What's new

Bush uses anti-terror funds to strengthen Pakistan air force

How do you know that the doctrine is nothing alike? Can't Pakistan not be working to get to a similar Air-land doctrine where the infantry units on the ground can call upon the PAF for strikes? I already know that FACs with the units are integrated...this is going on for Cobra operations so why not for the PAF?
This has more to do with money than anything else. For developing nations these sorts of operations just aren't economically feasible; heck the cost of an LGB is way higher than what many officers make in a year let along putting it on an aircraft and have it circling around all day long just in case if it needs to be called in. Also, there aren't constant air/space borne assets like UAVs and complex satellite networks offering total coverage, and most of all human life is far more expendable. I'm not saying that there are no back up air strikes using precision guided munition; sure there are; but unlike in the cases of US and most other NATO forces its not the standard operating procedure.
For the Pakistan forces to effectively combat this problem they will have to rely more on their manpower and have a high number of boots on the ground. But this is only half the problem, what is far more urgent is for the people to be given healthy alternatives to radicalism.

Neo said:
I disagree on the 'rental state' part. US' handouts come under EDA programme as reward for our support in WoT, we're partners helping eachother.
Pakistan is in transition and no longer depends on US' weapons, China's ready to fill in the gap. Thats exactly the reason why we're getting US weapons without being compromising our integrity.
We'll never be in position of sebservience the way we did a decade ago.
In all honesty I do not see this happening any time soon. Pakistan is fairly indebted to the US, and IMO it would be just as bad if they were to hurry up and attempt to replace one benefactor with another (China). Mind you, I'm highly against the US having rental states in the first place, only because except for a few atypical examples (Japan, West Germany and maybe the UAE), most client states have ended up becoming problematic, and hotbeds of crime and radicalism (primarily on account of disenchantment with puppet governments). It is going to take a lot of time and effort for Pakistan to move away from this position. There are no quick fixes. My point is that if aid is to be sought in the mean time, it'd much rather be diverted to the social sector than anything else.
 
Last edited:
.
Pakistani F-16 upgrade will not affect counterinsurgency funding, says US
The US State Department has denied that the financing of mid-life upgrades for Pakistan's F-16 fleet will divert funds away from counterinsurgency operations against the Taliban.

Acting Deputy Spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos confirmed in a 24 July briefing that USD226 million-USD227 million of the USD300 million equipment and training budget earmarked for Pakistan in 2008 was destined for the F-16s.

However, he said that this money "was already allocated for other updates on different airframes in Pakistan" and that the work would help Pakistan to "effectively [employ] these aircraft in support of ground operations against terrorist groups".

Explaining what the upgrade would involve, Gallegos said: "What we're looking at is advanced avionics and radar upgrades, and communications and targeting systems that will enable real-time communication with ground forces that will generate ground position data that can be used to direct guided munitions to a target."

The US Congress requires that the USD300 million be spent on counterterrorism and law enforcement, leading to questions about whether Pakistan was actually using its F-16s to launch airstrikes against terrorist targets, rather than simply as a counterweight against India.

Caption: The US is expecting Pakistan to use its F-16s to strike Taliban targets in return for funding mid-life upgrades (Jane's/Patrick Allen)

I wonder which news is more worrisome for indians!
 
.
US Congress acts to suspend bid to upgrade Pakistan fighter fleet

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress moved Tuesday to suspend a bid by President George W. Bush's administration to shift millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Islamabad's F-16 fighter jets.

"We have requested a hold on the administration's planned reprogramming pending additional information," said a joint statement by Democratic lawmakers Howard Berman and Nita Lowey, who head key panels in the House of Representatives.

"We are concerned that the administration's proposal to use military assistance to pay for the F-16 upgrades will divert funds from more effective counterterrorism tools like helicopters, TOW missiles, and night-vision goggles," said Berman, chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, and Lowey, chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee on foreign programs.

The White House said last week that it wanted to shift 230 million dollars in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Pakistan's aging F-16 fighter jets.

The move, it said, was aimed at easing fiscal pressures faced by the Pakistani government stemming partly from soaring food and energy costs.

US lawmakers were reportedly angered by the move.

They felt that Pakistan did not use its F-16s in support of the campaign against fighters in its remote tribal areas out of a fear that civilian casualties could fuel support for extremists.

US President George W. Bush held talks with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Monday focused on cooperation to fight Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists and easing Pakistan-Afghanistan tensions.

Gilani, whose new government has been facing intense US pressure to crack down on Pakistan-based militants, told reporters after the meeting that Pakistan was committed to fighting extremists.

