U.S. non-cooperation hinders in war against terror: Pak officials

[Moin91]

WASHINGTON: Strict U.S. controls over equipment and a failure to provide other equipment, such as spare parts, has impeded Pakistan’s ability to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaeda, a US newspaper reported citing Pakistani officials.

According to a report published in a US daily Pakistani officials said Pakistan received 1300 pairs of U.S.-made night-vision goggles that enable them to see and fight al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents in the dark. The sophisticated goggles were supplied by the Bush administration at a cost of US $6.4 million.

But every three months, the troops had to turn in their goggles for two weeks to be inventoried, because the U.S. military wanted to make sure none were stolen, U.S. and Pakistani officials said. Militants perceived a pattern and scurried into the open without fear during the two-week counts.

Pakistani officials say that strict U.S. control over equipment and a failure to provide other equipment, such as spare parts, has impeded their ability to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers, the report said. In addition to goggles, the U.S.-made attack helicopters are grounded for weeks because of parts shortages.

Pakistan needs still more help, including persistent access to night-vision goggles, helicopters and other gear that is particularly useful in fighting an insurgency, said Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For all the brouhaha in the US over the "aid" supplied to Pakistan, if I remember correctly, the Musharaf govt. was more interested in Trade agreements, possibly an FTA with the US, not necessarily billions in aid, but the US declined.

Even now, when almost everyone in the world realizes the war cannot be won militarily alone, and that the impoverished Tribal belt and areas in Afghanistan need development and economic investment, the US is pussyfooting over the ROZ's and doing its best to limit their potential and scope.

Talk about a nation not learning from history.

The US would rather give free fish, instead of helping nations "learn how to fish".

 

[Energon]

My token American perspective:

It is extremely unlikely that the US will loosen it's audit requirements given that these inspections are contingent upon giving the weapons to Pakistan in the first place. The Senate arms committee along with members of congress who approve the sales/grants of any and all military technology of American origin to Pakistan make these audits conditional and incorporate them into the deal.

The reason for this is because the USA is extremely worried about this technology turned over to hostile forces as well as adversarial nations like China who have apparently in the past sought access to our technology through Pakistan. The other reason is pressure from the Indian government who have confescated night vision and other sophisticated equipment from Kashmiri insurgents, and who are worried that Pakistan will use its American made military assets to threaten India. Karzai too has made a lot of noise about the level of technological sophistication among Pakistan based Afghan insurgents.

As a result the senate and congressional committes are severely cracking down on the military industrial complex's weapons export policies to Pakistan.

The recent F-16 deal for instance came with the following conditions:
· site surveys and end-use monitoring, including annual inventories of all equipment related to the F-16s, by US officials;
· dedicated facilities for storage of spare parts and maintenance;
· strict limitations on access to the planes;
· complete segregation of the F-16s from third country-origin aircraft;
· express permission from the US government before Pakistan can fly the planes outside of its own airspace;
· full compliance with the security plan before the planes, weapons and equipment can be delivered.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Since when are night vision goggles high tech enough for China to have to "get access" to the technology through Pakistan? You can buy some top of the line equipment through hunting magazines in the US.

The second concern was related to the delay in provisions of spares for the choppers, that too does not fit in with the concern of "access to technology" - thats just poor logistical support, and something the US should be rightly blamed for.

The F-16's are a different matter, and the concerns surrounding them can be understood, though I consider them misplaced, since there is no evidence Pakistan provided any sensitive US technology to China in the past. In fact China's latest fighter, the J-10, which the US would consider one of its major threats, is widely attributed to Israeli transfers of technology from their LAVI program - which in turn was heavily based on the US F-16.

How many technology export controls does Israel have to face?

 

[Energon]

For all the brouhaha in the US over the "aid" supplied to Pakistan, if I remember correctly, the Musharaf govt. was more interested in Trade agreements, possibly an FTA with the US, not necessarily billions in aid, but the US declined.

Even now, when almost everyone in the world realizes the war cannot be won militarily alone, and that the impoverished Tribal belt and areas in Afghanistan need development and economic investment, the US is pussyfooting over the ROZ's and doing its best to limit their potential and scope.

Talk about a nation not learning from history.

The US would rather give free fish, instead of helping nations "learn how to fish".

Although Musharraf sought trade deals as well, he has always been eager to obtain state of the art military hardware; even from his biography, there is no evidence suggesting that he preferred one over the other.

As an American myself I am extremely opposed to our policy on Pakistan. Nothing has ever been achieved for the betterment of Pakistan (only our personal victory over the USSR); it has only resulted in regional instability and perpetuated a culture of violence in these unstable areas and most of all our policies have come back to bite us in the ***. Nonetheless the similar kind of defunct policies persist because of three main reasons:

1. Our inability to deal with Pakistan as anything other than a rental state.
2. The close relations between the upper echelon of government officials and the military industrial complex.
3. As aptly put by Joe Biden "we don't have a Pakistan policy but a Musharraf policy." I guess the assumption is that giving sophisticated arms to a military dictator is the best way to obtain favors.

Any person with half a brain can see that the only way to eliminate the vicious cycle of religiomania, violence and terrorism is to invest in secular education and industry. This is yielding great results for India and China and there is no reason to assume that the same could not be true for Pakistan. I recently attended a symposium on the issue and was shocked to hear the consensus: Pakistan is a poor risk for these sorts of investments because they lack a meaningful market for the implementation of said skills unlike India or China. WTF the whole point is to create that market in the first place.

 

[Energon]

Since when are night vision goggles high tech enough for China to have to "get access" to the technology through Pakistan? You can buy some top of the line equipment through hunting magazines in the US.

The second concern was related to the delay in provisions of spares for the choppers, that too does not fit in with the concern of "access to technology" - thats just poor logistical support, and something the US should be rightly blamed for.

The F-16's are a different matter, and the concerns surrounding them can be understood, though I consider them misplaced, since there is no evidence Pakistan provided any sensitive US technology to China in the past. In fact China's latest fighter, the J-10, which the US would consider one of its major threats, is widely attributed to Israeli transfers of technology from their LAVI program - which in turn was heavily based on the US F-16.

How many technology export controls does Israel have to face?

I think at this point it's a blanket policy. Doesn't matter if its an AGTM missile or an common bolt with a Lockheed Martin logo. Nothing goes over until someone from the bureaucratic machine reviews it.

The export policies are nation specific. Hence the controls on technology for Israel cannot be compared to that of Pakistan. Israel's punishment for selling the Lavi to China was their expulsion from the JSF program. The only reason they are back on is because of last year's Lebanon conflict and recent saber rattling with Iran. Also, given that the F-16 and F-18 are in the running for India's MRCA tender means that similar regulations do not exist; because from what I understand the Indian MoD does not allow any contestant with these policies to participate in tenders.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^ I agree with your analysis above energon. And the last paragraph is spot on. And its not just the US, but the EU to some extent as well. India and China have more of a chance of initiating FTA' with the EU and the US than most other developing countries who are in more need of such access to markets.

These agreements then end up giving countries like China and India even more of an advantage, on top of the existing economies of scale, better technology, access to capital etc., and a lot of developing countries are pretty much out of the picture.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think at this point it's a blanket policy. Doesn't matter if its a AGTM missile or an common bolt with a Lockheed Martin logo. Nothing goes over until someone from the bureaucratic machine reviews it.

The export policies are nation specific. Hence the controls on technology for Israel cannot be compared to that of Pakistan. Israel's punishment for selling the Lavi to China was their expulsion from the JSF program. The only reason they are back on is because of last year's Lebanon conflict and recent saber rattling with Iran. Also, given that the F-16 and F-18 are in the running for India's MRCA tender means that similar regulations do not exist; because from what I understand the Indian MoD does not allow any contestant with these policies to participate in tenders.

If they are "blanket policies" then, again, the criticism of the US is justified, for not catreing to the demands of an extremely difficult war - lets not forget that this equipment is being used for fighting a war in the Tribal areas that the army does not really want to fight - so for the US to put up more hurdles in the way of an effective military operation really casts their policies in a negative light. I am sure waivers can be obtained. Its a poor excuse.

And what of the spare parts?

