Two intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media said two U.S. helicopters crossed one mile into Pakistan in the Alwara Mandi area in North Waziristan on Sunday.
Citing informants in the field, they said Pakistani troops and tribesmen responded with small arms fire, but it was not clear whether it was aimed at the choppers or just warning shots.
The helicopters did not return fire and re-entered Afghan airspace without landing, the officials said.
That account was denied by Pentagon officials. "There was no such incursion; there was no such event," said Defense Department spokesman Col. Gary L. Keck,
At the time I first saw the headlines about this, I didn't think much of it - just more sabre-rattling. The AP article claims it was gunfire, but the tiny blurb about it on network news Sunday night had said missiles were fired at the helicopter. The AP article says the US fired some missiles into Pakistan, so it's possible the news got confused about who shot what.
Or, it's possible they (or I) were confusing it for Thursday's event: According to Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two NATO helicopters fired upon by Pakistani forces on Thursday were U.S. military aircraft operating inside Afghanistan, the Pentagon said.
"They were U.S. helicopters," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters at a briefing. "The flight path of the helicopters at no point took them over Pakistan."
If the copters were NOT over Pakistan airspace, then it couldn't have been small-arms fire. It would have to be artillery or missiles. That, or they'd have to be hovering very low just over the border.
I also find it amusing that AP's headline on Sunday was "Did Pakistan soldiers shoot at US helicopters?" Regardless of whether they shot on Sunday, they did do so on Thursday. It's almost as though the Sunday article was designed to cast doubt on the Thursday news story.
It occurred to me today, while commenting a WhatSilence, to question why the U.S. Helicopters were traveling over the border into Pakistan. The AP article says the border is "poorly demarcated", and implies it must have been a mistake, but wouldn't military choppers have cutting-edge GPS? Mistakes still happen, no matter how good the tech, but it's also possible those choppers meant to be there. What could possibly be worth not just getting shot at, but maybe even jeopardizing our alliance with Pakistan?
Maybe, just maybe, they had a tip on Bin Laden. One they actually considered going after. A couple choppers full of Special Forces could snag him, and haul him out. It'd take a few days to process him, and by the time the Pentagon would be ready to announce they'd caught him it'd be October. That would be a shot in McCain's arm, wouldn't it?
Of course, this is all speculation on my part, and I have no evidence to support it. It may well be that the soldiers were just being idiots, and had wandered off course by accident, or were disobeying orders in search of excitement, or were on some other top-secret mission that's got nothing to do with Bin Laden.
By the way, I find it highly amusing that McCain criticized Obama (in Friday's debate) for saying he'd send troops into Pakistan, when it turns out the army had already done so this past month.
It's just frosting on the cake McCain is trying to have (Bush said we were going into Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran) and eat (Presidents don't do that sort of thing) at the same time. If showing your hand or threatening other countries is really so bad, McCain, then why aren't you trying to Impeach Bush over it? McCain is a hypocrite, and/or a liar.
No comments:
Post a Comment