Pakistan: US suspends $800m of military aid

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

Pakistan: US suspends $800m of military aid

The US says it is withholding some $800m in military aid to Pakistan.

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told ABC television that Pakistan had "taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid".

He said the US raid that killed Osama Bin Laden in May had affected ties but he insisted the relationship "must be made to work over time".

The $800m (£500m) equates to about a third of the annual US security aid to Pakistan, US officials say.

In figures submitted to the International Monetary Fund last autumn, Pakistan's defence expenditure in its 2010-2011 budget was put at $6.41bn - an increase of $1.27bn on the previous year.

'Difficulties'

Speaking on ABC's This Week programme, Mr Daley accepted that Pakistan had been "an important ally in the fight on terrorism. They've been the victim of enormous amounts of terrorism".

He added: "It's a complicated relationship in a very difficult, complicated part of the world. Obviously, there's still lot of pain that the political system in Pakistan is feeling by virtue of the raid that we did to get Osama Bin Laden, something that the president felt strongly about and we have no regrets over.

"Until we get through these difficulties, we will hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers have committed to give them."

The New York Times earlier quoted senior US officials as saying the suspension of military aid amounted to about one-third of the yearly US security assistance to Pakistan.

The paper said the move was to show US anger at the expulsion of US military trainers and to pressure Pakistan to step up its fight against militants.

The Times said some of the suspended aid had been earmarked as compensation for Pakistan's redeployment of troops to Afghan border areas to fight militants. Other cuts were in military equipment.

The defence department said in a statement: "The reduced presence of our trainers and other personnel means we can't deliver the assistance that requires training and support to be effective."

The BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani in Washington says this is clearly a strengthening of the US approach to Pakistan - more of the stick than the carrot - but there must be concern that taking away the money will stop the Pakistanis co-operating at all.

Washington still regards Pakistan as vital in the fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants who use safe havens in Pakistan's tribal regions on the Afghan border.

But with Bin Laden known to have been living undetected almost next door to a major Pakistani military academy in Abbottabad, many in the US Congress have questioned the value of the US aid.

The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says Pakistan military sources have said they have heard nothing official of the aid suspension but that they have in any case been encouraging the US to divert funds from military to civilian programmes.

This may be an attempt to save face, our correspondent says, as the US move will undoubtedly hurt the Pakistani military.

Pakistan's former ambassador to the US, Meleeha Lodhi, told the BBC the US move would be counterproductive.

She said: "Washington is going to be left without any influence with the Pakistan army and with the people of Pakistan because this will be seen as an action that will punish Pakistan rather than provide an incentive for cooperation.

"This is not the way to rebuild a relationship that has been in a state of disrepair for several months."

In a sign of how difficult Pakistan-US relations have become, the top US military officer Adm Mike Mullen last week suggested the Pakistani government had "sanctioned" the killing in May of journalist Saleem Shahzad.

Mr Shahzad was kidnapped near his home in Islamabad. His body was found two days later in Punjab province.

Pakistan Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan said Adm Mullen's statement was "extremely irresponsible and regrettable".

She said it would cause difficulties in relations between the sides and prove a setback to the war against terror.

The increasing US drone attack on militants inside Pakistan along the Afghan border is also a continuing source of antagonism.

British military trainers were also withdrawn at the request of the Pakistani government last month.

I am delighted.

**Emperors Faithful**

ShumaGorath wrote:I am delighted.

Why?

**ShumaGorath**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:I am delighted.

Why?

We've been throwing more money after bad money for years. The pakistanis have been playing a shell game with aid, using it to fund militant groups against pakistan as well as repress their own people. Due to fear of nukes we've been flooding the ISI and their military with equipment and money but the nukes are no more safer now then they were before sanctions were lifted while militancy in pakistan has only grown. They deserve an invasion or at the very least a comprehensive capture and dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure, not billions in aid. They are a direct sponsor of terrorism and always will be so long as they think they can play equals with india.

