If Pakistani state is really threatened by terrorists as it often claims, then it must accept such deaths as a necessary price to pay for its own survival.

Pakistan shelters Mullah Omar’s QST and Haqqani’s HQN. Pakistan allows QST and HQN to stage cross-border terrorist raids in Afghanistan from locations close to Pakistani border check posts where Pakistani troops are manning the posts.

Pakistani Army has repeatedly refused to take military actions against Haqqani’s HQN and Mullah Omar’s QST.

NATO struck QST and HQN terrorist staging points close to Pakistani border check posts where Pakistani troops are.

And NATO is to be blamed for missing the targets?

Instead of holding Pakistan responsible for allowing HQN/QST terrorist staging points who kill US/NATO troops, why is US on the back foot, apologizing for death of Pak troops?

Had there been no Pakistan, there would have been no Taliban and US would never have to wage a war in Afghanistan.

As such Pakistan has been blackmailing US all these years by running with the Taliban terrorist hares while hunting with the American hounds.

Sooner this rupture between US and Pakistan solidifies, sooner the solution to America’s Afghan problem will materialize.

Only way to solve Afghan problem is for US/NATO to go in Pakistan and permanently destroy those Haqqani/Mullah Omar hideouts being protected by Pakistani Army.

Let us see if America has any stamina left to complete the task of eradicating terrorism from its roots.

Mitt, Perry, Gingrich and the rest of the republicans will jump on Obama if he tries to give even a mild apology. Just as Pakistan has its domestics politics to deal with, we have our own.

In any case, Pakistan has never apologized for its multiple assaults on India, Afghanistan and even US targets, so there is really no need for anyone to apologize to Pakistan, in fact Pakistan owes the world an apology for its sponsorship of terrorism as well as nuclear proliferation.

Obama will apologize for the NATO strike to Pakistan when Zardari apologizes to Obama for harboring bin Laden.

If the Pakistanis are going to give refuge to our enemies, they are occasionally going be mistaken for them.

Pakistan has been a constant victim of international terrorism induced by US and its client states, especially India and Israel, Pakistanis belive that elements of terror are implantd inside the country to make a case for intervention.
At lenght the Pakistani authorities have given a slam to the hedgemonistic designs of the US. We the people here, wish that the US never apologises and that they never get their supply routes open, so we and our Afgan brothers eventually get rid of this brutal, inhuman force.

It doesn't matter whether Obama should apologize. When the policies which you are responsible for killing other people, of course someone at the top should be held accountable.

The question is whether Obama, or any sitting US president will apologize. The answer towards this question is no, and especially in an election year. The political reality is that powerful nations do not bow down to small and weak nations. This is why nations should strive to be strong.

Ms. Fair, I reckon you should check your facts before glorifying the terrorist state of Iran. It is hard to believe that you know nothing about Iran's all out support for Hezbollah, the Assad regime and shiite terrorists in Pakistan.

acaba ?raktan geri çekilen askerler yak?nda afganistan ve pakistan civar?nda görülürse ?a??rmamak gerekir.Toptan Kontor Bu USA ne zaman kendisiyle ilgilenecek acaba

If you are concerned with realpolitik, then given that Pakistan has been cashing our checks for 10 years, while allowing the Taliban to regroup in Quetta - then Islamabad just needs to shut its pie-hole.

I am an avid reader of your research pieces! However in this article towards the end you unfairly blamed Pakistan. I would urge you not to use facts selectively and update yourself.

The bottom line is that it is not in Pakistan's interest to support those fighting NATO in Afghanistan!

Now the Facts:
1. Taliban existed in Afghanistan before US forces landed in the country in 2001.

2. Taliban dispersed initially following the classic guerilla tactics in the face of overwhelming US military might.

3. Taliban regrouped from 2003 to 2005 once the best US troops and resources were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

4. Pakistan made its air space, land routes and intelligence effort available to USA for its fight in Afghanistan and paid a heavy economic and domestic cost. (Much more than so called $20 Billion much of which was routed back to USA on one pretext or the other http://www.gmfus.org/galleries/ct_publication_attachments/Fair_SovereigntyDeficit_Jun11.pdf)

5. The Taliban due to Pakistan’s support to USA commenced a campaign of terror and introduced suicide bombing in country with full swing in 2007. ISI had contacts with old breed of Afghan fighters who have since long been taken over by money loving so called Talibs on the both side of Pak afghan border.

