"The bulk of the 'aid' Pakistan is receiving is going towards reimbursement of logistical and operational expenses. As such it is not exactly 'aid'.
The US is paying us for services rendered, and what we do with teh money afterwords is our business.
A smaller section of the 'aid package' is actually aid for budgetary support and military assistance I believe, but I do not believe the Bush administration attached conditions to that aid in terms of how it was to be utilized.
Lets get facts and figures correct please, there is a lot of misleading and half true information in the media on this issue"
Let's do so indeed.
Richard Boucher before the Senate on December 6, 2007-
"The United States is seeking to help Pakistanis build an economically healthy, stable and democratic Pakistan. To this end, since 2002 we have provided economic assistance totaling $2.4 billion dollars. These funds have supported education reform, including training teacher in modern teaching techniques, building schools in the Tribal Areas, providing scholarships and fostering science and technology cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan. We have also funded governance programs designed to assist independent radio, reform political parties, train Parliament members in drafting laws, strengthen Pakistan’s Election Commission, promoted grass roots service delivery and reduce gender-based violence. U.S.-funded economic growth programs have, among other things, worked to improve the competitiveness of Pakistani businesses, provided micro-finance and encouraged more effective agriculture techniques. We have also supported refugee programs and funded rebuilding efforts following the 2005 earthquake.
Fighting terrorism is, of course, a preeminent goal of U.S. policy in Pakistan. In support of that goal, since 2002 the United States has provided security assistance to Pakistan totaling $1.9 billion. This has included $1.2 billion in Foreign Military Financing, $244 million in Department of State counter-narcotics funding and $87 million in Department of Defense counter-narcotics funding and $37.2 million in Section 1206 counter-terrorism funding. These funds have been used to help Pakistan prosecute the War on Terror along the Pakistan-Afghan border. This money has gone to purchase tactical radios, TOW missiles, Bell 412 and COBRA helicopters, and night-vision goggles. In addition, we provide counter-insurgency training, improve counter-insurgency strike capability and train more effective Pakistani military leaders. Another purchase under Foreign Military Financing -- P-C3C Orion aircraft -- is crucial for maritime surveillance and Pakistan’s participation in and leadership of Combined Task Force-150 patrolling the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Sea. In addition, we have provided $5.3 billion in Coalition Support Funds to reimburse Pakistan for expenses incurred in the War on Terror.
The United States has also recently begun to implement a five-year, $750 million development strategy for Pakistan’s frontier region that supports the Government of Pakistan’s nine-year, $2 billion program for the Tribal Areas’ sustainable development."
By my count, we've contributed civil and military aid EQUAL to disbursed coalition support funds through December 2007 according to this testimony-
Boucher Testimony: U.S. Foreign Assistance to Pakistan-U.S. Dept. of State
Here is testimony from the same sub-committee hearings by Lawrence Kolb that casts a slightly different light than Boucher-
Kolb Testimony: U.S. Foreign Assistance to Pakistan
Both are undeniable, though, in the sheer magnitude of our aid effort to Pakistan.
Finally, let's discuss "reimbursements". The notion of paying for services rendered is fine where it to be argued that your nation has no personal stake in this conflict. However, the outcome of this conflict does and has always been of critical importance to Pakistan. As such, actions conducted on behalf of WoT for which you've received reimbursement have, in many cases, benefited yourselves.
You've been subsidized for costs that you'd likely have incurred to some degree anyway to defend your nation- if doing so against all threats and not just India matters. The only argument which I could see is the suggestion that Pakistan had the luxury to opt out and, doing so, would have engendered no consequence to it's security.
Such a suggestion would have been rendered null the day in November 2001 that the first taliban/A.Q. began trickling into FATA/Baluchistan.
Our aid has been considerable and is likely to increase. I hope with any increase that we see a shift in emphasis but I recognize that security in FATA/Baluchistan/N.A./NWFP must be sufficient to permit civil aid to be established and sustained.
.
