Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Daley: Aid to Pakistan paused

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daley: Aid to Pakistan paused

    July 10, 2011

    White House chief of staff Bill Daley said Sunday the United States is holding back $800 million in U.S. aid to the Pakistani military.

    Appearing ABC's "This Week," the top adviser to President Barack Obama said the relationship needs to be improved, and until then money will stop flowing to the Pakistani armed forces.

    "Our relationship with Pakistan is very complicated," Daley said. "Obviously, they have been an important ally in the war on terrorism. They’ve been the victim of an enormous amount of terrorism. But right now, they have taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we were giving to their military and we’re trying to work through that."

    Aid to Pakistan has been a politically perilous issue since Osama bin Laden was found in the country. And members of Congress have, on several occasions, indicated that aid should be cut.

    Daley: Aid to Pakistan paused - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com

  • #2
    Well huzzah
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #3
      Dawn says, some aid ;)

      According to The New York Times, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual US security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected by the suspension.
      So whats the status of the remaining $1.2 billion ?

      Comment


      • #4
        Seems they make the funds in installments, and they are withholding a payment. ;) It's about damn time !

        Comment


        • #5
          HERE is the NYT story. It has the details and nature of the holdbacks and suspensions.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #6
            right, much better now.

            But many of the recent aid curtailments are clearly intended to force the Pakistani military to make a difficult choice between backing the country that finances much of its operations and equipment, or continuing to provide secret support for the Taliban and other militants fighting American soldiers in Afghanistan.
            This is the part i have trouble understanding. If more aid did not help change their behaviour how is reducing aid going to do it :)

            It seems more like a move to make Americans feel better rather than anything else.

            There is growing opposition on Capitol Hill to sending security assistance to Pakistan. Last week, the Republican-controlled House approved a Pentagon budget bill that limits the Defense Department from spending more than 25 percent of its projected $1.1 billion budget for training and equipping Pakistani troops next year, unless the secretaries of defense and state submit a report to Congress showing how the money will be spent to combat insurgencies.
            Not more than 25% of 1.1 billion ?

            but...

            American officials say they would probably resume equipment deliveries and aid if relations improve and Pakistan pursues terrorists more aggressively. The cutoffs do not affect any immediate deliveries of military sales to Pakistan, like F-16 fighter jets, or nonmilitary aid, the officials said.
            This will be a short lived cut then after Pakistan stages a nice show.

            Comments last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also reflected a potentially more confrontational approach to Pakistan. Admiral Mullen, who is retiring in two months, became the first American official to publicly accuse Pakistan of ordering the kidnapping, torture and death of the journalist, Saleem Shahzad, whose mutilated body was found in early June.
            On a different note, i found Mulllen's statement at the time rather surprising. It appeared like arm twisting. That Mullen is retiring shortly goes some way in understanding why he made that statement.

            Comment


            • #7
              A step in the right direction in my opinion. In fact i would wish to see this become US's official foreign policy: all American flag burning countries can kiss good bye to US aid of ANY SORT. Whether they are hit by a hurrican, outbreak of ebola, or they are invaded by martians, Americans will que at stadiums to watch a J-Lo show while they and their children beg for a drop of water on their tongues.

              Comment


              • #8
                The first hints of trouble with Pakistan appeared by late 2001/early 2002. When afforded the opportunity, they'd hardly been aggressive about stopping the exodus of afghan taliban and others from Afghanistan into their country. It was already evident almost immediately that something was terribly amiss.

                Then the long litany of events that have followed. By 2007 I'd largely written off hope of a tangible reversal of an increasingly apparant policy of proxy warfare. All this derived by open source information freely available on the internet and elsewhere. If so, what had our officials with access to so much more detailed information determined? Nothing that's occurred since has surprised me in the least despite my lack of access to this classified information. I can only assume that our government professionals and elected officials from two administrations over nearly three terms have the patience of JOB or are seriously derelict in their responsibilities.

                There's never been a tangible reason for hope that matters might reverse themselves in Pakistan. Not once.

                Of course, calling matters as they actually were would mean acknowledging Pakistan as an open enemy to our ambitions and the U.N. mission. This would have required presenting our other allies (and ourselves) with some stark choices. Combat forces would have taken a priority of supply within Afghanistan and would have to be carefully calibrated to assure that force levels didn't exceed a reduced logistic/supply capability. We'd have to far more aggressively and diligently work to open alternative routes through CAR/Russia. This would have entailed diplomatic commitments we evidently weren't prepared to accede.

                Most of all, it would have required acknowledging that ANY effort on Afghanistan's behalf required addressing Pakistan as an enemy combatant nation possessing nuclear weapons and teetering internally between 2002-2010. It's clear that our elected officials and professional bueraucrats weren't ready for such a harsh reality. "...harsh...", to be sure but reality nonetheless.

                Beyond all of the above, Iraq would have been absolutely put on the back burner under changed circumstances. We weren't prepared to do any of the above and were likely certain that virtually all of our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have absolutely bailed. Thus we have the situation we're faced with today.

                Pakistan, given the hand it was dealt and its internal predisposition, has played matters adroitly albeit with a exceedingly self-destructive tunnel-vision. They suffer now, will suffer more in the near future and likely will come out the biggest loser of this whole charade. Perhaps it needed to unfold in the manner it has but the alternatives have long-since receded as possible courses of action.
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  Pakistan, given the hand it was dealt and its internal predisposition, has played matters adroitly albeit with a exceedingly self-destructive tunnel-vision. They suffer now, will suffer more in the near future and likely will come out the biggest loser of this whole charade. Perhaps it needed to unfold in the manner it has but the alternatives have long-since receded as possible courses of action.
                  The timing of the withdraw from Afghanistan coupled with any hint of withholding any aid will surely impede future stability efforts put forth by the Pakistani military. Also, given that as far as I can see, US-India relations have been quiet recently. We will see how supportive their big red pal China is when Pakistan is having a national existential crisis amidst a resurgence of US-India relations and rampant extremism at home.

                  Zonk.
                  "We are all special cases." - Camus

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    All we need now is the UK to stop aid as well ,,,,,,and keep it stopped . :grump:


                    new emoticons r good ;)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bad news for the uighurs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Question for American Citizen

                        Is the average American on the streets, aware of the amount of wealth being spent as aids on the Pakistanis?

                        Are they also aware of the deceit perpetrated repeatedly by the Pak Military?

                        I ask, because I think it can only be one of these two things -

                        1. They are unaware of both the above, or
                        2. They have a patience level that can beat us Indians hand down.
                        sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^^^Ignorance is blessed ;)^^^
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                            Is the average American on the streets, aware of the amount of wealth being spent as aids on the Pakistanis?
                            A certain percentage of people: "Pakistan? I know it's a country... somewhere."

                            Others: "So what? There's a new Transformers movie this afternoon."

                            Most Americans are weary of numbers associated with national budgets and governments. When Trillions of $$ are bandied about, a couple of billion seems like chump change. I agree it is terribly irresponsible.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One in forty to fifty I'd guess are aware to some extent of the issues. That would include most in the armed forces, elected officials and key aides, policy-makers, scholars, students and concerned citizens like those here. About 4-6 million from a population of approx. 230,000,000.

                              The government, I believe, likes this issue below the nat'l radar as much as possible.
                              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X