U.S. Payments To Pakistan Face New Scrutiny

[fatman17]

U.S. Payments To Pakistan Face New Scrutiny
Little Accounting for Costs To Support Ally's Troops

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 21, 2008; Page A01

Once a month, Pakistan's Defense Ministry delivers 15 to 20 pages of spreadsheets to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. They list costs for feeding, clothing, billeting and maintaining 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistani troops in the volatile tribal area along the Afghan border, in support of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

In response, the Defense Department has disbursed about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year for the past six years, in one of the most generous U.S. military support programs worldwide. The U.S. aim has been to ensure that Pakistan remains the leading ally in combating extremism in South Asia.

But vague accounting, disputed expenses and suspicions about overbilling have recently made these payments to Pakistan highly controversial -- even within the U.S. government.

The poor showing in Monday's parliamentary election by the party of President Pervez Musharraf, whose government has overseen local disbursement of the money, may make Congress look closer at all U.S. financial assistance to the country. Questions have already been raised about where the money went and what the Bush administration got in return, given that pro-American sentiment in Pakistan is extremely low and al-Qaeda's presence is growing steadily stronger.

In perhaps the most disputed series of payments, Pakistan received about $80 million a month in 2006 and 2007 for military operations during cease-fires with pro-Taliban tribal elders along the border, including a 10-month truce in which troops returned to their barracks.

The Bush administration has acknowledged some problems, but still says that the program -- part of a costly military effort known as the Coalition Support Fund -- is worth every penny. "Yes, we may have overpaid, but it's still a good deal," said a senior administration official involved in Pakistan policy, noting that more than 1,000 Pakistani troops have been killed while assisting Operation Enduring Freedom.

"Padding? Sure. Let's be honest, we're talking about Pakistan, which has a legacy of corruption," added another U.S. official familiar with past U.S. payments. "But if they're billing us $5 billion and it's worth only $4 billion, the question is whether it's worth nickel-and-diming it if it's such a top national security objective. If it's in the ballpark, does the bigger picture call for continuing on with a process that does generate significant progress on the war on terror? They do get their hands on people we can't."

U.S. officials say the payments to Pakistan -- which over the past six years have totaled $5.7 billion -- were cheap compared with expenditures on Iraq, where the United States now spends at least $1 billion a week on military operations alone.

"My sense is that the Pakistani military would not be out on the border if not for the Coalition Support Funds. That's the baseline cost of getting them out on a mission that is really our mission," said Craig Cohen, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of a recent study on U.S.-Pakistan relations.

Yet the Bush administration has recently begun to scrutinize Pakistan's bills more closely. Washington delayed payment of about $78 million of $360 million for the March-June 2007 quarter now working its way through the reimbursement process. Pakistan will receive only $282 million later this month, U.S. officials said, with additional payment once it provides more detailed accounting.

It recently rejected a Pakistani bill, officials say, for "roads and tracks" -- for its Navy operations, U.S. officials said.

Some regional specialists question whether the Pentagon's money is being well spent. "The amount that's been spent on the Coalition Support Fund, given the results, is a reminder that the Pakistani will just might not be there," Cohen said. "Most Pakistanis see this as America's war."

Congressional officials and others are concerned that the administration has been so eager to prop up Musharraf that it overlooked U.S. foreign aid and accounting standards. A congressional oversight subcommittee is also set to begin an investigation next month, while the Government Accountability Office plans to finish its own inquiry in April.

"We have had an enormous amount of money going out there since 9/11, and I'm not satisfied that we're getting the kind of accounting that would warrant a determination that this is money well spent, or whether we should change the direction of the money and get more bang for our buck another way," said Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) chairman of the national security and foreign affairs subcommittee of the oversight committee looking into the program.

In a closed-door hearing in December, for example, Hill staffers pressed Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, to provide receipts for every Pakistani expense over $1 million, a request the State Department has not yet met. The U.S. government generally requires receipts when it reimburses entities for expenses.

A payment process that looks too loose in Washington is seen as too tight in Pakistan, however. Over the past four months, Musharraf complained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte about delays in Washington's payment, which can take five to eight months, U.S. officials said.

The process is laborious, officials acknowledge, with many players blaming one another for allowing the Pakistani bills to move through the system without stronger oversight.

