$10 Billion and Getting Worse

**Ironduke** · 30 Apr 09,, 08:56

Posted by Dave Dilegge over at SWJ:

$10 Billion and Getting Worse

Been on two road trips and missed getting an early jump on Dave Kilcullen’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee concerning the situation in Pakistan. They dragged Dave out of our wargame last week to testify and I saw him off as he headed from our pristine suburban Maryland locale to the Hill – but such is life - and our loss was a gain for Congressional SA on a worsening problem.

Anyway, kudos to Ex (also at the wargame) at Abu Muqawama for the link and for a bulletized summary of the “lowlights of the Pakistani Army's recent history”. I have to agree - Studying the past few years, one could arrive at the conclusion that Pakistan's army is epically incompetent. One could similarly arrive at the conclusion that Pakistan's army is competent -- but fighting for the other side. Either way – not much to cheer about.

Here is Dave’s “bottom line” from his testimony:

The United States Government has spent $10 billion dollars supporting Pakistan since 9/11, and in that time we have seen a dramatically worsening situation across the whole country. More of the same will not help, and indeed may make the situation worse. I fully support the benchmarks in the bill and would like to see an even greater emphasis on rule of law, policing and civilian administration, with even greater conditionality and stringency placed on continued assistance to the Pakistani military, unless and until it demonstrates a genuine commitment to cease supporting the enemy and begin following the direction of its own elected civilian government.

Rather than continuing to pretend that Pakistan is a weak but willing ally against extremism, we need to recognize that while some elements in Pakistan – some elected civilian political leaders, the majority of the Pakistani people, many tribal and community leaders and some appointed administrative officials – are genuinely committed to the fight against extremism, substantial parts of the Pakistani security establishment are complicit with the enemy, whether through incompetence, intimidation or ill intent. Our approach in assisting Pakistan should be to strengthen our friends and limit the power of our enemies, while helping Pakistan stabilize itself and govern its people responsibly and humanely. Increasing assistance to the police – making the police, in effect, the premier counterinsurgency force – while channeling all military support through civilian authorities and ensuring greater accountability and conditionality on military assistance, is the correct approach. We are way past prevention in 2009, and need to focus on stopping the rot and stabilizing the situation in 2009‐2010, then rolling back extremism and militancy thereafter.

$10 Billion and Getting Worse (SWJ Blog)

S2 · 30 Apr 09,, 09:33

Dave Kilcullen is too kind.

I've written both my senators and the President to voice my opposition to this bill.

I've ZERO faith in being able to responsibly deliver $1.5B in civil aid per year for the next five. The security situation is such in the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan that we'd see the old "Ugly American" scenario of our wheat being mis-labeled and given as a "Gift from the Islamic Warriors of the Caliphate"-or anything else for that matter. The same now applies effectively to NWFP and Baluchistan. Perhaps it's best, if delivered at all, it be done to those areas that still have a chance of actually fighting back.

If so, that leaves Sindh and Punjab. 80,000,000 reasons to do so in Punjab...and it, too, is rapidly being radicalized after a long and simmering land feud between local farmers and the ultimate land-lord, the P.A. So it may be too late there also as a Maoistj-styled class struggle is in the offing...

...and as Punjab goes, so too the country (I refuse to call Pakistan a nation and have now held true for over a month. Won't call the west anything but it's proper name either-the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan).

Military aid? Screw em'. The claim is they've lost $30B in the WOT while we've reimbursed them to the tune of $11B. My claim? If at war, fight. If deserving of military aid because your country fights sufficiently hard that it might just survive (see Great Britain WWII), then we weigh in. Lost causes or pure dissemblance?

Go fish with the Chinese.

Anything else is mercenary behavior and we'd do better hiring the Boy Scouts than this army.

Finally, benchmarks. I don't want them. They are a signal for procrastination, bickering, disputation, and dissemblance. Kill this bill or make it so A.Q. Khan onerous that THEY kill it.

