What's new

Pentagon seeks $3B for Pakistan military

Beskar

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
4
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Pentagon seeks $3B for Pakistan military

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

Thu Apr 2, 12:37 am ET

Sources: Pentagon seeks $3B for Pakistan military


AP – Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington

----------------------------------------------------------​

WASHINGTON
– The Obama administration plans to seek as much as $3 billion over the next five years to train and equip Pakistan's military, and is considering sending 10,000 more troops to battle the Taliban in Afghanistan, defense officials said Wednesday.

The money would include $500 million in an additional war budget request for the coming year that will go to Congress this month, The Associated Press has learned.

In outlining the spending program publicly for the first time, defense officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee it is critical to train and equip the Pakistanis so they have the skills and will to fight.

The $3 billion for Pakistan would complement a plan for $7.5 billion in civilian aid. That civilian request would come in legislation sponsored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts, and the committee's top Republican, Richard Lugar of Indiana.

With the administration's backing, their bill would provide $1.5 billion next year, linked to Pakistan's counterterrorism and democracy-building efforts, officials said.

Defense and other administration officials spoke about the spending plans on condition of anonymity because the specific budget requests have not been released.

Also Wednesday, senators questioned Gen. David Petraeus, who heads U.S. Central Command, and Undersecretary Michele Flournoy over the possible deployment of 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Petraeus said he had forwarded the proposed increase to the Pentagon. That plan could mean stationing nearly 80,000 American forces in the country by next year. There are 38,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan.

Lawmakers asked why the extra brigade and headquarters unit requested by Gen. David McKiernan, who oversees U.S. forces in Afghanistan, had not yet been approved by President Barack Obama.

"I think it would be far, far better to announce that we will have the additional 10,000 troops dispatched," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "To dribble out these decisions, I think, can create the impression of incrementalism."

Flournoy said Obama is aware of the request, but was told he does not have to consider it until this fall because the additional troops won't be needed until next year. By the fall, she said, McKiernan will have had time to reassess his troop needs.

The spending plan, defense officials said, would give commanders greater leeway to spend money more quickly to meet the needs of the Pakistani military, such as night vision goggles and communications equipment.

There have been complaints that Pakistan's military is not doing enough to take on the fight against the extremists who use the ungoverned border as a staging area for attacks into Afghanistan.

"The will is growing, but the will is also helped enormously by a sense that we are going to be with them," Petraeus said. "If they don't sense that, they will cut another deal."

The spending plan would include counterinsurgency training so the Pakistanis can better attack al-Qaida safe havens in the border region.

The Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he disagreed with the administration's argument that progress in Afghanistan depends on success on the Pakistan side of the border.

He said Afghanistan's future should not be tied totally to the Pakistan government's decisions. He also was skeptical about Pakistan's ability to secure its border.

The defense leaders, including Adm. Eric T. Olson, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, told senators the situation in Afghanistan is dire and that progress will demand a substantial, sustained commitment.

Senators sounded largely supportive about the spending, but said the administration has yet to set clear benchmarks to determine whether the war strategy is working.

"We should not be committing additional troops before we have a means of measuring whether this strategy is successful," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
 
.
I think giving Pak 50 Cobra;s with hellfire will make the war a lot easier. Add to that 12-20 Apache longbow and we have real night attack option. If they add 20-40 Kiowa's then you can practically oversee every part of dangerous area... For some that like Reaper... The Reaper needs US sats to be controlled over the horizon. I think in a mountainous area you need the sat. But the US will not be risking it. So we should ask some technology to build more in Pakistan. The key secret to destroy terrorism is hit them hard 24/7. That way you really stop violence (just look at Israel) and if you can target leadership then it is a bonus. I would not go for big army work on the ground. Risking jawans is not needed and creating more enemies is wrong.

So...

1. Cobra
2. Kiowa
3. Apache
4. Reaper technology + hellfire

Add to that 24/7 reconnaisance and better cooperation with Nato and the Afghans. For own protection an better control of taleban groups inside Pakistan and if needed full destruction of these groups. Islam does not teach them to murder innocent people cause they do not like US strategy or have weaker brains. And the politicians should be cleaned from the ideology that killing for Islam is ok.
 
.
I think giving Pak 50 Cobra;s with hellfire will make the war a lot easier. Add to that 12-20 Apache longbow and we have real night attack option. If they add 20-40 Kiowa's then you can practically oversee every part of dangerous area... For some that like Reaper... The Reaper needs US sats to be controlled over the horizon. I think in a mountainous area you need the sat. But the US will not be risking it. So we should ask some technology to build more in Pakistan. The key secret to destroy terrorism is hit them hard 24/7. That way you really stop violence (just look at Israel) and if you can target leadership then it is a bonus. I would not go for big army work on the ground. Risking jawans is not needed and creating more enemies is wrong.