After the spreadsheets are delivered, officials at the U.S. Embassy try to verify that Pakistan incurred expenses in support of combat activity on the Afghan border. "It's a big job to go through and figure out what the Pakistanis have spent. The State Department doesn't know the toys," said the second U.S. official familiar with policy.

He added: "The embassy doesn't have the manpower or expertise to tell whether an aviator widget doohickey costs 50 or 50,000 rupees, or to find out if they really burned out four aviatics packages in an Apache helicopter and, if so, could we see them because maybe they only need maintenance." This first review takes about a month, officials say.

The spreadsheets then go to U.S. Central Command in Tampa, where officials evaluate claims and recommend reimbursement if the expenditures meet U.S. strategy. But the U.S. Embassy's initial approval greases much of the rest of the process, U.S. officials said. This second review takes about six weeks, the sources said.

The Pakistani bills then go to the Pentagon, where comptrollers determine whether they are reasonable and credible, based in part of the costs of fielding U.S. troops, a senior Pentagon official said. That third review takes about five weeks, U.S. officials said.

The bills are then sent to the Office of Management and Budget, where officials have expressed concern about poor documentation but have little leverage at this stage of the process to challenge them, several U.S. officials said. The undersecretaries of defense and state then formally concur that the operations are consistent with U.S. policy and that they do not change the regional balance of power.

The Pentagon next notifies the four Senate and House defense oversight committees. If no congressional holds are issued within 15 days -- and none have been so far in six years -- the Pentagon issues a check five days later.

Administration officials insist that the U.S. arrangement with Pakistan is unique. "Don't compare it to an audit," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "They are a sovereign government assisting us rather than someone who works for us. They are an ally. They are acting on our behalf to go after terrorists in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

Added a senior Pentagon official: "The last thing we'd want is boxes and boxes of crumpled receipts."

To resolve tensions over the program, Congress, the State Department, and the Office of Management and Budget have all argued for the money to be tied to specific counterterrorism programs, rather than general military support. But some officials still worry that adding conditions would lead Islamabad to reduce cooperation on the most pivotal frontline in fighting extremism.

"We don't want to offend the Pakistanis," said the second U.S. official familiar with the policy. "What if the balance of their calculus changes and they decide that cooperation is more than it's worth? We do have to take that into account."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

 

[maqsad]

So first these right wing nutty hawks blackmail pakistan into fighting the war through threats of bombing, and now they complain about a "20% markup" on a service that it costs their own troops 18 times more money to produce per soldier. And on top of all that they are openly debating if they are the ones who are getting "ripped off".

 

[S-2]

"So first these right wing nutty hawks blackmail pakistan into fighting the war through threats of bombing, and now they complain about a "20% markup" on a service that it costs their own troops 18 times more money to produce per soldier."

No "right wing nutty hawks". The government of the United States, which encompasses one hell of a lot of public servants who'll be voting democrat this fall. Back off. Your argument attempts to justify a 20% ripoff as acceptable cost of doing business. It's not, if true at all to begin with. However, your attitude perfectly illustrates the endemic corruption so commonly practiced by your nation.

Tell America tomorrow to piss off. Really. Cast your lot with (variously) the PRC and/or the taliban. Here's the way it works, maqsad. Either you fight the war in your own nation with or without our VERY xxxxx GENEROUS aid WHILE WE GENEROUSLY CONTINUE TO BUY YOUR PRODUCTS.

That's one option. With or without but the war remains in those regions only nominally Pakistani but Pashtu or Baluchi for all practical intents.

Or don't fight at all and refuse our aid and largesse. Know that it'll simplify our concerns about targeting enemies of Afghanistan operating from without. And we shall once your intentions are perfectly clear.

For myself they are anyway. Your valuable assistance is marginal in reality. The predator attack is a perfect illustration of the complicity by which your nation plays both sides to nobody's benefit-most of all Pakistan's.

I'm grateful that my tax-dollars are scrutinized carefully and slowly. Mosabja's glad-hand comments elsewhere on this board about American aid perfectly displayed the cynicism and resentment which your citizens show to ours. Most of you AREN'T our ally. That's a plain fact. Most here SUPPORT the taliban and their stone-age perspective-IN AFGHANISTAN.

You need to have all aid cut off and be left naked to your demons.

Maybe the PRC can fill the gap.

 

[solid snake]

^ Do you really think the US can win the Afghan war without Pakistani military's support?

