How will the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan affect U.S.-Pakistan relations?

[pakistani342]

Daniel S. Markey, responds to the question here and in a detailed report here on the Council for Foreign Relations.

The question then is whether U.S. officials, exhausted by Pakistan's destructive policies, will again pull away from Islamabad as soon as Pakistani roads and ports are no longer needed as supply routes for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Washington's policy shift would not necessarily come as a dramatic rupture; it could instead look more like quiet neglect. The Obama administration, facing other pressing challenges in the Middle East, East Asia, and elsewhere, would put Pakistan on the back burner, reducing diplomatic attention and resources. Many in the U.S. Congress would happily follow suit; military and civilian assistance to Pakistan is unpopular and cuts hold added appeal in a time of austerity.

 

[FaujHistorian]

$2 billion a year for Pakistan and similar amount for Afghanistan is a necessity and nothing else.

For trillion dollar US budget $4 billion is really not much of an amount.

So I do not think US will pull back completely.

Otherwise the same old $hit will hit the region as it happened after Russian pullout.

And all the gains in Afghanistan will be lost.

 

[pakistani342]

$2 billion a year for Pakistan and similar amount for Afghanistan is a necessity and nothing else.

For trillion dollar US budget $4 billion is really not much of an amount.

So I do not think US will pull back completely.

Otherwise the same old $hit will hit the region as it happened after Russian pullout.

And all the gains in Afghanistan will be lost.

To give you an idea what $2 + $4 billion costs in the US: The city of Detroit, recently declared Bankruptcy -- pensions of City workers were sometimes cut by half -- the underfunded amount was $3.5 billion, see reference here on New York Times.

Maj. General Peter Fuller who served in Afghanistan had this to say -- which I think sums up the opinion of the American Public:
“If you’re in a very poor country like Afghanistan, you think that America has roads paved in gold, everybody lives in Hollywood. They don’t understand the sacrifices that America is making to provide for their security. And I think that’s part of my job to educate ’em.” see reference here on Politico.

So I think the $2 + $4 billion a year is better spent on bailing out US cities or spent on other programs at home rather than have them line the pockets of Karzai or Sharif.

Pakistan can raise taxes to fund the the extra $2 billion

Afghanistan can sell/cede of the areas that have Copper and Coal to the US or other countries in exchange for that $4 billion.

Why should the hard working American Tax payer have to give other a free lunch.

If the people of Afghanistan don't want the $hit to hit the fan they have to part with family heirlooms just like every one else.

 

[FaujHistorian]

To give you an idea what $2 + $4 billion costs in the US: The city of Detroit, recently declared Bankruptcy --

If you know anything about US gov finance system, Detroit pensions were not covered under Federal government budget.

so there is no point in doing this totally unrelated comparison.

Thank you

 

[pakistani342]

If you know anything about US gov finance system, Detroit pensions were not covered under Federal government budget.

so there is no point in doing this totally unrelated comparison.

Thank you

Ahhm,

The federal government regularly bails out large companies (for example GM, Chrysler), cities, etc.

The Federal government also helps fund state programs when there is a state budget short fall -- I think the Federal government helps Medicaid -- the intricacies are complex but at a high level that is the case.

The Federal government also has programs for troubled citizens like
Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP).

Further even if the above was not true I would not want a single penny of my hard earned Tax dollars to go to Afghan programs -- I want every single of my hard earned pennies to go to my daughter's education.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Ahhm,

The federal government regularly bails out large companies (for example GM, Chrysler), cities, etc.

That bail money never gets out of the State Department or Pentagon or other International heads.

As I said you need to study a bit as to how US federal budget is allocated and avoid unnecessary comparisons.

Thank you

 

[pakistani342]

That bail money never gets out of the State Department or Pentagon or other International heads.

As I said you need to study a bit as to how US federal budget is allocated and avoid unnecessary comparisons.

Thank you

I'm sorry but I suspect I would know more about the US system than you simply because I am affected in it and am moderately interested in how things work.

I'm sorry but I suspect I would know more about the US system than you simply because I am affected in it and am moderately interested in how things work.

You are not implying (I hope) that the money than flows to Afghanistan somehow does not come from my contribution ?

