US support for Pakistan dam could help stem flow of bad blood

[vsdoc]

So, we the Christians are doomed? ;)

There are just too goddam many of you for now man, so wait your turn. ;)

P.S. And you have really big guns.

[Double Edge]

It is expensive, we are in a recession, we have a deficit - the citizens of Pakistan aren't worth it.

Sure and you're referring to non-humanitarian aid here, that's ~ $2 billion annual.

I'm referring only to humanitarian aid. My country offered $25 million for last year's flood there. Oh there were plenty of ppl here that said the same thing you are, why are we offering aid when they have not been forthcoming over 26/11, a mere two years earlier. Now whether we offered that $25 million as part of a guilty conscience over blocking the construction of the dam which would have prevented the floods last year as alleged by the other side i cannot say.

Ppl here like you disagree with even aid for humanitarian reasons. Now i guess the thinking is if Pakistani's see the world isn't as forthcoming in helping out they will ask why. The more ppl that ask that question the better.

My thinking is if foreigners are seen to be more compassionate over the usual militant groups then it acts as a soft counter against them, as with the regime. Now i don't claim to know which of the two is the more stronger, effective idea

The goal is to get the regime to act against the terrorism it spawned and currently supports. Whether such is even feasible is uncertain to me as the regime there refuses to even acknowledge it. Then again creating a problem for gain offers the convenient opportunity to solve it for further gain too :)

Recall earlier in Burma how the junta there was blocking foreign aid from reaching the worst hit areas because they saw it as a threat ? well, the moment the same happens in Pakistan then we will have reached a turning point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...an-crisis.html

The most interesting bit in this article is...

"Even for the NGOs who have performed well in previous crises, there's a fatigue syndrome," he said. "It's a lethargic response. I don't know if it is because of their economic problems, or if they have forgotten Pakistan," said Dr Safdar Abbasi, Sindh senator and former adviser to the late Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

He said the poor international response had been matched by a patchy aid effort by the provincial and federal governments and a lack of trust in them on the part of western countries.

There is no mention there at all about any adverse perception of his country by others due to terrorism. But rather the poor international response is explained away as donor fatigue and a lack of trust. This trust was adversely affected when it was perceived that the aid offered in 2005 earthquake, was embezzled and did not reach the needy.

Witholding humanitarian aid or offering it, which is the better way ?

You're up against the Kerry-Lugar bill ;)

[Double Edge]

I am sorry but I have never bought into this regime vs people clean demarcation which would have us believe that our enemy is the evil regime but the poor innocent public would actually be our friends and brothers given half a chance. A people get the leadership they deserve. That is why we get the weak and corrupt Congress. That is why the Americans get clueless and confused Obama. And that is why the Pakistanis get their military and ISI, their Zardaris and Sharif's and Bhuttos, and their Taliban. No leadership exists in a vacuum.

Would agree with you more if the Pak army would go to the barracks and stay out of public life. But as you know the choice the ppl get there is of a subordinate civilian one. The army is seen as the protector of last resort even against democracy. Not a single civilian govt to date in Pakistan has ever completed its term without being interferred with in some way or the other, since independence !

You will say that this situation is primarily because the regime retains the larger support of the ppl, fine. They will agree that the army was the least worst option because the alternative is corrupt & ineffective and that all the previous coups were necessary.

The idea of seperating out the army from the ppl is a tactical one, reduces the size of the opponent being dealt with here. It's a way of exploiting faultlines that are purposely obscured with the end goal that the ppl there send the army to the barracks once & for all. If this can be achieved without going to war then its seems to me a good option, it will take much longer though. The ppl there get screwed the most so its a way to build bridges with them, this is the strategic goal.

Now there is no inherent sinister implication here of taking their nukes away or disintegrating their country at all as their regime would like to paint such attempts. Quite the contrary, they can hold on to both, we do not want their country to collapse, the main idea is to get them to behave like normal countries the world over where the civvies call the shots and the citizens are in control. Once that is achieved all the problems we see today will be very much reduced.

Is this the best way ? no, i see it as the least worst way.

The cancer is radical and intolerant Islam bent of world domination through the only means it has always known and adopted since its birth - violence.

It has no country or race or ethnicity. It is all around us. And we are at war. And have always been at war. And will always be at war.

Until we are wiped out. Or they are. Or something somewhere changes.

Agree that this is a universal islamist goal. It is the most radical. But the key distinction remains whether they have the means to realise this goal otherwise it remains a mere aspiration, a rallying point. Terrorists are those that fight for this cause.