The package for the F-16 fighters would run about two-thirds of the 300 million dollars that Pakistan will get this year in US aid for military equipment and training, the Times said.

The 2008 fiscal year state and foreign operations bill that passed Congress last December specifically required that military aid to Pakistan be used for counter-terrorism and law enforcement activities directed against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, according to lawmakers Berman and Lowey.

The hold requested by the legislature would "provide time for Congress to make a more considered judgment in consultation with the administration and the government of Pakistan," their statement said.

Requests for a hold by lawmakers are usually abided by the administration, congressional aides said.

Berman and Lowey also said that they were proposing that Congress provide 200 million dollars in economic assistance to Islamabad to relieve some of Pakistan's budgetary constraints.

"This will help Pakistan set its own spending priorities while preserving US military aid for its intended purpose -- counterterrorism activities against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban."

"We are committed to helping Pakistan's new democratic government address the current economic crisis, brought on by rising food and fuel prices, which has impacted its ability to fund its F-16 upgrades," the lawmakers said.

Meanwhile, a key US Senate panel unanimously passed a bill Tuesday tripling non-military aid to Pakistan and sustaining it over at least five years.

The legislation, which cleared the Senate foreign relations committee, authorizes 7.5 billion dollars over five years in aid that can be used for development purposes, such as building schools, roads and clinics.

"This legislation represents a bold new strategy for Pakistan," said committee chairman Democratic Senator Joseph Biden.

The bill also imposes greater accountability on security assistance to improve Pakistani counterterrorism capabilities.

US Congress acts to suspend bid to upgrade Pakistan fighter fleet - Yahoo! News
 
.
The US has a mixed response to Paksitan.

Paksitan is important to the US and yet with the AQ Khan fiasco, they are apprehensive.

The runaway Talibans add to their apprehension.

Yet, Pakistan is an important piece in the US strategic jigsaw. It remains a puzzle!
 
.
The US has a mixed response to Paksitan.

Paksitan is important to the US and yet with the AQ Khan fiasco, they are apprehensive.

The runaway Talibans add to their apprehension.

Yet, Pakistan is an important piece in the US strategic jigsaw. It remains a puzzle!

I agree. Diversion of funds to finance $220 million upgrade on some of the F-16's may have been denied, the non military assistance programme got thru. :tup:

US Committee unanimously okays $15 billion Pakistan aid

WASHINGTON: July 30, 2008: The U.S. Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday unanimously approved the Biden-Lugar bill, committing 15 billion dollars of development assistance to Pakistan over next decade. The action took place on the occasion of the visit of Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to Washington D.C. and his efforts with the US Congress and the President of the United Sates on behalf of the legislation.

Pakistan's envoy to the United States Husain Haqqani said "the government and people of Pakistan are grateful to the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their unanimous, bipartisan and broad vote in support of Pakistani democracy".

"Today's action by the Committee heralds a new day in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan, a relationship that will be founded on mutual interest and mutual values, an economic partnership that transcends political and military relations and directly impacts the life of the people of Pakistan," he added.

"We are especially grateful to the leadership and vision of Senators Biden, Lugar, Kerry and Hagel. The fifteen billion dollar commitment to the long term development of a prosperous and stable Pakistan, is a dramatic expression of the confidence and support of the United States Congress in the future of democracy in Pakistan," Haqqani said.

US Committee unanimously okays $15 billion Pakistan aid : Business Recorder | LATEST NEWS
 
.
US Congress acts to suspend bid to upgrade Pakistan fighter fleet

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress moved Tuesday to suspend a bid by President George W. Bush's administration to shift millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Islamabad's F-16 fighter jets.

"We have requested a hold on the administration's planned reprogramming pending additional information," said a joint statement by Democratic lawmakers Howard Berman and Nita Lowey, who head key panels in the House of Representatives.

"We are concerned that the administration's proposal to use military assistance to pay for the F-16 upgrades will divert funds from more effective counterterrorism tools like helicopters, TOW missiles, and night-vision goggles," said Berman, chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, and Lowey, chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee on foreign programs.

The White House said last week that it wanted to shift 230 million dollars in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Pakistan's aging F-16 fighter jets.

The move, it said, was aimed at easing fiscal pressures faced by the Pakistani government stemming partly from soaring food and energy costs.

US lawmakers were reportedly angered by the move.

They felt that Pakistan did not use its F-16s in support of the campaign against fighters in its remote tribal areas out of a fear that civilian casualties could fuel support for extremists.

