Into the Valley of Death

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Hi,

U S can put enough troops on its side of the afghan border and seal it. No need to give equipment to pakistan. All the refugees are going to be out of pakistan by 2009. That will make the difference.

Mastan,

In actuality there is nothing that could be termed as "sealing the border". That is merely a placebo.

Further, even to "seal" a border, a colossal amount of boots on the ground is required.

100,000 Pakistani troops have been unable to control the infiltration and exfiltration and India has been at wits end to do the same.

Maybe if the refugees are gone, things maybe controllable, but even that is doubtful. They will melt into the people! One wonders if they would leave modern Pakistan for the chaos and deprivation of Afghanistan! But then, I would not really know about them as you all would know!.

Further, ISAF does not have the capability to whip up requisite number of troops to do the current task, and so, to expect them to seal the border is just out of the question.

Pakistan has to be the anvil and the ISAF can be the hammer!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The US has tried to put conditions on the aid only to elicit a negative reaction from Pakistan. The USA does expect Pakistan to take some responsibility when it comes to how these funds are utilized and unfortunately that hasn't happened. Pakistan can't accept aid under a certain pretext, utilize it elsewhere and then reserve the right to express indignation when questioned about their poor judgement.

This is why I think it's time the US just completely stopped major military aid. Just limit it to COIN specific equipment such as rotary wing aircrafts and certain fixed wing aircrafts like the A-10 or turboprop super tucanos. This will allow a lot of extra funds to be left over which in their entirety should be implemented for human development projects in the forms of schools, colleges, hospitals, subsidized loans for higher education and research grants.

This is entirely the US's headache, if the funds being disbursed are expected to be utilized for purchasing COIN related equipment, then there is no reason why the US would not be able to override objections from the Pakistanis. Its a simple matter of we are giving you this money to buy XYZ, you agree that you will use it to buy XYZ, so therefore that is the only place we authorize you to use it.

I agree that there was perhaps a different perception on both sides on how the money would be utilized, but then that hardly gives the Americans any right to accuse Pakistan, when the conditions were never explicit anyway. That is where I think that your statement about "history showing..." is a bit dishonest, because it implies that Pakistan deliberately circumvented US conditions on the use of aid - when there were not any.

I also think that you have to look at these events in light of the Indian mobilization in 2002. Most of the major military programs being delivered upon now were probably being negotiated in the backdrop of that "hostile Indian move". That context is probably among the reasons why the US never complained that the money was being used to buy F-16's, and of course no one expected the threat in FATA to be as large as it is right now either. Its all a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".

 

[Energon]

This is entirely the US's headache, if the funds being disbursed are expected to be utilized for purchasing COIN related equipment, then there is no reason why the US would not be able to override objections from the Pakistanis. Its a simple matter of we are giving you this money to buy XYZ, you agree that you will use it to buy XYZ, so therefore that is the only place we authorize you to use it.

I don't get your point here. True it is a headache for the USA, but it is mainly because of Pakistan's subversive policies. The USA is doling out a lot of money to enlist Pakistan's help in the "war on terror." A military buildup on the eastern front has nothing to do with the war on terror. The only mistake the USA is making (in this case) is trusting Pakistan to keep its word.

I agree that there was perhaps a different perception on both sides on how the money would be utilized, but then that hardly gives the Americans any right to accuse Pakistan, when the conditions were never explicit anyway. That is where I think that your statement about "history showing..." is a bit dishonest, because it implies that Pakistan deliberately circumvented US conditions on the use of aid - when there were not any.

I don't think there was any miscommunication or difference in perspective; and the conditions were very explicit. The aid was given in order to fight the "War on Terror." The conflict with India does not in any shape or form constitute the American war on terror for which Pakistan is being compensated. The only agreement on the eastern front was that Pakistan stop funding the Kashmiri insurgency (which it has); but nothing more.

The epicenter of the conflict for which Pakistan is receiving American aid is the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al Qaida and Taliban have sought refuge and regrouped. Pakistan agreed to help USA with the WoT in light of 9/11; requested particular hardware (the USA didn't just give them the F-16s, they were evaluated and requested by Pakistan) and then used them for another purpose altogether. So yes, the USA absolutely reserves the right to accuse Pakistan of fleecing via a "bait and switch" policy. It should hence come of no surprise that Pakistan is increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and relegated to being treated like a child. It also justifies why the USA/NATO has to unilaterally take action in western Pakistan. It should have never come to this.