6. Pakistan wanted a quick end to this fight and its interests taken care of by the bigger partner. However since 2009 the game changed.

7. Pakistan does not see its interests being looked after and therefore like any sovereign country is no longer ready to bear costs for an ungrateful ally.

So maam, get your perspective about Pakistan role in supporting Afghan fighters correct.

Please visit the country and confirm things on ground.
Most of the western writers forget this basic principle.
Thanks

The only response which actually addressed the facts of the matter and avoided sloganeering was the first one.

It was followed by ad hominem attacks ("He's an Indian, he must be lying about Pakistan"), and spewing far-left rhetoric ("countries need to stand up to the US imperialist running dog hegemony")

The cold hard truth is Pakistan supported Islamicist terrorism in the region and the Taliban in the past. They haven't done a heck of a lot to show their contrition for doing so. Harboring Bin-Laden was not exactly a surprise for most of the world.

They have a vested interest in Islamicism in the region as a proxy force to annex all of Kashmir and as a way to produce a phony dissent which can be quashed brutally in the eyes of worldwide media(unlike pro-democracy dissidents).

The US already expressed regret So you are a liar or ignorant. However, when you launch an attack on NATO or let terrorist launch an attack in your area, you going to get bombed.

Regrettably, most of the comments here are just anti-west whining.

Imagine what would have been US reaction, if Pakistani forces had "by mistake" killed equal number of US / NATO troops. Perhaps, Pakistan would have been bombed to Armitegian "stone age" by now.
Morals of the story:
Might is always Right.
There are no permanent friends; only permanent interests.
There are no ethics in international politics.
Pakistan is entitled to protecting its legitimate national interests; hence, it must re- orientate it's foreign policy and review the military, logistic and intelligence support to US / NATO forces in Afghanistan to best serve its interests. Apology or no apology; this blatant act of aggression by the so - called allies has taught Pakistan an unforgetful lesson.
Cooperation with US has to be based on mutual respect, trust and caring for each other's interests.

31 US servicemen died when their helicopter was shot down by an r.p.g. in Wardak Province, Afghanistan in early August. As an r.p.g. is primarily an antitank weapon designed to fire at close in targets it is evident the American aircraft was coming in to land when it was hit. Add to that the fact that most of the servicemen aboard were members of Seal Team Six, the very unit that just weeks earlier had raided Osama Bin Laden's Abbottabad mansion, and you have a strong case for complicity by the Pakistan military and intelligence services in setting up the SEALs for an ambush.

The bitter feelings generated in Islamabad by the raid on bin Laden are certainly well known.

Is it so far-fetched to conclude that this latest episode was payback by our military, perhaps when it discovered another attempt to lure American soldiers to the gunsights of the Haqqanis?

They were probably letting ACM fire on those helo's, OR they were shooting, which happens more than we know here. They got lead poisoning, and probably deserved it.

If Pak troops fire upon Americans, they get shredded in an air strike. Tough luck for them. They should have known better.

Ms. Fair, apologize all you want, leave the rest of the Americans out of it. We don't care to.

They became our enemy the moment they refused to turn over bin Laden and other al Qaeda principals. They remain our enemy because of their continuing inextricable alliance with al Qaeda and the fact that they are fighting against the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan.

Because the Taliban is our enemy does not mean that Pakistan is our enemy, although the ISI and a number of the military elite may be hostile to US interests. Such a supposition is simplistic and illogical. Pakistan has made alliances with what they deem "good Taliban" and they have taken concerted action against "bad Taliban".

Pakistan has a serious problem because they give safe harbor to terrorists, and not just Taliban. They tacitly support militant Islamist groups that were responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attacks and groups that fight the Indians in Kashmir.