People like Maqsad are just some dudes sitting on a chair and writing on some forum. He, like 95% of Pakistanis, dosen't understand that the WoT is in Pakistans favor. He dosen't want the army killing these terrorists, who he thinks are his "Muslim brothers". He disregards the fact that they're killing Pakistanis all over our country.

Pakistan wasn't doing all it could before because Musharraf was leading the army. He wanted to show the West that the only thing that stood between jihadists and the nukes was himself. He had a vested interest in prolonging the war. Now that a civilian government will soon be in place, and the army is no longer in the business of running the country, you will see a reinvigorated effort on the part of the PA to end this menace once and for all.

Kayani wants the army to focus on it's job, and that is eliminating enemies of Pakistan; the terrorists in the NWFP, FATA and the northern areas.

 

[S-2]

I don't care if Pakistan accepts our aid or not. If the conditions are unacceptable and an affront, fine. Don't accept. The war will be fought or not as Pakistan sees fit. In truth, that is as it's been in any case.

Not fighting means accomodation with the pashtu tribes. Everybody knows what that means-more of the same.

That WILL BE unacceptable to America. In the absence of overt cooperation by Pakistan against these forces bent upon de-stabilizing Afghanistan, they'll likely be attacked where and however possible. Naturally, this will be with increasingly blatant disregard for nat'l boundaries as they'll be (and already are) functionally meaningless in any case.

maqsad is a sock-puppet for the taliban. He's no interest in the lives of simple people. He wishes to dominate Afghanistan with a pashtu/taliban government beholding to Pakistan for it's survival. This will permit in his (and many others) mind the continuation of the struggle against India. To what purpose and at what cost in human suffering God only knows.

Pakistan should cease it's duplicitous fence-sitting. America should cease accomodating such a dissembling position. Both nations are guilty of abetting murky rationales for half-purposes when intent by both should be transparently clear.

Among Pakistan's citizens, it seems crystalline and I'm happy to accept their declaration of solidarity with their pashtu-taliban brothers. However difficult this will be for America is nothing compared to the misery that Pakistan will achieve with their penchant for yet another self-inflicted wound.

 

[EagleEyes]

The western border of Pakistan has never been a problem for us, until the United States started its so called War on Terror. Negotiating peace and slowly modernizing that area will be the best task to go for. However, of course Pakistan can not let itself be the terrorist launch pad. Therefore, any failure in the negotiation of a "peace deal" will ultimately means stopping anyone who stands to violate the Pakistan's laws.

Pakistan can not alone however fight this war, because it is no position to do so. American aid cut off would mean unable to contribute enough resources to fight such a war which it might not be interested in doing so, even though it might benefit Pakistan.

 

[maqsad]

I don't know where you got this nonsense about "muslim brotherhood" from, solid snake. It doesn't matter if they kill a muslim or a christian or a devil worshipper or an atheist. Point is there are extrajudicial assasinations going on with complete impunity. I don't mind "terrorists" being killed but I want them killed after they are interrogated and tried in public. I don't like pakistan being turned into some gigantic theme park where some sociopathic megalomaniac sitting in Langley can paint an electronic bullseye on any person physically located in Western Pakistan and just blow up a dozen people and then go to lunch and brag about it. What's next in 10 years..are they gunna develop a more precise missile and start blowing up peoples houses in Lahore and Karachi too? Also, aren't these "killing fields" in Western border belt areas going to make the residents there decide to secede from the Pakistani Republic?

And how exactly is a joint war on a noun in Pakistan's favor overall? Is the US handing over any Afghan real estate to Pakistan? Any Irani real estate? Is the US going to try and get Kashmiris in India to hold a vote on whether to stay occupied under 700,000 Indian troops as opposed to joining with Azad Kashmir? Besides the yearly chump change of which 80% is supposedly reimbursement what money is being "donated" to Pakistan? Besides the loosely worded assurance that Pakistan will not be bombed into the stone age what big generous favor has been benevolently thrown upon Pakistan, I don't get it. I see sticks but no carrots.

And I am still stumped as to why terrorists have to be killed by missiles based on an order from the CIA when they can be arrested and tried in a terrorism court specially created in Pakistan for that very purpose. All that needs to be done is to create a special pakistan based counterterrorism force verified not to have any affilliations or sympathy with any group or individual under watch and there goes the excuse of reluctant personnel.

