Tuesday, May 31, 2011

DTN News - ISRAEL DEFENSE NEWS: Israel's Borders And National Security

Defense War News Updates: DTN News - ISRAEL DEFENSE NEWS: Israel's Borders And National Security
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 31, 2011:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said May 30 that Israel could not prevent the United Nations from recognizing a Palestinian state, in the sense of adopting a resolution on the subject. Two weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama, in a speech, called on Israel to return to some variation of its pre-1967 borders.

The practical significance of these and other diplomatic evolutions in relation to Israel is questionable. Historically, U.N. declarations have had variable meanings, depending on the willingness of great powers to enforce them. Obama’s speech on Israel, and his subsequent statements, created enough ambiguity to make exactly what he was saying unclear. Nevertheless, it is clear that the diplomatic atmosphere on Israel is shifting.

There are many questions concerning this shift, ranging from the competing moral and historical claims of the Israelis and Palestinians to the internal politics of each side to whether the Palestinians would be satisfied with a return to the pre-1967 borders. All of these must be addressed, but this analysis is confined to a single issue: whether a return to the 1967 borders would increase the danger to Israel’s national security. Later analyses will focus on Palestinian national security issues and those of others.

Early Borders

It is important to begin by understanding that the pre-1967 borders are actually the borders established by the armistice agreements of 1949. The 1948 U.N. resolution creating the state of Israel created a much smaller Israel. The Arab rejection of what was called “partition” resulted in a war that created the borders that placed the West Bank (named after the west bank of the Jordan River) in Jordanian hands, along with substantial parts of Jerusalem, and placed Gaza in the hands of the Egyptians.

Israel's Borders and National Security
(click here to enlarge image)

The 1949 borders substantially improved Israel’s position by widening the corridors between the areas granted to Israel under the partition, giving it control of part of Jerusalem and, perhaps most important, control over the Negev. The latter provided Israel with room for maneuver in the event of an Egyptian attack — and Egypt was always Israel’s main adversary. At the same time, the 1949 borders did not eliminate a major strategic threat. The Israel-Jordan border placed Jordanian forces on three sides of Israeli Jerusalem, and threatened the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. Much of the Israeli heartland, the Tel Aviv-Haifa-Jerusalem triangle, was within Jordanian artillery range, and a Jordanian attack toward the Mediterranean would have to be stopped cold at the border, since there was no room to retreat, regroup and counterattack.

For Israel, the main danger did not come from Jordan attacking by itself. Jordanian forces were limited, and tensions with Egypt and Syria created a de facto alliance between Israel and Jordan. In addition, the Jordanian Hashemite regime lived in deep tension with the Palestinians, since the former were British transplants from the Arabian Peninsula, and the Palestinians saw them as well as the Israelis as interlopers. Thus the danger on the map was mitigated both by politics and by the limited force the Jordanians could bring to bear.

Nevertheless, politics shift, and the 1949 borders posed a strategic problem for Israel. If Egypt, Jordan and Syria were to launch a simultaneous attack (possibly joined by other forces along the Jordan River line) all along Israel’s frontiers, the ability of Israel to defeat the attackers was questionable. The attacks would have to be coordinated — as the 1948 attacks were not — but simultaneous pressure along all frontiers would leave the Israelis with insufficient forces to hold and therefore no framework for a counterattack. From 1948 to 1967, this was Israel’s existential challenge, mitigated by the disharmony among the Arabs and the fact that any attack would be detected in the deployment phase.

Israel’s strategy in this situation had to be the pre-emptive strike. Unable to absorb a coordinated blow, the Israelis had to strike first to disorganize their enemies and to engage them sequentially and in detail. The 1967 war represented Israeli strategy in its first generation. First, it could not allow the enemy to commence hostilities. Whatever the political cost of being labeled the aggressor, Israel had to strike first. Second, it could not be assumed that the political intentions of each neighbor at any one time would determine their behavior. In the event Israel was collapsing, for example, Jordan’s calculations of its own interests would shift, and it would move from being a covert ally to Israel to a nation both repositioning itself in the Arab world and taking advantage of geographical opportunities. Third, the center of gravity of the Arab threat was always Egypt, the neighbor able to field the largest army. Any pre-emptive war would have to begin with Egypt and then move to other neighbors. Fourth, in order to control the sequence and outcome of the war, Israel would have to maintain superior organization and technology at all levels. Finally, and most important, the Israelis would have to move for rapid war termination. They could not afford a war of attrition against forces of superior size. An extended war could drain Israeli combat capability at an astonishing rate. Therefore the pre-emptive strike had to be decisive.

