US policy experts say Pakistan is vital, oppose aid conditions

[fatman17]

US policy experts say Pakistan is vital, oppose aid conditions

WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (APP): Highlighting Pakistan’s vital anti-terror role over the years, a top American foreign policy expert has strongly opposed any move to condition US assistance for the South Asian ally. Lisa Curtis, a senior Heritage Foundation analyst, reminded that Pakistan’s critical cooperation in counterterrorism has led to numerous successes in the region and also helped save American lives.

Taking part in a debate on US-Pakistan alliance, she observed that a fair and transparent parliamentary election would bring stability to Pakistan but argued that the way to promote democracy in the country is not by conditioning American assistance.

Attaching conditions or cutting assistance will make Pakistanis view the US as an untrustworthy partner and jeopardize America’s ability to cooperate closely on counterterrorism, she remarked.

“The US lost valuable leverage with Pakistan when it abruptly cut off aid in the early 1990s because of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.”

She observed curbing terrorism is in Pakistan’s own national interest but pointed out that “cutting or conditioning aid fuels the perception that Pakistan is taking action to fight terrorism under US coercion rather than to protect its own citizens.”

“We should remember that the US has benefited directly from the partnership it has built with Pakistan over the last six years through the provision of economic and military aid,” she added.

Pakistan, Curtis said, has captured senior al-Qaeda leaders and helped thwart several major terrorist attacks.

“Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terrorism may have helped save hundreds, possibly thousands, of American lives.”

“Washington should continue its economic and military assistance programs to Pakistan,” she stressed in the Los Angeles Times debate.

“The way to promote a democratic Pakistan is to back open elections,” she advocated, saying these would offer a powerful antidote to extremism.

Meanwhile, speaking at a Washington think tank, a senior expert Flynt Leverett acknowledged Pakistan’s key efforts in the fight against terrorism and came down on critics who in their discussions keep harping on US extending 10 billion dollars in assistance to the ally. He noted that statements that the United States has provided Pakistan with $ 10 billion in assistance since Sept 11, 2001 are misleading.

“Let’s be true, more than half of that amount is not true “assistance” but rather reimbursements for costs accrued by the Pakistani military supporting US counterterrorism operations,” he said at the New American Foundation. Leveret also called for being honest and sober in expecting what Pakistan can do in fighting terrorism.

 

[roadrunner]

Some good points in that analysis. Particularly the conditions making it seem like coersion point. Defintely not the sub standard analysis that's been coming from the US newspapers or from Barak Obama's mouth or butt (difficult to tell the difference).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Some more input from US analysts:

Chamberlin backs Musharraf’s stance against US action​

WASHINGTON: President Pervez Musharraf has always been very clear that US troops cannot operate unilaterally on Pakistan’s soil, instead calling for coordinated efforts, former United States ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlin said.

Chamberlin, who served as the US ambassador during 2001-02, told Fox News that when Pakistan had joined the international coalition after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Musharraf had expressly stated that US troops could not operate unilaterally on the Pakistani side of the border.

The present head of a Washington-based think tank, The Middle East Institute, was commenting on Musharraf’s strong opposition to the notion of unilateral US action against any terrorists who may be hiding in Pakistan.

Asked if Musharraf’s stance would hurt US efforts if it had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leaders and if it were on the cusp of getting them, she replied, “It would not.”

She backed up her argument by citing Pakistan’s successful counter-terrorism actions over the years. app

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[IceCold]

Well atleast someone has used their heads over hearts. We do need people like these inorder to promote the real image of what pakistan has done and the sacrifises that we made for WOT.

 

[khanz]

looks like there are some unbiased U.S policy experts afterall
I think the main thing is elections once there held freely and fairly i think half the bitching about pak will be cut.

 

[mujahideen]

The U.S. has no choice with Pakistan but to give in to our demands. What are they going to do leave? I say let them leave I am sure Russia and China have a better deal to offer us.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

A very supportive article by an ex CIA official---suddenly there has been a lots of support for pakistan in the media---a very interesting read.



covert, adjective

1. secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed; "covert actions by the CIA"; "covert funding for the rebels"

And that’s our word of the day. Covert.

Apparently, as a noun, it refers to a flock of coots. I have no idea what a coot is… never seen one as far as I’m aware. I asked the research staff here at the PWB to provide a little information on the coot, perhaps even dig up a photo of a coot flock.

