Is Pakistan Worth America’s Investment?

[Lord ZeN]

It doesn't take much to stir controversy over America’s relationship with Pakistan. The latest dust-up involves $532 million in economic assistance that the United States expects to provide later this year. Last week, Pakistani officials jumped the gun by suggesting the money is closer to being disbursed than it is; the news annoyed India, which doesn't think the aid is merited.

That is a familiar complaint. Since 9/11, the United States has provided Pakistan with billions of dollars, mostly in military aid, to help fight extremists. There are many reasons to have doubts about the investment. Still, it is in America’s interest to maintain assistance — at a declining level — at least for the time being. But much depends on what the money will be used for. One condition for new aid should be that Pakistan do more for itself — by cutting back on spending for nuclear weapons and requiring its elites to pay taxes.

Doubts about the aid center on Pakistan’s army, which has long played a double game, accepting America’s money while enabling some militant groups, including members of the Afghan Taliban who have been battling American and Afghan troops in Afghanistan. The relationship hit bottom in 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan and was killed by a Navy SEAL team. But it has since improved. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to visit Islamabad soon.

After militants massacred 148 students and teachers at an army-run school in Peshawar last month, Pakistan’s government promised that it would no longer distinguish between “bad” militant groups, which are seeking to bring down the Pakistani state, and “good” militant groups that have been supported and exploited by the army to attack India and wield influence in Afghanistan. But there is little evidence that the army has gone after the “good” groups in a serious way.

This double game is a big reason that the administration has been unable to fulfill Congress’s mandate to certify that Pakistan has met certain requirements, including preventing its territory from being used for terror attacks, as a condition of assistance. Instead, officials have had to rely on a national security waiver to keep aid flowing.

There is a case for doing that. After much foot-dragging, the Pakistani army is finally battling militants in the North Waziristan region, and American officials say there has been real progress.

Also, Pakistan has allowed American drone attacks against militants along the border to resume, and is cooperating with the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani. Pakistan’s help is essential as Mr. Ghani pursues peace talks with the Taliban. It also counts as progress that Pakistan completed a transition from one civilian government to another in 2013 and that the current government, while fragile, remains in place.

American officials say aid has allowed them to maintain some modest leverage with Pakistan’s leaders and to invest in projects that advance both countries’ interests, including energy, more than 600 miles of new roads and support for democratic governance. But it makes no sense to subsidize Pakistan’s policy failures, which include an obsession with nuclear weapons, paltry investments in education and a refusal to seriously combat extremism.

Pakistan still receives more assistance than most countries, a holdover from the days when Washington mistakenly thought it might be a real partner. But the levels are declining and should continue to do so. Cutting aid precipitously would be unwise, but a managed decrease is in line with more realistic expectations about the diminished potential for bilateral cooperation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/opinion/is-pakistan-worth-americas-investment.html?_r=0

 

[C130]

nope. same goes for Israel.

come on Uncle Obama help out your people.

 

[Judge]

nope. same goes for Israel.

come on Uncle Obama help out your people.

US aid to Israel like US aid to NATO buys US a lot of influence in that region and gives it a safe base and capability to operate in the Middle East at possibly the most crucial location.
Apart from that it ensures that Israeli technology remains in American hands and away from Russia and China - both of whom would love to take up Israeli engineers and technology products.

 

[C130]

US aid to Israel like US aid to NATO buys US a lot of influence in that region and gives it a safe base and capability to operate in the Middle East at possibly the most crucial location.
Apart from that it ensures that Israeli technology remains in American hands and away from Russia and China - both of whom would love to take up Israeli engineers and technology products.

I want us to close down as many bases as possible.
let China and Russia fight over the Israelis and the Middle East
and they are double dipping anyways. pretty sure they have sold secrets to the Russians and the Chinese for decades.

but then again Zionist Jews do have a grasp on America politically and economically so it'll never happen anyhow.

 

[Ahmad1996]

I want us to close down as many bases as possible.
let China and Russia fight over the Israelis and the Middle East
and they are double dipping anyways. pretty sure they have sold secrets to the Russians and the Chinese for decades.

but then again Zionist Jews do have a grasp on America politically and economically so it'll never happen anyhow.

Are you seriously an American?

 

[C130]

Are you seriously an American?

eeh yeah.
why would you assume I wasn't.

 

[Ahmad1996]

eeh yeah.
why would you assume I wasn't.

Cuz you are the first person here and American person that I have heard acknowledged that Jews have a hold over US lobby.

 

[root]

USA aid destoryed Pakistan our politicions thought aid will last forever let enjoy fill our swiss account all type of aid from USA should be blocked.

 

[Judge]

I want us to close down as many bases as possible.
let China and Russia fight over the Israelis and the Middle East
and they are double dipping anyways. pretty sure they have sold secrets to the Russians and the Chinese for decades.

