there's hedging your bets and then there's looking the other way while bin Laden sets up camp around the corner from "West Point"....
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
International Burn a Qu'ran Day
- Thread starter usmarinemike
- Start date
I'm not excusing it, just explaining it. It's not that big of a mental leap to see elements within the Pakistani establishment doing that. They (obviously) have a very different outlook on the entire situation than we do.
Brett
I don't know how accurate this report is, but the gov't of Afghanistan believes the personnel who were involved in this incident are going to stand trial...
http://www.gmic.gov.af/english/inde...delegations-assigned-to-probe-bagram-incident
I can't believe that this would be possible. Do these guys really deserve to be brought to trial (either in the US or Afghanistan) for this incident?
Isn't there a SOFA?
How would this square with the civil rights of the soldiers who stand accused?
http://www.gmic.gov.af/english/inde...delegations-assigned-to-probe-bagram-incident
I can't believe that this would be possible. Do these guys really deserve to be brought to trial (either in the US or Afghanistan) for this incident?
Isn't there a SOFA?
How would this square with the civil rights of the soldiers who stand accused?
Yeah, I'm thinking absolutely not. What's the crime? These guys aren't subject to Sharia or the Afghan justice system (lol). I'm thinking this is just lip service until the whole thing blows over. The "perps" will be found to have acted out of ignorance or unintentionally, blah, blah, blah.
I don't think Pakistan is hedging any bets, they want us out of thier backyard preferably unsuccseful. They paly both sides because they need our money and didn't want to piss us off after 9/11. We put up with thier shit because of the Nukes.
The Taliban is a creation of the ISI and the the AQ element was the price for the Saudi cash they took to stabalize southern Afganistan and thier own northern provinces after the Soviets left so they could focus on India. It's a messed up part of the world.
The Afghan government believes a lot of things that sometimes doesn't square with reality. I am speculating but we may have said something along the lines of looking at 'reprimanding' those who did it, which we probably take as sternly cautioning those who did it not to do it again, while the Afghans take it as something quite different than what was actually said. Several times in dealing with some of our 'partners' overseas myself or the guys I was with would say we would look into/examine/see if we could do something for them and they would claim later that we promised them that we would do it. Uhhhh, no. It was a bit of a game with them, trying to extract anything they could out of us. They knew exactly what we said but if they weren't getting what they wanted they would try and get it by haggling with/haranguing us. It didn't work very often but that was their way of doing 'business' or just socially interacting. Was it frustrating at times? Yeah, but haggling over tea is a lot better than shooting each other.
Putting our folks on trial though? I am not seeing it happen in the real world.
Playing both sides... I think that's exactly what I said - hedging their bets. The Taliban's relationship with AQ and Pakistan is/has been extraordinarily complex.
Brett
I should have wrote "They appear to paly both sides because they need our money and didn't want to piss us off after 9/11". Us being succseful in any way is something Pakistan will fight.
don't laugh too hard at the article helolumpy posted - I would not be surprised at all to see this administration's senior civilian leadership lean heavily on the chains of command to hold article 32s - at a minimum....
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Agreed
I'll believe it when I see it.......at the very least this is already a political hot potato, why would the civilian leadership risk even more criticism? But then again as long as you assume they would do so then I guess they are already guilty, right?
interesting question, but who?
The civilian leadership of course! You assume the worst with just speculation so they must be guilty of since they are almost certainly thinking of trying the soldiers who did the burning. Just as bad as actually doing it, right?!
Seriously, on what basis do you have to back up your speculation?