I also think that you have to look at these events in light of the Indian mobilization in 2002. Most of the major military programs being delivered upon now were probably being negotiated in the backdrop of that "hostile Indian move". That context is probably among the reasons why the US never complained that the money was being used to buy F-16's, and of course no one expected the threat in FATA to be as large as it is right now either. Its all a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".

I highly doubt it. The sanctions were lifted and military aid was restarted in the light of 9/11 and not the 2002 stand off. The latter was handled by getting the US private sector highly active in India to apply pressure (and it worked).
I have as yet to see any bilateral defense agreements being made with Pakistan vis a vis it's military posture with India. The recent reports and all the policies so far only mention the agreement in regards to the war on terror with the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

More than five billion dollars in US aid to Pakistan has often never reached the military units it was intended for to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and was instead diverted to other programs, the New York Times reported...

Money intended to repay Pakistan for maintaining 100,000 troops in the restive tribal areas apparently does not reach the troops who need it, officials said...

The United States provides the five billion in aid to reimburse Pakistan for carrying out military operations against terrorist threats. A separate US program delivers 300 million every year to pay for equipment and training for the Pakistan military.

I do agree that when the agreement for the WoT were set up that minuscule details weren't decided upon... I don't think this would even have been possible in 2002. Nonetheless, the conflict with India remains completely out of scope and diverting any material or funds to it acquired under the WoT agreement is a breach of trust.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My first concern is that the report is very speculative, and the "misuse" is categorized into two sections - overinflated costs (and all we have here is the word and perceptions of some anonymous sources) and a "diversion" to "other programs".

And what is meant by "Money intended to repay Pakistan for maintaining 100,000 troops in the restive tribal areas apparently does not reach the troops who need it, officials said."? The money is for "maintaining" (reimbursement of the cost for stationing those troops there?), so are the troops not there then?

With respect to the 2002 mobilization you misunderstood me - I am not saying the aid was released because of it, but that the US chose to itself ignore the way the funds were being used becasue it understood the need for Pakistan to bolster its eastern front, given that it was also deploying troops in the West. I am also suggesting that since no one expected FATA to become as problematic as it has, their was no great concern over the money being utilized in the fashion it was - hence my accusation of "Monday morning quarterbacking" - now that the situation is bad, everyone is saying that so and so should have been done.

I have to head for class though so I'll finish later.

Cheers!

PS: Is there someway to determine the breakdown of aid supplied to Pakistan?

 

[Energon]

Hi,

U S can put enough troops on its side of the afghan border and seal it. No need to give equipment to pakistan. All the refugees are going to be out of pakistan by 2009. That will make the difference.

MastanKhan, I'm not sure expelling the refugees is going to solve the problem. It will certainly reduce it, but not solve it.

Also, how can one effectively expel all the refugees from Pakistan? From what I understand:

1. There aren't any definitive forms of ID that can be used to determine the nation of origin of all the individuals. It might be possible to expel say Tajiks, Chechens and fighters who have come from the west, Africa or south east Asia on the basis of their physical appearance; but what about the rest?

2. Many of the Arabs came over as part of aid packages. i.e. Saudi and Kuwait didn't want the radical nutjobs in their own country so they had the GID strike a deal with Pakistan saying that we'll give you money if you take these people along. This unloading policy was very popular up until the early 90s. I don't know if it has still persisted discreetly. Nonetheless, my point is that deportation of these Arabs will be seen as a breach of agreement and given that the GCC nations still provide financial assistance to Pakistan, there may not be enough political will to pursue this course of action.

3. The refugees started coming into Pakistan in the late 70s. These people have since married and procreated with Pakistani nationals. What do you do about them? What about their children who are technically Pakistan nationals?

4. What about the massive Taliban following among the Pakistani nationals of western Pakistan?

As I said, even if you were able to locate and expel every refugee or foreign fighter, it will not solve the problem.

 

[Neo]

Energon,

Given the terrain and the sheer size of the territory that would have to be covered, I too doubt that enough resources can be mobilized to have a substantial effect. On the Pakistani side such an effort would simply not be feasible without movement towards comprehensive peace with India.

In the absence of resources to bring about substantive change, Musharraf's argument to me seems to make sense, that the Taliban (those willing to lay down arms in return for control) should be engaged and changed from within over the long run.

I too think that Musharraf's arguments to involve non militant Talibans could work since its not the Taliban but AQ which is causing trouble for both countries.

US/CIA with the help of Pakistan/ISI supported mujahideen against the northern alliance and the Sovjets in return for some control, it worked then and it should work now. We need to open dialogue between non militant Talibans and the US, a difficult task since US doesn't directly deal with terrorists.

 

[mujahideen]

I too think that Musharraf's arguments to involve non militant Talibans could work since its not the Taliban but AQ which is causing trouble for both countries.

US/CIA with the help of Pakistan/ISI supported mujahideen against the northern alliance and the Sovjets in return for some control, it worked then and it should work now. We need to open dialogue between non militant Talibans and the US, a difficult task since US doesn't directly deal with terrorists.

Agreed. What we need right now is dialogue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Energon,

Upon further thought, I think I might have a different perception (possibly incorrect) of how the aid was utilized. I was under the impression that if F-16's, missiles, bombs were purchased with that aid, then the US was completely aware of the sale - and therefore was in a position to object when the request was put in for those items. That is why I said that it was the US's "headache".

With regards to the breakdown of funds, I came across this interview of Musharraf:

About reports and demands by certain quarters that US aid to Pakistan be made conditional, the president said so far the country had received $9.5 billion, of which $5.5 billion went towards reimbursing services provided. If no payment is made, no services will be provided, he said.

There was a one-time $1.5 billion debt retirement, he added. The remaining $3.5 billion dollars is made up of annual payments of $600 million spread over five years. The country is economically strong enough to manage without the annual $600 million, he said.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

5.5 billion went towards reimbursing services provided - there is criticism that costs were overinflated, but in the absence of an independent audit and/or evidence, I see no reason to believe those reports.

A former US official previously based in Pakistan told ICIJ that, "Right from the beginning it was very difficult to pin down what the costs were and how they were computed. Initially there were very round numbers reported. Now figures are coming out with more specificity. Whether or not they are inflated, it’s difficult to get a handle on that. "
Pak to lose 150 mn dollar per month after new US conditions on aid | Top News

1.5 billion in debt retirement - I don't see how this is related to the WoT. It would more likely be considered economic aid rather than military.

So the biggest point of contention, that I see, is the 3.5 billion dollar package approved in 2003, to be delivered in chunks of approx. 600 million a year. Following is a breakdown of the most recent installment:

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a 785 million dollar aid package for Pakistan for the fiscal year 2008 despite its reservations over the state of emergency imposed on November 3.

The U.S. Senate is also expected to approve the package, which includes 300 million dollar of military assistance. The other major item on the approved list is that of 350 million dollar for economic support fund.

The package for Pakistan includes 50.9 million dollar of development assistance, 39.8 million dollar for child survival and health, 10.3 million dollar for anti-terrorism activities, 32 million dollar for anti-narcotics efforts, and two million for training and education of military officers in the United States.

This is part of a five-year 3.5 billion dollar package signed in June 2003, when President Pervez Musharraf visited the Camp David presidential resort for a meeting with President George W. Bush.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/290909.aspx

350 million of that is economic assistance, so no complaints there about "diverting funds" I hope. Another 300 million in "military assistance". This is interesting because there is a separate 10.3 million amount for "anti-terrorism activities". So would that imply that in fact the 300 million does not have to be utilized specifically on WoT related expenses (though I think it should at this point considering the setbacks the FC has faced)?

I'll try and find breakdowns of the remainder of that 3.5 billion that has been disbursed so far, but if the breakdown in aid is similar to the 2008 one, then what is needed is a clarification on the approximately 300 million per year in "military assistance" - why is it not classified specifically as anti terrorism assistance?

But the more important point here is that if objections do have to be raised, then it is not over 10 billion dollars of misspent aid, but approximately 1.7 billion dollars of "military assistance" - which it does not seem like has been completely delivered yet.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Finally found a comprehensive breakdown of the US aid to Pakistan 2001 through 2008

Middle East Desk : Pakistan

Total military aid 2002 to 2008 (inclusive): 1801.185 million Dollars

This breakdown does not include the approx. 5.5 billion provided as expense reimbursements under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF).

 

[S-2]

Nice article. One of my favorites.

Paratrooper Overwatch in the Korengal

There are some grossly overblown notions of the performance of U.S. infantry forces. The link above leads to a VERY LARGE photograph which vividly illustrates both the terrain and professional care with which these young men approach their work.

American forces have little interest in conducting operations in tribal Pakistan and would be the first to say that their hands are more than full already. The photo amply confirms this reality.