| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| 6 billion down the drain in Pakistan |
| 2008-05-16 |
| What could you buy with $6 billion? You could finally rebuild the New Orleans neighborhoods that Hurricane Katrina destroyed. For almost six years, you could provide a daily meal for every one of the 36 million Americans who live below the poverty line. Or, you could give all of it to the Pakistani government in the form of military aid and accomplish absolutely nothing. For more than seven years now, billions of American government dollars, expense reimbursements of about $90 million a month, have sluiced directly into the Pakistani treasury, instantly becoming "sovereign government funds," as a new government report puts it. Once there, the United States has no control over how the money is used. All of this money, about $6 billion so far, is intended to pay for counter-insurgency operations against al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan. After seven years, al-Qaeda has established a terrorist-training and planning center there. The 2008 National Intelligence Estimate said al-Qaeda "has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan." Meantime, the Taliban have begun applying fundamentalist Islamic law in the tribal areas they now control. They have shut down schools for girls, closed barbershops and music stores, just as they did in Afghanistan when they ruled that country. In short, seven years and $6 billion later, the terrorist group that carried out 9/11 has grown ever more comfortable and secure in its new Pakistani home. There, Washington fears, their leaders - including Osama bin Laden - are planning another attack on the United States. Meanwhile, the newly elected Pakistani government is negotiating a truce with these militants and has already pulled most of its troops from the area. This information comes from newly published federal government reports. No one in Washington is debating it. Last month, in fact, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, acknowledged that if the United States managed to pinpoint Osama bin Laden's location in the tribal areas, he was not sure Pakistan would give permission to attack him. That, Mullen said, is "open for discussions with the new government." Despite all this, the money keeps flowing. The Bush administration has budgeted $900 million for the program this fiscal year, saying it is "a critical tool in our joint effort with Pakistan to constrain the assumption of sanctuary by extremists in western Pakistan." That last statement came from the Department of Defense just three weeks ago - even after major reports from the State Department, the General Accounting Office and the nation's intelligence agencies this spring all showed that the war there is lost, the money wasted. All of this could have been predicted. In 2006, five years into the military assistance program, government auditors discovered that the United States was not even providing any advice or strategic direction for the Pakistani military. Washington was just handing over the money - "shoveling it," as one congressman put it - crossing their fingers and hoping something good might come of it. Nothing did. Last month, Rep. Howard Berman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, complained that Washington was not providing meaningful guidance even now. "It's appalling that there is still no comprehensive inter-agency strategy concerning this critical region," he said. In a report published last week, the Government Accountability Office, quoting Pentagon officials, said the Pakistani army, still today, is "neither structured nor trained for counter-insurgency" missions. Last year for the first time, the Pentagon did raise questions about a few of the reimbursement requests Pakistan had provided, for expenses totaling about $80 million. Military officials, testifying to Congress, insist that their audits will be more thorough in the months ahead. But none of them have explained exactly what the new money is intended to accomplish - given that, for all the good it did, the $6 billion spent so far might just as well have been flushed down the sewer. For a long time, Bush administration officials had quietly explained that they continued handing over the money because it helped prop up Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, their supposed ally in the war on terror. But even that explanation rings hollow today. With his political party out of power, Musharraf sits in Islamabad, now little more than a figurehead. So, like many other failed programs launched during the Bush presidency, this one will likely chug along untouched until a new president takes office - wasting an additional $900 million along the way. What could you buy with $900 million? |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #14 We're paying this money so we don't have to spend even more billions air shipping this stuff through the Central Asian countries. Alternatively, we're paying it so that we don't have to spend hundreds of billions invading Pakistan to get that land route through to Afghanistan. This is stuff that the Democrats know. But standard Democratic practice is to assume stuff merely materializes out of thin air and doesn't have to be paid for. We could have invaded Pakistan after 9/11 and taken out the jihadi-tolerating/supporting government. But then we would have had to institute a draft, and prepare for a war against both Pakistan and China, which would probably have sent millions of "volunteers" to help the Pakistanis resist "American aggression". How many Americans were prepared to go to war with China, post-9/11? I know losing 4,000 men in Iraq has already consigned Bush to being "the worst president in American history" in the American psyche. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-05-16 23:38 |
