Pakistan Navy Base Attacked

There's an attack on a Pakistani naval base in Karachi. Several have been killed and there may be hostages. This is the Navy base.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik says "This is an attack on Pakistan. Al- Qaeda and Taliban are enemies of Pakistan and are trying to destroy our assets.”

The assets destroyed include two expensive P-3C Orion surveillance aircraft we provided Pakistan.

< Alleged New Details in Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Chinese military personnel (none / 0) (#1)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 22, 2011 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    have also been taken hostages by the gunmen.

    I wonder if the Chinese Army (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Sun May 22, 2011 at 08:24:51 PM EST
    has a "special ops" capacity that might be used to rescue their guys, as the US would attempt to do in this situation.  That would be interesting.

    I think the militants.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sun May 22, 2011 at 11:10:27 PM EST
    ...might have done us a "favor" by pissing off the Chinese.  Might.  We'll see.

    Not too sure (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:40:38 AM EST

    that having two nuclear powers facing off in that wonderful region of peace and tranquility is doing anyone a "favor."

    You are, of course, right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    And that's why I only say might, which doesn't make right, and could easily render me wrong.

    P-3C Orion (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:46:40 PM EST

    Thats a sub chaser.  And it is old as the hills.  Hardly on the top of the list for Paki's defense needs.

    True, AAA (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sun May 22, 2011 at 11:48:14 PM EST
    Some Plowshares activist clients of mine got 100 days in jail for doing a half million dollars of damage to a P-3C Orion's cockpit controls in 1987, using hammers and bottles of their own blood.  Nearly 25 years ago ....

    we just agreed to provide (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:54:38 AM EST
    8 of them, it's in the new budget. From the article I linked to:

    Two P-3C Orions, a maritime surveillance aircraft, were targeted and damaged in the attack, Haq said. The U.S. handed over the aircraft to the Pakistan navy in April 2010 and said it will give a total of eight by 2012, according to the U.S. Central Command website.

    The P3 (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 08:59:07 AM EST
    is the military's version of the Lockheed Electra. It came to the fleet in the '65 time frame. It has been kept up to date and is arguably the best sub chaser ever built.

    It is being replaced by a military version of the Boeing 737.

    Why we would give any semi-ally these is beyond me.


    I doubt we gave them one of our most updated (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    versions.  We don't do that unless we really really like you and we are BFF and YOU PAY MONEY :)  We pawn off old military equipment all the time to people who have little of it in exchange for something....anything.  Just ask the National Guard :)  And it looks good on the books when we are documenting "assets", cuz a lot of stuff is worthless now to our cutting edge military but if you put a big fat zero in that column it really hurts when you have to tally up what we've paid for it and for however many updates we have done on it all :)  Just ask Wall Street, no matter how useless something is you never attach a worth of zero to it :)

    Give, (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 23, 2011 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    or sold?

    Don't know (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    but in any event they have'em.

    Tracy - The 3C is the latest airframe but I don't know if it has the latest electronics.

    But what ever they have is capable of finding subs.

    I'm not sure we want Pakistan, or anyone who is shaky on friendship, to have been given/sold that capability.


    We gave them a cold war dinosaur (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    No Tracy (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    What we gave them is a tool that found subs. It may not be the latest and greatest but it still can find subs.

    Since submarine warfare is one of the areas we have an edge in that is plain stupid.


    Jim (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    They've had these things for awhile now, and in 2004 we paid for them to be outfitted to patrol the af/pak border with.  I know you haven't been in the military recently, but we have become very good at gutting airframes and putting into them exactly what we want in them.  This airframe is a cold war dinosaur that we hope to get something else out of.

    You are the most (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 23, 2011 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    briefed up military spouse I've ever run across.

    Google (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    Among other things.  Like having to endure all the retraining when they gut an airframe for our own defense, one of which was a year away from home when they gutted the Apache and everything was made Longbow.  Since 9/11 though, everything that is in the air is updating at a staggering pace and our ability to gut and update has morphed in a huge way.  All those civilian jobs around that industry is where all serious aviators hope to go after retirement too (and we are 23 years active duty and Osama is dead, and I would really like to get to be retired of this deployment crap) if you don't want to stay on the flight line and you want to make big money....so not really.  Just another greedy capitalist being aware of how my bread is buttered and trying to figure out where the family homestead will land more permanently.  I hope that isn't around Fort Rucker either.

    And I've witnessed a few fights (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    via active duty soldiers instructing students of other countries too that we sold stuff to so I have seen firsthand that we don't sell or give anything to anyone that we can't easily trump on the battlefield.  Active duty soldiers don't like to give out information to other forces and they don't have to teach students from other countries if they feel like it violates their protecting of their nation no matter who the State Department sells things to and promises training to.  Civilian instructors don't have that option of refusing to teach certain students, but active duty does.  And I have been able to witness the "particulars" of some of those disputes too.  I saw some fights a few years ago about instructing Egyptian students after we sold them things.  That deal didn't work out so badly though because we then had pull with the Egyptian military when the riots started.

    And you could try reading the Military Times (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    sometimes too :)  So could Jim :)

    Heh. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 23, 2011 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    And I thought it was personal validation.  

    There is only one thing more tiresome (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    than a couple of conservatives telling me what the reality of today's military is, what they really face out there, and how things are done right now, and that is arguing with a conservative on facebook about the economy.

    Throwing the victim (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    card eh?  Get of your high horse and show me where I would even tell you the realities of today's military.  Give me a link showing where I posted anything close to that.  Put up or shut up.  Victim.  

    You could learn a lot here too (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:32:36 PM EST

    If you care to, but I think I already know what you care about and it doesn't involve truth. And perception of the military that you have and care to project out there is about a 50 years old at least.....Nah, more like 60 years old.


    So you're saying that we removed the sub hunting (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 23, 2011 at 07:12:51 PM EST

    That was and is my point. Giving a subhunter to Pakistan was, if we did, just plain ole dumb.

    So we can leave all the other stuff aside.. and yes, I'm familiar with avionics upgrades... BION we actually didn't use smoke signals.



    Give or sold? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:10:25 PM EST

    What do you call it when they "buy" them with the military assistance money we gave them with the requirement that they buy American?