 

[MastanKhan]

S 2,

Afghanistan is destabilized not because of pakistan but because what the u s forces have not been able to do. I clearly remember like day light the arrogance and cockiness of american generals and soldiers before going into afghanistan---the good old owboy with his six shooters packed on the side ready to call the afghan out---well the problem is major---for the first time they are also facing the merchants of death---people who have no sense of living for a better tomorrow---.

Pakistan had no qualms with afghan pushtuns---this war was with al qaeda---for reasons better known to itself the u s let the al qaeda leadership walk out of afghanistan intact---the very reason for their attack---after all that pomp and romp---the al qaeda literally walked out of afghanistan's mountains---inadvertantly the u s made this misery land on our soil.

Truthfully, pakistan need to stop the use of pakistani space for letting the operations continue in afghanistan. They have been carried on for too long and too many afghanis have died during the u s armies occupation of afghanistan and there is no end in sight.

First it was the taking down of al qaeda---which was a fraud, a lie and a deceit---then it switched to hunting taliban---then it switched onto the war against terror----so many different faces---so many different spins---so many different lies and still not enough troops on the ground to seal the pak-afghan border---the number one millitary force in the world---lead by third rate generals and third rate commanding officers---if a day came that these generals and that army had to face the enemy one on one, with similiar equipment, there would be no stopping the rout from afghanistan to the mainland homeland---.

So, S 2 get off your cocky horse that you have been riding on this pakistani board and smell the dust---your super star millitary has been pumelled by these stone age warriors with stone age equipment---the failures of your millitary are known all around the world on all the millitary bases of every nation---your millitary and its generals are the butt of all the jokes regarding their incompetence world wide---even though they fear the wrath of your millitary might, but that doesnot stop them. You know humility makes you human---it brings you down from the throne of the Gods to the stone cold earth---Rummy found it---the high and the mighty---his feet never touched the ground---his arrogance knew no ending---his rhetoric had no limits---where is he now---in the graveyard of afghanistan and iraqi defeat---Tommy Franks---ohn Abizaid and the Guy with the hispanic name---where are these cocks of the walk---they don't even want to show their faces in shame of their career ending defeats---they don't even come on public forums---yeah the hispanic general made a statement---and the media ripped him apart---where were you when the war was happening---why did you shut your mouth at that time---oh he was waiting for his retirement and retirement benefits---the great american warrior---what a shameful ending---I mean to say only one general commanding out of four had the ballz to say that no there are not enough troops to do the job---one out of four---that is a sad time in u s history---please tell your children about this shameful time in u s history---when not only its politicians were liars but the commanding generals one after the others---three of them in a row lied to the public and lied to the world and lied to themsleves to save their pensions and retirements---it was a shameful day for them that none of them had the courage to stand upto the tyrant Rummy.

So, S 2---milltary intelligence---don't threaten us here---if you can take your business elsewhere---do so---it might happen as well that the elected govt may say BYE BYE no more millitary assistance to the u s army in afghanistan---well after all they are democratically elected---they can do the same as turkey did in the begining of 2nd gulf war. There is no threat of war on pakistan---u s economy is in shambles---.

Pakistan never had a duplicitous fence sitting attitude till they found out the u s army was not committed to do the task at hand---pakistan didnot have that attitude till they found out that the u s had lied to invade afghanistan and iraq---pakistan didnot have that atitude till they found out that the u s was an occupying force who wanted to set up a bases in afghanistan---pakistan didnot have that problem till they found out that u s wanted to stay put---pakistan could not believe its eyes and ears when they saw on tv u s forces letting the al qaeda escape from a trap---not one time---not two times---but three times or more---. Fooled once---fooled twice---fooled the third time---shame shame shame on us---. The only place left for theu s is to pack up and leave----it will only happen when the american media will take the censorship of itself---.

Now, readers don't get me wrong---I am no fan of taliban---I would have them neutralized sooner than later----but the job should have been done and completed with many ayears ago---all the killing and destruction should have been finished in the first two years.

All this would have been completed with success if your incompetent millitary planners had done the job right at hand---instead of having right wing christian extremist who talk to god and sometimes god talks to them as well---if you had some atheist in the planning of the war, things might have been different---surrounded the alqaeda at tora bora, instead of wham and bam---they could have had soldiers on the ground---but no---we americans warriors were playing SISSY at that time---we didn't want our pretty soldiers get messy in the business of death and mutilitation---pretty in pink---we don't want them to get dirty---what a joke---we let the killer of 3100 americans escape---because we didnot want 100 american soldiers killed at tora bora---do you still punish your general staff---do you still have executions by a firing squad---some of your generals needed it real bad---.

