Pakistan Army rejected on Monday the findings of a US probe into the NATO air strikes on border posts in Mohmand Agency in November last year, saying it did not agree with several portions and findings of the investigation report as they were factually incorrect.
The army also expressed its annoyance that in its enquiry report, the US military had considered Pakistani military in an “adversarial role” and not as a friend. “Pakistan does not agree with several portions and findings of the Investigation Report as these are factually not correct,” said the army, in its “Perspective on the US Investigation Report”, released here to the media by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR). Noting that the US investigating team’s mandate was to “conduct an operationally focused fact-finding investigation into the circumstances surrounding the engagement between friendly forces and PAKMIL (Pakistan Military)”, the statement said it was implicit in this mandate that “Pakistan was considered in an adversarial role and not part of friendly forces”.
“The fundamental cause of the incident of 26th November 2011 was the failure of US/ISAF to share its near-border operation with Pakistan at any level. This obviously was a major omission, as were several others, like the complicated chain of command, complex command and control structure and unimaginative/intricate Rules of Engagement as well as lack of unified military command in Afghanistan,” it said. Contrary to Pakistan Army’s response, the US enquiry report released on December 22 last year had found that both American and Pakistani troops were to be blamed for the strikes on Pakistani outposts. Pakistan had responded to the NATO strikes by blocking supplies for US led NATO forces in Afghanistan and forced the United States to vacate an air base that was used to launch drone attacks in the tribal areas.
The army said in its response: “In addition to the foregoing, US/ISAF violated all mutually agreed procedures with Pakistan for near-border operations put in place to avert such uncalled for actions. It also carried out unprovoked engagement of Pakistani Posts located inside Pakistan violating the US/ISAF mandate which is limited to Afghanistan alone.”
In addition to giving a detailed response to the US enquiry report, Pakistan Army also said some additional details were required which should be provided in order for the army to complete its analysis and assessment. It said full and complete classified version of the US investigation report should be made available to it.
The army also asked for the provision of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance picture of the complete incident along with all aerial platform videos and record of radio transmissions and communication between the crew(s) of the aerial platforms involved in the incident.
The army’s detailed perspective on the US investigation report on Monday led some observers to believe that the rejection of Washington’s enquiry into the NATO air strikes reflected clearly that swift resolution of the current Pakistan-US standoff was not likely, and improvement in their relations would take a long time.
However, diplomatic circles here said the army’s detailed response was supposed to be made public, as despite its desire for improvement of ties with Washington after the US administration’s assurance that Pakistan’s sovereignty would not be violated in future, Islamabad would still want to make its point clear that it still differed with the findings of the American probe and believed that it was devoid of facts.
The US report was received by General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army on the December 24, 2011. According to the army’s perspective, the report received was the same unclassified version as available on the US Central Command (CENTCOM) Website. “The analysis of the ‘US Investigation Report’ has been carried out by Pakistan Military with a view to reiterate facts and correct the perspective,” said the Pakistani military.
“The US Investigation Report is structured around the argument of ‘self defence’ and ‘proportional use of force’, an argument which is contrary to facts,” it said. “Continued engagement by US/ISAF despite being informed about the incident at multiple levels by Pakistan Military within minutes of initiation of US/ISAF fire, belies the ‘self defence’ and ‘proportional use of force’ contention. Affixing partial responsibility of the incident on Pakistan is, therefore, unjustified and unacceptable,” the army’s statement said.
It said that apart from being factually incorrect, the US enquiry report also brought to the fore the larger issue of lack of trust of US/ISAF towards the Pakistani military.
The army said that unfortunately, this was not the first incident of this kind as US/ISAF/NATO had been involved in at least four similar incidents in the past, after each of which US/ISAF regretted the incident and resolved to prevent recurrence. “Not only did the recurrence of incidents continue but as far as we know, no one was ever actually held accountable,” it said.
“Pakistan has noted US/ISAF acceptance of its failures, which Pakistan believes were deep, varied and systemic. There have been several similar, though not as grave, US/ISAF failings in the past. Despite promises of thorough investigations, US/ISAF failed to hold anyone accountable after each of these incidents,” it said.
“There have clearly been several failures on the part of US/ISAF/NATO (as acknowledged in the US Investigation Report),” it said. The army’s response said further that “Pakistan expresses its regret over the mandate and terms of reference given to the Investigating Team, which was not mandated to determine or affix responsibility for the incident”.
“Establishing positive identification of the Pakistani Posts which was lacking and which has been acknowledged in the US/ISAF report was the direct and clear responsibility of US/ISAF, who were, by their own admission, carrying out a near-border operation,” it also said.
“Positive identification could very conveniently have been done by a simple Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Aircraft sweep, which the US Investigation Report itself has also recommended,” said the army.
It said the US/ISAF violated all mutually agreed procedures with Pakistan for near-border operations put in place to avert such uncalled for actions. “It is increasingly obvious to Pakistan Military that the entire coordination mechanism has been reduced to an exercise in futility, is more for the purposes of optics and that it has repeatedly been undermined,” it said.
PENTAGON REJECTS: Meanwhile, the United States rejected the findings of a Pakistani probe into the NATO air strikes, saying the investigation ignored the fact that “mistakes” were made on both sides.
At a press briefing, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the Pakistani army had officially delivered during the weekend a copy of the report conducted by Islamabad on the November 26 strikes against a Pakistani border post.
“The statement that this was an unprovoked attack by US forces is simply false,” said Navy Captain Kirby. “It was not an unprovoked attack,” he said. “There were errors made by both sides here.”
Kirby said the Pentagon was “100 percent” behind the findings of the investigation report released last month by the US military.
Captain Kirby regretted that Islamabad refused to participate in the investigation initiated by the US military. He called on Pakistan to reopen supply routes for NATO troops in Afghanistan, which were closed after the bombing.
“We want to get past all this and we want to build a good cooperative relationship with the Pakistani military,” he said.