The 1949 borders actually gave Israel a strategic advantage. The Arabs were fighting on external lines. This means their forces could not easily shift between Egypt and Syria, for example, making it difficult to exploit emergent weaknesses along the fronts. The Israelis, on the other hand, fought from interior lines, and in relatively compact terrain. They could carry out a centrifugal offense, beginning with Egypt, shifting to Jordan and finishing with Syria, moving forces from one front to another in a matter of days. Put differently, the Arabs were inherently uncoordinated, unable to support each other. The pre-1967 borders allowed the Israelis to be superbly coordinated, choosing the timing and intensity of combat to suit their capabilities. Israel lacked strategic depth, but it made up for it with compact space and interior lines. If it could choose the time, place and tempo of engagements, it could defeat numerically superior forces. The Arabs could not do this.

Israel needed two things in order to exploit this advantage. The first was outstanding intelligence to detect signs of coordination and the massing of forces. Detecting the former sign was a matter of political intelligence, the latter a matter of tactical military intelligence. But the political intelligence would have to manifest itself in military deployments, and given the geography of the 1949 borders, massing forces secretly was impossible. If enemy forces could mass undetected it would be a disaster for Israel. Thus the center of gravity of Israeli war-making was its intelligence capabilities.

The second essential requirement was an alliance with a great power. Israel’s strategy was based on superior technology and organization — airpower, armor and so on. The true weakness of Israel’s strategic power since the country’s creation had been that its national security requirements outstripped its industrial and financial base. It could not domestically develop and produce all of the weapons it needed to fight a war. Israel depended first on the Soviets, then until 1967 on France. It was not until after the 1967 war that the United States provided any significant aid to Israel. However, under the strategy of the pre-1967 borders, continual access to weapons — and in a crisis, rapid access to more weapons — was essential, so Israel had to have a powerful ally. Not having one, coupled with an intelligence failure, would be disastrous.

After 1967

The 1967 war allowed Israel to occupy the Sinai, all of Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. It placed Egyptian forces on the west bank of the Suez, far from Israel, and pushed the Jordanians out of artillery range of the Israeli heartland. It pushed Syria out of artillery range as well. This created the strategic depth Israel required, yet it set the stage for the most serious military crisis in Israeli history, beginning with a failure in its central capability — intelligence.

Israel's Borders and National Security
(click here to enlarge image)

The intelligence failure occurred in 1973, when Syria and Egypt managed to partially coordinate an assault on Israel without Israeli intelligence being able to interpret the intelligence it was receiving. Israel was saved above all by rapid rearmament by the United States, particularly in such staples of war as artillery shells. It was also aided by greater strategic depth. The Egyptian attack was stopped far from Israel proper in the western Sinai. The Syrians fought in the Golan Heights rather than in Galilee.

Here is the heart of the pre-1967 border issue. Strategic depth meant that the Syrians and Egyptians spent their main offensive force outside of Israel proper. This bought Israel space and time. It allowed Israel to move back to its main sequential strategy. After halting the two attacks, the Israelis proceeded to defeat the Syrians in the Golan then the Egyptians in the Sinai. However, the ability to mount the two attacks — and particularly the Sinai attack — required massive American resupply of everything from aircraft to munitions. It is not clear that without this resupply the Israelis could have mounted the offensive in the Sinai, or avoided an extended war of attrition on unfavorable terms. Of course, the intelligence failure opened the door to Israel’s other vulnerability — its dependency on foreign powers for resupply. Indeed, perhaps Israel’s greatest miscalculation was the amount of artillery shells it would need to fight the war; the amount required vastly outstripped expectations. Such a seemingly minor thing created a massive dependency on the United States, allowing the United States to shape the conclusion of the war to its own ends so that Israel’s military victory ultimately evolved into a political retreat in the Sinai.