S 2---I don't know what you are talking on this board---but if my millitary had been pummelled by such a third rate and ill euipped army of rag tags---That general should have swallowed the .45 calibre that he was packing on his hip. But als---shame and honour is for honourable generals---generals who are trying to save their retiremenst and pensions are not in that category.

 

[S-2]

Pakistan should immediately reject any and all pre-conditions for the aid.

That'll teach those Americans.

 

[blain2]

Pakistan should immediately reject any and all pre-conditions for the aid.

That'll teach those Americans.

Some change, rejection, adjustment is coming down the pike pretty soon on the $600 million aid that Pakistan receives each year (part of the 5 years $3 billion aid package). The rest is all reimbursement...if US does not require the support, then the money does not need to flow into Pakistan and Pakistani government would be fine with it.

Despite the sarcasm above, pre-conditions on assistance (when you also need the other side) won't do much. This time around, the Pakistani side has considerable leverage on the situation. Now I am not proposing using this leverage...I think there is convergence of interests here, but the manner in which this interest is achieved (which is defeating AQ) differs. Lets see what the two side can work out.

Pakistan should cease it's duplicitous fence-sitting. America should cease accomodating such a dissembling position. Both nations are guilty of abetting murky rationales for half-purposes when intent by both should be transparently clear.

Among Pakistan's citizens, it seems crystalline and I'm happy to accept their declaration of solidarity with their pashtu-taliban brothers. However difficult this will be for America is nothing compared to the misery that Pakistan will achieve with their penchant for yet another self-inflicted wound.

Now wait a second. What is so duplicitous about trying to ensure that the problem of AQ is dealt with while keeping the tribal considerations and sensitivities in mind? Why should the Pakistani government and army make enemies out of all the Pashtuns? Just because some politician sitting in DC can not differentiate between a militant AQ-supporting Talib from a regular, practicing Pashtun Muslim (and yes they look the same)? There can be no peace in Afghanistan or Pakistan if the Pashtuns are made into enemies.

The first wrong turn in this screw-up in Afghanistan was when all the Pashtuns were considered to be Taliban and shoved to the sidelines while all the sunshine was blown up the rears of the Northern Alliance by the US Forces. This has caused massive problems in both of the countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan) due to the reason that Pashtuns being such a large grouping will not tolerate being sidelined. Eventually, (mark my words), the Pashtuns will have to be politically accomodated in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not all Pashtuns (contrary to your term "pashtu-taliban") are in the same league as the Taliban. As has evidently been proven in the latest Pakistan elections, the nationalist, secular Pashtuns wield considerable power in Pakistan. It would be a mistake to lump all the Pashtuns in one category and reject all linkages, talks, negotiations with them. It seems at least the Brits have caught on to the idea of talking with these same people that the Pakistani government has been asking the west to engage with for years now.

 

[maqsad]

Is $500 million a year a bad price to pay for renting an entire country of 160 million to be your servant in a fraudulent war on a noun? Oops wait, it is actually $100 million a year after expense adjustment. Does the US think it is getting ripped off and will it rebel and pass the bill to the Chinese??? LOL I don't think so because the party getting scammed, blackmailed and ripped off is Pakistan, not the US.

 

[S-2]

"...if US does not require the support, then the money does not need to flow into Pakistan and Pakistani government would be fine with it."

Conditions define the level of required support/assistance. It's reasonable to assume that we define our need (or lack therein) by the conditions imposed.

Evidently, we don't need the services at the risk of being unable to account for these "reimbursements". If audits of billed services is onerous and/or overtly insulting, the services should be denied to America. It is then to America to ameliorate the requirements and beg foregiveness or accept the absence of this support. It's clear that audits indicate we question the services actually rendered and are prepared to do without if need be.

"I think there is convergence of interests here"

Perhaps with A.Q. Even then, I'm uncertain.

"Now wait a second. What is so duplicitous about trying to ensure that the problem of AQ is dealt with while keeping the tribal considerations and sensitivities in mind?"

blain2, MastanKhan's derisive comments aside, infantry platoons of the U.S. Army are living daily with pashtus in the mountains along the border. That's how they're posted. You might be surprised how well we understand the tribal networks in the area, the taliban, and A.Q. (including the Uzbeks). I frankly doubt that your troops live remotely like ours-with the villagers. We understand tribal considerations of the pashtu.