The simple fact that they detained and jailed all informants they could find that informed on the location of Osama post raid indicates that they have absolutely no intention of ridding their country of militancy. The CIA at conservative estimates has placed 20% of the pakistani military as sympathizing with Al-Queda. The military we directly train and equip with billions is run by a government with every intention of stabbing us in the back and running with our money while their soldiers on the ground are utterly disinterested in securing their own state.

**dogma**

ShumaGorath wrote:They are a direct sponsor of terrorism and always will be so long as they think they can play equals with india.

That's not strictly true. Parts of the Pakistani state fund terrorist groups, specifically the ISI, but other parts are forthright in their desire to normalize US relations. Its also worht noting, as you said, that most Pakistani supported terrorist group are organized around attacking India, and not the US.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The simple fact that they detained and jailed all informants they could find that informed on the location of Osama post raid indicates that they have absolutely no intention of ridding their country of militancy. The CIA at conservative estimates has placed 20% of the pakistani military as sympathizing with Al-Queda. The military we directly train and equip with billions is run by a government with every intention of stabbing us in the back and running with our money while their soldiers on the ground are utterly disinterested in securing their own state.

Its much higher than 20%, and it isn't Al-Qaeda. Large chunks of the military hate the US, mostly because we want to empower the civilian bureaucracy, but they have no specific love for Al-Qaeda, They want to run the state, not dissolve it.

That being said, this wasn't unexpected, the US has not trusted Pakistan for a long time, and we have only maintained normal relations because they are nuclear, next to Afghanistan, and mad at India.

**ShumaGorath**

That's not strictly true. Parts of the Pakistani state fund terrorist groups, specifically the ISI, but other parts are forthright in their desire to normalize US relations.

Yes, and with the opaque chain of command in Pakistan we never really know where our money ends up. The ISI certainly hasn't weakened of late, and given the level of media control it exerts the civilian population is likely to never be particularly trusting or happy with our intervention, regardless of how much money is given.

Its also worht noting, as you said, that most Pakistani supported terrorist group are organized around attacking India, and not the US.

I'm not a particular fan of funding attacks against an ally state either.

Its much higher than 20%, and it isn't Al-Qaeda. Large chunks of the military hate the US, mostly because we want to empower the civilian bureaucracy, but they have no specific love for Al-Qaeda, They want to run the state, not dissolve it.

Report I read stated 20% and Al-Queda, but I'm sure the number varies widely depending on your definition of extremist group and what group you're looking at. Either way it's a quagmire that we should not be empowering, especially when that money is funding a proxy war against an earnest and actual allie (india).

**avantgarde**

Good, the US should spend that $800 mil on something more productive. Like more drone strikes in Pakistan.

**Crom**

Yeah I think it was quite obvious we weren't getting our money's worth with Pakistan. Either they knowingly deceived us about Bin Laden and other terrorist cell members, or their intelligence is extremely incompetent. I mean the guy was there for years, and we have upped our foreign aid to them post 9/11 for a total of like 11 billion or something like that in return they would help us combat terrorism, use their air space, etc.

Something just doesn't add up when one of the world's most wanted terrorists can hide out in your country for over 5 years and no one notices, or cares.

**dogma**

Crom wrote:
Something just doesn't add up when one of the world's most wanted terrorists can hide out in your country for over 5 years and no one notices, or cares.

Ted Kaczynski was active for 17 years before being caught.

**Andrew1975**

We should have done this a long time ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Crom wrote:
Something just doesn't add up when one of the world's most wanted terrorists can hide out in your country for over 5 years and no one notices, or cares.

Ted Kaczynski was active for 17 years before being caught.

Yes, but Kaczynski wasn't hiding out feet from a police station, and when the feds did get him the local didn't throw a hissy-fit! Nor is it likely they would have even if the feds went in without telling them first. I think Pak liked getting the money from us too much to actually go and find him.