So...

1. Cobra
2. Kiowa
3. Apache
4. Reaper technology + hellfire

Add to that 24/7 reconnaisance and better cooperation with Nato and the Afghans. For own protection an better control of taleban groups inside Pakistan and if needed full destruction of these groups. Islam does not teach them to murder innocent people cause they do not like US strategy or have weaker brains. And the politicians should be cleaned from the ideology that killing for Islam is ok.

Munir Sir US Will never DO that
 
.
Munir Sir US Will never DO that

They shouldn't be expecting any miracles either. We are in dire need of the latest Apache and Cobra helos. Also, we need UCAVs to combat the Taliban effectively. We need the right equipment ASAP.
 
.
Well given the raising of the SSW there is now a forward reconnaisance ability for say an Air Assault division with the ability to transport troops as well.

Must not forget that whilst armed helos can take the ground you still need infanteers supported with transport helos to hold it.
 
.
In regards to Munir:

Just dumping a bunch of expensive, difficult to maintain, and difficult to use pieces of equipment on a military does not equate with increased operational effectiveness. How many years would it take to train pilots? Does the PA have the infrastructure to fuel, launch, and repair all of that fancy equipment? How do you get replacement parts/Ammo? Integrating all that tech into the PA so it could be effectively deployed would take years, by which time, the situation may have changed drastically. Heck, just building the craft or gifting retired craft would take years.

Also, helicopters are very vulnerable to ground fire. Does the PA have programs in place to recover downed pilots and destroy sensitive equipment before the enemy gets to them?

The US sold/gifted all types of shiny new helicopters and aircraft to Iran back in the 70's...That turned out well...
 
.
The US sold/gifted all types of shiny new helicopters and aircraft to Iran back in the 70's...That turned out well...

Well it truly did work out good for them. They've reversed engineered most of that equipment and now they're producing their own Bell-412's, Cobra's and Chinooks. Considering how they've been isolated since the revolution, that's quite an achievement for their military.

But I do agree that maintaining all the new equipment from America would be difficult for us. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't procure advanced equipment and machinery.
 
.
Well it truly did work out good for them. They've reversed engineered most of that equipment and now they're producing their own Bell-412's, Cobra's and Chinooks. Considering how they've been isolated since the revolution, that's quite an achievement for their military.

But I do agree that maintaining all the new equipment from America would be difficult for us. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't procure advanced equipment and machinery.

Indeed, but I was speaking from a US prospective. For the US, the technology can't come into play soon enough to affect the situation they want resolved. It also leaves Pakistan with good anti-armor weapons to use in a land war against India, should that be in the offing some time in the misty future. I am sure the PA would be all for it, but the US has other concerns.
 
.
Munir Sir US Will never DO that

Yaar, They sponsored Afghanistan for 60 billion and failed 100%... If you accept a few billion with a lot more problems then do not wonder why they call it the cheapest hooker...

If they needed a lot more in Irac and Afghanistan then how do you wanna win? With bows and spears? If you ask me then the Pakistani are the dumbest in negotiating. It sounds like the notorious Zardari bastard that went to China and asking kickbacks for the nuclear reactors. No wonder no one wanted to meet him in China. How low can we sink?

Don't worry... As long as people of pakistan ar eignorant and vote for idiots then they deserve it. In that respect one would rather be called an Indian. Atleast those people know what politics mean.
 
.
In regards to Munir:

Just dumping a bunch of expensive, difficult to maintain, and difficult to use pieces of equipment on a military does not equate with increased operational effectiveness. How many years would it take to train pilots? Does the PA have the infrastructure to fuel, launch, and repair all of that fancy equipment? How do you get replacement parts/Ammo? Integrating all that tech into the PA so it could be effectively deployed would take years, by which time, the situation may have changed drastically. Heck, just building the craft or gifting retired craft would take years.

Also, helicopters are very vulnerable to ground fire. Does the PA have programs in place to recover downed pilots and destroy sensitive equipment before the enemy gets to them?

The US sold/gifted all types of shiny new helicopters and aircraft to Iran back in the 70's...That turned out well...

Do you expect the PA to fight these loonies with their bare hands? I'm just sick and tired of hearing all these lame excuses. Do we really want to win this war? Why do we always have to waste our energy on non issues? PA already operates the Cobra's and knows these helos inside out. The infrastructure, know-how, crew etc. is all in place. It's just a matter of getting the spares, new upgraded Cobra's etc. and inducting them. On the one hand, we always hear the bickering that PA isn't doing enough to win the WoT. When the PA requests for the appropriate equipment it gets turned down and the world still expects Pakistan to do more. What an insane world we live in. The US or the world cannot expect PA to fight without any proper equipment. We need it all and we need it ASAP! Period. Put your freaking concerns aside if you genuinely intend to make progress in the WoT!
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom