Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. aid to Pakistan of over $10 bln is questioned.
Reuters ^ | 26 Feb 2007 | Carol Giacomo

Posted on 02/26/2007 5:20:49 PM PST by Leisler

Inserts "per month" in final paragraph to show that Pakistan sought and received $100 million per month in U.S. reimbursements for troop operations.

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - The United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in the five years since the Sept. 11 attacks but there is little accountability for how the money is spent and it has afforded Washington little leverage over Islamabad, researchers said on Monday.

A report by two experts with the Center for Strategic and International Studies has highlighted doubts about the effectiveness of the Bush administration's strategy of enlisting Pakistan as a front-line ally in trying to combat al Qaeda and resurgent Taliban militants.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney visited Afghanistan and Pakistan on Monday to urge Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to take tougher action against militants on his side of the lawless border, where U.S. commanders say radical fighters are sheltering and training.

The U.S. strategy "has forestalled disaster for five-plus years but there is no Plan B and the costs of crisis in Pakistan are too great to live without workable options." Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet wrote in an article for the spring issue of The Washington Quarterly magazine.

"...it is worth asking whether U.S. policy has reached its limits and if it is now being guided more by inertia than strategy. Washington's alliance with (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf may have run its course."

Cheney's visit came as The New York Times reported that President George W. Bush has decided to send "an unusually tough message" to Musharraf that Congress would cut aid if he did not do more to combat extremists.

The House of Representatives recently adopted a bill requiring Bush to certify Pakistan is making "all possible efforts" to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its control as a condition of continued U.S. military aid.

The Senate could recommend a legislative proposal as early as this week. Increasing and reorienting U.S. aid to Pakistan is under consideration, as well as a cutback.

"We're not going to get anywhere by simply saying, 'let's do exactly what we're doing for the last six years' and hope the outcome will be different," said a Senate aide said.

The CSIS report said the United States had given Pakistan more than $10 billion in military, economic and development assistance since Sept. 11 and perhaps even more in covert intelligence and military aid.

Still, "Washington finds itself with relatively little leverage to influence events in Pakistan," the report said.

Cohen and Chollet said "there is little accountability in how Pakistan spends U.S. money" and many key officials in various government agencies do not know the full extent of assistance provided.

The army is Pakistan's dominant institution and receives most of the U.S. aid, reflecting an approach heavily weighted toward short-term military cooperation with little emphasis on ensuring Pakistan's long-term stability, they said.

Even when a cease-fire along the border was in place between June and September last year, Pakistan sought and received $100 million per month in U.S. reimbursements for troop operations "raising questions about what they are being reimbursed for," said South Asia expert Alan Kronstadt of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afganistan; bush; india; iraq; pakistan; pakistansuckersus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
10 billion, plus a couple of billion more and the Pakis can't take on a couple of tribes.

The money is down a rat hole. Bush, Rice, the Chiefs are out and out chumps. The Pakis must be laughing all the way to their banks in the Bahamas.

1 posted on 02/26/2007 5:20:53 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Leisler

10 billon dollars?


2 posted on 02/26/2007 5:27:54 PM PST by StoneWall Brigade ("Republicanism did not make conservatism a majority; conservatism made Republicanism a majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade

yeah. I don't believe this number at all either.


3 posted on 02/26/2007 5:29:55 PM PST by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223

For that kind of money we should be allowed to go into Western part and kick some butt


4 posted on 02/26/2007 5:39:48 PM PST by StoneWall Brigade ("Republicanism did not make conservatism a majority; conservatism made Republicanism a majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

This is the country that I consider to be as dangerous as any other one. One coup and you have a pile of nukes available for AQ.


5 posted on 02/26/2007 5:45:58 PM PST by misterrob (Jack Bauer/Chuck Norris 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
U.S. aid to Pakistan of over $10 bln is questioned.

Just the fact that the current administration and prior congressional majority (the republicans) have continued to facilitate the foreign government welfare state makes them completely unacceptable as candidates for elected office.
6 posted on 02/26/2007 5:46:48 PM PST by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

That is disgusing.