Somebody somewhere said we've slated 825 sorties monthly for Kandahar by this August. We'd best JAM everything we can through Karachi while we can. Kiyani was complaining to Gen. James Conway, Commandant USMC, that our deployments into the south will likely drive the taliban into Pakistan's Baluch. No kidding?

I've got news for him-1.) They already know the path well. Where do you think opium is travelling these days? From Helmand across Afghanistan where it can be robbed at will and then through Russia? Not when the Baluchi/Pakistani border abuts right up to the opium fields of SOUTHERN Helmand and Kandahar. Right there is 117,000 hectares of 157,000. Oh, the rest is largely in Nimroz, Oruzgan, and Farah-the five most SOUTHERN provinces, 2.) We're going to do what we've got to do. Is Kiyani kidding after all the HELL they've given us about getting more troops into A-stan and going south to fight the dope he now says THIS?

Kill this aid package. Civil aid can't be safely delivered and military aid is neither deserved nor earned. What else can they do? Cut off our supplies? Ship to shore or go to war in Gwadar. Tell the Indians if they want into A-stan, pull the trigger on aid through Chabahar in Iran. Mark all the containers as Indian and roll them through.

Don't ask, don't tell and make the pot sweet for the Iranians (through Indian hands) with the money saved in Pakistan. That's DOA as of now IMV.

**indian** · 30 Apr 09,, 10:15

Aid or no-aid ,once the taliban spread to punjab its GAMEOVER. there will be one hell of a class struggle.Years of misrule,maladminstration, atrocities by the feudal class have all pissed the peasant class .A pro-poor stance on the Talibans part is enough to light the powder keg.We have a nightmare scenario in the making.Best thing to do is secure their nukes

S2 · 30 Apr 09,, 10:17

"Best thing to do is secure their nukes ..."

Go for it, stud.

)

**Parihaka** · 30 Apr 09,, 11:05

Yep, that'd be fun to watch...

**Cactus** · 30 Apr 09,, 12:22

Originally Posted by S-2

Kill this aid package. Civil aid can't be safely delivered and military aid is neither deserved nor earned. What else can they do? Cut off our supplies? Ship to shore or go to war in Gwadar. Tell the Indians if they want into A-stan, pull the trigger on aid through Chabahar in Iran. Mark all the containers as Indian and roll them through.

Don't ask, don't tell and make the pot sweet for the Iranians (through Indian hands) with the money saved in Pakistan. That's DOA as of now IMV.

It will be a lot more expensive than the $7.5 billion the US may save - with no more freedom of action necessarily gained, and many more enemies surely accrued.

IMHO, forget about the civil aid... put it all into military aid with strong and constant US supervision of its expenditure and results accrued. See how that works out.

**axeman** · 30 Apr 09,, 17:31

Originally Posted by Cactus

IMHO, forget about the civil aid... put it all into military aid with strong and constant US supervision of its expenditure and results accrued. See how that works out.

How that will work out is that Pak will buy some shiny new JF-17's/J-10's to fight the "militia" (actually the Indian's, but sshhh....

).

**n21** · 30 Apr 09,, 19:29

Originally Posted by Cactus

IMHO, forget about the civil aid... put it all into military aid with strong and constant US supervision of its expenditure and results accrued. See how that works out.

It is difficult to achieve. US hasnt achieved this so far and will not in the future either. PA can always complain "US oversight delays urgent action"!
Even during the Soviet rule in Afghanistan, US used to send money to PA.

The objective is to make money not do as US desires.

Observe the recent PA attacks on Taliban.They have attacked on the ones who have not heeded the call to leave the place.Which basically means these one wont listen to PA,hence wont be useful and could be knocked off.

The ones who listen to PA have went to their SWAT hideout and are safe and sound!

They were deliberately led to come closer to the capital to create panic in Washington and loosen the purse string and water down the conditions that were been applied!

**n21** · 30 Apr 09,, 19:34

Also I have to disagree with the fact that PA is considered incompetent. I consider them very shrewd. They have been milking the sole super power right under their nose.

The US pays Pakistan to every Pakistan takes to defend itself!