US President George W. Bush held talks with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Monday focused on cooperation to fight Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists and easing Pakistan-Afghanistan tensions.

Gilani, whose new government has been facing intense US pressure to crack down on Pakistan-based militants, told reporters after the meeting that Pakistan was committed to fighting extremists.

The package for the F-16 fighters would run about two-thirds of the 300 million dollars that Pakistan will get this year in US aid for military equipment and training, the Times said.

The 2008 fiscal year state and foreign operations bill that passed Congress last December specifically required that military aid to Pakistan be used for counter-terrorism and law enforcement activities directed against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, according to lawmakers Berman and Lowey.

The hold requested by the legislature would "provide time for Congress to make a more considered judgment in consultation with the administration and the government of Pakistan," their statement said.

Requests for a hold by lawmakers are usually abided by the administration, congressional aides said.

Berman and Lowey also said that they were proposing that Congress provide 200 million dollars in economic assistance to Islamabad to relieve some of Pakistan's budgetary constraints.

"This will help Pakistan set its own spending priorities while preserving US military aid for its intended purpose -- counterterrorism activities against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban."

"We are committed to helping Pakistan's new democratic government address the current economic crisis, brought on by rising food and fuel prices, which has impacted its ability to fund its F-16 upgrades," the lawmakers said.

Meanwhile, a key US Senate panel unanimously passed a bill Tuesday tripling non-military aid to Pakistan and sustaining it over at least five years.

The legislation, which cleared the Senate foreign relations committee, authorizes 7.5 billion dollars over five years in aid that can be used for development purposes, such as building schools, roads and clinics.

"This legislation represents a bold new strategy for Pakistan," said committee chairman Democratic Senator Joseph Biden.

The bill also imposes greater accountability on security assistance to improve Pakistani counterterrorism capabilities.

US Congress acts to suspend bid to upgrade Pakistan fighter fleet - Yahoo! News

Something that was expected to happen. No surprise at all. GOP couldn't get more cheap then this. Really is disgusting.:sick:
 
.
Thats it. Before Gillani landed in US. They were soooooooooo sure of leaving ISI wingless but toooooooo bad their dreams dashed and so as upgradtaion of F-16s also.
 
.
Thats it. Before Gillani landed in US. They were soooooooooo sure of leaving ISI wingless but toooooooo bad their dreams dashed and so as upgradtaion of F-16s also.

Very rightly said. Too bad for all those who think we are a client state. There are still people alive here for whom national interests are far more superior then a few short term gains in the name of those F-16s.
 
.
I agree. Diversion of funds to finance $220 million upgrade on some of the F-16's may have been denied, the non military assistance programme got thru. :tup:
I hope the money from the F-16 program is diverted to the "non military assistance program." I'm actually a bit apprehensive about calling this a "non military assistance program" because these monies are to be used for something that has very much to do with assisting the Pakistan armed forces in achieving their objective. Although not nearly as dramatic, this program has far better long term implications than multirole fighter jets, laser pods or guided munitions.

Jana said:
Thats it. Before Gillani landed in US. They were soooooooooo sure of leaving ISI wingless but toooooooo bad their dreams dashed and so as upgradtaion of F-16s also.
I didn't get the point you're trying to make. Could you kindly elaborate?

IceCold said:
Very rightly said. Too bad for all those who think we are a client state. There are still people alive here for whom national interests are far more superior then a few short term gains in the name of those F-16s.
National interest and the power dynamic of the client-patron states aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. By taking massive donations I don't think the said power dynamic is going to change any time soon; the USA is still a patron. However, as opposed to what was being done with US funds in the past, Pakistan will hopefully put this money to good use by investing in their social sector with the hopes of stabilizing itself and then working towards a healthy developing society which contributes to the global economy. I think not giving credence to the real nature of the relationship is harmful (albeit not very conducive to the ego); however accepting this relationship for what it is and then using it towards Pakistan's advantage will reap far greater benefits. Japan, West Germany and South Korea serve as excellent examples.
 
.
I hope the money from the F-16 program is diverted to the "non military assistance program." I'm actually a bit apprehensive about calling this a "non military assistance program" because these monies are to be used for something that has very much to do with assisting the Pakistan armed forces in achieving their objective. Although not nearly as dramatic, this program has far better long term implications than multirole fighter jets, laser pods or guided munitions.

I didn't get the point you're trying to make. Could you kindly elaborate?