We also understand that Pakistani citizens reflect the interest of their gov't in two critical ways. Support of pan-pashtu tribal sentiment is a concern of the Pakistani government-taliban or no taliban. Pakistan has always felt comfortable deflecting these pan-pashtu aspirations westward into Afghanistan. Second, this deflection coupled with covert assistance by the ISI created the latest incarnation of this manifest goal- the taliban.

What's clear to me on this board is the following-

"The first wrong turn in this screw-up in Afghanistan was when all the Pashtuns were considered to be Taliban and shoved to the sidelines while all the sunshine was blown up the rears of the Northern Alliance by the US Forces."

blain2, you're a lucid and reasonable person-most of the time however this comment by you reveals much. Karzai, of course, is pashtu and President. Numero uno. From what I can determine here, he's simply not the RIGHT pashtu president. Is this correct? It seems that the pristine standards of leadership ascribed to by the members of this board have found Karzai's tribal lineage tainted by hints of opium.

Imagine that! Yup. None of that elsewhere among the Pashtus, I'm sure. Let's face it. Removing the taliban from Afghanistan's government has caused much gnashing of teeth among members here. Perhaps you too. There's no way, then, that any present leader of Afghanistan would have the support of many Pakistani citizens.

"It seems at least the Brits have caught on to the idea of talking with these same people that the Pakistani government has been asking the west to engage with for years now."

The Brits are clumsy fools. Their actions recently in both Kandahar and Musa Qala are both pathetic and laughable. The taliban "governor" of Musa Qala couldn't deliver any of his "forces" on the ascribed day of liberation/battle. Nope. He stayed back with twenty or so guys and awaited the all-clear. I'm not impressed.

Kandahar was worse. Semple and Patterson exceeded their briefs in an amazingly naive "rogue" operation to replicate the al-Anbar "Awakening". Look. The idea is fine. Most understand that separating the pashtu from the taliban IS the name of the game. But it's not a "touchy-feely" nice-nice. Few understand al-Anbar and these diplo-fools didn't bother to ask any U.S. army expert who did. We have a few actually. H.R. McMaster kicked things off in al-Anbar at Tal Afar with his 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

It involved a lot-of everything. Heavy-duty combat operations that whacked the snot of A.Q. groups and any/every bad-*** who raised a rifle. The HAND OF GOD descended like a fist. Once security was grabbed, it had to be held. Aid HAD to arrive like magic, be dynamic, and IMPRESS that we were serious.

Hiring locals who might have been your enemy an hour ago sounds really NICE and SENSITIVE too. But there's a quid pro quo. Retina-scans and finger-prints so if you get rounded up next week in a fire-fight, we'll know that you're playing both sides. This holds tribal leaders accountable for the men they offer as CLCs (concerned local citizens).

Sorry. I digress. Patterson and Semple did none of this. Nor did they try to position the Afghan gov't for success. I was stunned and hardly impressed by the naivete behind their attempt.

blain2, I sadly believe that most here wish for a pashtu-dominated Afghan gov't under the thumb of Pakistan. Most here aren't seriously interested in an inclusive electoral process arising in Afghanistan. Should Pashtus attain dominance at the expense of the rest of Afghanistan, that would be a positive outcome.

Oddly then, it's the Pakistanis who have little concern about taliban/pashtu separation. Where pashtu dominance of Afghanistan expressed through taliban rule as before, most here would happily accede. Why, I'm unsure. Clearly, Pakistan found that it's control of the taliban government in Afghanistan was tenuous at best once before and embarassing as an open association.

Still, I suppose that's better than the N.A. I've learned since coming here that the KEY problem with them is India's patronage. That explains much to this simple westerner.

Few here wish for Pakistan to be in flames, particularly at the hands of A.Q. or Mehsud's taliban. The gap, however, of popularity ascends upward dramatically when discussing the AFGHAN taliban and Hekmatyr, Omar, Gulbuddin. Pakistanis see a favorable difference, oddly enough.

 

[S-2]

"LOL I don't think so because the party getting scammed, blackmailed and ripped off is Pakistan, not the US."

