Bush uses anti-terror funds to strengthen Pakistan air force

[pkpatriotic]

Bush uses anti-terror funds to strengthen Pakistan air force | World news | The Guardian
Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Friday July 25 2008
The Bush administration faced Congressional criticism yesterday for diverting funds from Pakistan's faltering fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida to pay instead for upgrades of its US-built F-16 combat planes.

With increased fighting in Afghanistan, much originating with forces based in Pakistan's north-west, members of Congress questioned how the switch to the planes, intended mainly as a counter to the Indian air force, would contribute to quelling the insurgency.

The White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, yesterday insisted: "The F-16s are used in counter-terrorism operations. We made them available to the Pakistanis, and they need to be maintained."

There is no record of the F-16s being much used in the tribal areas, mainly because Pakistan fears civilian deaths would increase hostility to its forces.

Nita Lowey, the Democrat who heads the House state and foreign operations committee, said: "Congress provided these funds specifically for counter-terrorism and law enforcement. It is incumbent on the state department and Pakistan to demonstrate clearly how these F-16s would be used to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban in order to get congressional support."

Almost $230m (£115m) in aid earmarked for counter-terrorism has been shifted to modernise the F-16s, built by Lockheed Martin, out of a total $300m budget the US gives Pakistan for military purposes.

The move puts George Bush at odds with Congress, which last year passed legislation specifying the money be used for counter-terrorism or law-enforcement.

Both the Pentagon and Democratic members of Congress, as well as the Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, would like to see Pakistan's new government pursue a more aggressive strategy along the border, and argue fighting on the ground, supported by good intelligence, is more effective than air attacks. Democrats have hinted that, if Pakistan does not act, US forces will cross from Afghanistan.

The switch comes ahead of a visit by Pakistan's prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, to Washington next week. President Bush phoned India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to explain the decision, Perino said. Singh expressed disappointment, an Indian government spokesman said.

Speculation in Washington varied on the White House's motive, ranging from an incentive for Pakistan to pursue insurgents, to helping Lockheed.

A state department official said the timing was dictated by a need to pay Lockheed by the end of July. "This shift comes about as a result of a request from the Pakistan government, partly because of their cash-flow problems and partly because they are re-evaluating the equipment they need to fight the war on terror. Nato forces use F-16s right across the border ... in Afghanistan for similar purposes; and frankly, Pakistan has already used its F-16s in sorties against terrorist targets," an official said. "So it's a legitimate use, and it supports a democratic government."

 

[IceCold]

i wonder why Singh has has expressed disappointment? Should be an eye opener for the new government that despite of all the Love and affection expressed, the truth is that India see's Pakistan as a threat.
But anyways coming back to the topic, i think its a bad move on part of the GOP. It will raise alot of eyebrows in the congress specially considering the fact that the next president will be a democratic one, most probably Obama and the way he thinks about Pakistan, it wouldn't be a surprise if F-16s goes down the toilet drain.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Dear Icecold, I really appreciate your broad vision & realistic approach

 

[Munir]

I do not understand that selling nuclear tech to a non proliferation nation is less dangerous then selling outdated planes (it is clearly not F22/JSF) to another which has to fight a war against terror... Who is really disappointed?

 

[Vinod2070]

Lawmakers Scold Administration Over F-16 Sale to Pakistan » FAS Strategic Security Blog

Lawmakers Scold Administration Over F-16 Sale to Pakistan

Arms Trade, Matt Schroeder, Pakistan

At Thursday’s hearing on the sale of 36 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, Assistant Secretary of State John Hillen endured tongue-lashings from several members of the House International Relations Committee (HIRC), who objected to the manner in which his bureau has managed the $5.1 billion arms package. Of particular concern was the administration’s unilateral decision to waive the customary 20-day pre-notification for major arms sales, which many members viewed as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the committee’s authority. The decision – and the confrontation it provoked – could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Congressional oversight of arms sales but also several key State Department initiatives.

Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) set the stage by calling the administration’s decision to waive the pre-notification a “deliberate and wholly inappropriate maneuver to diminish Congress’ lawful oversight of arms sales.” He vowed to “take all appropriate actions to prevent the reoccurrence of the flouting of the Arms Export Control Act.” Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, was equally resolute. “[T]his outrage will not stand,” he declared during his opening statement, “Our oversight of arms sales will not be compromised.”

Under the Arms Export Control Act, the Departments of State and Defense are required to notify Congress 30 days in advance (15 days for NATO countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) of arms sales that exceed certain dollar value thresholds. To ensure that Congress and the administration are on the same page when the formal (public) notification is submitted, a 20-day pre-notification period was established. The pre-notification period helps to prevent embarrassing public confrontations over arms sales, which reflect poorly on the administration and alienate recipient governments. The State Department decided to forego pre-notification after its third unsuccessful attempt to receive a waiver from the HIRC.