Needless to say, that request is languishing with the other various tasks piling up on their desks. The PWB office is clearly nothing more than a shelter for wayward slackers.

Regardless, onward and upward. I decided on the word of the day after spending some time in the car this morning listening to the news. Frankly, I’d rather spend my commute listening to my preset geezer rock stations, but my wife surreptitiously (different than covertly) reset some of my classic rock settings to NPR stations from around the country.

RelatedColumn Archive
The Best Covert Ops Are Those Done in SecretThe 'Change' CampaignBin Laden's New Year's ResolutionsMike's Annual Letter to SantaReaders Say 'Just Shut Up' to Hillary, AhmadinejadFull-page The People's Weekly Brief Archive

Stories
People's Weekly Brief: U.N. Must Step Up Pressure for Troops' Release Full-page The People\'s Weekly Brief Archive I don’t know about you, but I could sit in traffic all day long if the music’s right. And by right, I mean the kind of rock and roll that can reach down and make your privates tingle. The opening chords from an AC/DC tune, or the Stones, the Doors, Creedence, BTO, Lynyrd, Led, Cream, Pink…the Floyd, not the girl. That’s what keeps me sane during a drive.

If the music’s not right I might get a little testy. Testy as in taking the covers off the twin 50s on the front of the truck and opening up a fourth lane to the office. Believing that I should lower my blood pressure and focus on my happy place, my wife reset some of the stations.

Honestly, the music is rarely right on an NPR station, unless you’re a fan of Celtic tunes, obscure tribal sounds from around the globe or that smarmy introspective music being pooped out by a variety of solo male artists who all sound alike and spend too much time expressing their emotions.

But the NPR announcers do have really calm, measured voices. Voices that say “… I’m smarter than you, so shut your uneducated piehole and listen.”

Not exactly in those words, but there’s an implied meaning.

This morning, there was a mention of Pakistan. Specifically, there was a discussion by a handful of individuals (a handful is smaller than a flock) debating whether the U.S. should engage in covert operations on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan. I shall repeat that.

There was a discussion on the radio about the possibility of conducting covert operations against Al Qaeda and Taliban elements currently operating in Pakistan. This should not come as a surprise to anyone focused on world events and particularly the recent upheaval in Pakistan. Although I am aware that it’s tough to pay attention to world events now that American Gladiators has fired back up.

Is it just me, or are there others out there who would love to see the next presidential election decided on The Eliminator? This would save us a fortune in campaign expenses and reduce the election process down to a manageable 60 minutes including commercials.

But I digress. Here’s my point… if you’re having a dialogue in the media about whether to engage in covert operations, it could be too late to engage in covert operations. Unless I’m missing the point entirely, and that is entirely possible, the best covert ops are those done in secret.

See, in the not-so-old days, we’d identify a threat, gather what intelligence was possible, draw up scenarios for dealing with the threat and then carry out an operation. Nowhere in the checklist was there a bullet point labeled "See what the public thinks," or “Use media outlets to debate operational scenarios.”

Then what would happen is that the operation would either succeed, partially succeed or go all skeewampus. At a point afterwards, some tool would feel the need to leak information about the covert operation. Usually because they didn’t get enough hugs from their mother. At that point, we’d have an outcry from those on Capitol Hill who had been briefed on the operation (“I am shocked to learn of this, even though I did get a briefing on it last month…”) and eventually a hue and cry from the media.

It wasn’t a perfect system, but it was less screwed up than others I’ve seen. At least you had a chance to go after the enemy in private without an audience. Remember the enemy? Those fellas hate covert operations. Nothing a terrorist dislikes more than a well run covert operation.

So here we are… debating in the papers, radio and television whether the CIA should be launching covert ops in Pakistan to help eliminate the rats nest of Al Qaeda foreigners, Taliban , Pakistani extremists, Uzbeks and others who have sheltered in the tribal areas outside the control of the Pakistan military and the Pakistan intelligence service, the ISI.

To be fair, we should probably put this matter up for a referendum and gather the opinions of all parties involved. At least we could satisfy those who argue the government should be completely transparent and sensitive to the needs of our enemies. After all, it’s our obnoxious ways, particularly our irritating desire to protect U.S. lives and interests, that make otherwise warm and loving Islamic extremists hate us.