 

[Energon]

^^ I agree with your analysis above energon. And the last paragraph is spot on. And its not just the US, but the EU to some extent as well. India and China have more of a chance of initiating FTA' with the EU and the US than most other developing countries who are in more need of such access to markets.

These agreements then end up giving countries like China and India even more of an advantage, on top of the existing economies of scale, better technology, access to capital etc., and a lot of developing countries are pretty much out of the picture.

One main difference between the Indo-China paradigm vs the other developing countries is that most of the latter are stuck in a vicious cycle and have not managed to develop nation building core competencies as of yet. Ironically India and China managed to develop these skills because they were isolated from the USA while the capabilities of the rest were impeded on account of their co-dependent relations with the USA (Germany and Japan do not fit into this category since they already had high levels of industrial and core competence and Japan's influence made it's way to South Korea). If you ever get a chance, read Dr. APJ Kalam's essays on this topic.

Nonetheless I must admit that the surges that India and China are now enjoying are because of their indigenous education systems (granted they do not suffice the populations, but still produce significant numbers of highly skilled workers) and the west has merely tapped into a pre-existing resource whereby their investments have struck gold in a very short period.

Such is not the case for other developing nations. Here massive investments have to be first made into the rudimentary education systems, and the most difficult part will be to get over the hump of cultural emphasis over religous education and mass mistrust of a western styled secular education system that emphasizes on empericism. Rest assured, even when I was attending that symposium, I wasn't denying this massive dissimilarity between the two models or the fact that it is in fact a great risk to invest in the latter knowing very well that the returns will not be evident for the next 2 decades. But I still think it's a better investment than making ad-hoc weapons deals and strategic arrangements.

At least in the case of Pakistan, one of the most ingenious ideas I've heard was actually penned by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. The political animosity withstanding, He thinks that instead of begging the west for help and importing educators for academic institutions from the west for large sums of money, just tap into the Indian market. India still has a large supply of qualified educators who are dys-employed or under-employed who can be offered higher wages (even in US currency) in Pakistan. At the school level, on account of the infrastructure problems India is making mass investments in sattelite e-education. It really wouldn't take much to include Pakistan in the network as a participating member. IMHO such a deal would be far more valuable in normalizing relations than some stupid symbolic cross border bus or train line.

 

[Energon]

If they are "blanket policies" then, again, the criticism of the US is justified, for not catreing to the demands of an extremely difficult war - lets not forget that this equipment is being used for fighting a war in the Tribal areas that the army does not really want to fight - so for the US to put up more hurdles in the way of an effective military operation really casts their policies in a negative light. I am sure waivers can be obtained. Its a poor excuse.

And what of the spare parts?

From what I understand, any spare part regardless of its complexity is considered as part of the transfer and hence given just as much credence as the original product itself.

As far as mass weapons trasfers, the Afghan war still serves as a bitter reminder. Oodles of weapons and monies were sent to Pakistan, most of which went an accounted for and in the hands of people for whom those weapons weren't intended for. In fact it's a falacy and an American generated myth that the Stinger missile won the war. Most of the Stingers were actually held back in Pakistan and sold to third parties while most of the cash was stolen by the ISI officials. Steven Coll's "Ghost wars", the awesomest pulitzer prize winning resource on that conflict details all these problems.

There is absolutely no way the American tax payer will be subject to a similar situation again. At the end of the day the militant problem in west Pakistan is the responsibility of the Pakistan armed forces and their government as it is recieves a lot of aid from the US. If anything, I don't really see why all this hardware is even necessary. The F-16s and Cobras will yield in more collateral damage if the ground forces aren't in there themselves. The PA has to fight and win this conflict with what they already have.

 

[IceCold]

The PA has to fight and win this conflict with what they already have.

Why do we even need to fight and win this conflict? This conflict was started by the US and musharraf decided to join in without giving it a proper thought.
Tailban may be a threat for the US but they in no way were a threat for us. Eliminating them just because US wants too was a terrible mistake that we will regret in the coming future. Now we have two fronts one from the indian side while the other is the name of afghanistan as we can see karzai ranting against pakistan and not to mention the internal instability that we are currently facing and the terrorism that india is sponspering within pakistan from afghanistan.

 

[Energon]

Why do we even need to fight and win this conflict? This conflict was started by the US and musharraf decided to join in without giving it a proper thought.
Tailban may be a threat for the US but they in no way were a threat for us. Eliminating them just because US wants too was a terrible mistake that we will regret in the coming future. Now we have two fronts one from the indian side while the other is the name of afghanistan as we can see karzai ranting against pakistan and not to mention the internal instability that we are currently facing and the terrorism that india is sponspering within pakistan from afghanistan.

I don't disagree with the fact that the USA was a contributing factor to the violent culture that flourishes in parts of Pakistan today. However, I don't think any one can deny that Pakistan itself under Zia patronized this culture for its own purposes.

But to answer your question as to why Pakistan needs to win this conflict is because like it or not, Pakistan needs the rest of the world to support itself, not to mention for the future; and right now, it is at the mercy of the USA. If Pakistan's patrons and potential trade partners are at risk, then it behooves Pakistan to take care of this urgent situation right away. Would you rather have a coallition of the affected nations carpet bomb Pakistan instead? Because that is the only alternate scenario.

 

[dahmed0]

sory to say, my dear, energon, now we, pakis, in genral think, tht the , war which we r fighting, right,now is a, waste full one, like the old one, and all the support wht we r getting, now is the,only the direct,interference, in our, political, judicial,govermental, systems,in real if u, ra pakistani, and by chance, u gt the, visa, to usa, the time u go sit in the plane,pentagon, starts looking, into ur profile, and u will get a very shamefull, gesture on landing any airport ,in usa, so in real, we the genral people of pakistan, who used to sit in cheap[ , tea stalls, and were the real masses, dont think tht, wht ever u r telling us tht was the real thing, i think u , stop listining, to,amrican, spokesperon,frm whitehouse, it will better 4 us(pakistanis) i hope u dont mind, i think ,the plan, by cia, to get control of the most of oil and gas resourses, is the the real war, and it is translated to us in the name (war on terorr),so 4 tht, usa is more keen to use pakistan, not, to ,give us support, or any assistance in real, wht do u get by imposing a croupt politician on us? because she suits, the objectivty, of cia, to make gen, mushrf,under ,check and balences system, which was introduced by him,,,,,,,,? once....? so my friend i and my uneducated pals, who still sit in small and very cheap tea stalls, wht u r telling, its all big joke.......?bt think we need people like u as a friends to pakistan,thank u. by the way, i like the freedom, u guys have in usa.

 

[Always Neutral]

Since when are night vision goggles high tech enough for China to have to "get access" to the technology through Pakistan? You can buy some top of the line equipment through hunting magazines in the US.

Dear AM,

You could not be further from the truth. The heart of the NVD (Night Vision Device) is the II (Image Intensifier)Tube. The commercial NVD's are at the most Gen II. Anything more than Gen II needs export lisence. The US Govt. must have given the PA probably Gen IV NVD's which are top of the line. Recently NVD's given to Iraq SF was found with Iranian Revolutionary guards who were trying to smuggle it back to Iran. There are only two manufacturers of these tubes and hence the tight control. Keys can probably confirm how superior these US NVD's are.

Best Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

India more important for US than Pakistan: US official

While reading the above article I read this one to. I think Pakistan should remind the US in a polite way that they have lost 4000 soldiers in the last 10 years on the Afghan border.

Best Regards

India more important for US than Pakistan: US official

Updated at 1510 PST
WASHINGTON: A senior Bush Administration official said that India matters more for the United States than Pakistan.

''India simply must, as a long term consideration, matter more for us than Pakistan,'' James Clad, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia, told a group of online journalists in a conference call from Pentagon. This is true even though Pakistan is leading from the front in the US-led global war against terrorism, he said.

Referring to the growth of the Indian economy in the past one decade and in other fields too, Clad said India is seen by the US as a potentially a power with global reach.

Responding to questions, Clad gave details of the growing defense relationship between the two countries - be it the joint Indo-US military exercise, visit of the USS Nimitz to Chennai, giving refurbished USS Trenton to India or increasing economic relationship.

With the prospects of the opening of India's defense sector, as many as 52 American defense corporations have opened their offices in India including the top names like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Electrical.