I don't believe they have the means to achieve such a goal, and thats its just an aspiration. One that gets repeated a lot because there are no viable alternative viewpoints and that is by design. The choice has always been dictatorship or a mullah-ocracy. Iran is a case in point here, went from one to the other. This islamic utopia is presented as the only way to solve the country's problems which in a nutshell are down to lack of accountability & incompetence.

The only counter here is freedom for the citizens. That is why the islamists hate democracy and seek to sabotage it. Not all muslims are islamists but all islamists are muslim. So this is the same tactical idea being applied again to target the islamists instead of the whole muslim community which is exactly what the islamists & dictators want. You have to be careful how you phrase & act because otherwise you will play into your opponent's hands and giving them a bigger victory than they could have won on their own.

[troung]

Recall earlier in Burma how the junta there was blocking foreign aid from reaching the worst hit areas because they saw it as a threat ? well, the moment the same happens in Pakistan then we will have reached a turning point.

Burma is still a junta and Pakistan is glad to take money.

The idea of seperating out the army from the ppl is a tactical one, reduces the size of the opponent being dealt with here. It's a way of exploiting faultlines that are purposely obscured with the end goal that the ppl there send the army to the barracks once & for all. If this can be achieved without going to war then its seems to me a good option, it will take much longer though. The ppl there get screwed the most so its a way to build bridges with them, this is the strategic goal.

Nope just allows the government/terrorists there to waste money on other things, like housing the most wanted man in the world, training terrorists and buildings nukes.

My thinking is if foreigners are seen to be more compassionate over the usual militant groups then it acts as a soft counter against them, as with the regime. Now i don't claim to know which of the two is the more stronger, effective idea

Nope we just look like fools. Worst kind of liberal argument.

Witholding humanitarian aid or offering it, which is the better way ?

Not withholding, just not offering it. Withholding implies they have a right to it.

Ppl here like you disagree with even aid for humanitarian reasons. Now i guess the thinking is if Pakistani's see the world isn't as forthcoming in helping out they will ask why. The more ppl that ask that question the better.

I was fine with Aceh, Sri Lanka and Thailand but Pakistan/Somalia can starve.

[Double Edge]

Kerry lougar bill, troung and your comments ?

Both of them head your senate foreign relations committee, are they blowing smoke or maybe they know something. Theirs is one bit of legislation that is diametrically opposed to what you've said. They're the ones you're up against.

What is it going to take to revoke it. If harbouring OBL wasn't enough then what else will.

Look, i'm not trying to advocate anything here, rather am trying to decipher the way your govt thinks and by extension the present reality. And would posit what ive said is an attempt to do so.

Because what you say ie your position isn't strong enough to change the status quo.

More americans think like you ? doubtful, the majority in your country does not share your opinion, yet. All i've seen to date is a 30% cut in the present $3 billion annual aid given to Pakistan.

[Dreadnought]

IMO, It would be foolish for the American government to enter the Kashmir political field. They will have to choose sides if they do. They are trying to help both but IMO, this will definately create a divide of one or the other since the money would have to officaly go to either nation. That is unless they are willing to make that choice and be at odds with American taxpayers when they need help right now making the odds 2-1 (Americans and the looser of the two nations) against them.

[troung]

Kerry lougar bill, troung and your comments ?

We need to at every step threaten to cut off trade/remittances not give them money. Kerry Lugar is simply billions pissed down the the drain. We can't bribe them to get them to stop supporting terrorism but the threat of losing access to their number one market, losing their largest source of remittances and having crippling sanctions will do a better job moving them. No way in hell should tax money be given to them as a reward for killing Americans.

More americans think like you ? doubtful, the majority in your country does not share your opinion, yet. All i've seen to date is a 30% cut in the present $3 billion annual aid given to Pakistan.

Have you ever been to the US?

==================
UN asks for $357 million to help millions of Pakistanis affected by floods

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...AcK_story.html
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, September 18, 3:25 PM

ISLAMABAD — The United Nations appealed for $357 million Sunday to help millions of Pakistanis affected by floods that have damaged hundreds of thousands of homes and destroyed millions of acres of crops.

Pakistan often experiences flooding from monsoon rains that lash much of South Asia from June to September. This year the rains have been heavier than normal, coming as many people were still trying to recover from last year’s floods, which were the worst in the country’s history.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh In
Corrections?