It is impossible to argue that Israel, fighting on its 1949 borders, was less successful than when it fought on its post-1967 borders. What happened was that in expanding the scope of the battlefield, opportunities for intelligence failures multiplied, the rate of consumption of supplies increased and dependence grew on foreign powers with different political interests. The war Israel fought from the 1949 borders was more efficiently waged than the one it fought from the post-1967 borders. The 1973 war allowed for a larger battlefield and greater room for error (errors always occur on the battlefield), but because of intelligence surprises and supply miscalculations it also linked Israel’s national survival to the willingness of a foreign government to quickly resupply its military.

The example of 1973 casts some doubt around the argument that the 1948 borders were excessively vulnerable. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but it is not a clear-cut position. However, we need to consider Israel’s borders not only in terms of conventional war but also in terms of unconventional war — both uprisings and the use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons.

There are those who argue that there will be no more peer-to-peer conflicts. We doubt that intensely. However, there is certainly a great deal of asymmetric warfare in the world, and for Israel it comes in the form of intifadas, rocket attacks and guerrilla combat against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The post-1967 borders do not do much about these forms of warfare. Indeed, it can be argued that some of this conflict happens because of the post-1967 borders.

A shift to the 1949 borders would not increase the risk of an intifada but would make it moot. It would not eliminate conflict with Hezbollah. A shift to the 1949 line would eliminate some threats but not others. From the standpoint of asymmetric warfare, a shift in borders could increase the threat from Palestinian rockets to the Israeli heartland. If a Palestinian state were created, there would be the very real possibility of Palestinian rocket fire unless there was a significant shift in Hamas’ view of Israel or Fatah increased its power in the West Bank and was in a position to defeat Hamas and other rejectionist movements. This would be the heart of the Palestinian threat if there were a return to the borders established after the initial war.

The shape of Israel’s borders doesn’t really have an effect on the threat posed by CBRN weapons. While some chemical artillery rockets could be fired from closer borders, the geography leaves Israel inherently vulnerable to this threat, regardless of where the precise boundary is drawn, and they can already be fired from Lebanon or Gaza. The main threat discussed, a CBRN warhead fitted to an Iranian medium-range ballistic missile launched from a thousand miles away, has little to do with precisely where a line in the Levant is drawn.

When we look at conventional warfare, I would argue that the main issue Israel has is not its borders but its dependence on outside powers for its national security. Any country that creates a national security policy based on the willingness of another country to come to its assistance has a fundamental flaw that will, at some point, be mortal. The precise borders should be those that a) can be defended and b) do not create barriers to aid when that aid is most needed. In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon withheld resupply for some days, pressing Israel to the edge. U.S. interests were not those of Israel’s. This is the mortal danger to Israel — a national security requirement that outstrips its ability to underwrite it.

Israel’s borders will not protect it against Iranian missiles, and rockets from Gaza are painful but do not threaten Israel’s existence. In case the artillery rocket threat expands beyond this point, Israel must retain the ability to reoccupy and re-engage, but given the threat of asymmetric war, perpetual occupation would seem to place Israel at a perpetual disadvantage. Clearly, the rocket threat from Hamas represents the best argument for strategic depth.

Israel's Borders and National Security
(click here to enlarge image)

The best argument for returning to the pre-1967 borders is that Israel was more capable of fighting well on these borders. The war of independence, the 1956 war and the 1967 war all went far better than any of the wars that came after. Most important, if Israel is incapable of generating a national defense industry that can provide all the necessary munitions and equipment without having to depend on its allies, then it has no choice but to consider what its allies want. With the pre-1967 borders there is a greater chance of maintaining critical alliances. More to the point, the pre-1967 borders require a smaller industrial base because they do not require troops for occupation and they improve Israel’s ability to conduct conventional operations in a time of crisis.