Perhaps discussing the possibility of covert operations is in itself a clever covert op. Not only does the dialogue improve our image as an inclusive and open society, but it makes us look like complete dorks incapable of planning and conducting successful operations.

It’s fascinating that we’re having this open conversation about sneaking around Pakistan right in front of our Pakistani allies. It’s like sitting at the dinner table talking about what to do with Grandpa now that he’s old and thinks he’s Field Marshall Montgomery, while Grandpa sits at the table taking it all in. If I were a Pakistani government official, military or ISI officer, politician or average citizen, I’d be pretty damned irritated by the discussion.

Here’s the thing: Pakistan is a sovereign nation. As such, just like us, they act according to their own interests and agenda. For many years leading up to 2001, it was in their interest to support, train, finance and attempt to control the very extremists that are now turning on the Pakistani government and military. Lest we get all righteous and whiny about Pakistan accommodating the extremists, we did the same thing with the Mujahadeen during their jihad against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

What are the lessons? Well, first, giving lots of weapons and ammunition to wild eyed, zealous Islamic extremists is, generally speaking, not going to bring you long term stability. I think we’ve learned that one already… just like Pakistan is learning the same lesson now (not to mention the Saudis and others).

Second, we won’t win this ongoing struggle against Al Qaeda and their like minded minions without the cooperation, support and efforts of our allies, particularly the Pakistanis.

And third, let’s show the Pakistani government and military some respect. Let’s have the decency to acknowledge their seat at the dinner table by not openly talking about the covert operations we may or may not conduct. I may be crazy as a coot, but keeping some things secret might just help us and hurt the enemy. I think that’s our objective, isn’t it?

As always, we encourage you to send in your thoughts, insight and churlish comments to [email protected]

While the staff here is far too inefficient to answer all the email, we do read everything. Till next week, stay safe.


Respond to the Writer.

Mike Baker served for more than 15 years as a covert field operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, specializing in counterterrorism, counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations around the globe. Since leaving government service, he has been a principal in building and running several companies in the private intelligence, security and risk management sector, including most recently Prescience LLC, a global intelligence and strategy firm. He appears frequently in the media as an expert on such issues. Baker is also a partner in Classified Trash, a film and television production company. Baker serves as a script consultant and technical adviser within the entertainment industry, lending his expertise to such programs as the BBC's popular spy series "Spooks" as well as major motion pictures. In addition, Baker is a writer for a BBC drama to begin production in July 2007.

 

[fatman17]

US legislation on Pakistan leaves relations unaffected

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Legislation enacted by US Congress in 2007 placed a number of restrictions on continued US assistance to Pakistan, but in substantive terms so far they have not affected the Washington-Islamabad relationship in any adverse way.

According to the latest report issued by the Congressional Research Service, implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, which became public law on August 3, 2007, ends US military assistance and arms sales licensing to Pakistan in financial year (FY) 2008 unless the US president reports to Congress that Islamabad is undertaking measures to eliminate terrorist organisations from Pakistani territory operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The law requires that the president report to Congress a long-term US strategy for engaging Pakistan. It provides an extension of the president’s authority to waive coup-related sanctions through FY 2008.

The US Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, which became public law on May 27, 2007, provides up to $200 million in further coalition support payments to “Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating nations” in FY 2007.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, which became public law on December 26, 2007, provides $250 million in FY 2008 Foreign Military Financing for Pakistani counter-terrorism activities. Another $50 million will be provided for such purposes after the secretary of State reports to Congress that Pakistan is “making concerted efforts” to combat both Al Qaeda and Taliban forces on Pakistani territory and is “implementing democratic reforms.”

The National Defence Authorisation Act for FY 2008, presented to the president on December 19, 2007, for signatures, would authorise up to $75 million in FY 2008 Section 1206 funding to enhance the counter-terrorism capabilities of Pakistan’s paramilitary Frontier Corps.

 

[fatman17]

Hi,

A very supportive article by an ex CIA official---suddenly there has been a lots of support for pakistan in the media---a very interesting read.

yes indeed! but the detractors out-number the supporters 3:1 or more.

 

[fatman17]

Hi,

A very supportive article by an ex CIA official---suddenly there has been a lots of support for pakistan in the media---a very interesting read.

MK,
u live in the US. why do u think suddenly there is lots of support in the media for pakistan?