The money from the appeal would be used to help more than 5.4 million people in the provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan over the next six months, said Humaira Mehboob, a spokeswoman for the U.N.’s humanitarian arm. Those provinces have been the worst hit by the floods this year.

The floods have killed 223 people in Sindh alone, damaged or destroyed around 665,000 homes and displaced more than 1.8 million people, according to a rapid response plan issued by the U.N. on Sunday.

“The situation of the people who have been forced to leave their homes is dire, and there is clear evidence of growing humanitarian needs,” said the response plan.

The return of the floods is testament to the heaviness of the monsoon rains and the limits of Pakistan’s weak and corrupt government, showing up its ineffectiveness in the crisis.

As they did last year, the floods are undercutting the legitimacy of the shaky government, which is already widely disliked and struggling against Islamist militants, ever present political turmoil and massive economic problems.

In 2010, the floods followed the course of the River Indus and its tributaries from the foothills of the Himalayas to the flatlands of Sindh, where the river empties out into the Arabian Sea.

As much as one-fifth of the country’s landmass and 20 million people were affected at the peak, making it one of the largest natural disasters in recent history. The U.S. army deployed helicopters to ferry victims and aid around the country, and the U.N. and other international aid groups also helped.

Many of those countries, including the U.S., have mobilized again this year to help flood victims. The U.S. has said it paid for food packages for 23,000 families and its local partners will soon begin handing out tents, clean water and other supplies. Japan and China have also pledged relief goods or money, according to the Pakistan government.

“The magnitude of disaster is much beyond the capacity of Pakistan,” Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told flood victims on Sunday.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.

[Double Edge]

IMO, It would be foolish for the American government to enter the Kashmir political field. They will have to choose sides if they do. They are trying to help both but IMO, this will definately create a divide of one or the other since the money would have to officaly go to either nation. That is unless they are willing to make that choice and be at odds with American taxpayers when they need help right now making the odds 2-1 (Americans and the looser of the two nations) against them.

Yeah, have doubts whether US will get into that area, the guardian article troung posted about the dam was written in Islamabad. They would like you to do that but it does not mean it will happen. There are loads of other areas where aid can be directed without causing any concern whatsoever. They still like your $$$.

We need to at every step threaten to cut off trade/remittances not give them money. Kerry Lugar is simply billions pissed down the the drain. We can't bribe them to get them to stop supporting terrorism but the threat of losing access to their number one market, losing their largest source of remittances and having crippling sanctions will do a better job moving them. No way in hell should tax money be given to them as a reward for killing Americans.

Hard ball ? may have happened already in private long since..
- rationale for and prevailing reason for continued drone strikes despite strong domestic opposition.
- allowed you to insert your intel assets to pursue the OBL mission and regime looked the other way and took the blame.
- hot pursuit agreements, overflight permission, supplies to Afghanistan
- what else ?

I like these economic sticks much better than that stone age business :)

Kerry-Lugar is just a palliative to counter this. The above is worth much more than KL.

Have you ever been to the US?

Isn't it apparent from the actions your govt takes rather than rhetoric. Now, if more ppl think like you we expect to see exactly what you said come to pass. A majority that can act rather than threaten in private. That would be upping the ante though. It would increase domestic turmoil in Pakistan and maybe force her people to act.

Agree, troung this would be better than giving them billions and might get the desired result sooner. But its risky, if you're already doing it in private then what purpose does making it public serve ? it would land the regime in trouble domestically. You may not get a cooperative administration that follows after, you risk turning them into another Iran ie ppl you don't talk to any more. What good is this outcome ?

The less you need Pakistan the easier it will be. But I cannot see that happening within the next five years. Its an open question after.

Maybe your govt has found the right balance after all, the results might not be to your liking but its the best they could have got under the circumstances.

[troung]

Agree, troung this would be better than giving them billions and might get the desired result sooner. But its risky, if you're already doing it in private then what purpose does making it public serve ?

Shame them publicly, let their people know for a fact that we can break them if they mess around. They rely on us to keep above water for trade/foreign remittances, it is high time they know it. Bribing them is disgustingly ineffective. There should be zero aid money just the knowledge that if they screw around they go under as a nation.

Maybe your govt has found the right balance after all, the results might not be to your liking but its the best they could have got under the circumstances.

They have failed to get Pakistan to stop supporting the enemy, they have failed.
===========
Clearly bribes have failed.