Now if only we could just get the rest of the world off the dole.

**Crom**

dogma wrote:
Crom wrote:
Something just doesn't add up when one of the world's most wanted terrorists can hide out in your country for over 5 years and no one notices, or cares.

Ted Kaczynski was active for 17 years before being caught.

US intelligence didn't have much on him, and the USA is a very big place. Pakistan is not very big and many intelligence agencies knew he was there. Plus he was in that compound for 5 years, and no one knew? I mean he lived outside a city. I find this really hard to believe.

**sebster**

Thing is, everyone knows Pakistan has lots of bad elements. The point was to use this money to empower the good elements.

It wasn't a bad idea, but it's probably clear at this point it wasn't really working and something new needs to be tried.

**Andrew1975**

sebster wrote:Thing is, everyone knows Pakistan has lots of bad elements. The point was to use this money to empower the good elements.

It wasn't a bad idea, but it's probably clear at this point it wasn't really working and something new needs to be tried.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

**AvatarForm**

Can OP provide a link please?

**dogma**

Crom wrote:
US intelligence didn't have much on him, and the USA is a very big place. Pakistan is not very big and many intelligence agencies knew he was there.

Pakistan is 1/3 the size of the United States, which is the third largest country in the world by land area, and until relatively recently its unlikely that anyone actually knew when bin Laden was. There have been theories for the better part of a decade, but that's not the same as knowledge.

Its also much more mountainous than the US.

Crom wrote:
Plus he was in that compound for 5 years, and no one knew?

You really don't see how bin Laden could go unnoticed for 5 years, when arguably the best domestic investigation service in the world took 17 years to find another guy who was mailing bombs to people?

Crom wrote:
I mean he lived outside a city.

So? People hide in and around cities all the time. Hell, many American celebrities do it every day, it isn't that difficult because most people aren't actively looking for people of note. Sure, the intelligence services are, but they can't be everywhere, so they largely depend on information fed to them from 3rd party sources.

Crom wrote:
I find this really hard to believe.

Even if the Pakistani state was aware of bin Laden's location, they had little incentive to tell us. As I said, there is considerable anti-American sentiment in the nation, and all they would be denying us is a PR victory, which is absolutely something they should consider to be irrelevant.

Its certainly possible that the Pakistani state knew where he was, but its far from certain. Without additional information the choice between the two options is a push at best.

**Andrew1975**

until relatively recently its unlikely that anyone actually knew when bin Laden was.

Why? Did they send time cop?

**dogma**

sebster wrote:Thing is, everyone knows Pakistan has lots of bad elements. The point was to use this money to empower the good elements.

It wasn't a bad idea, but it's probably clear at this point it wasn't really working and something new needs to be tried.

The argument made is usually divided between "We weren't giving them enough.", "We shouldn't give them anything because they're Muslim, and Muslims support terrorism.", and "We shouldn't give them anything because foreign aid doesn't work."

The Muslim argument is obviously crap, but the other two are both likely true. US aid to Pakistan has been very inconsistent, with significant amounts only coming in beginning in 2002, and trailing off until 2005 after which it fluctuated between ~400 and ~800 million per anum. In general, aid only works because you can make certain important people dependent on it for the maintenance of their lifestyle. So, when you allow your contributions to fluctuate by as much as 50% you create a situation in which said powerful people cannot take the receipt of the aid for granted, meaning it becomes ineffective. This dovetails nicely into the argument about aid being ineffective in that aid isn't simply a matter of giving money, its about giving a sufficiently large amount of money over a sufficiently long period of time, which means that any instance in which those conditions aren't meant is effectively wasted effort.

In many ways, aid is similar to the use of military force in that regard.

**ShumaGorath**

AvatarForm wrote:Can OP provide a link please?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14099402

**Monster Rain**

Andrew1975 wrote:
until relatively recently its unlikely that anyone actually knew when bin Laden was.

