U.S. Payments To Pakistan Face New Scrutiny

[Mustapha]

S2,
Now is the time not to take clever side-steps as you have been doing in this thread, but tell us the truth.

Tell us what USA has accomplished in Iraq, other than starting a bloody civil war. Where are the WMDS?
(Please don't give use those barrels of mustard gas or executing Saddam crap)

Tell us what USA , NATO, and even NA accomplished? Tell us, rather convince us why fighting in Afghanistan is worth it.
People are sick and tired of the war...people want to go home...

Sure the Taliban is gone...but with all your so-called "technological advantages" where are the criminals or OBL?

Your Army, the most sophisticated in the world has failed in the Korean peninsula, in Vietnam, Cuba...now in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

LOL, ARE YOU JOKING!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN THE BLACKWATER SCANDAL IN IRAQ!!! LOL




to the real world....

S-2 you are dangerous for your nation, because with your acrid attitude you are only going to make people dislike your nation even more. USA is already in tight situation in today's political affairs and with Russia declaring an arms race aganist NATO, and with also China ganging up on America on outerspace treaties; America will not be the only superpower in the upcoming decades.

May God help you and your country.

 

[maqsad]

Looks like some people in pakistan's government are speaking out and admitting that the country is being blackmailed by Uncle Sam. This article hints that the anti Musharaff rage of the pakistani voter is being met by "revenge" by Uncle Sam by squeezing military aid? Maybe trying to exert pressure and send a message?

US aid cut will affect economy, say officials
​

By Baqir Sajjad Syed

ISLAMABAD, Feb 23: Pakistani officialdom is viewing aspersions being cast by the United States media over disbursements to Pakistan from the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) as political blackmail “through managed media leaks”.

Officials believed that the very timing of the media leak indicates that the US intends to apply pressure on Pakistan in view of the changing political scenario.

They fear that the blockage or drop in the assistance on the pretext of poor accounting, disputed expenses and suspicions about over billing can result in serious economic repercussions for the country.

The United States Defence Department disburses about $80 million to Pakistan from the CSF every month for the expenditure incurred by it on maintaining over 100,000 troops on the border.

A Washington Post report said Bush administration had started scrutinising Pakistan’s bills. 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.

Additional payment would follow once it provides more detailed accounting, WP quoted United States officials as having said.

The WP report had cautioned that the poor showing in the parliamentary election by the party of President Pervez Musharraf may make Congress look closer at all US financial assistance to the country.

The sources said the managed media leaks were an instru-ment of foreign policy and established practice in the United States to browbeat foreign governments.

Dismissing the United States allegations as illogical, the sources said it was not even fraction of the United States expenditure for keeping its troops in Afghanistan. The US spends about $14 billion a year for just 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is only the financial impact and doesn’t include the US casualty figure there.

Pakistani authorities realise that they had blundered while finalising procedure with the US.

“We should have instead fixed a ballpark figure,” a senior official said, adding such disputes could then have been avoided.

Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Sadiq said if the assumption of political blackmail was accepted, were not the commitment of officials involved in leaking such stories to the media was “questionable”.

It would be even nicer if Muhammad Sadiq could string together a comprehensible sentence in proper English so that everyone could understand exactly what he was trying to say near the end.

 

[MastanKhan]

S 2,

It happened on your watch. The killings happened when you were incharge. The civil war happened because you failed to take measures to take control of the country after you conquered it. It was you who said on the air craft carrier " BRING IT ON ". It happened because your generals and their advisors were extremely incompetent. The rapes and murders are public information---they happened because of all the gang members and criminals that have been recruited in the millitary due to the shortage of troops---the rape of the 14 year old and murder of her family has been a news item here in the u s for a long time---the pictures and videos that Rumsfeld didnot want to disclose to the public was also brought up in the congress hearings---he stated that it would not be appropriate to release those pictures---it would infuriate the public----it was on the tv---

What I am saying is that there have been enough muslims killed for the 3100 killed in new york---more than a 300 times muslims have been killed. Enough is enough---now the u s must go back home. You have slaughtered enough of us.

You know how clever you are----there were maybe 2000 al qaeda in afghanistan---they could easily be neutralized in a given time---but no you wanted it wam bam---and instead took up the animoisty of a million plus taliban. Which school of international strategic and master plan millitary invasion doctrine did you go through guy?

 

[maqsad]

Uncle Sam is about to cut one of the puppet strings. How will the new government deal with this message? Is this a threat of future hostility...like an attack or an invasion by the US? Will the US start to create terrorist cells within Afghanistan and send them over, and blame pakistan for the increase in violence? Or is this just a show of power to get the military scared of being disobedient?

Will this give the pak government freedom to sign peace treaties in FATA and NWFP after finishing the SWAT operation---resulting in peace and stability in Pakistan again?

I am a bit confused by what this article is trying to say.

US may stop direct budgetary support: Procedure for economic aid changed



By Khaleeq Kiani
​

ISLAMABAD, Feb 24: Pakistan has received $289 million from the United States on account of war on terror reimbursements for the October-December 2007 period, but the normal US economic assistance would no more be available to Islamabad for direct budgetary support, it is learnt.

Sources in the Finance Ministry told Dawn on Sunday that last week’s inflow of $289 million was purely on account of services provided by Pakistan to the

US in war on terror and was based on bills submitted by Islamabad after item-to-item verification by the authorities in Washington.

Pakistan has so far been paid about $5 billion in reimbursements for services, mostly military services and logistic support, at the rate of $80-100 million per month depending on actual expenditures incurred by Islamabad.

However, the sources said that the procedure for economic aid to Pakistan had been changed since November last year owing to increasing accountability issues raised by some US lawmakers in recent months.

They said Pakistan used to get about $300 million as direct disbursement for annual budgetary support under the $3 billion assistance package the two countries had finalised for Islamabad joining the war on terror about five years ago. These funds would now go directly to the specific development projects mostly in health and education sectors through the US Agency for International Development (USAID) that would also oversee award of contracts and payments thereof, except for less than $100 million that may still be available for direct budget support, the sources added.

The sources did not agree to a notion that the US administration was withdrawing direct budgetary financing to Pakistan’s new government – a facility that has been available to military-led government all these years. They said it had more to do with the pressure the Bush administration faced due to accountability concerns expressed by the Democrats.

The sources hinted that the US administration was in close contact with Islamabad to help arrange alternate avenues that might include some financing through development institutions.

Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves declined from $16.4 billion in October 2007 to about $14.08 billion on February 15, owing to increased pressure arising out of higher oil imports, increasing balance of payment deficit and lower than expected inflows, particularly on account of privatisation proceeds and international bonds etc.

Overall, Pakistan has so far received about $10 billion since 2001 from the United States. More than half of this amount pertained to expenditure incurred by Pakistan on services provided to the US. Washington has been providing about $300 million to Islamabad since 2004, as part of the $3 billion package half of which was meant for supply of intelligence and military hardware.

Under the package, Pakistan used to get about $600 million, $300 million military assistance and $300 million in economic assistance.

US may stop direct budgetary support: Procedure for economic aid changed -DAWN - Top Stories; February 25, 2008

 

[blain2]

Thanks for the interesting representation. If accurate, please reject providing services and withdraw from the WoT. Renounce military and civilian aid. Nothing there can be logically argued by America should that be the determined desire of the GoP.

Mr. Bhandara, of course, neglects to obligate the Pakistani government to securing it's borders from taliban moving into Afghanistan from sanctuary within Pakistan. That would be part of successfully asserting Pakistani sovereignty. Failing to do could be construed as harboring those making war upon the sovereign government of Afghanistan and its allies.

That might entail war, I imagine, as you'd assume the full burden of responsibility for preventing such operations from your nation's territory. Granted, you've little practical control over vast swaths of nominally Pakistani land, but that's not Afghanistan's responsibility. Pakistan can ignore Afghanistan's war if it chooses, as Mr. Bhandara recommends, but Pakistan cannot ignore it's contributions to that war.

I like it, though. Improving your economy as a nat'l priority over a large army would be huge. Reconfiguring your army into a better-trained, more agile, COIN-oriented force makes sense in light of the practical diminished threat from India. Your threat IS within. Mr. Bhandara may not be correct in his general assertion of S. Asian armies for internal control but it might be quite specifically accurate in Pakistan's case.

Actually this is the one point (stopping the ingress into Afghanistan from the tribals areas) that I too am interested is seeing. Not exactly sure how a democratically elected government would be able to do this differently as compared to measures undertaken by the Musharraf government.

I think my point is that there has to be a balance (force and incentives) in how GoP approaches this problem. Suffering more casualties in the FATA and inside of Pakistan (60+ suicide bombings in the cities) is causing problems with the public opinion. The GoP has to wage an effective PR offensive to sideline the extremist elements and to do so, military operations alone have to be avoided.