Sunday, September 18, 2011 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Evidence links Haqqani network to Pakistani government: US


ISLAMABAD: The US ambassador in Islamabad said in remarks broadcast on Saturday that there is evidence linking the Haqqani insurgent network to the Pakistani government, a charge that could raise tensions in an already strained anti-terror alliance between Washington and Islamabad. The US and NATO blame the Haqqani network for many of the attacks in Afghanistan, including this week’s strike on the US Embassy. The group — affiliated with both the Taliban and al Qaeda — and its army of several thousand fighters is widely assumed to be based just over the Afghan border in Pakistan. US officials say they are looking for evidence that directly links elements of Pakistan’s powerful spy agency to this week’s assault on the US Embassy and coalition headquarters in Kabul, a sign of just how rancorous relations have become between the two allies in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. “The attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago, that was the work of the Haqqani Network,” Munter said during the interview. “And the facts, that we have said in the past, (is) that there are problems, there is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.” Neither the ISI nor the Pakistani military, of which the spy agency is part, immediately responded to the US suspicions. Pakistani government officials dismissed the suspicions as insulting and unfair. A senior US defence official said that given the ISI’s history of supporting and sheltering the Haqqanis, it was “almost reflexive” to see if the spy agency had any role in the latest Kabul siege. agencies

[Double Edge]

Shame them publicly, let their people know for a fact that we can break them if they mess around. They rely on us to keep above water for trade/foreign remittances, it is high time they know it. Bribing them is disgustingly ineffective. There should be zero aid money just the knowledge that if they screw around they go under as a nation.

Yeah, now i got why you're so pissed

They have failed to get Pakistan to stop supporting the enemy, they have failed.
===========
Clearly bribes have failed.

Sunday, September 18, 2011 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Evidence links Haqqani network to Pakistani government: US


ISLAMABAD: The US ambassador in Islamabad said in remarks broadcast on Saturday that there is evidence linking the Haqqani insurgent network to the Pakistani government, a charge that could raise tensions in an already strained anti-terror alliance between Washington and Islamabad. The US and NATO blame the Haqqani network for many of the attacks in Afghanistan, including this week’s strike on the US Embassy. The group — affiliated with both the Taliban and al Qaeda — and its army of several thousand fighters is widely assumed to be based just over the Afghan border in Pakistan. US officials say they are looking for evidence that directly links elements of Pakistan’s powerful spy agency to this week’s assault on the US Embassy and coalition headquarters in Kabul, a sign of just how rancorous relations have become between the two allies in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. “The attack that took place in Kabul a few days ago, that was the work of the Haqqani Network,” Munter said during the interview. “And the facts, that we have said in the past, (is) that there are problems, there is evidence linking the Haqqani network to the Pakistan government. This is something that must stop.” Neither the ISI nor the Pakistani military, of which the spy agency is part, immediately responded to the US suspicions. Pakistani government officials dismissed the suspicions as insulting and unfair. A senior US defence official said that given the ISI’s history of supporting and sheltering the Haqqanis, it was “almost reflexive” to see if the spy agency had any role in the latest Kabul siege. agencies

Forgot your embassy got hit in Kabul recently. Join the club

Balls in your court now. Your ambassador just took the first step.

[vsdoc]

Would agree with you more if the Pak army would go to the barracks and stay out of public life. But as you know the choice the ppl get there is of a subordinate civilian one. The army is seen as the protector of last resort even against democracy. Not a single civilian govt to date in Pakistan has ever completed its term without being interferred with in some way or the other, since independence !

You will say that this situation is primarily because the regime retains the larger support of the ppl, fine. They will agree that the army was the least worst option because the alternative is corrupt & ineffective and that all the previous coups were necessary.

The idea of seperating out the army from the ppl is a tactical one, reduces the size of the opponent being dealt with here. It's a way of exploiting faultlines that are purposely obscured with the end goal that the ppl there send the army to the barracks once & for all. If this can be achieved without going to war then its seems to me a good option, it will take much longer though. The ppl there get screwed the most so its a way to build bridges with them, this is the strategic goal.

Now there is no inherent sinister implication here of taking their nukes away or disintegrating their country at all as their regime would like to paint such attempts. Quite the contrary, they can hold on to both, we do not want their country to collapse, the main idea is to get them to behave like normal countries the world over where the civvies call the shots and the citizens are in control. Once that is achieved all the problems we see today will be very much reduced.

Is this the best way ? no, i see it as the least worst way.