Why? Did they send time cop?

No.

They sent Chuck Norris.

Anyway, the OP's story isn't surprising to me. There was going to be fallout from the OBL debacle.

**sebster**

dogma wrote:The argument made is usually divided between "We weren't giving them enough.", "We shouldn't give them anything because they're Muslim, and Muslims support terrorism.", and "We shouldn't give them anything because foreign aid doesn't work."

The Muslim argument is obviously crap, but the other two are both likely true. US aid to Pakistan has been very inconsistent, with significant amounts only coming in beginning in 2002, and trailing off until 2005 after which it fluctuated between ~400 and ~800 million per anum. In general, aid only works because you can make certain important people dependent on it for the maintenance of their lifestyle. So, when you allow your contributions to fluctuate by as much as 50% you create a situation in which said powerful people cannot take the receipt of the aid for granted, meaning it becomes ineffective. This dovetails nicely into the argument about aid being ineffective in that aid isn't simply a matter of giving money, its about giving a sufficiently large amount of money over a sufficiently long period of time, which means that any instance in which those conditions aren't meant is effectively wasted effort.

In many ways, aid is similar to the use of military force in that regard.

Interesting. Isn't there a fourth component though, 'we will give you stuff so you have the resources to do stuff both you and I want you to do'? So, significant elements of Pakistani leadership want to blow up Taliban, and if the US gives them tanks and helicopters they'll be better able to achieve that.

The problem, in that regard, seems to be that those resources really weren't being used as effectively as hoped. Lots of it seemed to be filtered off onto the border with India, for instance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's also paved with a lot bloody mindedness, a fair whack of stupid, and no small measure of smart ideas just plain not working out.

**Ensis Ferrae**

I personally think that cutting off aid to Pakistan should only be a small start, but for reasons other than the whole "they aint doing what we want, so we'll take our toys and leave" thing.

There is this huge debate, and problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, and that's our debt crisis... I think that we should cut aid to all foreign nations, food in Africa, money in whatever other countries we send it to, etc. the amount saved in cutting out most of our foreign aid would go a good step towards fixing ourselves economically.

**ShumaGorath**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I personally think that cutting off aid to Pakistan should only be a small start, but for reasons other than the whole "they aint doing what we want, so we'll take our toys and leave" thing.

There is this huge debate, and problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, and that's our debt crisis... I think that we should cut aid to all foreign nations, food in Africa, money in whatever other countries we send it to, etc. the amount saved in cutting out most of our foreign aid would go a good step towards fixing ourselves economically.

You've apparently never looked at how much foreign aid we give or how much debt we're in.

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:There is this huge debate, and problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, and that's our debt crisis... I think that we should cut aid to all foreign nations, food in Africa, money in whatever other countries we send it to, etc. the amount saved in cutting out most of our foreign aid would go a good step towards fixing ourselves economically.

Total government spending in the US is $3.5 trillion dollars. Of that budget, less than 1%, or about 25c per American per day, goes to foreign aid.

You could cut your total foreign aid program, and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the debt.

Plainly put, the US is in deficit right now because you're in recession. In recession people earn less so revenue drops, and more are unemployed so social security grows. In the longer term the US has a deficit problem because of the costs of healthcare, they're wildly out of whack with the rest of the world and need vast systemic reform.

Fail to fix those things and wiping foreign aid out entirely won't make a difference. Fix them, and you could treble foreign aid and still be doing just fine.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:
Interesting. Isn't there a fourth component though, 'we will give you stuff so you have the resources to do stuff both you and I want you to do'? So, significant elements of Pakistani leadership want to blow up Taliban, and if the US gives them tanks and helicopters they'll be better able to achieve that.

The problem, in that regard, seems to be that those resources really weren't being used as effectively as hoped. Lots of it seemed to be filtered off onto the border with India, for instance.