Well, closing down bases or not is a decision for USG to take.
But preventing Israel from selling technology to China and Russia has set their projects back decades which has allowed US to keep its massive technological advantage.

The easiest example that comes to mind is US preventing Israel from selling its AWACS to China. That one single sale to China could have shaved off more than a decade for the Chinese AWACS R&D program and they are still not even near the Israeli tech after a decade of their program.

Apart from that Israel provides all weather/constant battlefield testing and refinement of American MIC produced gear.

It is my view that the pro's of keeping Israel far far outweigh the costs involved to do so. Ofcourse, the most competent people to make this judgement remain the USG and the day that costs outweigh the benefits, US will cease to support Israel in the manner it does now. Make no mistake though, its not for charity that US spends money on Israel.

but then again Zionist Jews do have a grasp on America politically and economically so it'll never happen anyhow.

I'll refrain from the Zionist rhetoric and how much of a grasp they have.

 

[C130]

Cuz you are the first person here and American person that I have heard acknowledged that Jews have a hold over US lobby.

everybody knows it's true

the Zionist Jews own the Media and Government and Banks, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I do believe Jews own or at least hold a great deal of influence.

take for instance Chris Christie you know the Governor of New Jersey who wants to be President in 2016

this is from wikipedia

In March 2014, Christie gave a foreign policy speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition also attended by other Republican presidential hopefuls. In it, Christie said that everyone he met in Israel during his visit, wanted America to be an "unblinking, unwavering unquestioning friend" but worried that this was no longer true. He said that he is in the business to win elections and not just arguments, saying "If we want to just have arguments and stand for nothing, we could just form a university." Christie said he was overwhelmed by displays of religious tolerance during his recent trip to Jerusalem and used the term "occupied territories" in reference to lands in dispute. Christie later apologized to Sheldon Adelson for using that term, which is rejected by conservative Zionists who see it as validating Palestinian views.[241]

who the hell is Sheldon Adelson and why does Chris Christie gotta apologize to him???
oh he's just a billionaire Zionist Jew with a great deal of influence

and you believe this unblinking,unwavering unquestioning friend crap.
basically saying be a good goy and do as you're told like a zombie.

 

[ito]

everybody knows it's true

the Zionist Jews own the Media and Government and Banks, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I do believe Jews own or at least hold a great deal of influence.

take for instance Chris Christie you own the Governor of New Jersey who wants to be President in 2016

this is from wikipedia



who the hell is Sheldon Adelson and why does Chris Christie gotta apologize to him???
oh he's just a billionaire Zionist Jew with a great deal of influence

and you believe this unblinking,unwavering unquestioning friend crap.
basically saying be a good goy and do as you're told like a zombie.

What will happen if a Jew were to become the president of US

 

[vsdave2302]

It doesn't take much to stir controversy over America’s relationship with Pakistan. The latest dust-up involves $532 million in economic assistance that the United States expects to provide later this year. Last week, Pakistani officials jumped the gun by suggesting the money is closer to being disbursed than it is; the news annoyed India, which doesn't think the aid is merited.

That is a familiar complaint. Since 9/11, the United States has provided Pakistan with billions of dollars, mostly in military aid, to help fight extremists. There are many reasons to have doubts about the investment. Still, it is in America’s interest to maintain assistance — at a declining level — at least for the time being. But much depends on what the money will be used for. One condition for new aid should be that Pakistan do more for itself — by cutting back on spending for nuclear weapons and requiring its elites to pay taxes.

Doubts about the aid center on Pakistan’s army, which has long played a double game, accepting America’s money while enabling some militant groups, including members of the Afghan Taliban who have been battling American and Afghan troops in Afghanistan. The relationship hit bottom in 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan and was killed by a Navy SEAL team. But it has since improved. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to visit Islamabad soon.

After militants massacred 148 students and teachers at an army-run school in Peshawar last month, Pakistan’s government promised that it would no longer distinguish between “bad” militant groups, which are seeking to bring down the Pakistani state, and “good” militant groups that have been supported and exploited by the army to attack India and wield influence in Afghanistan. But there is little evidence that the army has gone after the “good” groups in a serious way.

This double game is a big reason that the administration has been unable to fulfill Congress’s mandate to certify that Pakistan has met certain requirements, including preventing its territory from being used for terror attacks, as a condition of assistance. Instead, officials have had to rely on a national security waiver to keep aid flowing.

There is a case for doing that. After much foot-dragging, the Pakistani army is finally battling militants in the North Waziristan region, and American officials say there has been real progress.

