| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| 'Funds for F-16s to Pakistan is a tough sell' |
| 2008-09-17 |
| The Bush administration expects an uphill battle in Congress for permission to use counterterrorism funds to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fighters, the State Department's top diplomat for South Asia said on Monday. But even if lawmakers balk, the State Department believes it has the authority to shift counterterrorism aid to the fighter programme. "For the moment, we're not taking a legalistic approach to this. We're trying to work it out with the Congress," Richard Boucher, assistant secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, said in an interview with Reuters. Analysts say the F-16 and other big-ticket military items have in the past been viewed by Islamabad as weapons to help Pakistan counter its rival, India. In July, two senior Democratic lawmakers asked the administration not to use the $226.5 million to refurbish the F-16s. They said they feared the plan diverted cash from more urgent counterterrorism equipment like helicopters and night-vision goggles. But Boucher said the F-16s had also been used for counterterrorism missions in hundreds of sorties targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda in the Tribal Areas in recent months. The F-16 upgrade was badly needed, he said, and would give Pakistan a more effective counterterrorism tool, enabling forces to work at night and improve precision-strike capability. He also said the money would come from areas such as maritime patrol programmes, which were not as urgently needed as the fighter upgrades. "I think it's an uphill climb but we don't shy away from uphill climbs," Boucher said of the State Department's effort to convince Congress to allow it to shift the funds to the Pakistani F-16 programme. Lockheed payment: Over the summer, the Bush administration made a payment "in the $100 million range" to F-16 manufactures Lockheed Martin Corp after it became clear the firm would otherwise fire workers involved in the project, he said. The next payment is due in October and the administration is working with Congress to try to resolve the issue by the end of this month, Boucher said. "We don't want to go ahead without some kind of understanding on the part of Congress." A Congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said appropriating subcommittees in Congress were entitled to request a 'hold' on re-programming funds and this had been done on the F-16 upgrades. However, he said this was not legally binding. It was 'atypical' for a government agency to go ahead with re-directing money over the objections of the chair of the relevant committees in Congress, the aide said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #17 There are some JFM, but they don't sample. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-09-17 19:30 |
| #16 NAtion building? Why? Afgha,s have redeeming qualities but I fail to find any in Pakistanis. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-09-17 15:57 |
| #15 Basically, we would have to occupy 1/3 of Pakistan. Even if we tried to use India as a port supply route, no road runs through the mountains to Afghanistan that we could use. We would have to take the Northern portion of Pakland to make it work. Basically, there are no real good options unless we want to move the troops from Iraq to Pakistan and engage in another 10 years of nation building. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-09-17 15:38 |
| #14 Trying to occupy the supply route to the ports would mean a war we are in no way prepared to fight. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-09-17 14:38 |
| #13 I'll bet the war games on this are fun. It's hard to see us doing that without getting manpower assistance from, say, India. It's hard to see that happening without this devolving into a religious war with India caught in a two front war. At least they'd have the internal lines of communication. But it would still not be fun. Obama would be stupid enough to get us into something like that. I prefer legallizing drugs, declaring victory in A-stan, and withdrawing. No matter what, it won't be pretty. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-17 14:17 |
| #12 Not unless we want to occupy that supply route. Its a hell of a big step. But its also a cut right through the middle of the bad guys areas, so on the bright side, the supplies only need to go part way. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-09-17 13:24 |
| #11 We're not cutting off aid to the Paks so long as our principal supply line to Afghanistan runs through the Khyber Pass. Think, people. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-09-17 11:35 |
| #10 If Pakland starts falling apart, expect seizure of a supply corridor by the US. Which means tying up a likely increasing amount of assets that could be more productive elsewhere. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-09-17 11:28 |
| #9 I'm afraid NS is right. However, if Pakland starts firing on our guys when we go after terrorists on a regular basis, expect this deal to go south. If Pakland starts falling apart, expect seizure of a supply corridor by the US. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-09-17 09:35 |
| #8 What are these assholes going to do when a SEAL team gets a 500# JDAM dropped on them by one of these jets? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-09-17 09:34 |
| #7 What kind of bullshit is this? The kind that keeps the supply lines to Afghanistan open. Until we get out of Afghanistan, we are going to pay whatever |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-17 07:51 |
| #6 I am all for cutting off all aid to Pakistan. All of it, military, USAID, any other funding they are gettnig for ANY reason. It is insanity to arm and fund an enemy state, which is what I now believe Pakistan has become. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2008-09-17 07:11 |
| #5 Why not throw in a few nuclear weapons while they are at it. You never know, they might have loaned what they have to their friends, Al Qaeda. Can't have India thinking they are not still big dicks, and besides a new round of jizya must be about due. |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-09-17 07:09 |
| #4 I was told that helicopters are much better than F16s for counterinsurgency, unless there is a good reason (like high altitude in some zones of the Taliban territory) why is Pakistan getting such fine fighters? |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-09-17 05:17 |
| #3 The F-16 upgrade was badly needed, he said, and would give Pakistan a more effective counterterrorism tool What kind of bullshit is this? They're just stealing money from a good program in order to put it in the pockets of defense contractors. Wonderful, now we have fewer funds to fight terrorism. Thanks, zoomies!@ |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-09-17 04:28 |
| #2 The Bush administration expects an uphill battle in Congress for permission to use counterterrorism funds to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fighters George and his Girl Clueless. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-09-17 04:16 |
| #1 Nothin Pakland, you Get Nothing exceptin a bullet in the head. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2008-09-17 01:42 |