US shoots itself in foot in Pakistan jet deal .

[kaonalpha]

Washington’s refusal to subsidise a batch of eight new F-16 fighter planes only serves to 
convince many Pakistanis that America has and will always be an unreliable ally

By Farhan Bokhari | Special to Gulf News
May 22, 2016

Pakistan’s ongoing stand-off with the US over the latter’s refusal to subsidise a batch of eight new F-16 fighter planes brings back uncomfortable memories. For the Pakistani public, Washington remains an unreliable ally.

In 1990, the US blocked sales of new F-16 fighter planes on the grounds that Pakistan was making progress towards producing nuclear weapons. In time, the move became controversial as Pakistan simply turned towards its old friend China and ended up producing a home-built fighter plane, the JF-17 Thunder.

More importantly, in strategic terms, Pakistan became a nuclear power just eight years later when it carried out its first nuclear tests in 1998 in response to a series of nuclear tests by India. Even though the US at the time sought to restrain Pakistan from adopting the nuclear route, Washington’s ability was found to be limited. With US sanctions in place, the US was left with few tools to usefully apply on the ruling structure in Islamabad.

This time around, the US is not refusing to sell the F-16 fighters to Pakistan. It has simply tied the subsidy it had earlier agreed to Pakistan, taking action on three fronts; notably, progress towards battling Afghanistan’s Haqqani network, facilitating the release of Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani doctor arrested in 2011 for facilitating the US attack that killed Osama Bin Laden, and possibly concerns over the advancement of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.


Issues such as the case of Dr Afridi clearly fly in the face of reason. The US has itself been faced with situations where individuals caught on its turf spying for foreign governments were promptly prosecuted and sentenced, notably Jonathan Pollard, an American intelligence analyst who was caught spying for Israel.

Absurdly, making this issue a pre-condition for future assistance and, for that matter, publicising it has placed Pakistan in a clear bind. It is now impossible for any Pakistani decision-maker — civil or military, to accept this condition and face public humiliation for conceding under pressure from a foreign government.

On other matters too, notably the case of tackling the Haqqani network, Pakistan at best cannot be held entirely responsible for events on foreign soil. But, if indeed, Pakistan has not taken actions that it could have to tackle this issue, US pressure should have best been applied discreetly and in private.

Meanwhile, Washington’s own history in Afghanistan is worth recalling. Tens of thousands of American troops, backed by the most expensive war in history, failed to curb an insurgency that continues to flourish to this day. Holding Pakistan accountable now for a conflict heading southwards flies not only in the face of reason but also fair play.

Ill-advised action

And finally, if indeed the advancement of Pakistan’s nuclear assets partly provoked the US response, Washington’s action is clearly ill-advised. Pakistan lives in a volatile region with a nuclear-armed neighbour — India.

The decision to manufacture nuclear weapons was more a reflection of Pakistan’s security challenges than any other factor. For opponents of assistance to Pakistan, the history of nuclearised countries is worth recalling. To this day, there isn’t a single country with a successful nuclear programme that has agreed to dismantle its arsenal and Pakistan can not be expected to behave differently.

Meanwhile, withholding the subsidy for the F-16s — valued at approximately $430 million (Dh1.57 billion) — clearly ignored the importance of working to nurture an otherwise vital relationship. For the US, Pakistan has remained an indispensable ally since the 1980s when Washington backed the ‘mujahideen’ resistance fighters in Afghanistan against forces from the former Soviet Union.

More recently, action by Pakistan’s army and the air force has helped the US maintain military pressure on the Taliban within Pakistan’s borders. This followed the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of its Taliban regime after the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York known as 9/11. The US campaign relied heavily on Pakistan’s support, including intelligence support and logistics.

Going forward, Afghanistan will indeed remain a trouble spot not just for itself but the surrounding region too. The thought of a fragmented state, where non-governmental militant groups hold sway on portions of its territory, must be disconcerting for any knowledgeable observer. Afghanistan indeed remains the country from where Osama Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks.

Today, the threat of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) making advances in Afghanistan presents an acute challenge for the country itself and the surrounding region.

Going forward, in spite of the best efforts by the US, Pakistan and other key foreign players, Afghanistan will likely remain a trouble spot for the foreseeable future. A large-scale protest this month — by ethnic Hazara tribesmen over a planned route for an ambitious new electricity project — provided a glimpse of internal divisions fuelling Afghanistan’s discord in years to come, in addition to the militancy-related challenge.

Such trends make it clear that Pakistan will need to remain a part of any regional security arrangement to stabilise Afghanistan. Within itself, Pakistan’s stability remains of global interest, especially given that the country has emerged as the Islamic world’s only state armed with nuclear weapons.

For the US, as before, it appears that spoiling the relationship with Pakistan is easier than rebuilding it. American officials in the past have clearly been baffled by continued anti-US trends on the streets of Pakistan in spite of periods of generous military and economic assistance.

It would be worthwhile for US decision makers to ask themselves if indeed they can realistically expect the popular mood to swing in their favour on the streets of Pakistan, where many are convinced that America remains an unreliable partner.

Farhan Bokhari is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political, security and economic affairs.

http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/us-shoots-itself-in-foot-in-pakistan-jet-deal-1.1832745

 

[Imran Khan]

but Americans know very well they just need a telephone call once again when they need to hire us for serving them in some dirty work . in our local language they know our auqaat

 

[Desert Fox]

No kidding! How many times must we get shat on by the U.S. government and then go back for more American financial and military aid only to be shat on again and then complain why we haven't gone our own way and continue to latch onto Uncle Sam's teet?

 

[باپ]

No kidding! How many times must we get shat on by the U.S. government and then go back for more American financial and military aid only to be shat on again and then complain why we haven't gone our own way and continue to latch onto Uncle Sam's teet?

Seriously we run after USA wangling our tails once they throw us a bone.... We are a shameless nation.

 

[HttpError]

No kidding! How many times must we get shat on by the U.S. government and then go back for more American financial and military aid only to be shat on again and then complain why we haven't gone our own way and continue to latch onto Uncle Sam's teet?

Nothing will change trust me, we will keep begging before mighty USA and fancy their F-16s, in return Pakistani politicians and other institutions will sell their souls and keep pretending as if we are Free and a progressing nation.

 

[Desert Fox]

Seriously we run after USA wangling our tails once they throw us a bone.... We are a shameless nation.

This move was yet again another slap on our face. If we still go back wagging our tail then as a nation.... well i don't really know what to say, its that bad.

 

[risingsinga]

No kidding! How many times must we get shat on by the U.S. government and then go back for more American financial and military aid only to be shat on again and then complain why we haven't gone our own way and continue to latch onto Uncle Sam's teet?

You have to decide once for all....no more whitemail by USA. Only say yes if that is principled and in your national interest...otherwise just stay away and play neutral. But who decides on the behalf of your people. It seems it is done under undemocratic governmnets.

 

[Desert Fox]

You have to decide once for all....no more whitemail by USA. Only say yes if that is principled and in your national interest...otherwise just stay away and play neutral. But who decides on the behalf of your people. It seems it is done under undemocratic governmnets.

I guess you could call it undemocratic since i don't think genuine democracy exists in Pakistan (It doesn't exist anywhere really).

 

[That Guy]

The time of bending over for the US is over and done with, Pakistan's recent statements and reaction pretty much shows that it no longer will do what the US says.

The subsidy was a matter of principle, not affordability.

There is a misplaced sense of entitlement in Pakistanis towards American money.

They sincerely believe American owe them money, weapons and subsidies.

Which itself stem from the fact, that Pakistanis never owned up WoT. It was and remain's America's war.

They have never believed fighting against global terror networks, it once nurtured in its backyard is both its duty and responsibility.

Americans singlehandedly have been leading a charge against terrorism for past one and half decades, who should they turn to for handouts, to fight this menace?

Nonsense. Pakistan provided airbases, naval facilities, and supply routes for US forces; by all means, Pakistan is entitled to compensation, which Pakistan hasn't fully received. Not to mention that the war on terror has cost Pakistan hundreds of billions in terms of economy, by all rights, Pakistan has the right to demand payment for services rendered.

 

[sady]

I once had a chat with a doctor from Nigeria. I asked him you have a lot of oil too why is your country not doing as well as it should be. He said well for the same reason Pakistan a nuclear state is a phone call away from submission to US, i.e corrupt political elite.
The post colonial countries were never supposed to have real democracy. The viceroys were to be replaced with equally vicious brown skinned men, quite able to the dirty work for their masters.
Once the foundations are set in corruption and disloyalty to nation, few rich powerful men will never let me or you take away what they believe is their birth right. Sugar coat this fact or try to hide twist powder it up the fact remains we are being ruled by pigs and will remain to be ruled by them. Democracy, dictatorship, Parliamentary, Presidential, local Government systems etc are distractions and tools of deception. The rot has set in either sacrifice and live miserably or let it rot and die content.

 

[Zarvan]

Washington’s refusal to subsidise a batch of eight new F-16 fighter planes only serves to 
convince many Pakistanis that America has and will always be an unreliable ally

By Farhan Bokhari | Special to Gulf News
May 22, 2016

Pakistan’s ongoing stand-off with the US over the latter’s refusal to subsidise a batch of eight new F-16 fighter planes brings back uncomfortable memories. For the Pakistani public, Washington remains an unreliable ally.

In 1990, the US blocked sales of new F-16 fighter planes on the grounds that Pakistan was making progress towards producing nuclear weapons. In time, the move became controversial as Pakistan simply turned towards its old friend China and ended up producing a home-built fighter plane, the JF-17 Thunder.

More importantly, in strategic terms, Pakistan became a nuclear power just eight years later when it carried out its first nuclear tests in 1998 in response to a series of nuclear tests by India. Even though the US at the time sought to restrain Pakistan from adopting the nuclear route, Washington’s ability was found to be limited. With US sanctions in place, the US was left with few tools to usefully apply on the ruling structure in Islamabad.

This time around, the US is not refusing to sell the F-16 fighters to Pakistan. It has simply tied the subsidy it had earlier agreed to Pakistan, taking action on three fronts; notably, progress towards battling Afghanistan’s Haqqani network, facilitating the release of Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani doctor arrested in 2011 for facilitating the US attack that killed Osama Bin Laden, and possibly concerns over the advancement of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.


Issues such as the case of Dr Afridi clearly fly in the face of reason. The US has itself been faced with situations where individuals caught on its turf spying for foreign governments were promptly prosecuted and sentenced, notably Jonathan Pollard, an American intelligence analyst who was caught spying for Israel.

Absurdly, making this issue a pre-condition for future assistance and, for that matter, publicising it has placed Pakistan in a clear bind. It is now impossible for any Pakistani decision-maker — civil or military, to accept this condition and face public humiliation for conceding under pressure from a foreign government.

On other matters too, notably the case of tackling the Haqqani network, Pakistan at best cannot be held entirely responsible for events on foreign soil. But, if indeed, Pakistan has not taken actions that it could have to tackle this issue, US pressure should have best been applied discreetly and in private.

Meanwhile, Washington’s own history in Afghanistan is worth recalling. Tens of thousands of American troops, backed by the most expensive war in history, failed to curb an insurgency that continues to flourish to this day. Holding Pakistan accountable now for a conflict heading southwards flies not only in the face of reason but also fair play.

Ill-advised action

And finally, if indeed the advancement of Pakistan’s nuclear assets partly provoked the US response, Washington’s action is clearly ill-advised. Pakistan lives in a volatile region with a nuclear-armed neighbour — India.

The decision to manufacture nuclear weapons was more a reflection of Pakistan’s security challenges than any other factor. For opponents of assistance to Pakistan, the history of nuclearised countries is worth recalling. To this day, there isn’t a single country with a successful nuclear programme that has agreed to dismantle its arsenal and Pakistan can not be expected to behave differently.

Meanwhile, withholding the subsidy for the F-16s — valued at approximately $430 million (Dh1.57 billion) — clearly ignored the importance of working to nurture an otherwise vital relationship. For the US, Pakistan has remained an indispensable ally since the 1980s when Washington backed the ‘mujahideen’ resistance fighters in Afghanistan against forces from the former Soviet Union.

More recently, action by Pakistan’s army and the air force has helped the US maintain military pressure on the Taliban within Pakistan’s borders. This followed the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of its Taliban regime after the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York known as 9/11. The US campaign relied heavily on Pakistan’s support, including intelligence support and logistics.

