Pakistan ´war on terror´ has cost $118 bn: state bank

[Star Expedition]

If USA really does its job in Syria, Pakistan doesn't have to fight terrorists in central Asia.
The spending will be much valuable if they are used in education.

 

[Yasir Ashraf]

There is a typo error.

It should read 'America's war on terror in Pakistan.'

yes dear you are write

 

[gayMo]

America cannot be blamed for this. The issue is not a contemporary one. The genesis of this right after independence wen Pakistan chose to be a stooge of great powers and itself a colonist of BD.

And if Pakistan had refused to help USA we would have seen Pakistan turn into Afghanistan. Morons like you know nothing about dealing with powerful countries. Musharraf did what was necessary to save his country.

I'm sorry your Caliph Mullah Omar died of kidney failure in Quetta, don't despair there is that Baghdadi the pervert in Iraq claiming to be caliph. So you do have some hope of joining a death cult.

Pakistan was threatened by amaerica not because of anything but because it bred terrorists who bombed America. This happened because your generals supported Americas Cold War against ussr and Afghan mujahideen. So it's still your fault not americas.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Yes, the same policy that a democratic Government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had adopted when Arab World tried to force Pakistan to attack Yemen on their behalf.

Pakistan refused and promised to support if it faced an hostile Saudi Arabia invasion.

Now, we don't see a Qiyamat like situation in Pakistan despite what the doomsayers had predicted for Pakistan over a year ago.



Read my signature and maybe your malfunctioning brain can figure out who was in power when Bangladesh was created.

Do you know the difference between the millitary and political might of US plus NATO compared to Saudi Arabia? USA was attacked and 2500+ Americans were killed and millitary action against Afghanistan was going to happen.
Yemen is not the same for Pakistan as Afghanistan is. Yemen is not Pakistans neighbour and the situation there is completely isolated due to geography. Afghanistan on the other had shares the longest border with Pak, and isunregulated and open. There are millions of Afghanis living here and thousands cross the border even today.
Pakistan as a state wasnt just embedded and connected with Afghani population, but it also had relations with the taliban as it was one of the few countries that had recognized the Taliban govt. So when USA and NATO declared war on the Taliban, Pakistan had to distance itself from them and cutoff all ties; just a simple neutral stance wasn't possible.

You seriously think Pakistan was in a position to say no to USA and NATO and after that they would have decided to not invade Afghanistan just because a democratically elected Nawaz Sharif refused to cooperate? Is that what George Bush would have told his public? And if Pakistan had Nawaz Sharif, whose entire wealth is mostly in foreign countries, would he refuse them .... this guy has a hard time even speaking out agaisnt Indian LOC cease fire violations and wishes to give India access to Afghanistan and central asia without resolving Kashmir.

You also have to consider India's role as well. India was offerring bases and all kind of support to USA for millitary action. If you want to get a glimpse of how Indians would try to manipulate the situation against Pakistan, read the above posts by our Indian friends; these guys would have left no stone unturned to prove that Pakistan and Taliban are on the same side, and Pakistan as a state should be considered as an enemy along with the Taliban. Now if Pak is considered a rouge and terrorist state can it posses nuclear weapons to defend it self against India? This would have been disastrous for Pakistan and any sane patriotic leader would have done the same thing as Musharaff did by supporting USA and NATO.

And lastly, also consider Pakistans economic condition (already under sanctions for nuke tests) and outdated military condition. Pakistans refusal for yemen war in 2015 was at a time when economically (Chinas rise and Cpec etc.), militarily (mature missile programs, nasr, babur etc.) and politically (not under sanctions, Chinas support), it was at a 10x better situation than at 9/11.

Anyway, I still think that after proving support for USA and NATO, Pakistan could have done better than losing $118 blns and 70k lives; but the blame would not just be on Musharaff.

Regards

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Read my signature and maybe your malfunctioning brain can figure out who was in power when Bangladesh was created.

Your sympathies towards terrorists should be recognized for 72 virgins.

To each their own stupidity.

 

[Divergent]

Somehow it was better to have Mullah's beat up anyone they did not like or marry 6 year old girls; but even a mismanaged war that led a lot of people being against extremism was not.
Oh well, to each their own.


