ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Yeah, there is no free meal from the USA. 
US suspends military aid to Pakistan. Military says it doesn't need it.
- Thread starter American Pakistani
- Start date
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Yeah, there is no free meal from the USA.
Welcome to the reality son.There is no free meal period, be it US, China or India.
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
I don't doubt you are perfectly correct...but I view it the same way you would if I came on and cheered when Pakistani soldiers were attacked, and I am a vet.
Xestan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,455
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Gold to back it up? Attend an economics class. The produtivity of the US backs it up, far better than gold. And as far as gold, we got plenty of that too.
(all the gold mined in history would amount to approx. 7.5 trillion at todays price, not even enough to cover US economy. If gold-back currency was still the norm, the world economy would be as in the dark ages, we would all be serfs living in huts.)
(we not only hold our gold, but Germany's and several other nation's)
newdelhinsa
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,923
- Reaction score
- -2
Its not Haram ka maal (money). Its someone else's hard earned money.
You will die untimely if this aid stops. The Guardian chart posted by Asim tells the history of all aid USA has provided so far and it hasn't mentioned the aid provided by US allies like UK etc.
You are commenting with a view that this aid comes without Pakistani policy makers not lobbying for it i.e just dropping from the sky?
Also the decision is made by US not Pakistan therefore i can not see scope of any high moral standing here for Pakistan; but you are trying to make though.
As far as this particular US pressure tactic is concerned then i would say its another failed pressure. Or its just me who is underestimating USA's audit capability of Civilian aid she is providing to Pakistan.
Xestan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,455
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I would agree with you but then I see how China had helped us in the most difficult times, forget it man, you wont understand!
Ofcourse it has. But not because it is your "friend". Why is China your "friend"? That is million dollar question isn't it?
mirage 5000
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 941
- Reaction score
- 0
Less US military aid to Pakistan harms relations, not army
Reuters
Yesterday
A Pakistani paramilitary soldier secure an area as other troops move toward a forward base during a military operation against militants in Pakistan’s Khurram tribal region, Saturday, July 9, 2011. – AP Photo
ISLAMABAD: A US decision to suspend $800 million in military aid to Pakistan is more likely to drive the wedge between the troubled allies deeper than compel the military to fight harder against Taliban and al-Qaeda linked militants on its territory.
White House Chief of Staff William Daley confirmed on Sunday a New York Times report that the Obama administration had held off a third of $2 billion in security aid in a show of displeasure over Pakistan’s cutback of US military trainers, limits on visa for US personnel and other bilateral irritants.
The United States provides about $300 million a year to reimburse Pakistan for deploying more than 100,000 troops along the Afghan border to combat militant groups, the the Times said.
Other funding covers training and military hardware.
It would be damaging to the relationship if Washington held back on these funds, said Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, retired major-general Mehmood Durrani said, reflecting a widespread view in Pakistan that it was fighting America’s war, and Washington must pay for it.
“This is something that they have to pay, and if they don’t then it’s breach of agreement and breach of trust.”
DOWNWARD SPIRAL
The US-Pakistan relationship has been on a downward spiral since last year, but the decline accelerated after the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in Lahore in January and the US raid to kill Osama bin Laden, which Pakistan complains it was not told about and says was a breach of its sovereignty.
Pakistan has demanded the number of US military personnel in Pakistan be slashed, and the US has complied. Pakistan also wants to cut the number of US intelligence officials.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month that Washington is not prepared to continue the same levels of military aid to Pakistan unless it sees some changes in the relationship.
Washington wants the Pakistan military to cut ties with the militant groups it has nurtured in the past, and launch ground operations in its North Waziristan region, now a hub of militants from around the world.
Pakistan says it is doing all it can to fight militants, including a deadly militancy at home which has left thousands dead.
Ayesha Siddiqa, an expert on the Pakistan military, downplayed the military impact of the cuts, saying it was not “substantial enough to immediately change policy.”
“Is it going to majorly undermine operations? I don’t think so.”
The US cutback may, however, influence the Pakistanis to do the exact opposite of what the Americans are pushing them to do, Siddiqa said.
The decrease in training, spare parts and specialised equipment might push the Pakistani military to negotiate with groups rather than fight them, she said.
“If the partnership frays,” she said. “Pakistan is no longer seen as fighting America’s war. You can negotiate with militant groups then.”
But, she added, that would only be to seek breathing room while the army recalibrates the balancing act it has maintained for a decade: Stage enough military operations to keep anti-Pakistan militants off-balance (and US money flowing in) but avoid going all out against militant groups targeting allied troops in Afghanistan.
“There will be no major change of strategy.”
ECONOMIC IMPACT
But while the military could weather the storm, Pakistan’s economy might be hit if Washington holds back on what is called the Coalition Support Fund.
The CSF is not aid, but reimbursements for money already spent on military operations, and it goes into the general treasury. So holding back these payments won’t hurt the military, but would strain the country’s finances further at a time when it is battling a deep downturn.
This is part of a high-stakes stand-off between the United States and Pakistan, Siddiqa said. Washington has given up on winning Pakistani hearts and minds and is now counting on Pakistan’s precarious financial situation to bring it onside.
“America understands that Pakistan needs money,” she said. “Pakistan is insolvent. It cannot disengage (from the United States), so eventually it will turn around.”
“Military aid is just an indicator of what American can do,” she added. “If they pull back economic aid as well, everything else would dry up, including the multilaterals.”
Negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, which is propping up Pakistan’s economy with a $11 billion loan programme, could be affected.
“The short-term effect would be more political than economic because it sends out a negative signal that Pakistan and US relations are not going well at this moment,” said Asif Qureshi, director at Invisor Securities Ltd.
US support was pivotal to securing an agreement in November 2008 for an $11 billion IMF loan to financially-strapped Pakistan. In August 2010, the IMF stopped releasing funds because of Pakistan’s patchy implementation of fiscal reforms the government promised.
Less US military aid to Pakistan harms relations, not army | Pakistan | DAWN.COM
Reuters
Yesterday
A Pakistani paramilitary soldier secure an area as other troops move toward a forward base during a military operation against militants in Pakistan’s Khurram tribal region, Saturday, July 9, 2011. – AP Photo
ISLAMABAD: A US decision to suspend $800 million in military aid to Pakistan is more likely to drive the wedge between the troubled allies deeper than compel the military to fight harder against Taliban and al-Qaeda linked militants on its territory.
White House Chief of Staff William Daley confirmed on Sunday a New York Times report that the Obama administration had held off a third of $2 billion in security aid in a show of displeasure over Pakistan’s cutback of US military trainers, limits on visa for US personnel and other bilateral irritants.
The United States provides about $300 million a year to reimburse Pakistan for deploying more than 100,000 troops along the Afghan border to combat militant groups, the the Times said.
Other funding covers training and military hardware.
It would be damaging to the relationship if Washington held back on these funds, said Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, retired major-general Mehmood Durrani said, reflecting a widespread view in Pakistan that it was fighting America’s war, and Washington must pay for it.
“This is something that they have to pay, and if they don’t then it’s breach of agreement and breach of trust.”
DOWNWARD SPIRAL
The US-Pakistan relationship has been on a downward spiral since last year, but the decline accelerated after the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in Lahore in January and the US raid to kill Osama bin Laden, which Pakistan complains it was not told about and says was a breach of its sovereignty.
Pakistan has demanded the number of US military personnel in Pakistan be slashed, and the US has complied. Pakistan also wants to cut the number of US intelligence officials.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month that Washington is not prepared to continue the same levels of military aid to Pakistan unless it sees some changes in the relationship.
Washington wants the Pakistan military to cut ties with the militant groups it has nurtured in the past, and launch ground operations in its North Waziristan region, now a hub of militants from around the world.
Pakistan says it is doing all it can to fight militants, including a deadly militancy at home which has left thousands dead.
Ayesha Siddiqa, an expert on the Pakistan military, downplayed the military impact of the cuts, saying it was not “substantial enough to immediately change policy.”
“Is it going to majorly undermine operations? I don’t think so.”
The US cutback may, however, influence the Pakistanis to do the exact opposite of what the Americans are pushing them to do, Siddiqa said.
The decrease in training, spare parts and specialised equipment might push the Pakistani military to negotiate with groups rather than fight them, she said.
“If the partnership frays,” she said. “Pakistan is no longer seen as fighting America’s war. You can negotiate with militant groups then.”
But, she added, that would only be to seek breathing room while the army recalibrates the balancing act it has maintained for a decade: Stage enough military operations to keep anti-Pakistan militants off-balance (and US money flowing in) but avoid going all out against militant groups targeting allied troops in Afghanistan.
“There will be no major change of strategy.”
ECONOMIC IMPACT
But while the military could weather the storm, Pakistan’s economy might be hit if Washington holds back on what is called the Coalition Support Fund.
The CSF is not aid, but reimbursements for money already spent on military operations, and it goes into the general treasury. So holding back these payments won’t hurt the military, but would strain the country’s finances further at a time when it is battling a deep downturn.
This is part of a high-stakes stand-off between the United States and Pakistan, Siddiqa said. Washington has given up on winning Pakistani hearts and minds and is now counting on Pakistan’s precarious financial situation to bring it onside.
“America understands that Pakistan needs money,” she said. “Pakistan is insolvent. It cannot disengage (from the United States), so eventually it will turn around.”
“Military aid is just an indicator of what American can do,” she added. “If they pull back economic aid as well, everything else would dry up, including the multilaterals.”
Negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, which is propping up Pakistan’s economy with a $11 billion loan programme, could be affected.
“The short-term effect would be more political than economic because it sends out a negative signal that Pakistan and US relations are not going well at this moment,” said Asif Qureshi, director at Invisor Securities Ltd.
US support was pivotal to securing an agreement in November 2008 for an $11 billion IMF loan to financially-strapped Pakistan. In August 2010, the IMF stopped releasing funds because of Pakistan’s patchy implementation of fiscal reforms the government promised.
Less US military aid to Pakistan harms relations, not army | Pakistan | DAWN.COM
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
the only difference here is that those people AM talks about view (not just the US but NATO) occupation of Afghanistan as a hostile act --one which has brought an unprecendented war-like situation in the backyard of Pakistan and one which has exacerbated rather than alleviated the cancer of terrorism
mirage 5000
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 941
- Reaction score
- 0
thats your fault dear . read china pak relations simply .
And what exactly that relationship is based on?
Similar threads