Dr. Hillen defended the administration’s handling of the sale, asserting that the level of cooperation with Congress had been “unprecedented.” According to the Assistant Secretary, the State Department has provided several briefings to HIRC members, shared highly sensitive executive branch documents with them, and invited them on trips to Pakistan. Waiving the 20-day pre-notification period, asserted Dr. Hillen, allows the two countries to sign an agreement this calendar year, allowing Pakistan to avoid price increases.

He also defended the arms package itself. The weapons, claimed Dr. Hillen, would give the US “access and influence” to the Pakistani government, allowing them to “shape the choices of a country at the crossroads.” It would also strengthen Pakistan’s ability to fight the War on Terrorism, improve interoperability between the US and Pakistani militaries, and satisfy Pakistan’s “legitimate self-defense needs.” He concluded by assuring the committee that the pre-notification waiver was “not intended to be a pattern.”

Rather than placating committee members, Dr. Hillen’s statement seemed to aggravate them, particularly Rep. Lantos. In a tense exchange with the Assistant Secretary, the ranking Democrat berated him for refusing to admit that the pre-notification waiver was “a colossal mistake,” and complained bitterly about the State Department’s inability to answer even basic questions during briefings and about long delays in responding to the committee’s concerns. Other members also railed against the sale, calling attention to Pakistan’s poor human rights record, the military coup that brought President Musharraf to power, the danger of diversion of sensitive US military technology to China, and the Pakistani government’s refusal to give US investigators access to AQ Khan, who led a nuclear proliferation ring that delivered blueprints and hardware for nuclear weapons to North Korea, Iran and Libya.

The hearing was significant for several reasons. First, Dr. Hillen revealed details of the plan for safeguarding defense trade technology exported to Pakistan – information that is rarely made public. According to the Assistant Secretary, the plan requires
· site surveys and end-use monitoring, including annual inventories of all equipment related to the F-16s, by US officials;
· dedicated facilities for storage of spare parts and maintenance;
· strict limitations on access to the planes;
· complete segregation of the F-16s from third country-origin aircraft;
· express permission from the US government before Pakistan can fly the planes outside of its own airspace;
· full compliance with the security plan before the planes, weapons and equipment can be delivered.

Secondly, the hearing – and the legislation that has (and will) follow – is a dramatic counter-example of the passivity and abrogation of oversight responsibility that critics of Congress assert has plagued the body during the Bush Administration. In fact, HIRC has provided many such counter-examples over the past few years. In 2004, Rep. Hyde teamed up with Duncan Hunter, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, to kill two key Bush Administration initiatives aimed at loosening US arms export controls. In May of that year, they published a scathing report on the Bush Administration’s proposal to exempt the UK and Australia from licensing requirements for commercial arms exports. The report, and the threat of public hearings similar to the one on Thursday, prompted the administration to abandon the proposal. Similarly, the committee’s tenacious opposition to National Security Presidential Directive 19 – a secretive plan to revise US defense trade controls launched by the Bush Administration in 2002 – led to its demise last year.

Reps Hyde and Lantos have already introduced a bill (H.R. 5847) aimed at “reinforce[ing] longstanding oversight practices,” and more legislation is on the way. Rep. Ackerman has pledged to introduce a resolution of disapproval that, if passed by veto-proof majorities in both chambers, would block most of the sale. The chances of passing such a resolution in less than a week are slim to none, however. More modest but also more realistic is a resolution planned by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that would nullify the sales notifications submitted in late June, which would force the administration to resubmit the notification and (presumably) honor the 20-day pre-notification requirement.

Finally, the hearing does not bode well for Dr. Hillen’s “ten strategic initiatives,” two of which involve defense trade controls. The Assistant Secretary announced the initiatives at the annual meeting of the Defense Trade Advisory Group in April, well before the dust up over the F-16 sale. Any significant changes to the arms export process require at least the tacit cooperation of the HIRC. If Thursday’s hearing is any indicator, the trust and goodwill that are required for such initiatives are now in short supply on the Hill.

So they are really serious about the intended usage. Good to know.

 

[IceCold]

I do not understand that selling nuclear tech to a non proliferation nation is less dangerous then selling outdated planes (it is clearly not F22/JSF) to another which has to fight a war against terror... Who is really disappointed?

Lets not forget that the word "MUSLIM" comes with us. But i for one believe that why are we just lying on the floor to get these things. We have an option other then those damn F-16s but for some reason our top brass likes to keep the nation begging and in turn let others take undue advantage of the situation. Same stands for the nuclear.

 

[Munir]

I doubt any nation will ask the seller to use its weapons offensive... What about MKI leaving borders without its radar? Not only will IAF stop that but much more the original seller will force that.

Pakistan has been dumped so often when using its weapons so it is pretty obvious why its shifts towards JF17 and FC20... So the F16 will indeed be very handy to seek and destroy foreign terrorists inside Pakistan and pretty handy to stop any MKI cross the border... They have babur and BMS for soing the real dirty job, be it conventional, chemical or nuclear. Faster, more precise and difficult to stop. I would not offer A5 or F16 for that...

