Denials and signals (friendly fire edition)

The United States might just have turned up the heat on Pakistan by one notch

NATO-led troops in Afghanistan noticed “similar fire from the direction” of the Pakistani border checkpost at Shawal. They returned fire and killed one Pakistani soldier, and wounded two others, ‘mistakenly’ of course.

Coming in the wake of some intense signaling in recent weeks, it is hard to reject the conclusion that the ‘friendly fire’ is a slightly stronger signal from the United States to its FATWAT?


Now Islamabad is in a strange predicament. It began by claiming that there were foreigners in the area, but when Afghanistan and NATO began complaining of the same thing it immediately went into denial. However, when it used to say that there were foreigners in Waziristan, the opposition politicians shouted in unison that the government was lying. Now that the government has joined everyone else saying there are no foreigners there, the world outside refuses to believe it. Pakistan now fears ‘pre-emptive attacks’ and has protested sovereignty to warn that any such attempt would be opposed tooth and nail because ‘it has full control over its territory’. [DT]

4 thoughts on “Denials and signals (friendly fire edition)”

  1. Re. the NYT editorial

    I may be overly suspicious, but I dont like that the “related articles” section below said NYT editorial are all positive pieces on Pakistan.
    Related Articles

    * Times Select Content KARACHI JOURNAL; When She Speaks, He’s Breaking All of Islam’s Taboos (January 3, 2007)
    * Times Select Content Pakistani Says Concessions Could Produce Kashmir Pact (December 6, 2006)
    * Times Select Content Pakistan Moves Toward Altering Rape Law (November 16, 2006)
    * Times Select Content Pakistan’s Leader Defends Airstrike on School (November 1, 2006)

    Cross-dresser on TV, Kashmir telepacifism, hudood reform, Pak support for an american airstrike.

    How are these related to the Ed piece, exactly?

    I have consistently observed a softer stance towards Pak in those columns and an irritating equality drive (India-Pak hyphenation) going.


  2. Jai,

    NYTimes is soft on PAK, mainly because of mushy’s “help” in the war on terror and the soft-state-image that the current Indian-govt. is helping cultivate.

    Once more of things like these come into light, there is a good chance that NYTimes would change stance. Yes, I agree it is probably wishful thinking. It could as well become like BBC, which is clearly pro-PAK, and beyond repair.

  3. Sorry if this is going off-track.

    People who read this thread may be interested to know that NYT’s “related articles” are more like this example: Todays (30Jan07) edit piece on Gun control. A day without guns…

    Related articles are:
    – Florida agents didnt use excessive force in fugitive killing
    – Boy Shot at School By Deputies Is Dead
    – Florida Student Shot by Police Is Brain Dead
    – Florida Gun smuggler is sentenced

    Not only related but also have the edit’s slant. The positive spin from the Pak relativity pieces looked way off.


Comments are closed.