Bush uses anti-terror funds to strengthen Pakistan air force

[Tiki Tam Tam]

For counter Insurgency, one requires slow moving aircraft as with Close Air Support in conventional wars.

 

[blain2]

For counter Insurgency, one requires slow moving aircraft as with Close Air Support in conventional wars.

This used to be the case, no longer. Its now a matter of altitude and distance for jet aircraft to do the same work more accurately. Secondly, Pakistan has no use for aircraft with singular purposes. Multi-role aircraft make more sense for Pakistan.

 

[blain2]

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?

I think you get my point. I'd like to end this circular argument.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I think you get my point. I'd like to end this circular argument.

I don't.

However, let's drop it!

 

[blain2]

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.

What is cost effective for the US taxpayer is debatable as many American taxpayers of Pakistani origin would disagree with you. Why is this military aid not cost effective and that to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Ethiopia and many others is? It is in the interest of the US taxpayer that the conventional capabilities of the Pakistani armed forces are not eroded in order to keep the nuclear threshold as high as possible.

Paying for the upgrades of the F-16s is chump change compared to all of the headache the comes with a degraded Pakistani conventional capability that increasingly requires the Pakistani defence planners to look at the nuclear option as a more viable alternate to deter threats.

 

[Energon]

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.

As I said, Russian aid always primarily came in the form of tech transfers (military and non military) and subsidized industrial offsets. The Soviet Union in terms of aid value may have been the greatest donor to India, but they never had fluid capital comparable to the US which it could infuse into the economy of its allies. Heck they couldn't even pour money into their iron curtain client states let alone a second-tier ally like India who didn't share their ideology. When it came to economic assistance, the western consortium was ahead of the Soviet Union (albeit heavily subdued because the US was against monetary aid to India). It was money from the west (and Japan) in the late 80s/ early 90s that was used to lay the groundwork of the telecom and information technology that is yielding in a lot of benefits today. This is not to say that the Soviets were of no use at all. True, their main offerings came in the form of military aid (what they excelled at the most) but they also helped with many industrial projects in mining, steel, dams (Bharkra Nangal if I'm not mistaken was constructed with Soviet help) etc. But as I said before, they could not afford to provide cash loans/grants in the way the US could; and certainly not enough for a highly populous country like India.
Also, the cold war scenario has been defunct for almost two decades now and is outside the scope of the argument I'm making, which happens to center around the current time period. But to answer your question, the point still remains that US allies had the opportunity if they wanted to pump US aid cash into their social sector and revolutionize their economy as done by Germany, Japan, S. Korea and Israel. Second tier Russian allies could only get military aid and vintage heavy industry technology; true economic opportunity came only after relationships were established with the west at the end of the cold war.

In terms of how things have played out with western vs Soviet aid and how it has shaped both India and Pakistan since the end of the cold war is a topic I'm still reading about, and probably one for another thread. India and the Soviet Union: trade and technology transfer by Mehrotra is a very good resource on the matter.

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.

I never said Pakistan shouldn't concentrate on its external security when it comes to procuring military hardware; but rather that the US taxpayer shouldn't be footing the bill. If the PAF wants shiny new F-16s they're more than welcome to issue RFPs to LM. If they can't afford it then wait until the situation changes. Regardless, this aspect should reflect Pakistan's economic prowess.

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?

Pakistan should go for whatever it can afford keeping their economic condition in mind. Right now the Chinese systems are a better option than western ones.

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.

True, China and India are at the forefront when it comes to acquiring military hardware. However they have reached to a point where they can afford it. Pakistan can do the same when the time comes.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

India apparently can afford it or so it appears!

I would not know if it is in the right direction or not, but it sure can afford it and still run a cognisable social programme for the nation!

 

[blain2]

India apparently can afford it or so it appears!

I would not know if it is in the right direction or not, but it sure can afford it and still run a cognisable social programme for the nation!