There is a strong case to be made for not returning to the 1949 lines, but it is difficult to make that case from a military point of view. Strategic depth is merely one element of a rational strategy. Given that Israel’s military security depends on its relations with third parties, the shape of its borders and diplomatic reality are, as always, at the heart of Israeli military strategy.

In warfare, the greatest enemy of victory is wishful thinking. The assumption that Israel will always have an outside power prepared to rush munitions to the battlefield or help create costly defense systems like Iron Dome is simply wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe this will always be the case. Therefore, since this is the heart of Israeli strategy, the strategy rests on wishful thinking. The question of borders must be viewed in the context of synchronizing Israeli national security policy with Israeli national means.

There is an argument prevalent among Israelis and their supporters that the Arabs will never make a lasting peace with Israel. From this flows the assumption that the safest course is to continue to hold all territory. My argument assumes the worst case, which is not only that the Palestinians will not agree to a genuine peace but also that the United States cannot be counted on indefinitely. All military planning must begin with the worst case.

However, I draw a different conclusion from these facts than the Israelis do. If the worst-case scenario is the basis for planning, then Israel must reduce its risk and restructure its geography along the more favorable lines that existed between 1949 and 1967, when Israel was unambiguously victorious in its wars, rather than the borders and policies after 1967, when Israel has been less successful. The idea that the largest possible territory provides the greatest possible security is not supportable in military history. As Frederick the Great once said, he who defends everything defends nothing.

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News



Monday, May 23, 2011

DTN News - LOCKHEED MARTIN DEFENSE NEWS: F-35C Joint Strike Fighter Flies Over Andrews Air Force Base

Defense War News Updates: DTN News - LOCKHEED MARTIN DEFENSE NEWS: F-35C Joint Strike Fighter Flies Over Andrews Air Force Base
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada / ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Md.- May 23, 2011: An aircraft carrier variant of the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter flies over Andrews Air Force Base, Md., during the Joint Service Open House. This is the first public appearance of a joint strike fighter aircraft at an air show. Lt. Cmdr. Eric "Magic" Buus piloted the aircraft.

The F-35C is a fifth generation strike fighter with stealth capability and has larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear for the demanding carrier environment. The aircraft is undergoing test and evaluation at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News



DTN News - SAAB DEFENSE NEWS: Saab's Civil Aircraft Missile Protection System (CAMPS) To FlyMex

Defense War News Updates: DTN News - SAAB DEFENSE NEWS: Saab's Civil Aircraft Missile Protection System (CAMPS) To FlyMex
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 23, 2011: Saab has received an order for the Civil Aircraft Missile Protection System (CAMPS) from charter airline FlyMex based in Mexico and flying on behalf of the United Nations World Food Programme.

“With CAMPS we can offer a fully automatic high performance protection that counter the MANPADS threat towards transports for humanitarian relief aid, Heads of state and VIPs, still using civil aircrafts”, says Stefan Behre, Marketing and Sales Executive at Saab.

“Saab’s commitment is to deliver CAMPS and the necessary support for installation and certification, and provide training and countermeasure simulation results”, concludes Behre.

CAMPS is currently in operational service on two types of aircraft; Lockheed L-382 and Embraer 120. With this order CAMPS will be operated on a new type of aircraft; Dornier 328JET. This brings the number of aircraft where CAMPS has been certified to three and expands the market reach to three continents.

Flymex operates air taxi operations ranging of Helicopter, Amphibious and Jet Operations all over Mexico. Flymex is also participating in United Nations World Food Programme operations in several countries.

The World Food Program is the world’s largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger worldwide. WFP is part of the United Nations system with food assistance in more than 70 countries worldwide.

Safer Flight

The threat to aircraft from terrorists using Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) is a reality in the world today. With the CAMPS system from Saab installed on the aircraft the flight will be safer.

Saab’s countermeasure systems are already installed on military aircraft all over the world and Saab is one of the leading providers of military airborne countermeasure systems. The CAMPS design has a heavy emphasis on safety and minimal operational costs, which led Saab to select pyrophoric technology and electromechanical dispensing.