| #13 With a chenille slipcover for cuddly comfort, George? In digital camouflage, tw.... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-05-16 23:18 |
| #12 That is only counting direct aid : India is allowed to buy weapons and equipment that Pakistan can only dream of. Like the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the Indians are looking to buy for the Air Force and maybe another 75 or so for their Navy to outfit their carrier. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-05-16 19:43 |
| #11 And there is a comparable amount being supplied to India to balance out what's going to Pakistan. US aid to India for 2008 is 81 million dollars. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-05-16 19:38 |
| #10 With a chenille slipcover for cuddly comfort, George? And a nice Laz-y-boy lean so one can watch the news on television properly: through closed eye lids? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-05-16 17:45 |
| #9 I'm designing a kevlar upholstered, mine-resistant, all-terrain, air-droppable armchair. I see a market - a huge market. |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-05-16 16:37 |
| #8 For $900 million, we could have used a few of our older nukes which are in need of maintenance and shown the Muzz what happens when we are upset. I hear the Pentagon is short of military geniuses; send 'em yer resume. You'd be a shoo-in. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-05-16 13:29 |
| #7 Pakistan are funded by the West re WOT and Saudi re Islamism-They need to choose one over the other going forward as i see the West cutting backing their funding re WOT-ie lack of results and Islamism does not improve the economy unless you have oil!!!!! |
| Posted by: Paul 2008-05-16 13:11 |
| #6 Set one off and simply deny it. Works for everyone else, why not us. |
| Posted by: Oscar Flomoger2508 2008-05-16 12:20 |
| #5 It's one hell of a waste of $6 billion. For $900 million, we could have used a few of our older nukes which are in need of maintenance and shown the Muzz what happens when we are upset. The death of a few million Muzz would have been a very worthwhile demonstration of our resolve. Slapping the shit out of them is the only effective means of getting their attention. Nowhere better to cause a little D&D than Pakland. (Mebbe Saoodi) Irradiating the territory would have denied them use of safe haven for years to come. That's how we should have spent precious tax dollars. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-05-16 11:41 |
| #4 The $6B went for a very, very good cause. At the beginning, Pakistan was a loose confederation with no central government control even in Islamabad. The military and ISI were full of Islamists, and too weak to do anything but make trouble in Kashmir and sponsor terrorism. Oh, yes, and they had nuclear weapons. Today, most of the country can be dominated by the military, the more secular ruling parties have displaced a lot of the Islamists from their parliament, the military and ISI have been purged of the worst of their Islamists, and the US has guarantees about their nuclear weapons. While there has been no clear victory over the radicals, they have been severely damaged, their ancient weapons markets have to a great extent been closed down or reduced to a dull roar, and the majority of the population has been turned against them. We actually got good value for our money. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-05-16 09:23 |
| #3 Think of the 6 billion as the 'toll' for getting Pakistan to allow us to supply our efforts in Afghanistan, because that's what it really is. It's cheaper than fighting our way through. And there is a comparable amount being supplied to India to balance out what's going to Pakistan. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-05-16 08:16 |
| #2 Agree or Dis-Agree: All foreign aid moneys that are proposed to be given away to any Nation or sub-Nation [Pakistan for instance] shall be raised by partially taxing them from all the Employees of that said department which proposes that give away; for instance State Dept. Employees. Same holds true for Congress Critters... |> Same for any other Gubmint Dept. |> Based on a sliding scale...of course.. |> 30% of Gross for all departments [*exception] |> 99% for *Congress / hyperbole |
| Posted by: RD 2008-05-16 05:54 |
| #1 On 9-11 Pakistan was under US sanctions. The thinking was: US could leverage both military support in the GWOT, and contribute to democraticization in Central Asia. Unfortunately, the NATO intervention legitimized political Islam and allowed neo-Taliban parties to thrive in Pashto regions. Notwithstanding public support for Islamofascists, we need to attack them head on, regardless what Karzai (Pashto) says or does. Afghanistan is mostly pacified; it is only the opium districts where we find jihad vermin. That is where we have to wipe them out, even if we have to use napalm. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-05-16 04:15 |