No, thank you

No, thank you

According to the Defence Department press secretary George Little, Pakistan has refused to be part of a joint investigation into the November 26 Nato attack on Pakistani check post in Mohmand. The decision is one of the several that Pakistan has taken in its protest against the attack that killed 24 army personnel.

It has been reported that in his November 29 briefing to the media, Director General Military Operations Major General Ashfaq Nadeem had already ruled out the possibility of a joint probe, saying that earlier joint investigations carried out after similar attacks were unable to produce any results.

Meanwhile, the parliament is expected to hold a joint session to discuss the attack and the senate has passed a unanimous resolution opposing the attacks.

Will the senate’s resolution and the parliament’s impending joint session be able to form a concrete strategy against such attacks? And if formed, will such a strategy be followed in the future?

Has Pakistan made the right move by refusing to be part of the joint investigation being carried out by Nato? Is the snub going to hurt Pakistan or benefit it?

Dawn.com invites its readers to give their views and suggestions.

 

 

Comments Guide:
Dawn.com encourages its readers to share their views on our forums. We try to accommodate all users' comments but this is not always possible due to space and other constraints. Please our read our comments guidelines below for more information:

1. Please be aware that the views of our bloggers and commenters do not necessarily reflect Dawn.com's policies.

2. Though comments appear to have been published immediately after posting, they are actually forwarded to a moderation queue before publication.

3. Dawn reserves the right to remove or edit comments that are posted on this blog.

4. Language that is offensive to any race, religion, ethnicity, gender or nationality is not permitted.

5. Avoid posting comments in ALL CAPS. Commenters are also encouraged to avoid text contractions like 'u r.'

6. Do not cross-post comments across multiple blog entries.

7. Any comments posted to a blog entry should be relevant to the topic or discussion.

8. Do not spam the comment section.

223 Responses to “No, thank you”

  1. Tahir Naseer says:

    The decision is correct but too late. The government of Pakistan should give an equal importance to every citizen as the life of a common man is as important as a soldier. Proabably such an instance could have saved more than 30000 civilian casualties and 3000 military casualties.

    The NATO will do whatever is benificial for them. They would have asked Pakistan before going for Afghanistan if Paksitan’s say was important for them.

  2. Observer I says:

    1. Refusing to attend the Bonn conference was a mistake, demonstrated poor judgment.

    2. Going or sending a low level delegation after initially rejecting the invitation will be a demeaning blunder.

    3. Not attending the NATO investigations was mis-judgment.

    4. Holding the NATO investigations under Pakistan aegis is the appropriate self respecting option. If NATO declines then hold one anyway – leave an empty seat for NATO.

    • Srinivasan says:

      The writer has suggested the right thing .Pakistan should have insisted on NATO investigation under the aegis of pakistan.By doing this NATO will be forced to proove that they did the bombing on the instructions of Pak military command.However it will prove to be counter productive if Pakistan is unable to show that the NATO bombing was the result of clesrance given by Pakistan Army

      • Ali the Red says:

        NATO attacked a Pakistani position; plain and simple.. An investigation is only required to determine who within NATO is to be penalized. NATO would never admit a mistake and you all know it.

        Pakistan has done absolutely the right thing. Time for NATO to go home.

        • Furrukh says:

          Pakistan should participate in the joint investigation. Mistakes are made in every work place and unfortunately when soldiers make mistakes, friends die. The most high profile mistake US army has made in Afghanistan was the death of Pat Tillman. The ugliness of that episode was not the original mistake but US army’s effort to hide it.

          Pakistan army is one of the most sophisticated but it is not above making mistakes just as the US, the most sophisticated military. This tragedy does not change the fact that stable and friendly Afghanistan is in the interest of the US and even more so in the interest of Pakistan.

          Pakistan will fail in achieving this goal if it isolates itself from the its neighbors and the world at large.

  3. munafeeq qaum says:

    all pakistanis and people of pakistani origin must also leave USA since u guys hate it so much lets see how many do that.

    • Islam Habib Khan says:

      Pakistani people do not hate USA or the people of that country. What they do not like is the policies of the administration which creates unnecessary wars and killings. The strike at the two posts is just an example.
      If your innocent brother or sister gets killed by a drone your thinking will also change.

      Islam Habib Khan
      Riyadh

      • Imtiaz says:

        Not taking part in investigation shows that US statement that Pakistan cleared the attack is correct. It shows poor professionalism of army, which we are all well aware of.
        Not taking part in Bonn conference is a blunder and shows decision came from army and not the civil government.
        These are all results of failed policy of ‘stretegic depth’ of army.
        These steps are all very well for ‘local consumption’, but countries on international level behave differently.

  4. Salim says:

    It should be Pakistan leading the inquiry and asking NATO to cooperate.

  5. Observer I says:

    Non sequitur – Does not follow. Poor logic. There can be many reasons.

  6. Anand says:

    Hillary got this right.

    The world does not need Pakistan, in Bonn, or in Asia.