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News



Sunday, May 22, 2011

DTN News - PAKISTAN NEWS: Militants Storm PNS Mehran In Karachi To Avenge Osama bin Laden Death

Defense War News Updates: DTN News - PAKISTAN NEWS: Militants Storm PNS Mehran In Karachi To Avenge Osama bin Laden Death
(NSI News Source Info) KARACHI, Pakistan - May 22, 2011: Militants stormed one of Pakistan’s main military bases in the country’s largest city late Sunday, triggering explosions and gunbattles three weeks after the US killing of Osama bin Laden. According to DawnNews there could be 10 to 12 attackers still inside the base as at least six reported to be dead amid terrorist’s attack.

AFP at 02:00 am reported that two Pakistan Navy staff were killed in the attack, where troops were locked in battle with gunmen, a spokesman said Monday.

“One of our officers and one Navy personnel have been martyred,” Commodore Irfan ul Haq, a spokesman for the Pakistan Navy, told AFP.

“The operation is continuing. They have completely destroyed one of Pakistan’s aircraft,” he added.

Main Story:

At least 10 people were wounded as blasts and gunshots rang out at the sprawling base used by the Air Force and Navy in the centre of Karachi, where the local government confirmed that the base was under “terrorist attack”.

An AFP reporter saw scores of soldiers and navy commando reinforcements entering the base, where flames and smoke could be seen rising into the night sky. An AFP photographer heard seven blasts and periodic bursts of gunfire.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Pakistan’s military has long been on the frontline of gun, suicide and bomb attacks blamed on the country’s main Taliban faction and other Al-Qaeda-linked militant groups.

The Taliban have recently repeatedly threatened Western and Pakistani government targets to avenge the killing of bin Laden by US Navy SEALs in the garrison city of Abbottabad near the capital Islamabad on May 2.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned Sunday’s attack, and ordered his interior minister to Karachi and to “coordinate the security efforts being taken by the civil and military officials,” his office said in a statement.

Commander Salman Ali, spokesman for the Pakistan Navy, told AFP that members of the security forces were fighting against gunmen.

“An exchange of fire with terrorists is continuing. Their firing is fading away and we have launched a search operation,” he said.

“It’s a terrorist attack. More than 10 terrorists are inside. They have attacked a navy air station located in a Pakistan Air Force base,” said home ministry official Sharfuddin Memon from the southern province Sindh.

“One of the four aircraft inside the premises has been damaged,” he said, adding that at least 10 people had been wounded.

“I have no information whether they are the attackers or Navy personnel.”In October 2009, Taliban militants beseiged the army headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi for two days, killing 22 people and raising serious questions over why it took the military so long to put down the assault.

Karachi, Pakistan’s financial capital whose sea port is used by Nato to ship supplies to the estimated 130,000 US-led foreign troops fighting the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan, has recently seen a spike in attacks on the military.

On April 28, four naval personnel and a passing motorcyclist were killed in a bombing, two days after four others were killed in navy bus bombings.

Last week, a Saudi diplomat was killed in a hail of bullets on his way to work at his country’s consulate in the city, just days after attackers threw grenades at the diplomatic mission.

Pakistan’s seemingly powerful security establishment was left humiliated by the discovery and killing of the Al-Qaeda terror chief in a unilateral American Navy SEAL raid that has rocked relations with wary ally Washington.

In an interview with the BBC broadcast on Sunday, US President Barack Obama said he stood ready to order a similar mission to that which killed bin Laden if another high-value target was discovered in Pakistan, or any other country.

“We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan, but we cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies’ people, we can’t allow those kinds of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action,” he added.

Earlier on Sunday, thousands demonstrated in Karachi to demand an immediate end to US missile strikes in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal belt on the Afghan border and urge the blocking of Nato supplies passing through the country.

