Democrats question $6 billion in Pakistan aid

[Neo]

Democrats question $6 billion in Pakistan aid ​

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 6, 2008

WASHINGTON - Democrats are sharply questioning a U.S. aid program that has reimbursed Pakistan's military $6 billion since 2001 for anti-terrorism operations along its Afghanistan border, contending the program has grown too costly.

"The Bush administration has basically been shoveling taxpayer money to Pakistan, no questions asked, crossing its fingers and hoping that our al-Qaida problem goes away," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has provided Pakistan some $10.8 billion in aid. Most of the money — $5.6 billion — has gone toward reimbursing Pakistan's military for combat operations, particularly into unpoliced tribal areas along the Afghan border. About $1.5 billion has paid for military training and equipment, while the rest of the money is devoted to economic aid and other priorities, such as legal reform and local police training.

Democrats say the $5.6 billion in "coalition support funds" was initially intended as a short-term solution to getting Pakistan to aid U.S. anti-terrorist efforts. But since the program's inception, it has become nearly impossible to determine if the money is being spent wisely.

"The more I learn about this program, the more convinced I become that (it is) the wrong approach," said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform national security and foreign affairs subcommittee.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said future aid dollars must include "strict guarantees" that the money is being used for anti-terrorism and is making Americans safer.

"They lack a plan, they seem to lack oversight and they do not seem very concerned about it," said Harkin of the Bush administration.

The Government Accountability Office is expected to release this summer the results of its investigation into the program. In a preliminary report released Tuesday, the GAO reiterated earlier findings that Pakistan has been unable to defeat terrorists inside its borders despite the influx of U.S. cash. The GAO found that the Pakistani security forces aren't structured to target an insurgency and face equipment and training deficiencies.

The Defense Department defended the program to the GAO as a "critical tool" to deter terrorists in the region. For example, Pakistan recently was able to buy 26 helicopters with the help of U.S. aid. The helicopters provided a direct contribution to air assault and other anti-terrorism efforts along the border, the department said in response to the report.

Also on Tuesday, a top counterterrorism official told the Senate Intelligence Committee that al-Qaida leaders continue to hatch new terrorist plots from their sanctuary on Pakistan's western frontier.

"We have clearly not succeeded in stopping core al-Qaida plotting," said acting National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter. "We have not disrupted the senior leadership that exists in (Pakistan's tribal areas) or their promulgating messages that successfully gain them more recruits."

Leiter said the U.S. intelligence agencies have done well in disrupting planned terrorist attacks before they can be carried out, however.

Leiter also said he wished he had more resources dedicated to identifying and addressing future threats and potential terrorist havens, rather than focusing so much of his work force on the current threat.

Leiter has headed the NCTC as acting director for six months. He needs Senate confirmation to hold the job officially. The NCTC was created in 2004 to analyze and knit together analysis from more than a dozen U.S. intelligence agencies.

Democrats question $6 billion in Pakistan aid - Yahoo! News

 

[Neo]

Pentagon rejects some Pakistan aid requests​

Amid criticism of a lack of oversight on spending, the U.S. has denied or deferred about $81 million in requests from Pakistan, the Government Accountability Office says.​

By Peter Spiegel and Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
May 7, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has rejected or deferred millions of dollars in military aid requests from Pakistan amid criticism that the Islamabad government has squandered U.S. funding and allowed Al Qaeda to rebuild a haven in its western tribal regions.

In February, the Defense Department turned down or delayed more than $81 million requested by Pakistan, according to a report issued Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

But it marks a sudden change in U.S. policy toward Pakistan, which for years has spent American military aid without having to show results in the fight against Al Qaeda and other militant groups. Even some officials in the Pentagon have acknowledged shortcomings in U.S. funding strategy.

The program was set up to reimburse the Pakistani military for offensives against insurgents along the Afghan border and assistance given to the U.S. military operating in Afghanistan.

The Government Accountability Office study says the U.S. has sent more than $5.5 billion to Pakistan under the program, making it the largest portion of the $10.8 billion in U.S. aid Islamabad has received since 2002.

The study was the second by the GAO in a month to criticize U.S. policy in Pakistan. In April, the agency said the Bush administration had not drafted a comprehensive plan to counter the resurgence of Al Qaeda and other militant groups in Pakistan's border areas.

Charles Michael Johnson Jr., who wrote the GAO report, said the agency was still examining why the aid rejections have risen so sharply in recent months. But he noted that the Pentagon's representatives at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad had begun playing a larger role in the oversight of payments to the Pakistani military in the last year.

About a year ago, Army Maj. Gen. James R. Helmly took over as head of the embassy division, known as the Office of the Defense Representative to Pakistan.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which helps oversee disbursements, said he had not seen the report and could not comment on the program.

In a formal comment submitted to the GAO, James J. Shinn, the assistant secretary of Defense responsible for Asia, said the Pentagon had been taking a tougher line on Pakistan's aid requests for some time.

Of more than $85 million requested by Pakistan in September 2006, Shinn said, $6.2 million was turned down.

Coalition Support Funds has come under scrutiny because the massive payouts to Pakistan have not been matched by significant progress against militant groups. In private, U.S. officials have acknowledged that they had little oversight of Pakistan's spending.

Under the program, the U.S. aid has paid Pakistan for costs incurred in staging military operations in the country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas -- operations that have been deadly for both sides, but have not significantly weakened Al Qaeda.

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the terrorist network has been able to use its haven in the remote tribal lands of northwestern Pakistan to regroup and rebuild its ability to plan attacks against targets in the West.

U.S. officials have said that Pakistan used much of the U.S. military aid to pay for heavy equipment better suited for a regional conflict with its archenemy India than for anti-insurgency operations in the frontier territories.

Johnson, the author of the GAO report, said the agency was still examining where the military aid went and planned a more detailed account next month.

One congressional official who tracks U.S. aid said that the increase in aid denials suggested that U.S. officials had become more rigorous.

"But I wouldn't necessarily say 'problem solved,' " said the official, who discussed the politically sensitive program on condition of anonymity. The deferred or rejected amounts still represent only "a small fraction of the total that was allowed," the official said.

Congressional Democrats said the GAO report showed mismanagement of the Coalition Support Funds.

"The Bush administration has basically been shoveling taxpayer money to Pakistan, no questions asked, crossing its fingers and hoping that our Al Qaeda problem goes away," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who heads a subcommittee that has been investigating the program. "Our funding to Pakistan can no longer be a blank check."

Pentagon rejects some Pakistan aid requests - Los Angeles Times

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In order to provide clarification on the nature of the 5.6 billion in Military aid that is under scrutiny:

Of the approximately $5.8 billion the United States provided for efforts in the FATA and border region from 2002 through 2007, about 96 percent reimbursed Pakistan for military operations there. According to the Department of State, Pakistan deployed 120,000 military and paramilitary forces in the FATA and helped kill and capture hundreds of suspected al Qaeda operatives; these efforts cost the lives of approximately 1,400 members of Pakistan’s security forces.
http://hcfa.house.gov/110/GAO041708.pdf

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lets look at views of the 3 candidates for US President:

Hillary Clinton:

Senator Hillary Clinton on Sunday opposed cutting off US aid to Pakistan to force the country to fight terrorists hiding inside its territory.

In an interview to Fox News, Mrs Clinton disagreed with the suggestion that the best way to do deal with Pakistan is to cut off aid.

“We now have a new government there. We have got to make it clear to the new government in Pakistan that we will stand with them, we will support democracy,” she said. “We have not put all our eggs into Musharraf’s basket.”
Hillary opposes cut in US aid for Pakistan -DAWN - National; May 05, 2008

Barack Obama:

“We now have a new government in Pakistan. We have an opportunity to initiate a new relationship. We have got to send a signal to them that we are interested in national security, but we also recognise they are interested in figuring out how do they feed their people and how do they prosper economically.

“And instead of just focusing on our issues, we have got to focus on some of theirs, so that we can get better co-operation to hunt down al-Qaeda and make sure that does not become a safe haven for them,” he stated in his Meet the Press appearance on the NBC channel.
Obama sees opportunity for new relationship with Pakistan

John McCain:

Will pretty much continue the Bush policies. Supported Musharraf against BB and NS, and described them as having "presided over corrupt governments and failed States".

For now, supports the continuation of aid to Pakistan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that there will be little change in US support to Pakistan - though I can see the nature of the aid to Pakistan shifting under Obama to reflect the position articulated by Senator Biden - i.e. aid for social sector projects, that have a more direct impact on Pakistanis.

Cooperation from pakistan in FATA will continue to be required, so while there might be more accountability and vetting of aid requests and reimbursements (in itself not a negative development at all, so long as it does not cause inordinate delays in reimbursement of expenses), military aid will not stop.

The crucial issue here I would say are the continuation of plans for capacity building in the FC and continued training and expansion of the SSG, along with the FATA development plan. The ROZ's fall under the gambit of "civilian aid", and will fit in with Biden's idea of "social sector development", and are of course supported by the Bush administration (hence likely by McCain as well), so I see no major stumbling block with regards to that regardless of who gets elected.

 

[Neo]

Even simple maths is a difficult for many UA politicians, we all know that.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Too late in the day to question anything.

 

[IceCold]

Why dont we cut the logistics instead, and send them a clear signal that you need us more then we need you.

 

[Janbaz]

Obama seems to be the best option for ordinary Pakistani's at this point in time. The guy seems reasonable and inspiring...........let's see what the Republicans do in the fall as he seems to be the nominee against McCain.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why dont we cut the logistics instead, and send them a clear signal that you need us more then we need you.

That is not what an "ally" would do. If the relationship needs to be broken, let the Americans do it, and validate the opinions of everyone who has not trusted them since the end of the Afghan Jihad.

I would urge you to read between the lines, and note the views of officials (military and civilian) testifying in front of US legislators, who are involved in and familiar with Pakistan's efforts in the WoT.

Most of them defend Pakistan's efforts and its needs. Where you have criticism is from the legislators who are not involved or familiar with the nitty gritty of Pakistani efforts, and have to pander to the perceptions of the public. Also, this funding is associated with the Musharraf era, and we know how vilified he was in the US, for various reasons, so this is in a way continued criticism from then.

I am not suggesting the criticism is valid, but that US politicians have to pander to their constituencies just like Pakistani politicians do.

 

[Neo]

Obama seems to be the best option for ordinary Pakistani's at this point in time. The guy seems reasonable and inspiring...........let's see what the Republicans do in the fall as he seems to be the nominee against McCain.

Obama is the same guy who threatened to bomb Mecca and Pakistan last year.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Obama is the same guy who threatened to bomb Mecca and Pakistan last year.

When did he threaten to bomb Mecca Neo?

His statement on Pakistan was taken out of context as well - he placed several qualifiers in it - "IF there is actionable intelligence on high value AQ leaders in FATA, AND IF the Pakistani government REFUSES to take action, THEN he would authorize unilateral action against those targets."

Given that such a scenario would most likely arise only if the US had information on OBL, Zawahiri or Mullah Omar, I highly doubt Pakistan would not take action - and I highly doubt that, regardless of who the US president is, the US would not take action unilaterally in case of our refusal.

 

[Vinod2070]

Obama is the same guy who threatened to bomb Mecca and Pakistan last year.

I guess the Mecca statement was by Tancredo.

Obama didn't make such a statement AFAIK.

 

[blain2]

Yes Tom Tancredo blabbered that.

 

[Neo]

My bad...it was indeed Tancredo

 

[HAIDER]

All indirectly linked to Musharraf. Its better for both govt parties to avoid Musharraf and stop talking about his impeachment. Musharraf has full support of US and European Union.