DE, the army and its offshoots will always be the most powerful entity calling the shots in Pakistan because Pakistan was spawned on the basic tenet of Islam in Peril. The people of Pakistan have for more than 6 decades been sold and bought into the Enemy at the Gates paranoia, which is fanned and kept alive by all who control Pakistan to help keep the pot boiling and the attention of the public away from the fact that they are getting progressively screwed for generations.

This includes their corrupt civilian leaders who make their staccato guest appearances, play their pocket lining Western-backside brown tonguing cameos, and are then like clockwork bumped off or exiled. This includes their mullahs who preach Jihad to young Pakistanis but send their own progeny off to Western universities on Western passports. And this includes their army that has made a lucrative multi-billion dollar parallel industry out of being the oft-touted sword of Islam. When the politicians have screwed them long enough, the Army takes over. Then when the military strongman has screwed them long enough a political strongman takes over. While they both behind closed doors raise a toast together to the moronic junta that buys into this grotesque charade. With the mullah chuckling on the sidelines.

What all three have in common as the go-to last refuge when the junta momentarily revolts about getting too badly screwed for too long without respite is the bogey of the evil Hindu hordes straining at their chaps on the border just waiting to stream on to their pure land and kill al their men and rape all their women and forcibly force all of them to drink cow piss for eternity. The moment passes, and the next actor on the pakistani stage makes his appearance, invoking the name of the Almighty, and things are back to the rosy dreamland of the 72 virgins waiting expectantly once again.

Please remember that no matter how much you give them or do for them, you are forever the weak Hindu kafir subjugated for a thousand years by them to them. Similarly, no matter what the Americans do for them, they will always remain the evil Dajjal to them. For them and their ultimate world vision, their current state of perpetual screw-ed-ness is but a temporary blip before the golden age of the next thousand years of complete Islamic world rule. Its what helps them sleep at night on empty stomachs as the bombs explode all around and the sound of AK fire blends into the background as lullabies to the next unborn generation of Pakistani kids.

In the final analysis, why bother so much at all about Pakistan? They are insignificant! Ignore them completely and cut off all ties. Tighten our borders. Get richer. Get stronger. And keep getting richer and stronger. Concentrate on those within us that they would exploit to do harm to us. Be fair. But be strong and firm. Zero appeasement. We are a weak state. And we are trying to help another state which considers us its mortal enemy. That also makes us a stupidly naive state. We will stop seeing 26/11's in our country when for every 26/11, we rain 10 such down on the Pakistani people. Unerringly. Every time. Does our leadership have the will for that? I know we have the capacity and the resources. Yet we keep getting hit. And we keep building dams?

[Double Edge]

DE, the army and its offshoots will always be the most powerful entity calling the shots in Pakistan because Pakistan was spawned on the basic tenet of Islam in Peril.

Right so the rock of pakistan is Islam & the army just like in Israel it is God & the Army. The difference being the army in Israel does not call the shots, even in times of war.

Why can't that be the case for Pakistan ? thats the question her citizens need to be demanding.

The people of Pakistan have for more than 6 decades been sold and bought into the Enemy at the Gates paranoia, which is fanned and kept alive by all who control Pakistan to help keep the pot boiling and the attention of the public away from the fact that they are getting progressively screwed for generations.

How long for ?

This includes their corrupt civilian leaders who make their staccato guest appearances, play their pocket lining Western-backside brown tonguing cameos, and are then like clockwork bumped off or exiled. This includes their mullahs who preach Jihad to young Pakistanis but send their own progeny off to Western universities on Western passports. And this includes their army that has made a lucrative multi-billion dollar parallel industry out of being the oft-touted sword of Islam. When the politicians have screwed them long enough, the Army takes over. Then when the military strongman has screwed them long enough a political strongman takes over. While they both behind closed doors raise a toast together to the moronic junta that buys into this grotesque charade. With the mullah chuckling on the sidelines.

What all three have in common as the go-to last refuge when the junta momentarily revolts about getting too badly screwed for too long without respite is the bogey of the evil Hindu hordes straining at their chaps on the border just waiting to stream on to their pure land and kill al their men and rape all their women and forcibly force all of them to drink cow piss for eternity. The moment passes, and the next actor on the pakistani stage makes his appearance, invoking the name of the Almighty, and things are back to the rosy dreamland of the 72 virgins waiting expectantly once again.

Sure, so for how long does this dance with the trio go on for.

