Pakistan Deploys Air Defense Weapons to Afghan Border

[jimmy olsen]

Not a good sign, but then again no good signs were expected.

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/12/09/pakistan-deploys-air-defense-weapons-to-afghan-border/

Pakistan Deploys Air Defense Weapons to Afghan Border
Posted Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 2:45 am

A senior Pakistani military officer says the government has deployed air defense weapons on the country's border with Afghanistan, following the NATO airstrikes last month that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reports Major General Ashfaq Nadeem says the new deployment of the border weapons was aimed at preventing "fresh attacks" as Pakistan re-evaluates its strategy for safeguarding its western borders from air raids.

The newspaper says Nadeem briefed the federal cabinet and the Senate's defense committee about the weapons deployment Thursday.

U.S. and Pakistani officials have offered differing initial accounts of what happened at the Pakistani posts near the border with Afghanistan.

Pakistani military officials have said the attack was unprovoked and deliberate, an accusation U.S. officials have rejected.

NATO helicopter gunships and jet fighters based in Afghanistan are said to have fired on two Pakistani military posts in the Mohmand region near the Afghan border on November 26.

Public anger in Pakistan over the killings is high. Islamabad has ordered the United States to vacate a Pakistan airbase it uses, and has indefinitely closed the two main overland routes NATO uses to send nonlethal supplies to Afghanistan.

The U.S. military and NATO have launched an investigation into the incident.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The Pakistanis are irritating bastards, but deploying AA assets in areas that have been attacked from the air does not strike me as being inherently unreasonable 

[Viking]

The Pakistanis are irritating bastards, but deploying AA assets in areas that have been attacked from the air does not strike me as being inherently unreasonable 

I've got to agree with you here. I don't have an issue with them putting air defense weapons where they have been bombed. What annoys me and gets my goat up are the actions which led up to the original air strikes.

[Razgovory]

The Pakistanis are irritating bastards, but deploying AA assets in areas that have been attacked from the air does not strike me as being inherently unreasonable 

In a friendly fire accident?  When the US accidentally shot down a Brit Tornado during the Gulf war the UK didn't respond by preparing anti-air suppression missions.  Remember, Pakistan and the US are suppose to be allies.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think the British reaction would have been more strenuous if you'd shot down our plane in British airspace.

Still, the original sin is having the buggers as allies.

[Viking]

I think the British reaction would have been more strenuous if you'd shot down our plane in British airspace.

Still, the original sin is having the buggers as allies.

It's traditional for the brits to suffer more from the "American Luftwaffe" at war than from enemy air forces. In Gulf War I more brits were killed by A-10s than by Iraqis iirc.

But, yes, the original sin is having the buggers as allies. US policy needs to make the "" an option for AfPak policy. Najibullah Option

[Razgovory]

I think the British reaction would have been more strenuous if you'd shot down our plane in British airspace.

Still, the original sin is having the buggers as allies.

It's traditional for the brits to suffer more from the "American Luftwaffe" at war than from enemy air forces. In Gulf War I more brits were killed by A-10s than by Iraqis iirc.

But, yes, the original sin is having the buggers as allies. US policy needs to make the "" an option for AfPak policy. Najibullah Option

More Brits probably died in the gulf war from disease then from Iraqis.  Anyway, setting up air defenses is not a reasonable act if you consider it a friendly fire accident.  It's only a reasonable if you no longer consider NATO forces operating in Afghanistan allies.

[grumbler]

It's traditional for the brits to suffer more from the "American Luftwaffe" at war than from enemy air forces.

"Traditional?"  As in how many times, when faced by an enemy with an air force?

In Gulf War I more brits were killed by A-10s than by Iraqis iirc.

You recollect poorly.  The Iraqis killed 38, the A-10 incident (there was just the one A-10, not "A-10s" involved.

More Brits were killed when the submarine HMS Triton sank the submarine HMS Oxley in 1939 than were lost to the Iraqis in Desert Storm.  Maybe that is what you were recalling.

[Razgovory]

Come now, Grumbler.  Resentment towards the US is all the British really have anymore.  Don't take that away from them.

[hotshot]

Not a good sign, but then again no good signs were expected.

Obviously the battle isn't over yet. And the road to peace is way ahead.