National interest and the power dynamic of the client-patron states aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. By taking massive donations I don't think the said power dynamic is going to change any time soon; the USA is still a patron. However, as opposed to what was being done with US funds in the past, Pakistan will hopefully put this money to good use by investing in their social sector with the hopes of stabilizing itself and then working towards a healthy developing society which contributes to the global economy. I think not giving credence to the real nature of the relationship is harmful (albeit not very conducive to the ego); however accepting this relationship for what it is and then using it towards Pakistan's advantage will reap far greater benefits. Japan, West Germany and South Korea serve as excellent examples.

The money will probably end in someones pocket rather getting invested anywhere and the price that has to be payed for those $ is by the Nation. But anyways I'll for one will be more happy if the money gets sanctioned, we are better off without it. But then again how would the corrupt politicians work for the US if they ant getting these dollars.
 
.
Then why does the Sunni Arab nations not see it from the same standpoint?

Because not every single Sunni nation is in a direct confrontation with Israel. Syrians have their Golan heights issue to resolve. Without supporting Hizbullah, they have no leverage whatsoever over Israel to vacate the area.

Other sunni arab states like UAE and KSA have their own regional, territorial disputes with Iran. Certain others like Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. carry on dealing with Iran despite being majority Sunni.
 
Last edited:
.
By "you guys" I assume you're talking about Indians. I can't speak for them directly, but from what I understand India does not have foreign aid when it comes to military procurement programs for the MKIs and MRCAs, which means they have to get these on their own (as they should). Also, Russian aid of yesteryear came primarily in tech transfers, subsidized production licenses and such; not monetary. India's military expenditure is lesser than the 3% GDP norm while the expenditure on the social sector is rising exponentially as we speak, so they're certainly on the right path. Also, their armed forces are undergoing a comprehensive upgradation program which although conceived in 1999 (post Kargil) couldn't be achieved until now in the light of over a decade and a half of economic growth... as it should be.

Selective memory does not help the situation specially if you are going to go bat for India ;-) Russian loans (most of which were turned into friendship aid) were used to build Indian military capacity all along the time when more than 80 percent of the Indian population was living in abject poverty. Its only recently that India has started to fund its own upgradation and development even when more Indians than both Pakistanis and BD's put together live earning less than a dollar a day. So the point is that you can't simply point out Pakistan and say that we should be spending more on our social upliftment...that goes for everyone in South Asia.
I can go into quite a bit of details with regards to transfer of major weapons systems that were done on token payments.

This nonetheless has nothing to do with the Pakistan model, which is totally dissimilar. Nor are the problems faced by each country alike (I'm not sure why India was even brought up in this situation). The acuity of the societal problems marring west Pakistan are far greater than most other places in the world right now and every available dollar should be spent on the social sector. Unless the populace inhabiting these areas are offered credible alternatives to radical religious organizations in the form of schools, employment, law & order, health care, infrastructure, etc. the bleak picture will never change. To make this happen billions of dollars are needed (NOW), and it just so happens that in the case of Pakistan there is a way to acquire these funds. It would be foolish not to do so.

I agree that funding should be acquired as is possible. However development in Pakistan is going on even without the US aid...yes there are fiscal pressures however the investment in infrastructure and poverty alleviation is going apace. It will take time but it does not mean that Pakistan is incapable of it. Indian challenges (even though in economic terms they are better off than Pakistan) are of much greater magnitude than those of Pakistan's...the same goes for BD...I am bringing the other two countries into the discussion for reasons of comparison to bring home the point that despite immense social and economic challenges, external security and funding for it has to be put aside and is being done by every other country, so why is Pakistan an exception in your argument? Pakistan can never focus on internal stability if its not secure externally.

Lastly, the military need not be left in the dust. More affordable Chinese alternatives are being procured for the armed forces; so there really isn't a need for the F-16s.

Why should Pakistan limit itself to the Chinese systems alone? Why not both especially when much of the hardware can be gained as EDA and then modernized? Until suitable Chinese platforms such as JF-17 and FC-20 are available, Pakistan has to find other alternates and F-16s provide a very good value for Pakistan so why would Pakistan not avail these and only stick with the yet to materialize Chinese hardware?

It would also be unfair to solely lay the blame on Pakistan. There is undoubtedly a push from US military corporations to further their sales of expensive products, and foreign aid packages to troubled third world nations have historically provided the best opportunities to achieve this (dubious) objective. Given the influence these companies have with public representatives (particularly in this administration) this is turning out to be a cash cow for them. All of this has to stop ASAP.

