Sunday, 12 February 2017

US MULLING TO APOLOGISE ON NATO ATTACK: NYT Posted on February 9, 2012


US MULLING TO APOLOGISE ON NATO ATTACK: NYT

COMMENTS
This is for Action Research Forum;
Self-effacing is the policy that may not last longer to prevail rationality. Hypocrisy promotes ‘I’ posing No wrong, while admittance to the fact with inferiors in one form and another is nothing but ego. The longer gap of the relationship in such a crucial time would not help especially to Allies in vanishing intricacies, no matter the ammunition superiority of allied forces, but inaptness is noted on multiple occasions, remember hoax representative as communicator of Taliban who was nothing but snatched $s from allies commands.
It is the general impression that US is hard pushed and intends to exit from War on Terror game respectfully as early as possible, where Dick Chenni and Bush illusions left a mess for successor Obama. Continuously America is hard pressed and so American economy and people whose tolerance is exhausting. Like USSR they have attempted to crush Afghans, which proved failure over their 10 years run in Afghanistan at-least. Their incapability was predicted long back soon after cold war was over, see the link;
At the end NATO ground reality tells the truth that they are unable to handle the scenario, and embarrassingly their command is costing blunders which compelled Pakistan to withdraw from active participation as front state role without due backups, made Pakistani economy vulnerable in isolation. Can America sustain let it be their issue and not Pakistan issue, which is bought by rookie allies inward lookers.
American apologies on the man losses at Salalah Check post should not be delayed ripping personal ego of allies leadership, since Pakistan suffered heavy dents of Osama treacherous killings on its land keeping Pakistan in dark – a childish act allies, and soon after 24 men strong troops bombardment by allies is lawlessness in sovereign state.
Right-To-Know could not provide the true facts just playing with cover up stories, is incorrect assessment of Pakistanis feelings and so their unity against allies. Now they are saying Enough is Enough uncle Sam, at-least saying Go to Hell.
US mulling to apologise on Nato attack: NYT
WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is considering to tender an apology on the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers in Nato attack on a border post in November, The New York Times reported.
A senior American military commander is expected to travel to Pakistan this month in what Obama administration officials say is the first step toward thawing a strategic relationship that has been in effect frozen for more than two months.
Gen. James N. Mattis, the head of the military’s Central Command, will meet Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani Army chief of staff, to discuss the investigations of an exchange of fire at the Afghan border that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, as well as new border coordination procedures to prevent a recurrence of the episode.
General Mattis’s visit, the first by a high-ranking American official since the cross-border confrontation in November, was to have begun Thursday, but has been postponed by at least a week pending what is expected to be a spirited debate in the Pakistani Parliament over a new security policy toward the United States.
Pakistani and American officials are quietly optimistic that both events will trigger a chain of public engagement and private negotiations that will reboot the two nations’ frayed strategic relationship, although along more narrowly defined lines than before.
Pakistani officials say they will probably reopen NATO supply lines running through their territory, which have been closed for more than two months. The State Department is supporting a proposal circulating in the administration for the United States to issue a formal apology for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers in the Nov. 26 air strike by American gunships.
“We’ve felt an apology would be helpful in creating some space,” said an American official who has been briefed on the State Department’s view and who spoke on the condition of anonymity as internal discussions continued.

No comments:

Post a Comment