is the only response to the U.S." and "Friends of the U.S. are traitors to Islam."

In the city of Multan in southern Punjab, at a demonstration organized by an Islamist group, Abdul Ghaffar, 45, said: "We're going to teach America the kind of lesson that is going to make them forget about Vietnam."

(Additional reporting by Augustine Anthony in ISLAMABAD, Asim Tanveer in MULTAN, and Faisal Aziz and Imtiaz Shah in KARACHI and Phil Stewart in WASHINGTON; Writing by Chris Allbritton; Editing by Nick Macfie and Yoko Nishikawa)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (14)
FreonP wrote:
If a few Pakistani army officers wanted to end US-Pakistan cooperation in fighting terrorism, they could order a remote post to fire across the border and then give clearance for a NATO strike on the post. They would later claim that no strike on the post was authorized and that the strike was “unprovoked aggression.” It’s too early to say whether or not that’s what happened in this instance, but it is likely that there are elements within the Pakistani army with both motive and means to do so. By comparison, the Pakistani assertion that NATO forces deliberately attacked Pakistani soldiers without reason doesn’t sound credible.

Dec 02, 2011 6:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
Facetruth wrote:
American wasted all these years and money. Had they tried they could have developed Afghanistan to self sufficient level, which in return would have diverted Afghan’s hand from rifles to the workmen tools and made them productive citizens of this planet but not so. The fact is that Americans never tried to be true friends with any body. They are driven by self eccentric policies regardless of regional history and peoples sentiments. Americans have changed a lot from nation building era of 1960 to short term policies where an American President lies blatantly that rouge CIA contractor agent Raymond Davis is a diplomat, it’s good he is kicking his own people in America. Senator Kerry also lied when he said Raymond will be tried in USA for killing 3 innocent people in broad light on the street of Lahore.
The fact is Pakistan have practically nothing in hand to persuade Afghans. Pakistan is trying hard to stay away from Afghanistan. What happens to Afghans is their own decision. People in Pakistan have lost 60 billion dollars in the war support efforts and many more billions in lost trade opportunities simply because the General Musharaf President at time was short sighted and imagned that Americans would stablize Afghanistan is 2 -3 years and that will be all. He forgot to consider that Afghans like long and slow grinding wars. Now USA is in those slow grinding wheels in place of USSR. Russian were more intelligent, they sensed this and walked away. USA should follow USSR foot steps.

Dec 02, 2011 7:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Notthetruth wrote:
Good its about time…………

Dec 02, 2011 7:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.