Please remember that no matter how much you give them or do for them, you are forever the weak Hindu kafir subjugated for a thousand years by them to them. Similarly, no matter what the Americans do for them, they will always remain the evil Dajjal to them. For them and their ultimate world vision, their current state of perpetual screw-ed-ness is but a temporary blip before the golden age of the next thousand years of complete Islamic world rule. Its what helps them sleep at night on empty stomachs as the bombs explode all around and the sound of AK fire blends into the background as lullabies to the next unborn generation of Pakistani kids.

yep

In the final analysis, why bother so much at all about Pakistan? They are insignificant! Ignore them completely and cut off all ties. Tighten our borders. Get richer. Get stronger. And keep getting richer and stronger. Concentrate on those within us that they would exploit to do harm to us. Be fair. But be strong and firm. Zero appeasement. We are a weak state. And we are trying to help another state which considers us its mortal enemy. That also makes us a stupidly naive state. We will stop seeing 26/11's in our country when for every 26/11, we rain 10 such down on the Pakistani people. Unerringly. Every time. Does our leadership have the will for that? I know we have the capacity and the resources. Yet we keep getting hit. And we keep building dams?

Answer to the bolded bit is because we still have unfinished business to take care of, as the former foreign secretary explained..

Nirupama Rao: We haven't seen any progress on 26/11 trial and it is point of great concern to us. So let me ask you a question, does it mean that dialogue is not an option we should pursue with Pakistan?

Karan Thapar: You know that is very interesting that you should bring that very question up because the point I was going to make, as I hear you and I suspect as the audience hear you, they will say to themselves as what the foreign Secretary is really saying is that the previous position that India had taken after 2008 and 26/11, that there can be no dialogue with Pakistan until there is substantive delivery on 26/11 and terror, that position has been changed. Even if the government doesn't admit it up front the government has now decided that it can no longer refuse talks, it needs to engage with Pakistan in the hope that engagement will produce the result that earlier refusal to talk didn't produce. There has been a change that has taken place. Isn't it?

Nirupama Rao: I think you have to look at policy making in a dynamic way. I don't think you are making a policy in a laboratory. You take into account the surrounding environment, you take into account a success approach or not. Did that approach yield too many dividends? Well you have to make your own assessment of that. I think the decision to re-engage with Pakistan and to talk about the issues that divide us, that created a gulf between us, to reduce the trust deficit as the two Prime Ministers said, I think it is a very realistic approach in dealing problems with Pakistan

Karan Thapar: Absolutely and take on board the fact that the world changes as the time moves on and the policy needs to move on as well.

Nirupama Rao: Especially for us in South Asia.

[Double Edge]

They rely on us to keep above water for trade/foreign remittances, it is high time they know it.

Need to get into this more, do you have any pointers. How signficant is US support for Pakistan ?

And it would appear Senator Mark Kirk agrees with you :)

Kirk Delivers Address Following Navy Reserve Assignment in Afghanistan
Kirk: Reconsidering Benefit of Aid to Pakistan
Tuesday, Sep 6

CHICAGO -Following his third two-week assignment in Afghanistan, Naval Reserve Intelligence Commander, Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) today delivered a speech offering a first-hand account of the challenges America and its NATO allies face in Afghanistan as the U.S. continues to stabilize this critical region. In the speech, Sen. Kirk outlines policy proposals regarding the withdrawl of American combat troops and the need to review how aid to Pakistan has served American interests.

The full text of Sen. Kirk's speech can be read below:

Afghanistan Views and Why We Should Rethink Aid to Pakistan

Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois

September 6, 2011

I just completed my third two-week reserve assignment in Afghanistan. While many members of Congress get a first-hand look on fact-finding missions, my time provided a more in-depth view, with a focus on the counter-narcotics objectives of NATO's ISAF mission.

First, the good news.

The work of our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen is nothing short of amazing. Serving in one of the poorest, roughest and most remote parts of the globe,they crushed Al Qaeda's base, drove the Taliban from government, fostered a new elected government, and welded 47 allies into a force for human rights, development, and education - especially for girls.

Forty-two percent of Afghans live on less than a dollar a day. About one in four can read. Malnutrition is a serious problem and infant mortality is the second highest of any country. According to the United Nations, nearly 40% of children under three are moderately or severely underweight, and more than 50% of children under three experience stunted growth. Afghanistan has more than twice Illinois' population, but its electricity generation for an entire year is less than 2% of the electricity that Illinois generated in just the month of May.

The nearly thirty million people of Afghanistan are victimized by a number of terrorist groups beyond just the Taliban, like the HIG, ETIM and a new threat, the Haqqanis, who I will discuss in detail.