I doubt Obama will apologize because he is politically uncourageous, and Romney has painted the president as a guy who goes around the world apologizing for the USA's "transgressions". Should Obama apologize? Yes, because Pakistan has leverage by dint of their letting us cross their territory with supplies into Afghanistan.

Whether or not the president should apologize, he has no real choice at present other than ensuring the Pentagon removes from command at several officer levels the people who decided that patrol was a good idea; sent it out apparently with bad maps; had good maps back at HQ but evidently didn't know how to find them; responded to a 911 call from the ally Pakistan by piling on aerial attack against the Pakistani army base that killed two dozen of their military.

Among those the president seems to need to have step aside would be BG Clark, who gave that most unsatisfactory briefing this week in which he sought to conceal or disguise the US involvement (by describing the Americans as a "a NATO force", a threadbare gimmick that stopped working a couple of years back); and claiming that the Pakistanis weren't helping by not coordinating -- when speaking of a secret raid by the US patrol hard up against the Pakistan border. Who the hell could cooperate under a setup like this?

Still missing from the official explanation:

. What was the point of the patrol?

. What did it achieve?

. Did it work within its planned but bungled guidelines?

. How come this multi-hour engagement resulted in no reported US casualties?

. What assurance can we have that no similar jumble of bungles will happen again in that theater?

The zero US casualty tally seems to make nonsense of virtually every single thing the Pentagon has spread before the American people this week -- and earlier. This last point make complete nonsense of virtually every other specific in the Clark report. It seems that after the 911 call from Pakistan, the air force was called in against a Pakistani group on their appointed, clearly identified and clearly mapped station, and that was doing the Americans no harm whatsoever.

Noticing any of this, other American allies?

Wondering, White House, whether the military this month are working from the Pat Tillman playbook once more?

Americans often claim that Muslims hate USA, because of western values. Not only, such statements are nonsensical but if it was true, then here is a good example of why such dislike is wide spread. USA has now admitted that it is responsible for attacking a Pakistani check post and killing 24 innocent soldiers and Obama refuses to apologise. Is it not the same Obama, who talked of outreach to the Muslim world and sent his ambassadors all over the world to talk of peace. So hoe come the same president does have courage to simply say; Sorry. He has said so in many other cases when NATO and USa killed Iraqis or Afghans.

One can ask: Is Pakistani blood cheaper or Pakistani lives without any meaning that USA is so adamant not to apologise. I shudder to think, what USA would have done if Mexico carried an unprovoked attack on an American custom post in its territory? USA needs to amend its arrogant ways if it hopes any respect from the rest of the world.
Bashy

This, and the US-Pakistan relations in general, is just a case of the stronger nation acting like a gangster-gangster and the weaker acting like a gangster-prostitute.

Dear Carl
In response to my comment, you said "There were no US casualties because were are better at the killing game than the Paks were. AC-130s and Apaches are hard to beat. One of the reasons the Paks didn't do us any harm is they weren't that good and another was that they were dead".
If we leave Pakistan army, which is the 6th largest and professional fighting force in the world, to the side, can you tell me why, USA got kicked in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why it is so difficult to accept that USA did make a mistake and shot at Pak posts? Is it so painful to accept the reality?
Since you are not able to rationalize the fact, let me mention an American, Michael Carmichael who gave a talkk to the Elders for Peace, Chapel Hill on December 19th, 2011.
He said: " We are the most warlike nation. We must, therefore, be the most warlike people ever to have populated this planet.?Over the past decade, our nation has prosecuted wars in the Middle East. A war of vengeance against Afghanistan. A war of cupidity against Iraq. Both wars have gone badly for America."
Something to think about.
Kind regards
Bashy

I remain an avid reader of Christine Fair for the objectivity and dispassionate analysis of the current imbroglio in Pakistan - US relations. I agree with most of her conclusions since she has a sound understanding of the regional dynamics of South Asia. seslichat Things do happen in the battlefield; both intentionally and unintentionally. Better accept responsibilty, instead of circumventing the realities. Political interests should not dictate pursuance of plicies which are devoid of ethics. The American foundation fathers amply emphasized on this aspect of morality.