IS the USAF strafing the Pakistani Army?

A troubled border

By A.R. Siddiqi

Events in Balochistan have overshadowed the recent incident on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. An ISPR press release on the incident described it as of a 'minor tactical nature'.

It advised the media to avoid blowing up such incidents 'out of proportion' and that it could not be 'portrayed' as a clash between Pakistan and Afghan forces.

The ISPR version in effect dismissed reports of an extended exchange of small arms and long-range artillery and mortar fire and of an actual 'clash' between the two forces, unintended or planned, as a matter of little consequence.

A spokesman for the 18,000-strong US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan attributed the incident to a 'misunderstanding' between the two forces deployed eyeball-to- eyeball at the time of the occurrence. He denied any involvement of US-led forces fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants. But what remains unclear is whether the episode was just an exchange of fire or an actual engagement. While an exchange of fire, light or heavy, between two forces involved in a prolonged stand-off can perhaps be ignored as a 'minor tactical' occurrence, an actual (physical) clash even at platoon level can hardly be treated lightly.

A foreign office statement had urged the US military to investigate what it described as the 'unprovoked fatal' mortar attack in the Shigai tribal zone of North Waziristan.

The expression 'targeted fire' was also used in certain press reports of the incident. The shifting of emphasis from an episode of 'minor tactical nature' to the foreign office version of the attack as 'unprovoked' and 'fatal' needs to be noted.

The reported Afghan version of the event was blunt in verbiage and offensive in content. According to the AFP, an Afghan border security commander squarely blamed Pakistan for firing the first shot.

The Pakistani militia, he said, wanted to 'cross' the border and 'enter' Afghanistan, when the Afghan militia retaliated and stopped the Pakistani advance into Afghan territory.

He went on to accuse Pakistan of showing little respect for international rules. If the spokesman has been correctly reported, this is a serious allegation to make as a responsible neighbour.

Another statement attributed to an Afghan militia commander, Gen. Khalil Baz, was even more ominous in tone and threatening in terms of action, and contemplated the reinforcement of forces along the border with Pakistan.

The Afghan commander was said to be 'rushing extra troops' to the border with Pakistan to 'cope with any untoward situation'. In support of a fresh force build- up, he quoted reports about Pakistani troops moving towards the 'uneasy border'.

Whereas there is no need to project a border skirmish out of all proportion, it would be quite wrong to dismiss it as a solitary incident. This is a link in the long chain of such border clashes in the on-again, off-again relations between the two countries.

The US role in the incident had been ambivalent, even insidiously provocative. Certain Pakistani intelligence sources claimed that a US helicopter 'opened fire' on our troops while they were busy collecting the debris of a crashed US drone that had crashed.

Also, some US 'war-planes' were scrambled to rush to the area and calm down - buzz? - the two sides. A somewhat strange way of helping and assisting allies and partners in the joint campaign against terrorism.

- The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.