 

[pkpatriotic]

Lets not forget that the word "MUSLIM" comes with us. But i for one believe that why are we just lying on the floor to get these things. We have an option other then those damn F-16s but for some reason our top brass likes to keep the nation begging and in turn let others take undue advantage of the situation. Same stands for the nuclear.

Well Said IceCold..

 

[EagleEyes]

Well, we have a very strong support in the U.S. government. There are tid-bits of purchased lunatics, but they cant really do anything other than expressing concern.

 

[Neo]

US counter-terror funds and F-16s​

EDITORIAL (July 27 2008): The US decision to shift some $230 million from its counter-terrorism funds to allow Pakistan upgrade its ageing F-16 fighter jets is being portrayed as a big favour, which is an exaggeration of sorts. According to a New York Times report, it is a way for the administration to curry favour with the new Pakistani government, and to ease tension over the killing last month of 11 FC soldiers in an American air strike.

Briefing journalists, the State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos talked of Pakistan's current economic difficulties, including rising food and fuel prices, as he went on to say that the administration decided to assist "this ally and friend of ours" shifting foreign military financing which was already allocated to Pakistan for other military equipment.

He further explained, "basically, what we did was we shifted funds from one set of anti-terrorism projects, one set of airframes, to a different set." Sensing deficiencies in the earlier airframes project, it seems, those concerned undertook a fresh exercise to strengthen and modernise Pakistan's potential to fight a new kind of war.

The thought of Pakistan acquiring modernised F-16s has alarmed those who worry about any possibility of annoying India. Some influential legislators in Washington have already started raising questions as to whether it is a good way to help Pakistan combat al Qaeda and the Taliban, also brandishing the threat that the move may not get the requisite support in Congress.

Some of their concern may be valid considering a point the NYT report raised. Pakistan, it says, has rarely used its current fleet of F-16s, built in the 1980s, in counter-terrorism operations largely because the risks of civilian casualties would inflame anti-government sentiments in Fata. Nonetheless, it may also mean that the old fleet is not suited to the situation at hand.

Various Western experts have been repeatedly saying that Pakistan military, one of the world's most disciplined ones, is trained to fight conventional war with its traditional enemy, India, and that it lacks the capability to pursue counter-terrorism operations.

In order to take on the extremists in the troubled tribal areas effectively, they argue, it needs to have a new orientation and, of course, new equipment, too. As the State Department spokesman elucidated, the present 'arrangement' involves advanced avionics and radar upgrades, communication and targeting systems that enable real time communication with ground forces. All these elements play a pivotal role in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations.

That, apparently, is the reason why the US did not hesitate to transfer the necessary funds from its counter-terrorism account to a project that is aimed at enhancing the fighting capability of its 'major non-Nato ally' and principal partner in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban. This supposedly generous offer is certainly welcome, but it must not be seen in isolation from the US's own objectives in the area.

Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

F 16 is an odd choice for fighting terrorism

It could be that they expect Pakistan to use it to kill Mehsud and gangs en mass!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Lets not forget that the word "MUSLIM" comes with us. But i for one believe that why are we just lying on the floor to get these things. We have an option other then those damn F-16s but for some reason our top brass likes to keep the nation begging and in turn let others take undue advantage of the situation. Same stands for the nuclear.

Ice,

You should be practical.

Will religion feed you or protect you?

Every Islamic country while professing Islam is but an ally of the US except maybe Syria and surely Iran. Both are Shia countries.

Why should Pakistan stand on religion and bring problems upon themselves and more so on its people?

Webmaster,

Technically Bush cannot transfer anti terror funds for non anti terror equipment.

But then Bush is capable of miracles!

He is the new Saviour who has come to Earth!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

F 16 is an odd choice for fighting terrorism

It could be that they expect Pakistan to use it to kill Mehsud and gangs en mass!

"American aircraft have dropped 40% more bombs—646 bombs and missiles were used in June alone."

"American ground commanders immediately called in artillery and airstrikes from a B-1 bomber, as well as A-10 and F-15E attack planes. Apache helicopter gunships and a remotely piloted Predator aircraft fired Hellfire missiles at the insurgents, military officials said."

A better question for NATO ...

 

[blain2]

So they are really serious about the intended usage. Good to know.

Operationally speaking, there is nothing holding Pakistan back from using these aircraft as and when it needs to.

 

[blain2]

I think its perfectly clear and known to the Congress that the purpose of the F-16s is not for Counter Terrorism operations alone. Pakistan has a gap in its air defence environment and the Americans are helping out with that. Congress can say what it wants to, but Pakistan lives in a tough neighborhood where it has to face off the Indian Air Force...if the Americans don't provide this capability, Pakistan will look elsewhere and already is. I think the Congress realizes that having a basic conventional balance in South Asia in everyone's interest. Privately most of the Congress understands this, however there are the usual Indian Caucus stars who have to get their two cents of disagreement in.

Also in the case of a future democratic government, I think the Americans will continue along with the F-16 program. Pakistan will lose some if they cut these off, but they lose more in the long run.