Going forward, Afghanistan will indeed remain a trouble spot not just for itself but the surrounding region too. The thought of a fragmented state, where non-governmental militant groups hold sway on portions of its territory, must be disconcerting for any knowledgeable observer. Afghanistan indeed remains the country from where Osama Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks.

Today, the threat of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) making advances in Afghanistan presents an acute challenge for the country itself and the surrounding region.

Going forward, in spite of the best efforts by the US, Pakistan and other key foreign players, Afghanistan will likely remain a trouble spot for the foreseeable future. A large-scale protest this month — by ethnic Hazara tribesmen over a planned route for an ambitious new electricity project — provided a glimpse of internal divisions fuelling Afghanistan’s discord in years to come, in addition to the militancy-related challenge.

Such trends make it clear that Pakistan will need to remain a part of any regional security arrangement to stabilise Afghanistan. Within itself, Pakistan’s stability remains of global interest, especially given that the country has emerged as the Islamic world’s only state armed with nuclear weapons.

For the US, as before, it appears that spoiling the relationship with Pakistan is easier than rebuilding it. American officials in the past have clearly been baffled by continued anti-US trends on the streets of Pakistan in spite of periods of generous military and economic assistance.

It would be worthwhile for US decision makers to ask themselves if indeed they can realistically expect the popular mood to swing in their favour on the streets of Pakistan, where many are convinced that America remains an unreliable partner.

Farhan Bokhari is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political, security and economic affairs.

USA has massive habbit of backstabbing. It was us foolish enough to fall for it. It's time to buy Fighter Jets from Russia and China and may be some from Europe.

 

[mingle]

USA has massive habbit of backstabbing. It was us foolish enough to fall for it. It's time to buy Fighter Jets from Russia and China and may be some from Europe.

Zarvan leave EF and SU aside we have only option is china JF 17 is our choice we dont have $$$$

 

[sady]

USA has massive habbit of backstabbing. It was us foolish enough to fall for it. It's time to buy Fighter Jets from Russia and China and may be some from Europe.

Realistically we only have one option China. I sometimes think what if China was a lowlife opium country. What would have been our state?

 

[That Guy]

Oft-repeated canards. The war was much more Pakistan's than America's. Its just that some Pakistanis (including you) feel entitled to receive money for doing what you should have done yourself in the first place. As for the claim that the war has cost "hundreds of billions" to Pakistan's economy - yeah right. Pakistan's economy would be so much better off with a rampant Taliban at its borders. Nice....

First of all, use your brain. You make it seem like I personally get billions from the US, the war was never Pakistan's, it was merely forced upon it.

Pakistan's only concern is stability at its western border, it doesn't matter who's in charge.

the taliban regime kept the border stable, that is a fact, even if they were brutal, that doesn't change ground reality. Pakistan merely took a page out of the US and UK's book.

In the end, you have zero idea about history, but that's just clearly how you are. Your previous replies to me have always been just as ridiculous, so it's nothing new that you would make an argument, pretending that you know more than you actually do.

Here is the proof of what I said before? There is a misplaced sense of entitlement.

Why is WOT only an American war? All these terrorist groups were operating in , from and around Pakistan.

Did Pakistan want to remain as terrorist outpost of the world?

American travelled thousands of miles, spent trillions of dollars their own money, thousands of their troops laid down their lives to rid world of this menace.

There are 28 other nations in NATO, who sent their soldier and weapons to Afghanistan, spent billions on Afghanistan.

They don't think they are entitled to compensation, they don't ask for handouts, why does Pakistan?

because every single one of those nations that entered, were either rich, or were being compensated by the US. That's where the idea of FMF even came from. They didn't ask for handouts, they asked for compensation, which is exactly what Pakistan is doing as well.

As for your claims that "American travelled thousands of miles, spent trillions of dollars their own money, thousands of their troops laid down their lives to rid world of this menace.", they didn't. They went into Afghanistan to get revenge for 9/11, why do you think they tried to convince the taliban to hand over OBL in the first place? They didn't care about the taliban's brutality, they didn't care about afghanistan being in control of the taliban, they just cared about obl and AQ.

In fact, to this day, the US STILL hasn't declared the Afghan taliban a terrorist organization.

you've presented no evidence, other than baseless claims, and emotional appeals.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

They don't think they are entitled to compensation, they don't ask for handouts, why does Pakistan?

You do know India also gets $ for the war on terror...