As can we at our own pace. The funding being discussed is for military purposes in any case. Pakistan can work with the Americans to have it applied where we need it. If the Americans have a real problem with it, they can always say no.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

This used to be the case, no longer. Its now a matter of altitude and distance for jet aircraft to do the same work more accurately. Secondly, Pakistan has no use for aircraft with singular purposes. Multi-role aircraft make more sense for Pakistan.

Have you ever been a FAC with supersonic jets?

Glossy brochures of the arms industry fools!

Remember Patton tanks - the last word?!

 

[blain2]

As I said, Russian aid always primarily came in the form of tech transfers (military and non military) and subsidized industrial offsets. The Soviet Union in terms of aid value may have been the greatest donor to India, but they never had fluid capital comparable to the US which it could infuse into the economy of its allies. Heck they couldn't even pour money into their iron curtain client states let alone a second-tier ally like India who didn't share their ideology. When it came to economic assistance, the western consortium was ahead of the Soviet Union (albeit heavily subdued because the US was against monetary aid to India). It was money from the west (and Japan) in the late 80s/ early 90s that was used to lay the groundwork of the telecom and information technology that is yielding in a lot of benefits today. This is not to say that the Soviets were of no use at all. True, their main offerings came in the form of military aid (what they excelled at the most) but they also helped with many industrial projects in mining, steel, dams (Bharkra Nangal if I'm not mistaken was constructed with Soviet help) etc. But as I said before, they could not afford to provide cash loans/grants in the way the US could; and certainly not enough for a highly populous country like India.
Also, the cold war scenario has been defunct for almost two decades now and is outside the scope of the argument I'm making, which happens to center around the current time period. But to answer your question, the point still remains that US allies had the opportunity if they wanted to pump US aid cash into their social sector and revolutionize their economy as done by Germany, Japan, S. Korea and Israel. Second tier Russian allies could only get military aid and vintage heavy industry technology; true economic opportunity came only after relationships were established with the west at the end of the cold war.

In terms of how things have played out with western vs Soviet aid and how it has shaped both India and Pakistan since the end of the cold war is a topic I'm still reading about, and probably one for another thread. India and the Soviet Union: trade and technology transfer by Mehrotra is a very good resource on the matter.

I think my point was simply that even when India could not afford to spend money on military hardware, she took loans out just to ensure that externally she was secure from the threats.
Will try to look up that book which you have referenced if I can find it.

I never said Pakistan shouldn't concentrate on its external security when it comes to procuring military hardware; but rather that the US taxpayer shouldn't be footing the bill. If the PAF wants shiny new F-16s they're more than welcome to issue RFPs to LM. If they can't afford it then wait until the situation changes. Regardless, this aspect should reflect Pakistan's economic prowess.

Pakistan is not getting the blk-52s in aid. Pakistan is making regular payments on the aircraft for delivery in 2009 as it did with the initial F-16s. PAF discussed the pricing with LM as we always wanted the type so there was no issue of putting out an RFP as done by the IAF. So when we buy shiny new F-16s those are with our own money. What PAF is getting for free are the blk15s under the EDA which is a program availed by all including the Turks, Israelis, and even Indians (remember Trenton?) so not sure why folks are so worried about the US taxpayer only when it comes to Pakistan?...maybe you should write to congress to forego the MNNA and EDA programs ;-)

Pakistan should go for whatever it can afford keeping their economic condition in mind. Right now the Chinese systems are a better option than western ones.

At least the American options are just as affordable as the Chinese ones right now thanks to the relations between US and Pakistan. Not sure why Pakistan would not take advantage of stuff like EDA and selective purchases?

True, China and India are at the forefront when it comes to acquiring military hardware. However they have reached to a point where they can afford it. Pakistan can do the same when the time comes.

Pakistan is certainly only doing things within its means. As I have said above, the aid is a military one and Pakistan feels that it can use it elsewhere (like upgrading its F-16s) so be it.

 

[Energon]

What is cost effective for the US taxpayer is debatable as many American taxpayers of Pakistani origin would disagree with you. Why is this military aid not cost effective and that to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Ethiopia and many others is? It is in the interest of the US taxpayer that the conventional capabilities of the Pakistani armed forces are not eroded in order to keep the nuclear threshold as high as possible.

Paying for the upgrades of the F-16s is chump change compared to all of the headache the comes with a degraded Pakistani conventional capability that increasingly requires the Pakistani defence planners to look at the nuclear option as a more viable alternate to deter threats.

There are no WoT source funds for those nations unlike Pakistan. In the case with Egypt and Jordan, it has primarily to do with Israel and with the now defunct objective of keeping the Soviet influence to a minimum. These models again dissimilar to Pakistan. The nuclear threat is what helps Pakistan maintain credible deterrence and that will have to do for now. I don't think Pakistan intends to sign the "no first use policy" after they acquire military assistance from the US anyways, so that equation is unlikely to change. Granted, I do not have much information in regards to the Pakistan nuclear program and its dynamics in relation to US military assistance; any information is welcome.

In terms of assisting Pakistan's conventional ability, or that of any nation I really think the US needs to move away from that business altogether. Luckily the India/Pakistan complex is not like that of the Arab/Israeli one. India has to procure all its defence hardware on its own (as any nation should), and Pakistan should be urged to do the same. This is a good time to break away from the iatrogenic "balance of power" game in South Asia. Pakistan will continue to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent while India can be kept at bay through economic incentives. Counterinsurgency warfare materials however should be payed for by the US on account of the urgency and Pakistan's inability to handle the situation without it.

 

[blain2]

Have you ever been a FAC with supersonic jets?

Glossy brochures of the arms industry fools!

Remember Patton tanks - the last word?!

I have not been a FAC myself but have seen plenty of observers and fwd controllers during firings and exs in Pakistan.

We do not intend to use jet aircraft in the CAS roles in FATA. Cobra gunships are good for such Close air support roles. However there are issues with the Cobras due to the limited range of the weaponry and also because militants can detect the slower moving aircraft and get out of sight. Fast moving aircraft with targeting pods and PGMs provide the needed stealth and standoff ranges for us to be able to engage these threats. The other alternate is for the US to release Apaches or Predators (which have been requested for release and acquisition by Pakistan) but I am sure some here would have a heart attack over that as well.

 

[blain2]

There are no WoT source funds for those nations unlike Pakistan. In the case with Egypt and Jordan, it has primarily to do with Israel and with the now defunct objective of keeping the Soviet influence to a minimum.

All the more reason for the American tax payers to remove funding to countries with defunct compulsions or threats of the past that you mention.

Secondly you are confusing quite a few things here in your zeal to negate Pakistani needs.

First of all, there is no WoT fund. What Pakistan gets from the US is money that is owed to Pakistan under the CSF which stands for Coalition Support Fund. This is money that is owed to Pakistan for the facilities provided by Pakistan and used by the ISAF and US armed forces. Over the past 8 years, this has comprised 70% of the monies provided to Pakistan..it is Pakistan's right to use this money as she deems fit without any pressure or dictation from anyone. Like Pakistan, the Phillipines and other locations with US military presence also getting funding for the usage of the native country's resources. So CSF is nothing out of the ordinary because it all boils down to TINSTAAFL.

Secondly, the US does provide military aid. This includes money for the Counter Terrorism efforts as well as for building up Pakistan's conventional military capacity. Pakistan has asked the US to move some of this money which was intended for CT efforts over to the conventional capacity buildup (F-16 MLU program). We have asked and they will move it. If they do not then oh well Pakistan will fund the upgrade herself but the Money is for the Pakistani military.

These models again dissimilar to Pakistan. The nuclear threat is what helps Pakistan maintain credible deterrence and that will have to do for now. I don't think Pakistan intends to sign the "no first use policy" after they acquire military assistance from the US anyways, so that equation is unlikely to change. Granted, I do not have much information in regards to the Pakistan nuclear program and its dynamics in relation to US military assistance; any information is welcome.

You need to have certain rungs between your conventional capabilities and the nuclear threshold. These rungs can only be had if on a conventional level you have a sufficient deterrence in place. As we know that there is considerable room for intense conventional conflicts between Pakistan and India...Cold Start affirms this belief that there are many who think that there is room for a limited conventional conflict in the region so not sure on what basis you state that "Pakistan maintain credible deterrence and that will have to do for now"?

I recall having a discussion with one of the faculty members from the USMA (a US Army major) and he perfectly understood the need to have some semblance of conventional parity between Pakistan and India so I do not buy the argument that every single American taxpayer would see things being done differently when it comes to providing conventional military assistance to Pakistan. This assistance furthers American interests in seeing a stable South Asia. Well worth the cost to the American taxpayers.

In terms of assisting Pakistan's conventional ability, or that of any nation I really think the US needs to move away from that business altogether. Luckily the India/Pakistan complex is not like that of the Arab/Israeli one. India has to procure all its defence hardware on its own (as any nation should), and Pakistan should be urged to do the same. This is a good time to break away from the iatrogenic "balance of power" game in South Asia. Pakistan will continue to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent while India can be kept at bay through economic incentives. Counterinsurgency warfare materials however should be payed for by the US on account of the urgency and Pakistan's inability to handle the situation without it.

Great idea but in reality US cannot pull out of this business. American economy stands to lose billions and Americans will essentially lose out on this game of geo-political influence. The Brits did this and regret it to this day (they did it because they could not afford it, however such is not a problem for the US).

 

[Energon]

I think my point was simply that even when India could not afford to spend money on military hardware, she took loans out just to ensure that externally she was secure from the threats.
Will try to look up that book which you have referenced if I can find it.

Although I get what you're trying to say, I'm compelled to point out that the example was from the cold war setting, when Pakistan was availed access to state of the art Western technology and maintained a technological edge over their Indian counterparts in the backdrop of heightened tensions, where another conventional clash was just around the corner. The tensions over the past few years have dropped considerably, the chances of a conventional war have also diminished and the cold war itself ended a long time ago. This nonetheless is beyond the scope of the argument I'm trying to put forth, which is that set in a post cold war world.

Pakistan is not getting the blk-52s in aid. Pakistan is making regular payments on the aircraft for delivery in 2009 as it did with the initial F-16s. PAF discussed the pricing with LM as we always wanted the type so there was no issue of putting out an RFP as done by the IAF. So when we buy shiny new F-16s those are with our own money. What PAF is getting for free are the blk15s under the EDA which is a program availed by all including the Turks, Israelis, and even Indians (remember Trenton?) so not sure why folks are so worried about the US taxpayer only when it comes to Pakistan?...maybe you should write to congress to forego the MNNA and EDA programs ;-)

I was under the impression that we were talking about money from the counter-terrorism fund being reassigned (at least that is what I'm referring to). I have never said anything about the GoP acquiring hardware through a direct purchase. In fact I support it; all nations should have to pay in full for their military hardware.

I'm not really sure what the deal with Turkey or Israel is. But I don't have a problem with the EDA programs as long as the US is getting something out of it. The USS Trenton wasn't given away for free. The GoI paid for it. The cost of the vintage ship was low (~ $50 million), but its accessories have to be purchased. The primary intention of the transfer of the USS Trenton was for humanitarian operations in the region; the program itself spawned in light of the 04 tsunami. Its end user agreements clearly specify that the ship cannot be used for offensive operations; something that recently caused an uproar in parts of the Indian government. IMHO this transfer with the existing EUA was fully justified since contracting the Indian navy to participate in such operations is far more convenient and cost effective than mobilizing US Navy ships. In fact, I think as the US-India relationship grows, the Indian armed forces need to take up a whole lot more to ease the burden of the US at least on the non-volatile humanitarian front. Also, at least some money was recovered from a 35 year old ship and it was a way to enter the Indian defence market. In the case of combat ships, aircrafts and other hardware without specified secondary uses, the GoI should pay its way through. The MNNA concept is really defunct in terms of pragmatic value. I'm all for doing business with nations that are good trading partners which can offer the US economic opportunity and contribute towards positive global objectives (US perspective). If that means offering civilian nuclear technology or subsidizing old ships with explicit end user agreements then so be it.

At least the American options are just as affordable as the Chinese ones right now thanks to the relations between US and Pakistan. Not sure why Pakistan would not take advantage of stuff like EDA and selective purchases?

But that is essentially my point. I'm against subsidized military sales/grants unless they directly benefit the US's objectives. Giving F-16s or other lethal platforms of conventional warfare to Pakistan that aren't really the best choice when it comes to counterinsurgency operations ends up creating tensions with India where the economic stakes are higher. This isn't beneficial to the US. Giving counterinsurgency specific hardware on the other hand is very much so. If Pakistan however wants to buy these items at the list price, then I'm all for it.

Pakistan is certainly only doing things within its means. As I have said above, the aid is a military one and Pakistan feels that it can use it elsewhere (like upgrading its F-16s) so be it.

In this case it's not up to Pakistan, especially when US interests are at stake. This money could and should be used to further the interests of the USA's objective of the WoT, and the F-16 upgrade program does not fit that profile.

 

[Energon]

All the more reason for the American tax payers to remove funding to countries with defunct compulsions or threats of the past that you mention.

The Arab Israeli mess is unfortunately an ongoing one (and one we should never have got involved in). But yes, I am completely in favor of withdrawing all economic and military assitance to Israel, unless of course they're willing to pay for it in full. Egypt and Jordan still need incentives to maintain peace with Israel.

Secondly you are confusing quite a few things here in your zeal to negate Pakistani needs.

I have no such "zeal." Just like many people in congress, I don't think the US should be paying for all of them; just the ones that coincide with our objectives. As I mentioned before, I have no problems with Pakistan purchasing the new batch of F-16s which are not part of any aid package.
I am first and foremost interested in the needs of the US. Diverting $230 out of $300 million fund meant for counter terrorism operations to provide Pakistan with upgraded F-16s is negating this need.

First of all, there is no WoT fund. What Pakistan gets from the US is money that is owed to Pakistan under the CSF which stands for Coalition Support Fund. This is money that is owed to Pakistan for the facilities provided by Pakistan and used by the ISAF and US armed forces. Over the past 8 years, this has comprised 70% of the monies provided to Pakistan..it is Pakistan's right to use this money as she deems fit without any pressure or dictation from anyone. Like Pakistan, the Phillipines and other locations with US military presence also getting funding for the usage of the native countries resources. So CSF is nothing out of the ordinary because it all boils down to TINSTAAFL.

Secondly, the US does provide military aid. This includes money for the Counter Terrorism efforts as well as for building up Pakistan's conventional military capacity. Pakistan has asked the US to move some of this money which was intended for CT efforts over to the conventional capacity buildup (F-16 MLU program). We have asked and they will move it. If they do not then oh well Pakistan will fund the upgrade herself but the Money is for the Pakistani military.

My argument in this case is based on the fact that all the articles explicitly state that the money being shuffled around is earmarked for counter terrorism purposes. Pakistan doesn't have nearly as much autonomy in dictating what funds should be used for. Not availing bases to the US of course had far more negatives and positives associated with it. The current issue again is US footing the bill for something that is a detractor to the main objective of counter insurgency, the primary reason behind US assistance.

You need to have a certain rungs between your conventional capabilities and the nuclear threshold. These rungs can only be had if on a conventional level you have a sufficient deterrence in place.

All of this is well and good. The point however remains that the US need not be the one footing the bill. If Pakistan wants conventional deterrents they are free to purchase it themselves.

Great idea but in reality US cannot pull out of this business. American economy stands to lose billions and Americans will essentially lose out on this game of geo-political influence. The Brits did this and regret it to this day (they did it because they could not afford it, however such is not a problem for the US).

There is nothing to gain from gifting Pakistan non counterinsurgency specific materials. The US is well entrenched into the region which will hopefully help stimulate its economy and keep China at bay.

ok this has been fun; always great debating with you, but I have to prepare for my lecture tomorrow... I hate giving these things; coming to think of it, I also hated attending them. I should have become a bartender; at least I love alcohol in all its form.