True however Pakistan does not go for big ticket items all the time and interestingly enough, currently the countries being milked by the defence conglomerates are led by India...so Pakistan has to cater to the Indian build up without getting into an arms race that she cannot afford...so this purchase of F-16s should be seen in light of a cyclical thing that happens every decade or so for Air arms to enhance their capabilities...in the case of PAF, we have been delayed due to sanctions and are now playing catchup by acquiring excess F-16s and upgrading them. This move by itself is a very smart and modest way to go about upgrading your conventional military capability.
 
.
This has more to do with money than anything else. For developing nations these sorts of operations just aren't economically feasible; heck the cost of an LGB is way higher than what many officers make in a year let along putting it on an aircraft and have it circling around all day long just in case if it needs to be called in. Also, there aren't constant air/space borne assets like UAVs and complex satellite networks offering total coverage, and most of all human life is far more expendable. I'm not saying that there are no back up air strikes using precision guided munition; sure there are; but unlike in the cases of US and most other NATO forces its not the standard operating procedure.
For the Pakistan forces to effectively combat this problem they will have to rely more on their manpower and have a high number of boots on the ground. But this is only half the problem, what is far more urgent is for the people to be given healthy alternatives to radicalism.

Energon,

All valid points, albeit there are exceptions to the general case you have described.

Expending LGBs that cost a lot of money is not an issue as Pakistan gets re-imbursed for what is used during such operations. For Pakistan the problem is the political mileage that the militants get after an air strike, be it with PGMs or dumb ordnance. Also the situation is not helped by putting more troops on the ground. Pakistan has problems with mobility. You just cannot garrison troops in the tribal areas (as has been done by the ISAF and Afghans on the other side) and expect to win a CI campaign.
The terrain literally eats up men. Pakistan could double up the existing formations (3 Divisions to 6 Divisions of regular Pakistan Army) but it will not help much. Pakistan needs mobility and communications support for the ground forces. Also Pakistan cannot put troops indefinitely on the ground...the tribals do not like this and even those who have not become part of the TTP, will take up arms eventually. This calls for considerable assistance in the form of helicopters and air assault type capability that should be forthcoming more easily so actions can be swift and completed quickly by taking out specific targets instead of posting troops in the region indefinitely.

All of this should be seen in light of the challenges the US with all of its air power and mobility has bee facing in Afghanistan. They have not been able to handle the problem brewing up in Kandahar because of the difficult terrain and challenges of applying the advantage of of superior technology and numbers in such terrain. For Pakistan, this same problem is magnified due to other issues such as the right closely watching all of the operations and causing political problems for the government.

When Pakistan has been given the technology, we have put it to good use. Its just that in certain cases, even with the right technology, we will have certain other domestic compulsions which would inhibit us from doing things the way the western powers would.
 
.
Because not every single Sunni nation is in a direct confrontation with Israel. Syrians have their Golan heights issue to resolve. Without supporting Hizbullah, they have no leverage whatsoever over Israel to vacate the area.

Other sunni arab states like UAE and KSA have their own regional, territorial disputes with Iran. Certain others like Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. carry on dealing with Iran despite being majority Sunni.

Rather lame.

Fine,

Then let Sunni Arab nations and Pakistan desist from commenting on Israel Palestinian issues since they are unconnected.

Just sit back and enjoy the show!

Dealing with Iran is required because of trade and nothing more; no religious sectarian issues are involved in trade. Guess what? India, France and the West also trade with Iran! It does not make them Shias or does it?
 
.
That is not what the F-16 upgrades were criticized for, and coordinated air strikes have in fact been utilized by the PA in FATA, during various ops.

The context of the comments made (criticizing the F-16) was ignorant of the complexities of coordinated airstrikes, which might have been understandable. It was instead a direct critique of the usage of a particular weapons platform, despite the fact that NATO forces have utilized the same for a long time now.
The critique of the usage of this platform by the PAF is very much valid given that they cannot use it to the same effect as their western counterparts. The PAF is known to conduct occasional coordinated strikes; but it is not the mainstay of their doctrine given the lack of comprehensive resources. This aircraft is however the front line fighter of its conventional forces.

It really isn't cost effective for the US taxpayer to cover the F-16 upgrades when the money can and should be spent on other more worthwhile programs for the specific purpose of the anti-insurgency operations. Helicopter gunships and NVGs etc are truly more suited for the PA's needs when it comes to the objective at hand. I also think someone ought to seriously look into low cost CAS interdiction turboprop platforms like the Super Tucano. When occasional strikes are to be conducted, they can be done from the Blk 52+ F-16s as well as other platforms like the A5 fantan and the Mirages.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom