United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

The killing of eleven Pakistani soldiers, apparently by a pilotless drone operated by U.S.-led NATO forces, has brought a protest from Pakistan's recently elected prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, who said Pakistan would "take a stand for sovereignty, integrity, and self-respect, and we will not allow our soil [to be attacked]," the London Independent reported Thursday.[1] -- The U.S. has been critical of Pakistan's efforts to reach peace agreements with leaders in the autonomous tribal regions of western Pakistan, where the attack took place. -- "While expressing regret about the incident and conveying condolences to the dead soldiers' families, the U.S. embassy did not apologize. 'The United States regrets that the actions in Mohmand Agency resulted in casualties among Pakistani forces, who are our partners in the fight against terrorism,' it said in a statement issued after [the] visit [of the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad, Anne Patterson,] to the ministry," Ali Gharib and Jim Lobe noted in an IPS commentary on the incident.[2] -- They cited Ahmed Rashid, an influential Pakistani journalist, who wrote in the Washington Post last week that Pakistan's recent effort to break away from U.S. policy has "brought U.S.-Pakistani military relations 'to their worst point since Sept. 11, 2001.'" -- "Tuesday's incident could well make matters worse yet, and not only because the Pentagon's version of events suggests that the Frontier Corps, which is run by the army, was fighting alongside the Taliban," said Gharib and Lobe. -- On Tuesday, just before the incident, Pakistan angrily denied a RAND Corporation report according to which "some active and former officials in Pakistan's intelligence service and the Frontier Corps — a paramilitary force — directly aided Taliban militants," the Associated Press reported.[3] ...

Relations between Washington and the new government in Islamabad have been dealt a severe blow after Pakistan angrily denounced the "unprovoked and cowardly" killing of 11 soldiers in a U.S. air strike near the Afghan border.

The attack, which took place in the volatile tribal areas and is believed to have been carried out by a pilotless drone, is likely to sour ties between the Pakistani and American military and deepen public resentment of Pakistan's role in the so-called war on terror.

In its most vocal protest yet, Pakistan's military said the strike in Mohmand, which killed members of a paramilitary border force "had hit at the very basis of co-operation" in the fight against terrorism. It said it reserved "the right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression."

Yousaf Raza Gillani, the recently elected prime minister who leads a fragile coalition government, told Pakistan's parliament: "We will take a stand for sovereignty, integrity and self-respect, and we will not allow our soil [to be attacked]."

The government has been pursuing peace deals with tribal leaders and militants on the border and in the Swat valley, a move that has upset Kabul and NATO commanders in Afghanistan, who say it will lead to a surge in cross-border attacks.

While it is widely believed that previous U.S. air strikes have killed Pakistani civilians, and possibly troops, only for responsibility to be taken by the Pakistanis themselves for political reasons, yesterday's condemnation by Islamabad broke new ground.

Precise details are still emerging. The soldiers killed, including one officer, were members of the Frontier Constabulary force manning a border post in the village of Gora Prai. The attack is reported to have taken place late on Tuesday, amid clashes between U.S. coalition forces and militants from the Pakistani Taliban.

"Every indication we have is that this was a legitimate strike against forces that had attacked members of the coalition," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

In a statement issued from Afghanistan, the U.S.-led coalition said it fired artillery and deployed pilotless drones in response to an attack. A spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban said eight of its fighters had been killed after they launched an attack.

Talat Masood, a retired general turned liberal analyst, said the soldiers' deaths would "help the militants' propaganda" and were certain to "deepen the already existing public ill will towards the United States."

"For Pakistan, it represents a loss of sovereignty and shows helplessness," he added. "Despite all the public co-operation between the two countries, it reflects a level of distrust and lack of confidence. It shows that the U.S. does not trust Pakistanis with their intelligence, insisting that they will strike instead of letting you strike."

Mr. Masood said the U.S. was more interested in the stability of the border region than the stability of Pakistan as a whole.

On Tuesday, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that al-Qa'ida leaders in the tribal areas were plotting fresh attacks on American targets and criticized Pakistan for failing to wipe them out. His comments came as the Rand Corporation, a U.S.-based think-tank funded by the Defense Department, claimed Pakistani agents and members of the Frontier Constabulary were helping the Taliban -- a charge Pakistan denies.

Pakistan's involvement in the effort to defeat al-Qa'ida and Taliban militants within its territory, which has cost the lives of over 1,000 Pakistani soldiers, has become deeply unpopular with the public. Opponents of President Musharraf argue that it has led to the spread of terrorist attacks into major cities.

WASHINGTON -- The killings Tuesday night by U.S. warplanes of 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers at or near a checkpoint along the Afghan border is virtually certain to add to growing tensions between Washington and Islamabad at a critical moment in relations between both countries.

While the precise circumstances of the incident remain unclear, reports from Pakistan that the soldiers were fighting alongside Taliban forces against Afghan Army and U.S. units in the border area will tend to bolster critics of U.S. policy who argue that the Pakistani military is playing a "double game" and can no longer be trusted.

While the Pentagon did not comment directly on those reports Wednesday, its description of what took place suggested that the soldiers -- all members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps -- were legitimate targets when they were killed.

"Although it is early, every indication we have is that it was a legitimate strike in self-defense against forces that had attacked coalition forces," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell Wednesday afternoon. The latter had come under attack while setting up a checkpoint on the Afghan side of the disputed border and then called in air strikes against the assailants, officials here said.

But the Pakistani military released a statement calling the air strikes "unprovoked and cowardly." It added that "the incident had hit at the very basis of co-operation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the Coalition in (the) war against terror."

". . . (S)uch acts of aggression do not serve the common cause of fighting terrorism," it said.

Pakistan's prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, also denounced the attack in parliament, while the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad, Anne Patterson, was called into the Foreign Ministry to receive an official protest.

While expressing regret about the incident and conveying condolences to the dead soldiers' families, the U.S. embassy did not apologize. "The United States regrets that the actions in Mohmand Agency resulted in casualties among Pakistani forces, who are our partners in the fight against terrorism," it said in a statement issued after her visit to the ministry.

The attack, which followed several recent strikes against suspected Taliban and al Qaeda leaders on the Pakistani side of the border, came amid growing U.S. concern that the predominantly Pashtun Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and increasingly parts of the North-West Frontier Province in western Pakistan have become safe havens both for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The U.S. intelligence community and senior military officers have repeatedly warned over most of the last year that the region has not only become a stronghold for both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban forces, but also that al Qaeda has sufficiently reconstituted itself there to pose, in the words of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Michael Hayden earlier this year, a "clear and present danger" to "the West, especially the U.S."

Indeed, on Tuesday, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, told defense reporters here that al Qaeda leaders based in FATA are currently planning new terrorist attacks against the United States. He called on Pakistan's new government to quickly develop a strategy designed to disrupt and dislodge the group from the area, although he conceded that "it's going to take longer than most people realise."

Washington is most concerned about the possibility that the new government will negotiate agreements with Taliban leaders in FATA that will result in the withdrawal of the Pakistani army from the area in return for the leaders' pledges to expel foreign fighters and prevent militants from crossing the border into Afghanistan.

Similar accords struck by the previous government headed by President Pervez Musharraf in 2005 and 2006 actually permitted the Taliban to extend its influence beyond FATA and al Qaeda to entrench its presence there. U.S. officials also contend that the infiltration of Taliban forces into Afghanistan from Pakistan rose sharply during that period.

Since taking office, the civilian government has said it hoped to conclude new cease-fire agreements that, unlike the military regime's accords, would be supplemented by a generous aid program designed to spur development in what has been a traditionally impoverished area and by legal reforms that would better integrate the region into the rest of Pakistan.

But, while sympathetic to the general strategy, Washington has expressed concern that any new accords, absent strong enforcement mechanisms, will simply suffer the same fate as those approved by Musharraf. Last week, Washington was reportedly informed by the new government that it had suspended cease-fire talks with tribal chiefs in the region pending specific assurances regarding their future compliance.