They existed since the 50's. These very elements that opposed Pakistan all migrated from India after they realised that they would not have the power they had in the new Indian nation, so they decided to continue their debauchery here in Pakistan. From the Anti-Qadiyani riots , to demands of Shariat and lynching police, to their anti-bhutto marches and acts, to their bravery in the Zai-ul-Haq times and so on. This termite infestation of Pakistan has had mentors and supporters within the military and political setup. Musharraf in all his self absorbed idiocy had one chance to end this element and he decided his overall popularity and self indulgence was the greater good.
Or maybe, this element has been inherent to Pakistani society and is what the society demands. A brazenly deplorable mix of religious bigotry and 7th century ideals tapered with massive corruption and sodomy internally.

Islam is such a beautiful religion and you made it sound so dictating because of a few idiots who can't interpret it right.

I've realised also there's a lot of disrespect towards Mullahs like in general some of the real deals might be really good so can we not refer to them as 'so-called' Mullahs.

But I see your point

If USA really does its job in Syria, Pakistan doesn't have to fight terrorists in central Asia.
The spending will be much valuable if they are used in education.

USA does nothing except divide and conquer

 

[Meengla]

Thank you Pakistani tyrant General Pervez Musharraf and the men and women in uniform who served him like brain dead morons, for this great achievement.

The repayment should be made from the military's pension contributions.

Yes, the WOT on terror is a net huge loss for Pakistan; the so-called billions of $ received in 'aid' are peanuts compared with the losses.

But Musharraf had no choice on Sept. 11, 2001. The rage in America would have destroyed Pakistan within weeks had Musharraf tried a Saddam like defiance.

Where Pakistan screwed up was not forcing the Taliban govt in Kabul, especially after some pre 9/11 terror attacks by Al Qaida, to get rid of Al Qaida. Heck, given the potential dire consequences for Pakistan, it would have been fine for Pakistan to directly target the terrorists inside Afghanistan before 9/11.

 

[That Guy]

Damn.... Didn't think it was that bad.

It gets worse, if the electricity crisis didn't occur, it may have added another $50-$100 billion to Pakistan's GDP, taking it over $650-700 billion. Pakistan's development would have been light years ahead of India; Pakistan wouldn't even need China to intervene so heavily.

 

[Jungibaaz]

That's probably not a full estimate, a lot of those losses and extra spending, aren't considered in terms of actual worth to the economy.

It gets worse, if the electricity crisis didn't occur, it may have added another $50-$100 billion to Pakistan's GDP, taking it over $650-700 billion. Pakistan's development would have been light years ahead of India; Pakistan wouldn't even need China to intervene so heavily.

It doesn't quite work like that, not all this cost would be added to our yearly GDP. The figure in the OP is considered over 14 years.

So it's more like $118 billion over a decade or so, and it wouldn't add that much in one year's GDP alone.

However, it is a conservative estimate, it is wrongly assumed that the spending on war, or loss to the economy would simply be added as a flat sum if it wasn't for the war. They probably aren't considering what else this money could have been spent on, money that would've stayed in the economy and not have been destroyed. They're not quantifying the multiplier effect on that $118 billion. It would increase the opportunity cost even higher.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

InshaAllah 7 to 70 times of that money will be returned to Pak. As for the Shahidan, it may be considered as Zekat, and Keffara for Fitne and Fesat. As for those who engineered it, let them be the replacements for the some Pak folks who might be outside the Saya-i Arsh on the Roz-i Hashr...

 

[That Guy]

That's probably not a full estimate, a lot of those losses and extra spending, aren't considered in terms of actual worth to the economy.



It doesn't quite work like that, not all this cost would be added to our yearly GDP. The figure in the OP is considered over 14 years.

So it's more like $118 billion over a decade or so, and it wouldn't add that much in one year's GDP alone.

However, it is a conservative estimate, it is wrongly assumed that the spending on war, or loss to the economy would simply be added as a flat sum if it wasn't for the war. They probably aren't considering what else this money could have been spent on, money that would've stayed in the economy and not have been destroyed. They're not quantifying the multiplier effect on that $118 billion. It would increase the opportunity cost even higher.

From what I know, these numbers are calculated as losses to over all GDP, and not pure cash on hand. From job loss, corporate losses, government revenue loss, asset loss...etc. Loss also doesn't mean that one did not profit; A profit could have occurred, but not as much as one expected, an example would be expecting $200 profit, but only receiving $150, which would net you a loss of $50 dollars to your expected profit.

Even adding it slowly over the the years, would eventually push Pakistan's GDP over $600 billion, so no matter how you add it, the result ends up being the same.

I think the biggest mistake I made was expecting that people would realizing I was talking about the long term losses, not just a yearly loss.