The recent NATO air strike, which killed 24 and injured 13 Pakistani border troops, is the most recent breakdown in the crucial relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. Although this year has seen many flashpoints between the two nations, whether it be the C.I.A contract employee who killed two Pakistanis, the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad Pakistan, the Pakistani town equivalent to West Point, or top U.S. officials, such as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, publicly accusing the Pakistani military of actively supporting terrorist organizations, the NATO air strike has led to serious retaliatory measures by the Pakistani government, which are creating serious security concerns for the United States. Neither side is completely certain about what actually led up to the strike, but the diplomatic damage has already been done. Multiple investigations are underway to determine what happened and whose at fault, but this will likely do little to repair the relationship that seems to be constantly on the breaking point. Although the situation seems dire now, the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. is essential for both sides and will likely blow over after a few months of the Pakistanis beating their chests to show the public that it is capable of standing up to the U.S., illustrated by the Pakistani Prime Minster Yousaf Raza Gilani stating “Business as usual will not be there.” Yet, it is important to investigate what happened, what effect Pakistan’s actions will have on the U.S.’s interests in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and what is likely to happen in the near future.

The question all sides are asking at this point is how did this tragedy happen? Officials in Washington and diplomats in Afghanistan have outlined the events they believe led up to the NATO air strike. U.S. Special Forces were operating along the mountainous and heavily wooded border area in Afghanistan, in an attempt to engage a Taliban training camp, and kill high level Afghan and Pakistani Taliban commanders, including a foreign militant that has been training suicide bombers in Khas Kunar, an area close to the Pakistani border. Then at around 2:00-2:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, U.S. forces came under fire originating from the Pakistan side of the border as they were pursuing the fleeing insurgents, and then proceeded to call in air support. The coalition forces tried to contact the Pakistani military on the other side of the border and believed that they were free to pursue the insurgents. NATO’s air strike took out two mountainous border posts at the Salala checkpoint in the Mohmand district. One of the main problems for coalition forces fighting in the region is the ambiguous nature of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Both countries lay claim to the same areas, the rugged mountains and desert make it a perfect place for insurgents to come and go between the two countries without much intrusion from the Pakistani or Afghan militaries, and more than 1,600 miles of terrain remains unmarked. Everyone from President Obama down has come out with their sincere apologies and concern over the death of the 24 Pakistani soldiers, but if the events that occurred are as the U.S. and NATO claim, then this was an unfortunate accident and one of the worst aspects of war, death by friendly fire.

Pakistani officials don’t believe the line of events presented by the U.S. and NATO, and want proof to substantiate their claims. Pakistan’s Major General Athar Abbas has been adamant that the evidence does not line up with what is being presented by Washington. Abbas claims the air raid went on for more than an hour and continued even after local commanders contacted NATO, telling them to stop the strike. He also maintains that there has been no recent militant activity in the area because of prior operations aimed at removing the terrorists and the establishment of Pakistani military posts to enhance control over the region. Most of the Pakistani soldiers were asleep at the time of the strike according to Abbas, thus countering the idea of a fire fight in the region. In addition, Abbas states that NATO has been given the grid references and locations of the Pakistani border posts, thus NATO should have known that they were attacking the Pakistani military post, not militants. Abbas’s claims are concerning and if true, certainly hurt the argument being presented by the U.S. and NATO.

The U.S. military has recently stated that it has begun an investigation into the NATO air strike, which will be led by senior ranking Special Operations Officer Brigadier General Stephen Clark of the Air Force. The investigation will include NATO, Afghan, and Pakistani officials to see what happened and how to prevent another incident of this nature. Specifically, the investigation will look into whether U.S. forces came under fire and whether the call by U.S. ground commanders for the air strike was a result of mistaken identity, believing the Pakistani forces were actually militants. The due date for the report is set for December 23, 2011, but will most likely do little to quell the outrage coming from the Pakistani populace.

In response to the air strike, Pakistan has taken several provocative steps to punish the U.S. and coalition forces in the region. As they have done in the past, Pakistan has closed border crossings used by the U.S. military to supply troops stationed in Afghanistan with food and non-lethal equipment. Although there are other avenues for getting supplies to the troops in Afghanistan, such as an air bridge or use similar border crossings with nations associated with the Northern Distribution Network (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), these options are drastically more expensive. Closing the border has been a common response to similar incidents, such as the 2010 U.S. helicopter air strike that killed two Pakistani soldiers. When Pakistan closes the borders, convoy trucks with supplies line up and become easy targets for militants, as shown by the six deaths and numerous trucks that were destroyed as a result of the 2010 closure. As history has shown, the threat of the border crossings remaining closed indefinitely is unlikely, but the recent calls by Kyrgyzstan’s President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s to close off the U.S. air base in Manas (likely a result of Russia’s recent donation of billions in aid to Kyrgyzstan in their attempt to remove the U.S.’s presence from Central Asia), shows the growing threat of Pakistani border closures and increased reliance on the support of the Pakistani government to allow safe passage for NATO supply convoys. A surprising demand by the Pakistanis has been the removal of all American personnel from the Shamsi airbase in southwest Pakistan within 15 days. Shamsi air base is used by the C.I.A. to conduct unmanned Predator drone strikes against militants within Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is especially concerning because this is greatly benefits the insurgent groups based throughout both Pakistan and Afghanistan, which have been decimated by the increased use of drone strikes. Today, Pakistani officials announced that Pakistan will boycott the international conference on the future of Afghanistan in Bonn Germany next week (December 4, 2011). The purpose of the conference was to present a sustained international commitment to the stability of Afghanistan and the prevention of the Taliban from taking over once U.S. troops pull out in 2014. Pakistan is essential to the process because they have a considerable amount of influence over the Taliban and has the ability to make them concede on certain issues needed to create a viable peace process. A similar conference was used to create the current Afghan government once U.S. troops removed the ruling Taliban government after the 9/11 attacks. Like the removal of U.S. forces from the Shamsi air base, this appears to play right into the wish list of the insurgents and plays on the concerns of U.S. officials who fear a disengagement from Pakistan will push them over to the side of the militants completely, instead of the two level game they currently play. These developments present a new low in the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, and has the potential to seriously endanger the war effort in Afghanistan.

Although Pakistan’s actions are concerning for the U.S.’s interests in the region, it will most likely be short term. Pakistan’s military is heavily reliant on the billions in aid it receives from the U.S. each year and understands that for it to sever the relationship completely would be a death blow to the Pakistani government, giving the insurgents the environment they need to take over. Although Pakistan will most likely never be the partner that the U.S. desires and will continue to support terrorist elements, the services that they provide are vital in the fight against terrorism. The U.S. must continue to work with the Pakistani government for the intelligence they provide on insurgents and the constant fear of what would happen to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government fell or decided to work solely in concert with terrorist organizations. The likely course of events will be the investigation will show that the air strike was an unintended accident, the Pakistanis will reopen the supply routes and air base after the U.S. gives some sort of concession, maybe increase the amount of aid given, and relations will remain tense but workable. It is in both countries interests to work out this current tragedy as quickly as possible and move back to at least a viable working relationship.