Activists from the Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) led by former cricket hero Imran Khan held a two-day sit-in outside the Arabian Sea port, urging the government to end its cooperation with Washington’s “war on terror.” – AFP

Related Images;

*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News



Related News;


Brisbane Times - ‎4 minutes ago‎
Gunmen armed with rockets and explosives have stormed a major Pakistani naval air base, triggering gunbattles that have killed four navy staff, three weeks after the US killing of Osama bin Laden. Around 10 people were wounded on Sunday and towering ...


The Express Tribune - Faraz Khan, Salman Siddiqui - ‎9 minutes ago‎
Flames erupt from a P3C-Orion aircraft at the Pakistan Navy aviation base Mehran in Karachi after a terrorist attack. PHOTO: AFP Heavily-armed terrorists mounted a brazen attack on a Pakistan Navy installation adjacent ...


Daily Star - Lebanon - ‎26 minutes ago‎
KARACHI, Pakistan: Militants attacked a naval aviation base in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi late Sunday, rocking the base with explosions and battling commandos sent in to subdue the attackers, officials said. ...


The Express Tribune - Asad Kharal - ‎37 minutes ago‎
Flames and smokes belches out from a Pakistani military air base after an attack by militants in Karachi on May 22, 2011. Militants stormed one of Pakistan's biggest military bases in the country's largest city late May 22, ...


Pakistan Daily Times - ‎42 minutes ago‎
KARACHI: Terrorists attacked Pakistan Navy's airbase PNS Mehran late on Sunday setting of seven high intensity explosives, killing four people and injuring several others. The terrorists destroyed a P-3C Orion aircraft, a maritime patrol plane, ...


Bloomberg - Khurrum Anis, Farhan Sharif - ‎44 minutes ago‎
A gun battle is raging at a Pakistani naval air base in Karachi four hours after terrorists stormed the premises with rockets and grenades targeting surveillance aircraft provided by the ...


Sky News - ‎52 minutes ago‎
At least four people, including two Navy personnel, have been killed after gunmen attacked a high-security military base in Pakistan. To view this content you need Flash and Javascript enabled in your browser. Please download Flash from the Adobe ...


Aljazeera.net - ‎59 minutes ago‎
At least four killed as special forces continue to battle armed men who attacked naval aviation facility in Karachi. At least four people are reported to have have been killed in an attack by an armed group on a military base in the Pakistani city of ...


CNN International - Stan Grant, Nasir Habib - ‎1 hour ago‎
By the CNN Wire Staff (CNN) -- At least 10 militants attacked a naval air station in the coastal city of Karachi late Sunday, leading to several explosions and an hourslong firefight with Pakistani forces that killed two naval officials,...


Telegraph.co.uk - ‎1 hour ago‎
Gunmen attacked Pakistan's naval aviation base on Sunday, starting fires, setting off explosions and fighting pitched gun battles inside one of the country's most heavily guarded military installations. Officials said at least two people had been ...


Ynetnews - ‎1 hour ago‎
Islamist militants stormed a naval base in the Pakistani city of Karachi late Sunday, rocking the facility with fiery explosions and battling commandos dispatched to subdue them in one of the most brazen attacks in years, security officials said. ...


Xinhua - Mu Xuequan - ‎1 hour ago‎
ISLAMABAD, May 23 (Xinhua) -- At least nine people including three troops and six militants were killed in a terrorist attack on a Pakistan air force base in the country's southern port city of Karachi late Sunday night, local Urdu TV channel ARY ...


Newsday (subscription) - Adil Jawad - ‎1 hour ago‎
Photo credit: AP | Pakistani rangers and rescue workers gather at the main gate of a naval aviation base following an attack by militants, in Karachi, Pakistan, Sunday, May 22, 2011. Militants attacked a naval ...


Sydney Morning Herald - ‎1 hour ago‎
Under attack ... a plume of smoke rises after an explosion at the base. Photo: Reuters Two Pakistan Navy staff were killed in a militant attack on a naval air base in the country's biggest city of Karachi, where troops were locked in a battle with ...


The Express Tribune - Ahmed Jung, Faraz Khan - ‎1 hour ago‎
Flames and smokes belches out from a Pakistani military air base after an attack by militants in Karachi on May 22, 2011. PHOTO: AFP KARACHI: More than 10 militants late Sunday attacked one of Pakistan's ...