They have managed to create enough problem to prove that the civilian government is worse than millitary rule. Mushraf is already "suggesting" he is ready to serve the country!

And look at Pakistan's defence prepardness. For a nation who is supposed to "collapsed in 6 months" has 5 Awacs,200 fighter jets and German subs on order!

I hardly call that incompetent!

**Cactus** · 30 Apr 09,, 21:18

Originally Posted by axeman

How that will work out is that Pak will buy some shiny new JF-17's/J-10's to fight the "militia" (actually the Indian's, but sshhh....

).

Missed US supervision of its expenditure and results accrued while rolling your eyes?

**Cactus** · 30 Apr 09,, 21:27

Originally Posted by n21

It is difficult to achieve. US hasnt achieved this so far and will not in the future either. PA can always complain "US oversight delays urgent action"! Even during the Soviet rule in Afghanistan, US used to send money to PA.

Difficult, but not impossible to achieve. In 1980s it was undesirable, indeed dangerous, for US to be too closely involved in the proxy war for larger strategic reasons. Today it is completely opposite - it is dangerous NOT to keep a close eye on the proxy war. There is a basic strategic deadlock in place, and it has to be broken. It can be broken from without - but it will be a long and difficult process against 60+ years of history. Or it can be broken from within - which should be a relatively easier task to achieve for the same reasons of history.

**chankya** · 30 Apr 09,, 23:57

Originally Posted by Cactus

Difficult, but not impossible to achieve. In 1980s it was undesirable, indeed dangerous, for US to be too closely involved in the proxy war for larger strategic reasons. Today it is completely opposite - it is dangerous NOT to keep a close eye on the proxy war. There is a basic strategic deadlock in place, and it has to be broken. It can be broken from without - but it will be a long and difficult process against 60+ years of history. Or it can be broken from within - which should be a relatively easier task to achieve for the same reasons of history.

How do you propose to do that? Sen. Kerry seems to think that even asking them to stop sponsoring terror in exchange for aid is insulting and you want to monitor them fighting terrorists? Think of the hurt pride. Not happening.

**Cactus** · 01 May 09,, 00:23

Originally Posted by chankya

How do you propose to do that? Sen. Kerry seems to think that even asking them to stop sponsoring terror in exchange for aid is insulting and you want to monitor them fighting terrorists? Think of the hurt pride. Not happening.

The original proposal was Iran. Which is more likely to happen?

**chankya** · 01 May 09,, 01:49

Originally Posted by Cactus

The original proposal was Iran. Which is more likely to happen?

Neither is likely to happen anytime soon. You have to wonder what the military planners were thinking in going into a place with no clear supply line. That Pakistan had to be threatened to be bombed before they even said they'd cooperate should have been indicative of the intent. Perhaps people just got carried away by anger in the immediate aftermath?

It's okay to rant about Pakistan but quite honestly I don't see that the US has any leverage with them. That post-9/11 anger isn't there anymore that would allow you to bomb Pakistan for being non helpful. You can't supply troops without them. There is also the fact that i think US is unwilling to let go of Pakistan as a long term investment. It's your route to Central Asia. So you're stuck with giving them billions of dollars of aid and weaponry for pretty much forever.

Hey, it's your money. The only thing I'm personally upset about is the effect of all this aid. All that'll happen is that India will end up fighting Pakistani terrorists with their camps defended by spanking new F-16s. In the end all this will cost Indian lives.

**Cactus** · 01 May 09,, 03:49

Originally Posted by chankya

Neither is likely to happen anytime soon.

One can be done quite easily, and will probably return good results; the other will require a lot of effort with unclear end results.

You have to wonder what the military planners were thinking in going into a place with no clear supply line. That Pakistan had to be threatened to be bombed before they even said they'd cooperate should have been indicative of the intent. Perhaps people just got carried away by anger in the immediate aftermath?

It is a fluid environment. Do we need to go over all of last 8 years? Once upon a time President Putin was an ally and guest at Crawford, TX. Once upon a time the military plan called for a light logistical footprint necessary for bare CT objectives (probably achievable through air alone). Situations change. Approaches also must change.