But Afghans are most victimized by their neighbors, the Pakistanis. I first served as a reservist in Afghanistan in 2008. I believed that Pakistan was "complicated," that "we have many interests there" and that we must advance "diplomatically." I no longer agree with that.

Pakistan has become the main threat to Afghanistan. Pakistan's intelligence service is the biggest danger to the Afghan government. It is also a tremendous threat to the lives of American troops. Let me be clear: many Americans died in Afghanistan because of Pakistan's ISI.

Sitting in our commander's briefs for two weeks, talking to our Headquarters' leaders and spending a few days in the field, it became clear to me that if we worked in Afghanistan alone, we would quickly turn the country around, restoring it to its status as an agricultural economy with a loose government and high degree of autonomy given to each tribe and region.

But we are not alone.

While our military reduced Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to a shadow of its former shadow, a new force is emerging. On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Al Qaeda isstill armed and dangerous but far less numerous or capable than it was then. But Al Qaeda is not the most potent force arrayed against us.

The new face of terror is called the Haqqani network. Built around its founder, Mawlawi Jalaluddin Haqqani, and his son, Siraj Haqqani, it has become the most dangerous, lethal and cancerous force in Afghanistan.

One other thing.

As much as the Pakistani officials claim otherwise, the Haqqanis are backed and protected by Pakistan's own intelligence service. Statements by Pakistani government officials to the contrary are direct lies.

The Haqqani network kills Americans, attacks the elected government of Afghanistan and remains protected in its Pakistani headquarters of Miriam Shah. Without that Pakistani safe haven, it would suffer the same fate as Al Qaeda. Afghan and U.S. Special Operations teams take out many Talibancommanders and operators each night but numerous key Haqqani leaders spend all day planning attacks on Americans in Afghanistan -- then sleep soundly in their beds in Pakistan.

In such an environment, and with our deficits and debt, aid to Pakistan seems naive at best and counter-productive at worst. I am seriously reconsidering and rethinking how well aid to Pakistan served us.

Recently, our President chose to pull out 33,000 troops from the Afghan battle. General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen did not choose thisoption. Nevertheless, I think our new commander, General Allen, can withdraw the first American 10,000 troops by Christmas without a military reversal in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's army and police are growing in size (now over 300,000) and capability. Despite recent reports of desertions, Afghanistan's security forces will soon reach a level were some of our troops can safely leave the country. As we withdraw, we should consider a pay raise forAfghan troops to improve their retention and morale.

I spoke with General Allen about a "Commander's Assessment" at the end of this year. After withdrawing 10,000 troops, I hope he will clearly define when the next 23,000 can come out. In the U.S., politically there is littledifference between withdrawing the next 23,000 by the "end of the fiscal year" or "end of the year."

Militarily, there is a world of difference.

The "Fighting Season" of Afghanistan runs through October. If Allen withdraws his troops by September 30th, many of his forces will disappear during the Taliban's key offensive months. But if the troops leave in November/December, then we guarantee another bad year for the Taliban and Haqqanis and an even stronger Afghan army for the long term.

I hope the President sets an "end-of-year" deadline rather than an "end-of-fiscal-year" term. It's the right thing to do militarily and politically. If he does this, he reduces the chance of radical Islamic extremists winning some key battles during 2012.

While in Afghanistan, I helped update and rewrite ISAF's counter-narcotics plan. Afghanistan is the source of over 80% of the world's heroin andopium. The drug economy fuels the insurgency and corruption of the Afghan government. From 2001 to 2009, Secretary Rumsfeld and then AmbassadorHolbrooke blocked ISAF from doing much about narcotics. This left a huge funding source of the insurgency untouched.

ISAF spent 2009 and 2010 "supporting" interdiction, eradication and alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. While commendable, it didn't work and the size of the Afghan poppy crop is likely to go up.

The plan I worked on advocates a shift of ISAF to apply its military strengths of intelligence, helicopters and Special Operations to support Afghan operations to arrest the top drug lords, starting with the ones who financially back the insurgency. We joined together in 2005 to arrest "Bin Laden's Banker", Haji Bashir Noorzai, we should do it again.

I strongly backed an Afghan Counter-Narcotics Ministry idea to announce a "top ten" Drug Lord List to emulate the early success of J. Edgar Hoover when he established the reputation of the FBI. In our remaining two years in Afghanistan, we can do a lot to cripple the insurgency and help the 2014 elections by removing key, bad actors from the battlefield.

What about the future?

