Pakistan ‘received $25.91b’ from US since 9/11

[Bobby]

We lost almost $100 billion in this war just to get $25 billion.

Where did Pakistan get $100 billion from?

 

[Albatross]

Pakistan suffered around 60-80 billions in economic losses since 9/11 owing to all chaos at home so what did we get actually get .

-50 billions dollars ?

 

[HRK]

I think you guys would PANIC if the USA left AFGHANISTAN next year and STOPPED the $2 billion a year they are giving you.

Would you rather THE USA left the region and LET THE TALIBAN & other terror groups loose all over South ASIA MIDEAST and WESTERN WORLD.

USA has nothing to gain in Afghanistan there is no minerals no oil no wealth its a dirt ridden land ...

@Storm Force you being senior member should contribute constructively rather than just beating around the bush....could you support your claim..... ????

Where did Pakistan get $100 billion from?

from somnath i guess.........

 

[Jungibaaz]

Where did Pakistan get $100 billion from?

Naive comment.

$100 billion dollar is a little high. Lets consider half that $50 billion.
Lost in conducting operations, deployment of tens of thousands of troops over 4-5 year period of time (this alone can cost well into the billions), loss to infrastructure eg roads. money spent for compensating families of the deceased civilians or military, loss of economic activity, investor flight, capital flight, loss of potential growth.

Add that up and $50 billion is well understated.
My own guess is total loss to the economy since 2007 is around the $60 billion dollar mark.
I may not have factored in other costs, those are just a few I come up with.

The notion that we couldn't have SPENT $x billions is not correct.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

noope.......... I don't want to be Pakistan specific on this issue

Dear there are some holy cows in USA as well otherwise this question should be raised for whole WOT expenses which was over 1.4 trillion $ in 2011...........but "no one would dare to ask such questions"

BTW under discussion report is of Oct-2012......so no need to be worried about that....

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41856.pdf

Yes, there are many holy cows in USA, including WoT expenses, but Pakistan is more of a goat - a scapegoat, to be precise.

Naive comment.

$100 billion dollar is a little high. Lets say half that $50 billion.
Lost in conducting operations, deployment of tens of thousands of troops over 4-5 year period of time (this alone can cost well into the billions), loss to infrastructure eg roads. money spent for compensating families of the deceased civilians or military, loss of economic activity, investor flight, capital flight, loss of potential growth.

Add that up and $50 billion is well understated.
My own guess is total loss to the economy since 2007 is around the $70 billion dollar mark.
I may not have factored in other costs, those are just a few I come up with.

The notion that we couldn't have SPENT $x billions is not correct.

Nobody believes the $100 billion figure, and the other estimates are likely overblown too.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Nobody believes the $100 billion figure, and the other estimates are likely overblown too.

When you consider loss of potential growth due to less economic activity.
The amount Pakistan 'lost', not 'spent' goes into shockingly high numbers.
That alone could add up to tens of billions.

Lets say growth rate per year was hit 2-3% lower.
I say only about 2% because there are other factors involved such as energy crisis and global downturn.
2% growth every year from 2007 up till 2012 adds up to about $20 billion
At 3% according to my calculations as a rough estimate $29.5 billion

That's without adding costs to infrastructure, the costs of war, cost of conducting operations, weapons acquisitions and also long term troop deployment.

I agree with you,
While it's fair to say that those estimates are too high. The more realistic estimates should raise eyebrows too.
The $25.91 odd billion doesn't cover the damages. Coupled with 5 years of poor governance and energy crisis and also global economic misery, Pakistan's economy has suffered a lot.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

When you consider loss of potential growth due to less economic activity.
The amount Pakistan 'lost', not 'spent' goes into shockingly high numbers.
That alone could add up to tens of billions.

Lets say growth rate per year was hit 2-3% lower.
I say only about 2% because there are other factors involved such as energy crisis and global downturn.
2% growth every year from 2007 up till 2012 adds up to about $20 billion
At 3% according to my calculations as a rough estimate $29.5 billion

That's without adding costs to infrastructure, the costs of war, cost of conducting operations, weapons acquisitions and also long term troop deployment.

I agree with you,
While it's fair to say that those estimates are too high. The more realistic estimates should raise eyebrows too.
The $25.91 odd billion doesn't cover the damages. Coupled with 5 years of poor governance and energy crisis and also global economic misery, Pakistan's economy has suffered a lot.

I agree that we have suffered a lot, and the primary causes are what you point out: poor governance, energy crisis and the global meltdown. The WoT added some losses on top of that rotten foundation.

 

[Pandora]

Where did Pakistan get $100 billion from?

I am talking about overall losses in this war since it started you moron.

 

[Bobby]

@Storm Force you being senior member should contribute constructively rather than just beating around the bush....could you support your claim..... ????



from somnath i guess.........