    • Sandeep says:

      Anand, World needs Pakistan but a safer and prosperous Pakistan. I think not participating in the investigation is not a good idea. The outcome of the investigation will always be doubted and will only increase the mis-trust. We cannot turn the clock back 10 years. The War is on, and people are dying and it does not matter who’s war it is!

      Pakistan needs to take lead and ensure the investigation is thorough and without doubt. If the attack was a mistake due to faulty intelligence then it gives everyone an opportunity to fix it. Also US needs to consider its strategy on ground. US can apologize as much but such acts all said an done are reckless. If drone attacks are required let they be carried out only if there is a firm evidence and does not jeopardize innocent lives. Otherwise such attacks are no better than a terrorist hurling a bomb in a bazaar.

    • Islam Habib Khan says:

      Mr. Anand,

      I think you got mixed up between Bonn and investigation.

      This happens when you have a certain mind set!!!

      Islam Habib Khan
      Riyadh

    • Observer I says:

      O’ Yeh!

      PAKISTAN IS HERE TO STAY…INSHALLAH.

  7. Haroon says:

    100% yes. The Bonn conference or any such effort by US is a SHAM any way.

    Pakistan First.

  8. Gopal Patel says:

    By not participating in joint investigation Pakistan is giving an impression, that it has some thing to hide in the sordid episode. If your readers remember it correctly, the US and entire West have been trumpeting to the word that the Pakistani security forces are hand in glove with the terrorists who forage into Afghanistan to harass the Afghan and US forces and withdraw back into Pakistani territory, actively aided by Pakistani security forces. This is the right opportunity for Pakistan to prove its innocence and alter the prevailing impression.

    • Islam Habib Khan says:

      Mr. Gopal Patel,

      There are two parties in this case of aggression, the aggressor (NATO) and the victim (Pak. Army). Why should the victim join in the investigation with the aggressor to become a party to the result of such investigation?
      If this kind of thing was possible there may be no need for the courts. The two aggrieved parties could sort out the matter between themselves.
      Islam Habib Khan
      Riyadh

      • Mustafa says:

        Congratulations Brother Islam Habib Khan . The problem in Pakistan is most Pakistanis are like you. They pronounce the judgment before an inquiry.

      • Althaf Ahmed says:

        Based on the Pakistani version, you have already decided who the aggressor is and who the victim is. You have a closed mind and so you don’t need an inquiry. An inquiry is for everybody else who is open and wants to know what triggered the event and what transpired.

        • Islam Habib Khan says:

          Brothers Mustafa and Ahmed,

          I do not understand your comments. I used the word aggressor because it was NATO who attacked the two Pakistani posts and called the Pak Army victim as 24 of its soldiers and officers died in the attack which continued for two hours. US and NATO both have accepted the fact that it was their aircraft which have attacked the posts. In your dictionary what will you call the force that attacks two posts without provocation?

          The Investigation that is being carried out by NATO, which they say, will take three weeks is to determine why, how and by whom this attack was carried out.

          Yes I am a Pakistani and I much rather accept the version by Pakistan than the NATO or US versions that are known to mislead in the past.

          • Karthik says:

            Mr. IHK,
            Could there have been a case that it was a big mistake by some side? Could it have been because the NATO plane was defending? I agree about your comment about a requirement for a third party to investigate this. How about pakistan launch a case in the international court of justice? Not sure. You got to go somewhere, instead of letting entire pakistan believe it was all NATO mistake without an investigation.

      • AJ says:

        Mr. Khan,

        There are claims and counterclaims in the episode. You have already pronounced your verdict without the matter being Investigated. What happened was unfortunate,but the facts need to be established as to why this came to pass.

        Either you join the Investigation or then be ready to accept the findings of the NATO only probe. I’ll bet my last penny that you will cry foul if the outcome is anything but NATO guilt. Am I wrong?

        • Islam Habib Khan says:

          Mr. AJ

          Please read my reply to Brothers Mustafa and Ahmed. I have no more to say except that I hope the NATO report will be transparent and with facts which can be verified by Pakistani and other independent sources. If they try to cook the books in the three weeks, I and many others will cry foul. Would’t you?

          Islam Habib Khan

  9. Tariq Choudry says:

    Well, I am of the belief that it is about time that pakistan should hold it’s own. We must show the world that we do have a strong back bone. We must understand that just by capitulating to the US will only make us sink deeper in this quagmire that we have been forced to jump in.
    Ten years is long enough time for US to “win” this war and apparently they could not do it and now they want Pakistan to win it for them at the cast of Pakistani lifes.
    Pakistanies must understand, there is noway they can satisfy the America’s perpetual demand and the end result either way would be same. Choice is yours ladies and gentlemen either fight like lions or simply give-up and melt away in the history books like many others who disobeyed Gods commandments.

    • APC says:

      For that back bne, you need to be strong in your economics. Otherwise you loose your bread and butter (not you, but many millions).

  10. sam lee says:

    Pakistan military has a history of partnership with the USA.
    USA has a history of betraying Pakistani nation.