The President says that our formal, current mission will end in 2014. Much of his vision will be approved at the Chicago NATO summit in May. By 2014, I believe Afghans will be able to do nearly all of the conventional frontline fighting - with some Special Operations support remaining.

But remember, while the Afghan army is likely to win, its budget for this year is over $11 billion. The Afghan government collected only $1 billion in taxes in 2010. We will have to help. Without U.S. regular combat troops, we risk the Taliban/Haqqani/ISI alliance of terror winning.

On the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11, we should all agree that Afghanistan should never be a major threat to America again.

Should Pakistan not change its ways, we can also do one other thing: an American tilt towards India to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an Afghan government that fights terror and the ISI.

Given the lying and duplicity of Pakistan, it appears that a tilt towards India will allow us to reduce our forces in Afghanistan, knowing that India will help bankroll the Afghan government. This would allow us to reduce our troops while also reducing the possibility of it becoming another terrorist safe haven.

Pakistanis would object to this "pro-Indian" outcome. They will only have their own ISI to blame. September 11th teaches us that neither the United States nor India can tolerate a new, formal Afghan terror state. It's too bad Pakistan looks like it has chosen to back the losing side, Afghan terrorists, against the Afghan people and the two largest democracies on earth.

Finally, a word about our troops.

Each night, they combat the most dangerous, narco-insurgents on earth. Many 19 and 20-year-old Americans volunteered to serve over 7,000 miles from home. Their generation is named after 9/11 ...but these Americans in uniform not only carry their generation's label, they personally employ it by risking their lives to ensure all Americans will never suffer through another 9/11.

They are America's best and I hope to God when I am older, some of them run for President. From my nursing home, I will know the country is in good hands if these young heroes guide our nation's destiny.

I am lucky to know many of their names - Major Fred Tanner (Army), LTC Doug McCobb (Air Force), MG Mick Nicholson (Army) and our allies - Wing Commander Howard Marsh (Royal Air Force), Gen. Gilles Martin (French Army), Rear Admiral Tony Johnstone-Brute (Royal Navy) and Col. Robin Vickers (British Army). I honor them and their younger comrades -- wishing all military personnel of ISAF's 49 nations a very good day as they wake up in Afghanistan for another day's work on one of the toughest battlefields in the world.

Thank you.

###

[vsdoc]

Right so the rock of pakistan is Islam & the army just like in Israel it is God & the Army. The difference being the army in Israel does not call the shots, even in times of war.

Why can't that be the case for Pakistan ? thats the question her citizens need to be demanding.

The difference boils down to difference between the two majority religions, and the way they evolved and spread over the ages. What the people of Pakistan need to be doing as per you or me or the world is not really important is it? Its what is and what has been and what will be.

How long for ?

Sure, so for how long does this dance with the trio go on for.

As Balasaheb would say, who really cares? They wanted their country, they got it. Why should we be so overly bothered about what their citizenry is going through or the power politics of their society? Let them stew man. Good riddance!

Answer to the bolded bit is because we still have unfinished business to take care of, as the former foreign secretary explained..

The foreign secretary parrots the line and the thought process of the party in power. The party in power is the Congress. Need I say more? You think talking to them has not been tried before? Is it a new masterstroke of foreign policy and gamesmanship from an in-the-bathtub-soaking-in-the-suds Eureka moment?

Isolate them. Out-lobby them. Out-spend them. Out-maneuver them. Keep them on the boil. And take the fight away from our backyard and on to theirs. Talking is a waste of time and tax-payer money. Only the weak talk. The strong do.

You want to drive a wedge between the citizenry and the army, then make their citizenry pay for what their army/ISI nexus wreaks on us on our own soil, on their own soil. Again and again. Till "proxy" fatigue drives them to take up the gun. Not against us but against their masters. And the response needs to be immediate and punitive in scope and spread and temporal correlation. So that the message gets home. If not the first time around, then the tenth time. But the message will get home eventually. And that is when we may see a change. Why wage war against an army when we can get their own people to turn on them?

[Bhaarat]

The current US aid strategy of inconsistent supply riddled with attached strings and abruptions will somehow anyhow continue - for well known reasons.
What I'd want to lurk into is how much and what kind of US aid will Pakistan receive after the pullout from Afghanistan?
2014 and later seems like a much awaited football match where Afghanistan is the ball/ground and there are almost half a dozen teams in play. There is killer & messy unpredictability in what will transpire at Af-Pak and its reflections worldwide.

Regards,
Virendra