Also, Pakistan has allowed American drone attacks against militants along the border to resume, and is cooperating with the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani. Pakistan’s help is essential as Mr. Ghani pursues peace talks with the Taliban. It also counts as progress that Pakistan completed a transition from one civilian government to another in 2013 and that the current government, while fragile, remains in place.

American officials say aid has allowed them to maintain some modest leverage with Pakistan’s leaders and to invest in projects that advance both countries’ interests, including energy, more than 600 miles of new roads and support for democratic governance. But it makes no sense to subsidize Pakistan’s policy failures, which include an obsession with nuclear weapons, paltry investments in education and a refusal to seriously combat extremism.

Pakistan still receives more assistance than most countries, a holdover from the days when Washington mistakenly thought it might be a real partner. But the levels are declining and should continue to do so. Cutting aid precipitously would be unwise, but a managed decrease is in line with more realistic expectations about the diminished potential for bilateral cooperation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/opinion/is-pakistan-worth-americas-investment.html?_r=0

Answer is simple.

Does America Invest in pakistan?

If answer is yes then Pakistan is wroth receiving american investment and not otherwise.

 

[C130]

Well, closing down bases or not is a decision for USG to take.
But preventing Israel from selling technology to China and Russia has set their projects back decades which has allowed US to keep its massive technological advantage.

The easiest example that comes to mind is US preventing Israel from selling its AWACS to China. That one single sale to China could have shaved off more than a decade for the Chinese AWACS R&D program and they are still not even near the Israeli tech after a decade of their program.

Apart from that Israel provides all weather/constant battlefield testing and refinement of American MIC produced gear.

It is my view that the pro's of keeping Israel far far outweigh the costs involved to do so. Ofcourse, the most competent people to make this judgement remain the USG and the day that costs outweigh the benefits, US will cease to support Israel in the manner it does now. Make no mistake though, its not for charity that US spends money on Israel.

I'll refrain from the Zionist rhetoric and how much of a grasp they have.

first off. i don't mean close down all U.S oversea bases.
mainly the ones in Europe since well Russia isn't going to Zerg rush from Eastern Germany into Western Germany, which was the greatest threat..
we could close down all our bases in Japan as well and South Korea.
since I think the consensus is they aren't wanted.

and it's true Israel could of sold AWACs to China a decade ago and saving China money and time, but they still would of developed or bought a equivalent one.

you could say China could be Israel new sugar daddy if America ever decided enough is enough, but are Zionist Jews embedded in the PRC???? they wouldn't be the ones in control

either way it'll be lost for the U.S, but we gotta stand up even if it hurts us in the short term to medium term.

What will happen if a Jew were to become the president of US

I'm of opinion every President after Kennedy has been nothing but a puppet.
so it wouldn't matter.

 

[Established_1965]

Cuz you are the first person here and American person that I have heard acknowledged that Jews have a hold over US lobby.

Actually there are many. US people and Gov have different ambitions

 

[Judge]

first off. i don't mean close down all U.S oversea bases.
mainly the ones in Europe since well Russia isn't going to Zerg rush from Eastern Germany into Western Germany, which was the greatest threat..
we could close down all our bases in Japan as well and South Korea.
since I think the consensus is they aren't wanted.

and it's true Israel could of sold AWACs to China a decade ago and saving China money and time, but they still would of developed or bought a equivalent one.

you could say China could be Israel new sugar daddy if America ever decided enough is enough, but are Zionist Jews embedded in the PRC???? they wouldn't be the ones in control

either way it'll be lost for the U.S, but we gotta stand up even if it hurts us in the short term to medium term.

I agree that European bases don't add much to US security any more because Russia is not going to attack NATO anytime soon. And if the situation as such arises, then these bases can again be supplied by US at short notice because of extensive logistics and protocols that have been set up over the decades.

I also agree with the position that China can be Israel's new sugar daddy but the Jews wont be as embedded in either the civil society or the Governmental structure of China..

But is US willing to let go Israel and more specifically the Israeli technology, Engineers, Scientists, University and research output which helps make sure that US is always at the cutting edge of science and technology? The AWACS is just one example out of many where Israeli products going to Chinese or Russian hands could undermine American technological edge. The Chinese after investing more than a decade and billions of dollars are not even close to attaining the sophistication and technology that Israel has in its AWACS and more importantly - that Israel was willing to sell. It was the extra-ordinary influence that US has on Israel that made Israel renege on a commercial contract with China.

So Israel and US both have extra-ordinary influence on each other. And both work together in multiple areas. Ofcourse divergence of views is only natural on many issues even among allies, but - in my opinion solely - they have more similarities in interests than the differences.
It wont be fair to castigate one side over the other for pushing any particular agenda that either US or Israel might have.

I would welcome
@Solomon2 , @gambit , @Nihonjin1051 and @LeveragedBuyout to the discussion.