Good you have not forgotten your history

loot or beg... $100 B still very big number

 

[Bobby]

I am talking about overall losses in this war since it started you moron.

moron!! ..sorry if my comment shown you some bitter reality....

you need to have $100 billion to loose.....$5 billion year after year for 20 year...wow

 

[Jungibaaz]

you need to have $100 billion to loose.....

The $100 billion figure is inflated.
But the above statement, again... is entirely incorrect.

 

[Bobby]

Naive comment.

$100 billion dollar is a little high. Lets consider half that $50 billion.
Lost in conducting operations, deployment of tens of thousands of troops over 4-5 year period of time (this alone can cost well into the billions), loss to infrastructure eg roads. money spent for compensating families of the deceased civilians or military, loss of economic activity, investor flight, capital flight, loss of potential growth.

Add that up and $50 billion is well understated.
My own guess is total loss to the economy since 2007 is around the $60 billion dollar mark.
I may not have factored in other costs, those are just a few I come up with.

The notion that we couldn't have SPENT $x billions is not correct.

$60 billion in 6 years....means $10 billion per year....where did you get that amount..that was my basic question.

Even India who has $300 billion reserve can not afford to do that...

 

[illusion8]

When you consider loss of potential growth due to less economic activity.
The amount Pakistan 'lost', not 'spent' goes into shockingly high numbers.
That alone could add up to tens of billions.

Lets say growth rate per year was hit 2-3% lower.
I say only about 2% because there are other factors involved such as energy crisis and global downturn.
2% growth every year from 2007 up till 2012 adds up to about $20 billion
At 3% according to my calculations as a rough estimate $29.5 billion

That's without adding costs to infrastructure, the costs of war, cost of conducting operations, weapons acquisitions and also long term troop deployment.

I agree with you,
While it's fair to say that those estimates are too high. The more realistic estimates should raise eyebrows too.
The $25.91 odd billion doesn't cover the damages. Coupled with 5 years of poor governance and energy crisis and also global economic misery, Pakistan's economy has suffered a lot.

Why is there a notion that Amrika has to pay for every loss that you suffered and give compensation for it? isn't terrorism a collective responsibility, AQ, Taliban and all assorted scum had based themselves in Afghanistan and border regions Pakistan, the notion that the US should pay for the complete cleaning operations is kind of absurd when equally the American economy took a downturn due to this war as well.

 

[Jungibaaz]

$60 billion in 6 years....means $10 billion per year....where did you get that amount..that was my basic question.

Even India who has $300 billion reserve can not afford to do that...

Military operations acquisitions, a few hundred million dollars for WoT.
Troop deployment year on year for about 6 years that costs billions.
FATA reconstruction programmes cost 2 billion dollars.
Creation/reparation of about 400km of roads.
A few million per year on compensating the victims of terror.
Now take Malakand and Swat operation of 2009, that operation alone cost billions of dollars, the op itself cost in millions, the damage done by the taliban rule and the large scale ground offensive meant that billions of dollars of damage had been done, most of which is yet to be repaired. And since 2008/2009 we've had regular operations in FATA and the rest of KPK.
Then also, terrorism has decayed economic growth considerably that could easily be $4-5 billion we loose per year in potential growth.
Also, investment nosedived since our dedication to this war, from 22.5% in FY2006 to 13.4% in FY2010.
And you know that investment triggers a knock on effect of growth and economic activity. Such a drastic decrease is billions of dollars lost year on year on year.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Why is there a notion that Amrika has to pay for every loss that you suffered and give compensation for it? isn't terrorism a collective responsibility, AQ, Taliban and all assorted scum had based themselves in Afghanistan and border regions Pakistan, the notion that the US should pay for the complete cleaning operations is kind of absurd when equally the American economy took a downturn due to this war as well.

The US gets most of the blame.
I don't care how people try to spin this collective responsibility rubbish.

They came to Afghanistan in 2001 and said... 'Hey, that was easy... only 40 days of combat ops and we've defeated the taliban'. Back then they didn't ask for our help and we told them that we would not involve ourselves in their air campaign over Afghansitan or in aiding the Northern alliance take power. by doing so, they involved themselves in an ethnic war that has been raging since the early 90's. By conducting brutal bombings of Pushtun majority areas, they alienated that population and also by supporting the NA. Also, then the NA were made ministers of Kabul, former head of the NA was made defence secretary, these war criminals who the Pashtun people despised were made kings of Kabul. All while, remember the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 or AQ. So the taliban rose again, and THAT my friend is not our war to begin with.

Only when 2003/4 and renewed insurgency came knockin'. They forced us to align ourselves with them, quote... 'bombing Pakistan back to the stone age'.

I agree, a lot of it is our own fault.
But the US is still the biggest player in our region, every move of theirs echoes ten times in Pakistan.