Oh well. Please link your numbers. Most of your claims are unsubstantiated nonsense. You need constant auditing as your credibility is abysmal. $500million? Or $600 mil. a year? Show me your adjusted numbers that bring our actual aid down to $100 mil per year after deductible expensed costs charged to my gov't for your defense.

YOUR DEFENSE maqsad. Our money for your nation to fight your war on your soil. What's wrong with that picture?

Please, oh please be offended by our need to audit and REFUSE OUR AID. The money will, I promise, go away. Your war won't.

 

[MastanKhan]

S 2,

What are you talking about---it has been 5 years---now the u s soldier has learnt how to fight a war in an invaded country---guy you are putting nothing over here but a spin.

Karzai is an uncle TOM pushtun---why don't you leave him for once and see what the other pushtuns are going to do to him---leave alone pakistan.

" How well we understand the tribal networks in the area " after killing the neutral people on the whims of the tribals for 5 years, now you have learnt how to interact with the tribal---S 2---please---this lecture would not be accepted even in the heartland u s a today--- the american listeners, they will chase you out of the speeech hall.

You say that british are fools---they say that americans are fools---even the israelis say that americans are fools---even EHUD BARAK on cnn with Larry King openly stated that the u s has screwed up---he stated that he could not comprehend the blunders that the americans had made---he wanted to say more but that was more than enough on world tv.

S 2, if your understanding of NA is being india centric, then that info is incomplete---why don't you talk about the incompetence of three of your top generals one after the other---why don't you talk about the failures---isn't it a shame that the u s army had to take five years to learn how to act on a foreign captured land---five years it takes for the world most well equipped army just to come to grips with reality---VOW---how many years would it take for a third world army to come to grips. Your analysis is a total joke.

Your whole of the article is going around in senseless circles---seems like you have no clue what afghanistan is and where are you going to end with the afghan tomorrow. I think it is time to go home. A failure is a failure---it has happened every other place---what difference does it make if there is another one due to the incompetence of the top brass.



"YOUR DEFENSE maqsad. Our money for your nation to fight your war on your soil. What's wrong with that picture?

Please, oh please be offended by our need to audit and REFUSE OUR AID. The money will, I promise, go away. Your war won't".

If push comes to shove---would america say the same thing to the israelis as well.

 

[S-2]

You have a low regard for my army. I don't know upon what basis you make that judgement other than, perhaps, a congenital dislike for Americans. I doubt it's based upon a professional judgement. It doesn't read as though you've any competency to judge our forces.

I've served twelve years as an artillery officer in the U.S. Army. I've trained foreign artillery officers and participated in numerous exercises with forces from Australia, Canada, Egypt, Great Britain, and Denmark. Have you? Superb troops from which we learned a lot.

That won't be the case with the Pakistani Army, it seems. Therein is the crux of the issue. The tangible examples of your poor battlefield performance has highlighted what was already a serious concern-no bang for our bucks. Get it? Performance doesn't remotely equate with dollars invested.

Should we discuss some of the more notable Pakistani Army "lessons-learned" of late? Would you care to remind me of the last time an American platoon outpost was over-run along the border with all men GONE? Can you describe for me the last time an American battalion commander sat down for a village jirga over tea and had 200 of his men captured with their weapons and vehicles without a shot fired? Were any of those captured men beheaded? Do you recall the U.S. Air Force predator that killed al-Libbi on the doorstep of a Pakistani Army base-within eyesight of a private compound of Baitullah Mehsud? ALL within the last five months.

No. I know the comments of an enraged amateur when I read them, MastanKhan. You wouldn't know a professional army if you were marched over by one. These oblique reminders should serve to caution your amateurish and rude tongue.

Your government should openly and honestly reflect the will of those like yourself, MastanKhan, and reject any conditions to our aid or audits of charged services. Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe that you firmly reflect the mood of the VAST MAJORITY of your nation. If so, then your government owes your fellow citizens and you that much.

The child-like open bitterness with which you resent the absence of YOUR OWN PUPPET in Karzai's stead is disturbing but speaks volumes. As such, I doubt that it's possible for you personally to assist the present government of Afghanistan and believe that you'd actively work for it's de-stabilization to suit Pakistan's selfish purposes. Rhetorically, how in your mind can Karzai be anything but an American puppet?

It's very possible that Pakistan and America are enemies because of Pakistan's willingness to accept a taliban definition of afghani pashtu aspirations once more when once was too much.