At the same time, Washington is concerned that the Pakistani army has its own priorities that may not be entirely consistent with those of the new government -- or with the U.S., for that matter.

Indeed, the army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, rejected U.S. and NATO demands that he retrain or reequip troops and deploy more forces to fight the Taliban in the frontier areas and will instead keep the bulk of the army deployed along Pakistan's border with India, its traditional enemy, Ahmed Rashid, an influential Pakistani journalist, wrote in the *Washington Post* just last week.

"Recently, (the army) has reached unofficial peace deals with Pakistani and Afghan Taliban leaders in the tribal areas in which they have promised not to attack Pakistani forces," according to Rashid, who noted that these accords do nothing to prevent them from infiltrating their forces into Afghanistan or consolidating their hold on the Pakistani side of the border.

The army's new policy represents a "strategic shift away from the international fight against terrorism" and, according to Western officials, "have brought U.S.-Pakistani military relations "to their worst point since Sept. 11, 2001 . . .", Rashid wrote.

Tuesday's incident could well make matters worse yet, and not only because the Pentagon's version of events suggests that the Frontier Corps, which is run by the army, was fighting alongside the Taliban.

With anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan already running high due to Washington's long-standing support for Musharraf and its controversial cross-border strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda targets, analysts here fear the incident will be used by the army to distance itself further from U.S. strategy -- as suggested by the army's own statement -- and make it more difficult for the new government to be seen as co-operating with Washington.

"It could really be exploited as an organizing tool to get people back to thinking the United States is the root cause" of problems in that country, Rick Barton, a Pakistan specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here, told *Newsweek* Wednesday. "It could easily be used as a provocation for some of the groups that are most anti-American and are outside the government as well."

PAKISTAN REJECTS REPORT THAT MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE ELEMENTS AID AFGHAN INSURGENTS

ISLAMABAD -- Pakistan has denied and denounced a report from a U.S. think tank alleging that elements within the country's security and intelligence forces help insurgents fighting in neighboring Afghanistan.

A statement from Pakistan's military called the U.S. Defense Department-funded RAND Corp. report a "smear campaign."

"The report is misleading, factually incorrect, and based on propaganda to create doubts and suspicion in the minds of (the) target audience about Pakistan's role in supporting the coalition forces in Afghanistan," said the statement, released late Tuesday.

Pakistan's border regions -- in particular its remote and semiautonomous tribal areas -- are considered havens for Taliban- and al-Qaida-linked fighters involved in battling U.S.-led coalition and other forces inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan's new government is seeking peace deals with some militant groups to ease the violence in its territory. The negotiations have come under criticism from the U.S., which fears they will give the militants time to regroup and intensify their attacks in Afghanistan.

The RAND report, published Monday, warns of "crippling, long-term consequences" for the U.S. in Afghanistan if insurgent hideouts in Pakistan are not eliminated.

It said some active and former officials in Pakistan's intelligence service and the Frontier Corps -- a paramilitary force -- directly aided Taliban militants.

It said NATO officials have found instances of Pakistani intelligence agents providing data to militants, even "tipping off Taliban forces about the location and movement of Afghan and coalition forces" and undermining their operation.

The report also alleged that Pakistani intelligence and other agencies trained Taliban and other fighters at camps in Pakistan, and gave them information, financing, and help crossing the border.

Pakistan supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks. But President Pervez Musharraf allied himself with the U.S.-led war on terror that followed and toppled the militant movement, which has since led a raging insurgency in Afghanistan.

Since then, Pakistan has sent tens of thousands of troops to monitor its porous border with Afghanistan and battle militants on its side.

The new government is currently seeking peace deals, which it insists are not with "terrorists" but rather groups willing to lay down their arms.

But NATO has reported an increase in attacks in eastern Afghanistan and blamed it on Pakistan's peace talks.

The Pakistan military statement said the RAND report and other unspecified studies had a "definite agenda."

It denied any Pakistani officials or troops were helping insurgents, and called the claim that they provided the Taliban with information about troop movements a "a poorly fabricated story to create distrust between the two armed forces."