 

[roadrunner]

"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."- S-2

Wow! the arrogance of it all."- Fatman 17

"And Americans aren't living side-by side within Pashtun communities. That much is certain."- Roadrunner

You may recall this thread by Agnostic Muslim-

Into the Valley of Death

Read the article by VANITY FAIR.

There is literally a ton of ******** video out there of our guys, especially in the Korengal valley of Kunar Province. Most of these platoons are living by themselves in simple stone huts surrounded by villages and locals. Once in, they only move by foot patrol. There's a documentary of a platoon on a sixteen month deployment into Kunar. We learn quite a bit about our patch of the woods. We've also learned how to pass that accumulated knowledge on to the next guy. Many of our troops now have multiple tours in this specific area.

Correct me if wrong but don't your F.C. and regular army stay in formal military cantonments and foreign legion style, imposing frontier forts? Barracks and facilities from which they sally forth on large sweeps through SWAT, for instance and then return to base. That's what I understand and suppose it's o.k. as you've local police who probably really know the turf.

I'm certain that neither of you know just how much effort our military forces and intelligence services devote to learning about tribal structures throughout the middle east or conducting COIN operations in these regions. At this point we've some very well-versed and grounded perspectives. We're really quite immersed in tribal cultural ethnology these days and find the subject fascinating and are always looking to learn more.

Anyway, there's little arrogance to my view. We've had much to learn and little time to do so, which doesn't afford opportunity for preening. We're far ahead of the game there compared to our NATO peers and have surprised both Afghani and Iraqis with our perspectives.

God. This is so clueless. The Americans have a handful of interpreters who are in many cases Taliban themselves. American troops do not generally live amongst the Pashtun communities. A small minority might do, but they're insignficant, and nobody seems to pay much attention to them anyway. Brute force is the name of the game, and it isn't the best way subdue matters.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

S2,
Now is the time not to take clever side-steps as you have been doing in this thread, but tell us the truth.

Tell us what USA has accomplished in Iraq, other than starting a bloody civil war. Where are the WMDS?
(Please don't give use those barrels of mustard gas or executing Saddam crap)

Tell us what USA , NATO, and even NA accomplished? Tell us, rather convince us why fighting in Afghanistan is worth it.
People are sick and tired of the war...people want to go home...

Sure the Taliban is gone...but with all your so-called "technological advantages" where are the criminals or OBL?

Your Army, the most sophisticated in the world has failed in the Korean peninsula, in Vietnam, Cuba...now in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

LOL, ARE YOU JOKING!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN THE BLACKWATER SCANDAL IN IRAQ!!! LOL




to the real world....

S-2 you are dangerous for your nation, because with your acrid attitude you are only going to make people dislike your nation even more. USA is already in tight situation in today's political affairs and with Russia declaring an arms race aganist NATO, and with also China ganging up on America on outerspace treaties; America will not be the only superpower in the upcoming decades.

May God help you and your country.

I think that quite a few posts in reference to what S -2 has written has not been totally objective and fair.

First of all. I don't think he has sidestepped the issue at all and instead has held to his point of view quite consistently. There are merits in what he has written as there are merits in the less sentimental and 'my country right or wrong' posts in reply.

What has the US achieved in Iraq?

They have made their presence in the Middle East and will be in the centre of all activities guiding the fate of the region and the world. Their military presence will be a serious deterrent for any of the Arab nation from taking action that is inimical to the interest of the US. The activities of Syria, which is a virulent anti US country is a case in point. The irrelevance of Hamas is another case in point where the Arab nations have practically abandoned them except for worthless moral support, that too, very muted.


Success is not in the capture of territory alone or having puppet govt. Success is also signatured by cowing down belligerent nations by mere presence and the power to strike at short notice! That is what the US has achieved and it can be compared to what it could do prior to the Iraq War.
Therefore, if evenly and fairly analysed, there is no doubt that in political terms and in geostrategic terms, the US has benefited immensely.

There are people who focus on single issues to compare success. In understanding geo strategy and geo politics, one has to see the issues on a broader perspective.


With the collapse of the USSR, the US policy apparently has been to maintain its sole global supremacy. The actions taken should be understood and not merely looking at single issues or single regions.