Hindustan Times - ‎1 hour ago‎
Gunmen attacked Pakistan's naval aviation base on Sunday, starting fires, setting off explosions and fighting pitched gunbattles inside one of the country's most heavily guarded military installations. Between 15 to 20 gunmen were inside and had ...


Washington Post - Karin Brulliard - ‎1 hour ago‎
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistani commandos were still battling early Monday with a band of militants who laid siege to a naval air base in the southern city of Karachi the night before, according to Pakistani officials, ...


Economic Times - ‎1 hour ago‎
KARACHI: At least four people were killed in a terrorist attack late Sunday night at a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) base in the country's southern port city of Karachi , a military spokesperson said. An adjacent naval facility was also targetted. ...


NDTV.com - ‎2 hours ago‎
A military base in Karachi has been attacked by militants and at least five explosions and firing have been heard from the base. The attack started late Sunday night at the gate of the Faisal base in Karachi. There are reports that 12 terrorists are ...


The Hindu - Anita Joshua - ‎2 hours ago‎
AFP Flames and smoke erupt from a Pakistani military air base after an attack by militants on Sunday night. Terrorists struck at the naval facility, PNS Mehran, in Karachi late on Sunday night. Multiple explosions were heard from inside the facility ...


Financial Times - James Lamont, Farhan Bokhari - ‎2 hours ago‎
Militants have attacked a naval air base in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, on Sunday night in a high-profile co-ordinated strike on US supplied aircraft. The PNS Mehran air base, close to Karachi's ...


CBS News - Farhan Bokhari - ‎2 hours ago‎
Flames and smoke erupt from a Pakistani military air base after an attack by militants, in Karachi, May 22, 2011. ISLAMABAD - Islamic militants possibly linked to al Qaeda launched a robust attack Sunday night, targeting a Pakistani Navy airbase in the ...


NEWS.com.au - ‎2 hours ago‎
Under attack: Flames and smoke are pouring from a major Pakistani military base in Karachi. Officials say at least 10 militants have attacked the base. Picture: Rizwan Tabassum Source: AFP ONE of Pakistan's main military bases, used by the navy and air ...


Newsday (subscription) - Adil Jawad - ‎2 hours ago‎
Photo credit: AP | Pakistani protesters burn an effigy of US President Barack Obama during a rally against the US drone strikes in Pakistani tribal areas, Saturday, May 21, 2011 in Multan, Pakistan....


International News Network - ‎3 hours ago‎
KARACHI: At least four people have been killed and five injured as unknown assailants attacked Pakistan Naval Station Mehran and exploded five bombs and opened discriminate firing. According to media reports, around 10 terrorists stormed into the PNS ...


Herald Sun - ‎3 hours ago‎
MORE than 10 militants have reportedly attacked one of Pakistan's main military bases, used by the navy and air force in Karachi, a local government official said. Several blasts and gunshots were heard inside the sprawling military base in the center ...


DAWN.com - ‎3 hours ago‎
Flames and smokes erupted from a military air base after an attack by militants in Karachi. -AFP Photo KARACHI: Several explosions have been heard near the PAF Museum on Dalmia Road in Karachi. The force of the blasts have shattered the windows of ...


Sydney Morning Herald - ‎3 hours ago‎
More than 10 militants have attacked one of Pakistan's main military bases, used by the navy and air force in Karachi, the country's biggest city, a local government official says. Several blasts and gunshots were heard inside the sprawling military ...


Pakistan Times - ‎3 hours ago‎
KARACHI: Terrorists launched an armed attack on PNS Mehran, a heavily guarded facility of Pakistan Navy, located along Sharea Faisal, Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Sunday. The minister said that the attack has been countered to a large ...


BBC News - ‎4 hours ago‎
Gunmen have attacked a military base in the Pakistani city of Karachi, killing at least two soldiers, officials say. Big explosions were heard as the men stormed parts of the Mehran naval aviation base. They are said to be holding hostages,