    • Observer I says:

      So when will you learn to stand on your own feet…and weed out the hypocrits, traitors, thieves, liers!

  11. Hareem says:

    The Decision is RIGHT. I strongly support it and also urge our Militry Forces to stick with it.

  12. husain ali says:

    The important point of contention is not whether pakistan should participate in the investigation or not.the real issue which needs to be investigated by Supreme court is the INACTION of Pakistan Airforce,when NATO planes and helicopters were having a field day for two hours in pakistan territory and committing murders and havoc.Supreme court should take a notice of this great and unpardonable cowardice act of our forces.john Mcaine the other day has suggested that aid to Pakistan should be linked to our cooperation and services.I demand that all defence expenses to our armed forces should be linked to their performance.After all they grab more than 80% of the entire budget

    • bhinder says:

      Brother ‘your concern for this incident sounds natural, but your point of view regarding Armed Forces is totally mistaken one.Ground realities of war field are different one as being assessed by you sitting miles away from arena of war.At this juncture,The personnel entrusted with the duty to defend the motherland are to be encouraged and given full moral support instead of criticizing them just out of superficial judgements.

  13. tariq says:

    shame on u for thinking on those lines we must spport our army

  14. PETER WHITE says:

    What children you Pakistani are.

    Surely two countries can use the result of a joint investigation anyway they wish to. The Pakistani military is afraid of information on their behavior coming to light.

    How many more examples of perfidy do you need from your military/isi before it trumps your pride?

    • Obaid Khan says:

      What is the loss of life on the other side? It was more than two hours of raid that was carried out by the NATO led helicopters that took the precious lives of 24 Pakistani soldiers.

      Is it Pakistani military/ISI or NATO that is behaving like a child?

  15. mujahid says:

    RIGHT OR WRONG,PLEASE DO NOT FALL OUT WITH THE US,IT IS BETTER TO STAY IN RELATIONSHIP,BUT AT A ARMS LENGTH FOR PRESENT TIME,LETS NOT BE ARROGANT,MISTAKE DO HAPPEN,THE MEDIA NEEDS TO CALM THE PUBLIC A BIT ,SO THAT OUR WEAK AND CRUPT POLITIONS WORK MORE RATIONALLY. ,WITH OUT ILLITERATE PUBLIC FEAR THAT HAS BEEN DRIVEN BY MEDIA. PLEASE COOL IT AND RETHINK WE ARE A WORLD COMMUNITY AND HAVE TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD.

  16. Asad says:

    Why should we ask the question first to begin with? Pakistan owes no one anything, nor it needs dictation (well it’s another issue that we had more dictatrors than dictations)

    I am with Ms. Khar that we want to live with dignity, we have suffered from all fronts for the wars that we did not start but were dragged into. Someday someone had to say, ENOUGH. Looks like that day is now.

    • Syiem says:

      You should ask the question because you need to know. Dawn recently quoted WSJ report wherein US had claimed they had clearance from Pak army to launch the strike. Even if there is a remote possibility of that being true, would you not want the Pak army’s incompetence to be brought to light.

      • Fayzee says:

        Its clear now that the clearance was for another location and not the one NATO bombarded. Everything has become clear now. So, the US should and will apologize, sooner or later. Its the right decision not to be part of the investigation.

  17. Bashir says:

    Only immatures and arrogants shun dialogue and interaction in international relations and affairs

  18. Anwar says:

    Our future lies with our neighbors as friends. To get into Shanghai Regional Cooperation, Pakistan need to break away from Western dominance. This is a golden oppertunity for Pakistan.

  19. FQ says:

    I think in the PR department we do not hold much weight against anyone these days, when NATO finds stuff we do not like, who do you think people of this world will believe?

  20. amit says:

    It is surprising no one talk about army. The army is useless at all. First Abbotabad then Navy base and now NATO attack. Army was ineffective all the time. Why they exist if they can not protect pakistan. If we look at the history they were not at all effective except in supporting and using terrorist.

    • Neil says:

      The Pak Mil used to be a very professionally run organization in the first years following independence. There is a great deal of analysis that suggests that militant indoctrination is creating serious issues that the organization may not be focusing on seriously enough. This is a very concerning situation for the people of Pakistan.

  21. justice for all says:

    Whether Pakistan joins NATO in investigating depends on what it is that Pakistan wants.

    If the truth of what happened and a desire to avoid any repetition is paramount, then a joint investigation would serve.

    If Pakistan is worried that an investigation might show that there were actions on the Pakistani side that won’t reflect well on Pakistan, then investigation and publicity should be avoided. Pakistan can stick with expressing outrage.

  22. asad says:

    i think Pakistan should announce that he is not in alliance in the war on terror,anymore.
    there is no dignity in their friendship

  23. ali says:

    YES. No questions asked. Down right yes

  24. tariq says:

    very good decision.

  25. Md says:

    Pakistan should say that it will join joint investigation after it recieves results of all previous joint investigations so it can see the gains of other joint investigations and then waste time on this. untill then mind your own business.

Dawn.com on Facebook


dawn.com on Facebook

Advertisement