 

[FaujHistorian]

I'm sorry but I suspect I would know more about the US system than you simply because I am affected in it and am moderately interested in how things work. ?

If you did, you won't be comparing detroit funding with US international programs' funding.

Sure you will be interested in the budget and funding. But then I hope you tear apart line by line 3,538 billions of dollars to see where each billion goes.

Will that painstaking effort change any numbers in the 3000 and 500 and 38 billions worth of allocation?

I guess not!


If you paid a million dollar worth of taxes last year, your share of Afghan funding will be a point followed by whole lot of zeros.

Again Will that painstaking effort change any numbers in the 3000 and 500 and 38 billions worth of allocation?

I guess not!

 

[pakistani342]

I

If you did, you won't be comparing detroit funding with US international programs' funding.

Sure you will be interested in the budget and funding. But then I hope you tear apart line by line 3,538 billions of dollars to see where each billion goes.

Will that painstaking effort change any numbers in the 3000 and 500 and 38 billions worth of allocation?

I guess not!

I'm sorry I don't follow your argument.

It's clear to me -- if we don't give Afghanistan $4 billon per year that money will end up in my (the US Tax Payer's) pocket.

Further, other programs social programs that are being cut today like unemployment benefits, school benefits, etc. could be be funded by that money without further raising taxes (by redirecting that money).

?

 

[FaujHistorian]

I


I'm sorry I don't follow your argument.

It's clear to me -- if we don't give Afghanistan $4 billon per year that money will end up in my (the US Tax Payer's) pocket.

Further, other programs social programs that are being cut today like unemployment benefits, school benefits, etc. could be be funded by that money without further raising taxes (by redirecting that money).

?

There is no pocket where that $4 billion will go

It will be spent on one of the many international "projects"

US government budget (or any government's budget) should not be compared to your wallet.

But then again

you probably do not know how the gov budgeting works.

Sadly

 

[pakistani342]

There is no pocket where that $4 billion will go

It will be spent on one of the many international "projects"

US government budget (or any government's budget) should not be compared to your wallet.

But then again

you probably do not know how the gov budgeting works.

Sadly

So you are saying that the budget for International projects cannot be reduced ?

Seriously ??

 

[FaujHistorian]

So you are saying that the budget for International projects cannot be reduced ?

Seriously ??

Well next years budget is being worked out,

check it out

Don't ask me

Ask your congressman/senator

And then let's know what your painstaking effort shows

Thank you

 

[pakistani342]

Well next years budget is being worked out,

check it out

Don't ask me

Ask your congressman/senator

And then let's know what your painstaking effort shows

Thank you

Let me state this as an assertion: Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

Are you saying the above assertion is True?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Let me state this as an assertion: Over the next year(s) if we decide to cut spending on Afghanistan - that money is fundamentally somehow non fungible that the following are not possible:
1. It cannot result in a saving to the US Taxpayer
2. It cannot be help fund say US domestic programs
3, It cannot be spent on programs say in Chad?

Are you saying the above assertion is True?

No assertion please. We can spend next 24 hours @rsuming things with no results whatsoever

As I suggested

you are concerned about 0.00000001 (take few zeros out or add more depending on your actual contribution ) part of your tax being spent on Afghanistan.

So call your congressman/Senator and find out if the plan is to spend more or spend less or keep the same the amount being sent on international projects.

That's all

 

[pakistani342]

No assertion please. We can spend next 24 hours @rsuming things with no results whatsoever

As I suggested

you are concerned about 0.00000001 (take few zeros out or add more depending on your actual contribution ) part of your tax being spent on Afghanistan.

So call your congressman/Senator and find out if the plan is to spend more or spend less or keep the same the amount being sent on international projects.

That's all

Sir I asked you a very specific question that you can state is False or True, based on your best understanding -- the reason I did that is that I hope we are not talking past each other.

You may be an economist of renown or you may be a scholar of the budgetary process or say a Professor of Public Policy at LUMS -- I am not -- so if you think the assertion is True, I'd be interested in learning that if that is the case -- I'll then try to take it up with some friends who do know the budgetary process with sufficient rigor -- but from what I have understood from them the above assertion is False.

I was sitting with some friends (one who is an economist who served in Afghanistan) and we were basically arguing the above point and I know he is polite but he would tell me if I was wrong about something.