The aim was to ensure that the soviet influence in the region is not taken over by its successor regimes. To this effect, a very well planned US foreign policy was put into action, right from the Clinton era. Irrespective of the political party running the US Administration, they have had the single minded devotion to the furtherance of the US policy to ensure that other powers are defanged. Russia maybe defanged, but it still remains as the most serious threat to the US. Therefore, the Clinton Administration commenced the squeezing out of the Soviet influence from Europe by targeting the the most reliable ally of the Russians - Serbia. Regan presided over the collapse of the USSR and took the credit, but that is another of the media propaganda. The US has been slowly hammering at the Soviet Union right from the Eisenhower period and Regan won the accolades! The condition of Serbia where it has become moth eaten and the manner how the UDI by Kosovo has been engineered and given respectability inspite of there being no UN recognition is a salute to the ingenuity of the US.

People say that the WoT is a War against Islam. Is it? It is just an instrument to ensure US global presence in areas of concern to US interest. OBL has only assisted the US by providing the moral justification on a platter. In fact, if anyone is against the Islamic interests, it is OBL. He has unleashed the US on to fundamentalists and the fundamentalists are merely providing further justification!!

If the US was against Islam, would it promote the Mujahideens in Afghanistan against the USSR?

Would the US promote the rise of Islamic countries in the Christian areas like Europe? There are Islamic states mushrooming in Europe and to each is US patronage and sustenance!

So, it is a canard that the US is against Islam or the WoT is a War against Terror.

The bottomline is that US interests come first for the US Administrations and religion has no hindrance in furthering it with all zest and gusto.

Has Iraq been a failure or for that matter Afghanistan? Hardly. No insurgency can be snuffed out in a jiffy and Pakistan should be well aware of it. Has it been able to tame its areas where insurgency is strife? Even the fact that the adversaries are of the same religion ie the Pak Army and the insurgents has not encouraged the insurgents to halt their forays and mayhem against fellow Moslems. If that be so, then how can one expect the US to snuff out insurgency in a jiffy when the fundamentalists reject the existence of any religion but Islam and have Dar ul Islam the world over?

Hence, when Pakistan cannot curb their coreligionists inspite of Pakistan being an Islamic state with Moslems in their Army, it is not fair to expects miracles from the US.

However, that the US is prevailing in its mission is the conditions in Iraq, where they have brought the situation under some control from the days of chaos.

There is no reason to believe that the US will not be able to succeed similarly in Afghanistan.

The situation in Pakistan should indicate the power of the US and its far reaching influence. The all powerful Musharraf, who was the apple of the US eye has been slowly defanged and now made impotent - all through ostensibly fair means!! Could it be that Musharraf was flexing his muscles and not obeying the US in letter and spirit?

BB had been propped up and now her corrupt govt is playing the US Pied Piper. One would be in a Fools Paradise to feel that Nawaz Sharif will not toe the line. He had visited the US to salvage him in the Kargil War. If he were an adversary of the US, would he run hotfoot there?

Think it over.

One should pay attention to what Americans say and it is important one listens to the US through people like S - 2, the only American contributor to this forum.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Under the package, Pakistan used to get about $600 million, $300 million military assistance and $300 million in economic assistance.

US may stop direct budgetary support: Procedure for economic aid changed -DAWN - Top Stories; February 25, 2008

One has to just walk the financial walk and talk the talk to realise what will be the outcome if $600 million was less to spend.

What would it mean in terms of the military's operational clout and what would it mean in terms of economic and infrstructural growth?

Who would replace this shortfall? The Saudis? China? Are they in a position to do so? Saudis will want a quid pro quo in religious spread which will only add to Pakistan's woe while China is more concerned in closing the gap between herself and the US and will in no way abandon her national interest in pursuance the salvading of its most friendly nation.

The insurgency in the NWFP is not vanish and the problems in NA and Balochistan should it restart, then the situation will become real difficult.

Therefore, there is apparently no option but to hitch a ride on the US bandwagon.

 

[roadrunner]

One should pay attention to what Americans say and it is important one listens to the US through people like S - 2, the only American contributor to this forum.

That's all I managed to read of your post, sorry. But even that I didn't agree with. It's one contributor who doesn't represent all America, just one viewpoint, which may (or may not be) popular opinion. I caught a bit of the word unfairness in what you posted too, which is funny as it was he who's accusing others of racism and so on. I've found his posts on this thread to be pretty clueless, and I don't mind saying it. It's up to him to answer, or run off without answering.

 

[roadrunner]

One has to just walk the financial walk and talk the talk to realise what will be the outcome if $600 million was less to spend.

What would it mean in terms of the military's operational clout and what would it mean in terms of economic and infrstructural growth?

Who would replace this shortfall? The Saudis? China? Are they in a position to do so? Saudis will want a quid pro quo in religious spread which will only add to Pakistan's woe while China is more concerned in closing the gap between herself and the US and will in no way abandon her national interest in pursuance the salvading of its most friendly nation.