7 posted on 02/26/2007 5:48:09 PM PST by Jane Austen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen

We have just figured out how the Taliban are funded.


8 posted on 02/26/2007 6:21:57 PM PST by Sundog (What are we going to do tomorrow, Brain?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen
It maybe worse.

Pak has cost US $27b(?) since 9/11

9 posted on 02/26/2007 6:32:10 PM PST by Leisler (REAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS WALK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

That money is not for taking on "a couple of tribes."

That money is for killing more Indians.


10 posted on 02/26/2007 7:49:02 PM PST by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Foreign Aid is the code word we use so that no one gets upset about us paying off governments to do what we want, bribes. But don't tell the left.

That said I'm sure we could have bought pakistan for a lot less.


11 posted on 02/26/2007 8:11:22 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; Gengis Khan
Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet wrote in an article for the spring issue of The Washington Quarterly magazine.

"...it is worth asking whether U.S. policy has reached its limits and if it is now being guided more by inertia than strategy. Washington's alliance with (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf may have run its course."


...agreed.
12 posted on 02/26/2007 8:29:51 PM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen

Whats new, we pay anyone with their hand out friend or enemy Russia, North Korea,Mexico, China, you get the idea.


13 posted on 02/26/2007 8:43:16 PM PST by Plains Drifter (America First, Last, and Always!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: familyop

It is as it always was, inertia. There was no strategy, delusions, yes, huge chains of wishful thinking motivated by desire not to see reality. And what was the name of this inertia, the force? Islam.

The Bush circus admits to paying some of the Pakis, a billion a year. That is 1/4 of their, ahem, defense budget. And the Pakis can't ride up a dirt road and take out some tribes? WTF? They can, they just won't.

Do you have to be a idiot to work in Washington? I kind of cann't blame them for taking the money.


14 posted on 02/27/2007 3:22:35 AM PST by Leisler (REAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS WALK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Shoo- a good chunk of money goes for buying them new F-16s,AEW aircraft,AMRAAMs & Harpoon missiles all to take on Osama's mighty forces!!!


15 posted on 02/27/2007 4:05:35 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Y'all missed the best part of the report:
Even when a cease-fire along the border was in place between June and September last year, Pakistan sought and received $100 million per month in U.S. reimbursements for troop operations "raising questions about what they are being reimbursed for," said South Asia expert Alan Kronstadt of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service

16 posted on 02/27/2007 4:08:17 AM PST by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223

I don't believe 10 billion dollars either. The real figure, given what we're doing in Pakistan these days, the associated support costs, and greasing the wheels to keep the deeply anti-American government agencies quiet, is probably a few times that.


17 posted on 02/27/2007 4:13:18 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leisler; Sundog

Funding the enemy. Beyond belief.


18 posted on 02/27/2007 4:17:36 AM PST by Jane Austen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: festus
That said I'm sure we could have bought pakistan for a lot less.

I wouldn't be too sure. The Taliban was an ally of the Musharraf government, as they were aligned against India. The average government official in Pakistan probably took a lot of persuading to back the U.S. instead of the Taliban. Fear of the U.S. siding with India, coupled with some very generous payouts from Uncle Sam, are probably the only reason that Musharraf's head is still connected to his neck.

Don't imagine for a second that Pakistan is our friend. Were it any other country in the world besides the USA, Pakistan would have sided with the Taliban in 2001. Even now, Pakistan hunts al-Qa'ida, who they don't care for anyway, while funneling resources and support to the Taliban, to help bring them back into power.

19 posted on 02/27/2007 4:18:56 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Those are bribes that the Paki's demand and get from American suckers. You don't need any of that to drive some trucks full on infantry up dirt roads.

Frankly, it would be cheaper to cut out the Pakis and just buy the Taliban.

Or just bomb away at Talibanistan and tell the Pakis go pound sand. Just to make the Pakis really go nuts, I'd hire some Indians to jabber away on American radio freqs.


20 posted on 02/27/2007 4:48:48 AM PST by Leisler (REAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS WALK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson