Downsizing Pakistan's Military

[Imran Khan]

World Bank pledges $9 billion loan for IndiaBy Subramaniam SharmaPublished:
NEW DELHI: The World Bank plans to lend India $9 billion during the next three years for rural development, as the nation seeks to accelerate economic growth to reduce poverty.

"We will be prepared to commit $3 billion a year for the next three years" for rural projects, the lender's president, Paul Wolfowitz, said Saturday. The bank wants to "help India sustain its impressive economic growth because without growth it's not possible to reduce poverty."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is seeking to spend 1.74 trillion rupees, or about $40 billion, by 2009 to improve irrigation, housing, water, electricity, telephones and roads.

About 350 million of India's 1.1 billion people live on less than $1 a day, the World Bank estimates.

The government is aiming for annual economic growth of more than 7 percent over the next decade. The economy expanded 6.9 percent in the year that ended March 31, and the central bank forecasts it will grow 7 percent this fiscal year.

The

Today in Marketplace by Bloomberg
Bank of America moves quickly to cut jobs after earnings disappointSony profit helped by camera sales, but game console still trailing rivalsMicrosoft profit soars 23 percent, beating expectationsWorld Bank, based in Washington, hopes the loan will "help the government both at the federal level and the states to see that the benefits of growth are distributed more rapidly to the poorest people," Wolfowitz said.

Increased investment in rural infrastructure will benefit companies like Larsen & Toubro, India's biggest engineering company, Bharat Heavy Electricals, the largest power equipment maker, and Steel Authority of India, the biggest steel maker, said Pyaralal Raghavan, an economist at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

The World Bank's participation will help attract other investors, Raghavan said. "The problem in India has been implementation," he said in an interview. "With the World Bank's involvement, there will be better evaluation and scrutiny of the projects."

The World Bank lent $2.9 billion to India in the year that ended June 30, up from $1.4 billion the year before, according to Michael Carter, the lender's country director for India.

Under the four-year Bharat Nirman, or Building India, plan, the government aims to provide electricity to all 250 million rural homes, build 6 million houses and provide safe drinking water to 74,000 villages. Each of India's 700,000 villages will have at least one telephone by 2009, Singh has said.

The prime minister estimated in October that India would need an additional $150 billion to improve its airports, railways and other utilities. Airports and railways will require more than $55 billion of investment in the next 10 years, Singh said. Power will require $75 billion, while telecommunications will require $25 billion in the next five years, he said.

The state has little room to finance such spending directly, as it is bound by law to cut its budget deficit by 0.3 percentage point of gross domestic product a year until March 2009 in order to erase its revenue deficit.

India's budget deficit at the end of the last financial year was 4.1 percent of gross domestic

 

[doobie86]

bro India isn't taking loans because its going to default on its debt, that's the difference, this doesn't tie in to the discussion at hand

 

[Imran Khan]

come on topic sir doobie you start this and i finish topic is difrent on this thread if you don't mind

 

[doobie86]

bro I was talking to Batmannow, telling him how it is impossible for Pakistan to induct 200,000 more troops because Pakistan is broke and borrowing money from the IMF will obligate you to abide by strict regulations.

Then you, without understand a word I said, posted articles about India taking loans, developmental loans btw which actually are beneficial and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are changing the subject not me. Understand first, post later.

and just so you know those loans that India is taking will help develop the country faster
so its great news, we are not borrowing money because the lights are about to go out.

enough of this, come back to the subject at hand, it is not my fault you don't understand what I'm saying I never deviated from the topic, you did.

 

[Imran Khan]

bro I was talking to Batmannow, telling him how it is impossible for Pakistan to induct 200,000 more troops because Pakistan is broke and borrowing money from the IMF will obligate you to abide by strict regulations.

agree no need rise of army now its ok

 

[batmannow]

agree no need rise of army now its ok

imran khan; sir
well! you could be fine with him, but me not! NO WAY.
if we are in financial stress , so we should forget our defences?
every decicion needs strong will, if we have the strong will !surely we can do that, same kind of trash advices were razed , when pakistan was preparing its A-BOMB, at that time many of our friendly (enemies) , kept suggesting that we should dump our nuckleer ambitions, because of fear .
but what happened ?
we succsessfully done all that! now they have a fear that 200000 more infantry can protect any kind of attack, from any where!
for thier daydreaming! they were trying systematic to be a part of a force which can attack us , & make us same as IRAQ.
THEY NEVER ACCEPTED , ANY BETTERMENT OF US , IN ANY SITUATION, HOW CAN THEY ACCEPT IT?
But the truth is this , pak army surly need to size up its muscle.
to fight terror in side our lands, and out side our lands!

 

[daredevil]

imran khan; sir
well! you could be fine with him, but me not! NO WAY.
if we are in financial stress , so we should forget our defences?
every decicion needs strong will, if we have the strong will !surely we can do that, same kind of trash advices were razed , when pakistan was preparing its A-BOMB, at that time many of our friendly (enemies) , kept suggesting that we should dump our nuckleer ambitions, because of fear .
but what happened ?
we succsessfully done all that! now they have a fear that 200000 more infantry can protect any kind of attack, from any where!
for thier daydreaming! they were trying systematic to be a part of a force which can attack us , & make us same as IRAQ.
THEY NEVER ACCEPTED , ANY BETTERMENT OF US , IN ANY SITUATION, HOW CAN THEY ACCEPT IT?
But the truth is this , pak army surly need to size up its muscle.
to fight terror in side our lands, and out side our lands!

Sure, Pakistan needs to increase it size to fight WOT. But, does pakistan have the means to sustain them is the question.

 

[batmannow]

Sure, Pakistan needs to increase it size to fight WOT. But, does pakistan have the means to sustain them is the question.

SURLY , pakistan can sustain its numbers of troops its not that, it should be razed in millions, its just 200000! advanced trainned infantry troops, worsing security situation 100% will going to effect economy, so we need to have more strong security , to have more good economy! its very simple, isnt it?

 

[daredevil]

SURLY , pakistan can sustain its numbers of troops its not that, it should be razed in millions, its just 200000! advanced trainned infantry troops, worsing security situation 100% will going to effect economy, so we need to have more strong security , to have more good economy! its very simple, isnt it?

But how will you start that 200,000 army with out any money. Given the present economic situation of Pakistan it is very unlikely, unless US gives some money to do this.

 

[batmannow]

But how will you start that 200,000 army with out any money. Given the present economic situation of Pakistan it is very unlikely, unless US gives some money to do this.

Dear daredevil; sir
even on the werge of worsend economy, its not that pakistan cant move its troops, cant defend itself, or in other words ! IMF cant dictate pakistan to stop financing its right defence needs , which are equaly important to pakistan & at large extent , to the whole world itself.

But yes, you did indicated the real point! thanks to you dear sir, of your logical thinking!
its far better to , give pakistan money & assistance to raze , a well trainned marine type advanced infantry , which can clear the mess! then
these crazy "drone" attacks , which are poisioning all the efforts , to win the minds & hearts of genral mass in pakistan.
it would be in everybody's interst's, but it only can happen , if the world get united behind "PAKARMY", & MUST SUPPORT her whole heartdly?

belive me it will bring , very great positive results.




plz cheack this out!

Editorial
"A Military for a Dangerous New World"
Published: November 15, 2008

newyorktimes.com

As president, Barack Obama will face the most daunting and complicated national security challenges in more than a generation — and he will inherit a military that is critically ill-equipped for the task.

Troops and equipment are so overtaxed by President Bush’s disastrous Iraq war that the Pentagon does not have enough of either for the fight in Afghanistan, the war on terror’s front line, let alone to confront the next threats.

This is intolerable, especially when the Pentagon’s budget, including spending on the two wars, reached $685 billion in 2008. That is an increase of 85 percent in real dollars since 2000 and nearly equal to all of the rest of the world’s defense budgets combined. It is also the highest level in real dollars since World War II.

To protect the nation, the Obama administration will have to rebuild and significantly reshape the military. We do not minimize the difficulty of this task. Even if money were limitless, planning is extraordinarily difficult in a world with no single enemy and many dangers.

The United States and its NATO allies must be able to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan — and keep pursuing Al Qaeda forces around the world. Pentagon planners must weigh the potential threats posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, an erratic North Korea, a rising China, an assertive Russia and a raft of unstable countries like Somalia and nuclear-armed Pakistan. And they must have sufficient troops, ships and planes to reassure allies in Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

The goal is a military that is large enough and mobile enough to deter enemies. There must be no more ill-founded wars of choice like the one in Iraq. The next president must be far more willing to solve problems with creative and sustained diplomacy.

But this country must also be prepared to fight if needed. To build an effective military the next president must make some fundamental changes.

More ground forces: We believe the military needs the 65,000 additional Army troops and the 27,000 additional marines that Congress finally pushed President Bush into seeking. That buildup is projected to take at least two years; by the end the United States will have 759,000 active-duty ground troops.

That sounds like a lot, especially with the prospect of significant withdrawals from Iraq. But it would still be about 200,000 fewer ground forces than the United States had 20 years ago, during the final stages of the cold war. Less than a third of that expanded ground force would be available for deployment at any given moment.

Military experts agree that for every year active-duty troops spend in the field, they need two years at home recovering, retraining and reconnecting with their families, especially in an all-volunteer force. (The older, part-time soldiers of the National Guard and the Reserves need even more).

The Army has been so badly stretched, mainly by the Iraq war, that it has been unable to honor this one-year-out-of-three rule. Brigades have been rotated back in for second and even third combat tours with barely one year’s rest in between. Even then, the Pentagon has still had to rely far too heavily on National Guard and Reserve units to supplement the force. The long-term cost in morale, recruit quality and readiness will persist for years. Nearly one-fifth of the troops — some 300,000 men and women — have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan reporting post-traumatic stress disorders.

The most responsible prescription for overcoming these problems is a significantly larger ground force. If the country is lucky enough to need fewer troops in the field over the next few years, improving rotation ratios will still help create a higher quality military force.

New skills:
America still may have to fight traditional wars against hostile regimes, but future conflicts are at least as likely to involve guerrilla insurgencies wielding terror tactics or possibly weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon easily defeated Saddam Hussein’s army. It was clearly unprepared to handle the insurgency and then the fierce sectarian civil war that followed.
The Army has made strides in training troops for “irregular warfare.” Gen. David Petraeus has rewritten American counterinsurgency doctrine to make protecting the civilian population and legitimizing the indigenous government central tasks for American soldiers.
The new doctrine gives as much priority to dealing with civilians in conflict zones (shaping attitudes, restoring security, minimizing casualties, restoring basic services and engaging in other “stability operations”) as to combat operations.

Every soldier and marine who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan has had real world experience. But the Army’s structure and institutional bias are still weighted toward conventional war-fighting. Some experts fear that, as happened after Vietnam, the Army will in time reject the recent lessons and innovations.

For the foreseeable future, troops must be schooled in counterinsurgency and stability operations as well as more traditional fighting. And they must be prepared to sustain long-term operations.
The military also must field more specialized units, including more trainers to help friendly countries develop their own armies to supplement or replace American troops in conflict zones. It means hiring more linguists, training more special forces, and building expertise in civil affairs and cultural awareness.
Maintain mobility: In an unpredictable world with no clear battle lines, the country must ensure its ability — so-called lift capacity — to move enormous quantities of men and matériel quickly around the world and to supply them when necessary by sea.

Except in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has reduced its number of permanent overseas bases as a way to lower America’s profile. Between 2004 and 2014, American bases abroad are expected to decline from 850 to 550. The number of troops permanently based overseas will drop to 180,000, down from 450,000 in the 1980s.

Much of the transport equipment is old and wearing out. The Pentagon will need to invest more in unglamorous but essential aircraft like long-haul cargo planes and refueling tankers. The KC-X aerial tanker got caught up in a messy contracting controversy. The new administration must move forward on plans to buy 179 new planes in a fair and open competition.

China is expanding its deep-water navy, much to the anxiety of many of its neighbors. The United States should not try to block China’s re-emergence as a great power. Neither can it cede the seas. Nor can it allow any country to interfere with vital maritime lanes.
America should maintain its investment in sealift, including Maritime Prepositioning Force ships that carry everything marines need for initial military operations (helicopter landing decks, food, water pumping equipment). It must also restock ships’ supplies that have been depleted for use in Iraq. One 2006 study predicted replenishment would cost $12 billion plus $5 billion for every additional year the marines stayed in Iraq.

The Pentagon needs to spend more on capable, smaller coastal warcraft — the littoral combat ship deserves support — and less on blue-water fighting ships.

More rational spending: What we are calling for will be expensive. Adding 92,000 ground troops will cost more than $100 billion over the next six years, and maintaining lift capacity will cost billions more. Much of the savings from withdrawing troops from Iraq will have to be devoted to repairing and rebuilding the force.
Money must be spent more wisely. If the Pentagon continues buying expensive weapons systems more suited for the cold war, it will be impossible to invest in the armaments and talents needed to prevail in the future.
There are savings to be found — by slowing or eliminating production of hugely expensive aerial combat fighters (like the F-22, which has not been used in the two current wars) and mid-ocean fighting ships with no likely near-term use. The Pentagon plans to spend $10 billion next year on an untested missile defense system in Alaska and Europe. Mr. Obama should halt deployment and devote a fraction of that budget to continued research until there is a guarantee that the system will work.

The Pentagon’s procurement system must be fixed. Dozens of the most costly weapons program are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

Killing a weapons program, starting a new one or carrying out new doctrine — all this takes time and political leadership. President Obama will need to quickly lay out his vision of the military this country needs to keep safe and to prevail over 21st-century threats.

i guss, it would be very much needed to have efficient , strong & good numbred, well trained advanced , infantry in "PAKARMY"! which canbe razed, systematicly , step by step aproch.
defently i am, not voting for the increase in just some months, but i am pushing for a logical , program ! which enable's pakistan to increase the number's of its advanced infantry troops, that's all.

 

[dr.umer]

No Pakistan defense budget cut in IMF loan​

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 21 (UPI) -- The Pakistani government hasn't agreed to any defense budget cut to secure a bailout package from the International Monetary Fund, a minister said Friday.

Pakistani Finance Minister Hina Rabbani Khar told the National Assembly the government has also not agreed to impose any agriculture tax in return for IMF help to resolve the country's balance-of-payment crisis, the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan reported.

"We have agreed to no such issues and there is no such plan on the table ... IMF will not give dictation to Pakistan," Khar said.

She said while there are a number of wrong perceptions among the public about the IMF rescue, the program doesn't entail indirect taxes, the report said.

Khar said the IMF loan will carry an interest rate of 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent.

Pakistan is facing a severe economic crisis, critically low foreign exchange reserves and inflation running as high as 25 percent. It is negotiating with the IMF for a $7.6 billion bailout but IMF loans usually come with tough conditions.

Pakistani officials have said the government has approved an economic stabilization program and completed talks with the IMF.

Khar said Pakistan's foreign exchange reserves as of Nov. 14 totaled $6.6 billion, the news agency reported. She said direct taxation in the country remains a challenge as only 1 million people were under the tax net.