December 22nd, 2011
11:41 AM ET

U.S., Pakistan, at odds over airstrike report

A U.S. investigation into a November airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani troops points to "inadequate coordination" possibly exacerbated by Pakistani distrust of the Americans as one of the reasons behind the incident, the Pentagon said Thursday.

The findings are likely to further erode the already fragile relations between the United States and Pakistan, as sources within Pakistan disputed the U.S. findings.

The investigation found that the U.S. forces acted in self-defense, though poor coordination between the two militaries resulted in the incident.

An American team heading toward an Afghan town near the Pakistani border came under attack from machine gun fire, to which they responded by firing back and displaying a "show of force," with a U.S. aircraft that made its presence known and dropped flares illuminating the area, said Brig. Gen. Stephen A. Clark, who led the investigation.

What followed over the next hours were three engagements between the two sides as higher-ups tried to ascertain - unsuccessfully - if Pakistani forces were in the area.

The narrative of the timeline is complicated, Clark said, adding that "this is a fairly comprehensive report."

FULL STORY
Post by:
Filed under: Military • NATO • Pakistan • Pentagon
soundoff (46 Responses)
  1. gung hoe

    Hi banasy my queen jifer bobcat caught in a trap going to keep chrissie warm as a fur coat and saywhat and chrissie and anybody else thats my friend.

    December 22, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  2. AMERICA 1st

    If u wana settle the dispute, send a whitewashed nobama and a shoepolished biden over there and have em sing MAMMY to the king!

    December 22, 2011 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • bobcat ( in a hat )

      Pakistan doesn't have a king, idiot.

      December 22, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete/Ark

      why not...he could be King of the Idiots...great cartoon : "The Idiot King"

      December 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
  3. banasy©

    @bobcat: lmao.

    December 22, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Not an Option

    Seriously.. It only takes the beginning war thought to distroy me..

    December 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Pete/Ark

    Is it just my imagination that we have a lack of comments from the wannabe jihadi cyberdrones issuing cut&paste rants? Aw...there goes all the fun...

    December 22, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
  6. gung hoe

    @america first although pakistan may not haue a king it was funny LMAO

    December 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    banasy, bobcat (iah), BOMBO, gung hoe;
    Buona sera.
    Now I'll go back and catch up on reading.

    December 22, 2011 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Mmmmm

    friendly fire not so friendly.

    December 22, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • krm1007

      But it was fire nonetheless though not as fiery as the fairy who fell down in a flurry and turned into a slurry. Hmmmmm

      December 22, 2011 at 7:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete/Ark

      Experience (and Lazurus Long) say "friendly fire is an oxymoron".

      December 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm | Report abuse |
  9. krm1007

    Conclusions from US presidential debates.
    ONE: Pakistan holds the key to the next presidential elections in USA
    SECOND: Pakistan should be made a permanent member of the UN Security Council in recognition of its contributions and sacrifices in fighting the terror war and making the world safe and prosperous for US/NATO/ and the rest of the world

    December 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete/Ark

      might have had a chance before you killed Bhutto and protected Bin Laden. Sorry.

      December 22, 2011 at 7:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Waterboard Tickle Me Elmo

      Elmo thinks you're stupid. Elmo likes India.

      December 22, 2011 at 11:49 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Tcr c2

    Get our guys out of there and bring them home! Soon enough we will be fighting the war here on our own land, some times individuals just dont think about the repercusions of such decisions, remember the guy charlie wilson there is a fine example right there it had repercusions, huge ones for example, 911 , a past president telling bin laden no on support for fighting the russians back, we should of taken out bin laden when we had a chance but we blew that to there is a such thing as expendable, that bin laden was, thats what got us in this mess in the first place

    December 22, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
  11. ma & pa

    @ 2:24 p.m. Biting sarcasum. So true. We're losing some of the best of our people and getting portrayed as the bad guys. Not acid speak but maybe a view of crooked politics, using us until U.S. is weakened and maybe stumbles. No anti-psych meds or shock on that man. Person can't think on that stuff.

    December 22, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Leg Spinner

    Mr Obama and his administration have failed to understand the psyche of Pakistanis, who are predominantly 'protectors of Mohammad's finality of prophethood' aka Blasphemy. So to speak with blasphemists you need to know about blasphemy. And one big thing blasphemists believe is cash. Cash is King in the biggest Blasphemistan of the world.
    Like Raymond Davis was able to buy his freedom the blasphemists, the US military could have avoided all the aggravation it has endured so far, by offering 'blood money' to the families of the deceased. A million a piece for those of who have lost their loved ones and perhaps a quarter million each for the injured. Would come to much less than $50 million and the whole thing would have been amicably settled.
    One other thing the US needs to remember is that there is a big thing common between blasphemists and schizophrenics is that it is very difficult to predict what they will do next....

    December 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
  13. loupgarous

    Now all the Taliban and their friends in the Pakistani Armed Forces have to do is co-locate Pakistani troops as "human shields" for Taliban who want to fire on Coalition forces from within Pakistan. That appears to be what actually happened to cause the deaths of 28 Pakistani servicemen. Our weapons don't actually have such a great lethal radius that when we return fire in one area, people die in a completely different area. For whatever reason, those Pakistani troops remained in an area we had marked as about to be hit for firing on our troops. It's strange that the investigation didn't touch on THAT.

    January 11, 2012 at 4:10 am | Report abuse |
1 2