The insurgency in the NWFP is not vanish and the problems in NA and Balochistan should it restart, then the situation will become real difficult.

Therefore, there is apparently no option but to hitch a ride on the US bandwagon.

This is bs salim. Do you honestly believe, 600 million is going to make a bit of difference to an economy that grows by at least 5 or 6 billion each year? It's pittance. If Pakistan doesn't get 600 million, it's not going to make any difference..the economy will generate this much in 2 or 3 months.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

That's all I managed to read of your post, sorry. But even that I didn't agree with. It's one contributor who doesn't represent all America, just one viewpoint, which may (or may not be) popular opinion. I caught a bit of the word unfairness in what you posted too, which is funny as it was he who's accusing others of racism and so on. I've found his posts on this thread to be pretty clueless, and I don't mind saying it. It's up to him to answer, or run off without answering.

Soemthing is better than nothing!

and one can't really state that his posts are without rationale or only filled with blind jingoism!

If you want to know the US viewpoint, then just visit WAB. You will get a varied cross section!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

This is bs salim. Do you honestly believe, 600 million is going to make a bit of difference to an economy that grows by at least 5 or 6 billion each year? It's pittance. If Pakistan doesn't get 600 million, it's not going to make any difference..the economy will generate this much in 2 or 3 months.

It may not be much to a rich country and maybe you categorise Pakistan to be so. but $600 million is BIG money to many a country and that too when it is coming as a bonus!

Pakistan generates $ 600 million in 2 to 3 months?

Indeed, if it does, then why take it from the US and then use US arms and Pakistani troops to kill Moslems in NWFP, SATA, etc at the US bidding in the GWoT?

After all, the fundamentalists are merely asking for Dar ul Islam and nothing more!

 

[roadrunner]

Soemthing is better than nothing!

and one can't really state that his posts are without rationale or only filled with blind jingoism!

If you want to know the US viewpoint, then just visit WAB. You will get a varied cross section!

One forum is usually not so diverse. I've sampled WAB anyway, didn't like it, found the place rather dull and ignorant actually. So didn't bother going back.

 

[roadrunner]

It may not be much to a rich country and maybe you categorise Pakistan to be so. but $600 million is BIG money to many a country and that too when it is coming as a bonus!

Pakistan generates $ 600 million in 2 to 3 months?

It does indeed. It generates billions in new GDP every year. 600 million isn't going to make any difference to this. Even without the 600 million, Pakistan's economy would grow by billions every year (though perhaps not so much now that the criminals are in power).

Indeed, if it does, then why take it from the US and then use Moslem troops to kill Moslems in NWFP, SATA, etc at the US bidding in the GWoT?

Two reasons 1) The "Muslims" are blowing up bombs in Pakistan
2) The US would bomb if Pakistan did not.

I hope you can understand these two very simple reasons. It has nothing to do with a mere 600 million dollars.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It does indeed. It generates billions in new GDP every year. 600 million isn't going to make any difference to this. Even without the 600 million, Pakistan's economy would grow by billions every year (though perhaps not so much now that the criminals are in power).

Are you suggesting that Pakistan generates $ 600 million in 2 to 3 months? If so, think again!

Pakistan's economy is growing and of that there is no doubt, but that feel good feeling should not lead to daydreams just to force a point of view that is unrealistic and airy fairy! But then, I sure would love to be proved wrong.

No excuses are needed. If criminals have come to power, then it appears that Pakistanis want them and you will have to grin and bear it without finding excuses. How do you make it out that they are criminals? I am told that they have not been found guilty and they claim that the charges are trumped up and that is why they have been acquitted. Of course, I concede that where there is smoke, there has to be a fire!

Two reasons 1) The "Muslims" are blowing up bombs in Pakistan
2) The US would bomb if Pakistan did not.

I hope you can understand these two very simple reasons. It has nothing to do with a mere 600 million dollars

.

Well, as they say Tariq dhaurati hai.

The Frankenstein returns to plague its inventor.

Don't blame the Moslems.

The US will bomb Pakistan? And so, Pakistan has to kowtow? Hardly honorable a reason.

Further, the US may target and bomb NWFP, FATA, but would they have any good reason to bomb Pakistan elsewhere?

I am of the firm opinion that one should not take Pakistan and its Armed Forces to be a pack of cards that it will fold up and so the country should give up its ghost!

I, in turn, hope that you understand the simple reasons as to why your reply does not quite meet the bill.