I consider that a subset of the "We weren't giving them enough." argument. Aid is never appropriated in 100% accordance with the desires of the aiding nation, and any effective aid program will recognize this by sort of "greasing the wheels" by giving the target country enough in order to account for misappropriation. If the assumption is that another country is going to do exactly what you want when you're trying to coerce them (not all aid is coercive, but aid to Pakistan is) then you can guarantee there will be problems.

You also have to remember that military aid is still constrained by military issues in the target country. If the assets being allocated are either inconsistent, as with Pakistan, or insufficient, as with Pakistan in certain years, then there exists a specific incentive for the target nation to shuffle the aid into more present concerns. For Pakistan that means addressing its rivalry with India in lieu of the Pakistani Taliban, which would entail not only more aggressive operations, but also opening a new combat front in the Northern half of the country.

Then there's the political problem of shooting Pakistani citizens because the United States told you to do it, which is obviously going to be problematic given the unstable nature of Pakistani democracy. Further compounded by US drone strikes hitting targets over the Pakistani border.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I personally think that cutting off aid to Pakistan should only be a small start, but for reasons other than the whole "they aint doing what we want, so we'll take our toys and leave" thing.

There is this huge debate, and problem that everyone seems to be forgetting, and that's our debt crisis... I think that we should cut aid to all foreign nations, food in Africa, money in whatever other countries we send it to, etc. the amount saved in cutting out most of our foreign aid would go a good step towards fixing ourselves economically.

If you want to make headway on the deficit, then you need to start talking about cuts to the military, medicare, and medicaid; everything else is just window dressing.

**Albatross**

Dude, pensions. The US governments pension liability is the killer. It runs in to the tens of trillions, potentially.

**Frazzled**

Andrew1975 wrote:
until relatively recently its unlikely that anyone actually knew when bin Laden was.

Why? Did they send time cop?

**Pyriel-**

Good, the US should spend that $800 mil on something more productive. Like more drone strikes in Pakistan.

They should rather spend them on effective job creating in the states to better the US economy.

**Muhr**

There's a lot more to this than we're are being led to believe. Can you guy's remember that american that got involved in a shootout in the middle of a Pakistani street and him killing another man during the confusion? He was arrested by Pakistani cops but he turned out to have diplomatic immunity and so it caused an international incident where they wouldn't let him go and America was saying "oh I think you will though". He was supposed to just a normal bloke but I saw the photos where he opened fire from inside his vehicle sending rounds tearing out through the windscreen and downing a guy.

I bet he was a Bourne type doing a recce and validating something for the Bin Laden mission. There seemed to be
a news blackout because we stopped hearing about that guy from one moment to the next.

But I get the feeling that the US got sick and tired of Pakistan dragging it's feet and not being decisive enough in it's cooperating in the kill or capture of that inhuman daemon in human clothing.

America wanted him dead and frankly didn't trust the Pakistan govt to keep its mouth shut. IMO it was a good call because if they had alerted the Pakistani govt then, in all probability, Bin Laden would have been, rather unsurprisingly, missing when they got there.

It needn't have been that way but if Pakistan had been more cooperative from the get go then things could have been different but, as it was, they ended up looking extremely incompetant by failing to find him right under their noses.

**Pyriel-**

There is a reason why paki whines about being told beforehand of drone attacks and the US refusing. There is no forewarning for the islamists this way.

**Karon**

I thought Pakistan basically..always loved Bin Laden?

Didn't we send a missile at a compound where he was reported to be staying at a while ago, but we had to send it through Pakistani airspace, so ~5 minutes for it hit, we called Pakistan and were like "Its not for you, buddy"

Reports then said that Bin Laden had escaped a few minutes before the missile hit.

/tinfoil hat

Pyriel- wrote:There is a reason why paki whines about being told beforehand of drone attacks and the US refusing. There is no forewarning for the islamists this way.

You mean Terrorists, not people of the Islamic Faith, correct?

Big difference.

**Monster Rain**

Islamist /= Muslim.