Article

2009-09-25 India-Pakistan

US Senate votes to triple aid to Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2009-09-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 i really dont think this action will affect the above story at all

Posted by abu do you love ">abu do you love 2009-09-25 01:04|| 2009-09-25 01:04|| Front Page Top

#2 Screw hondurus and give money to the moslems. Fine "diplomacy".

If any of you are in reach, you better stand up because I file all of you under treason.

Posted by newc">newc 2009-09-25 01:16|| 2009-09-25 01:16|| Front Page Top

#3 $1,500,000,000 would buy an air wing of drones and keep the SOF boys in snacks and sundries for a long time.

Posted by SteveS 2009-09-25 01:25|| 2009-09-25 01:25|| Front Page Top

#4 From reading the Rantburg and Bill Roggio over the years it is obvious that the US know that the Pakis are two timing us with their training of jihadis in Punjab/NWF but we still pay them aid in spite of this?

These Pakis are whores who depend on money from the highest bidder whether US,Saudi,China Iran or Russia.

They are two faced to say the least and we treat them and Saudis as allies Why?

Posted by Paul2 2009-09-25 06:36|| 2009-09-25 06:36|| Front Page Top

#5 ...because of the ivy league boys and girls at State [Dept] who like to play games.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-09-25 08:45|| 2009-09-25 08:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, I'm all for it, as long as we deliver it in the form of UAV projectiles.

Posted by Perfesser 2009-09-25 10:33|| 2009-09-25 10:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Because half speed of covert behaviour is better to fight than full speed, overtly opening a third front in the war on terror that we have neither the manpower nor the materiel to handle. Even with what we've got going now the US armed forces are stretched to their limits, as are those of the countries actually engaged in this fight, Paul2. Even expanding troop levels as fast as training ability and Congressional funding would allow, we aren't anywhere near where we need to be to handle more than we've got going on now: Iraq at a lower level, Afghanistan at a high level, Africa with Special Forces aiding/training/guiding local forces, smaller efforts in Central and South America. We're going to have to complete something before we can do much more than the CIA and Air Force Predators in Pakistan, let alone go after Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Unless you can think of a way to persuade President Obama and his Democratic Congress to suddenly become actively pro-war, Paul2. Perhaps you ought to practice first by getting dear Prime Minister Brown to provide British troops with adequate kit and helicopters.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-09-25 10:57|| 2009-09-25 10:57|| Front Page Top

#8 My apologies. I am of course not an expert, or even truly very knowledgeable on matters military, and should have mentioned that this is how it appears to me, deep in the suburbs of Middle America. Those many of you who actually know what I have so freely pontificated upon, please correct my blithe statements. Thank you.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-09-25 11:09|| 2009-09-25 11:09|| Front Page Top

#9 looks like we need about 100,000 more US troops to hold the line in Afghanistan, even with SOME useable friendlies. to hold a pashtun half of the country with a population of about 16 million or so. In iraq it took over 150,000 to secure a country of about 20 million (excluding Kurdistan).

The population of Pakistan is about 180 million. Lets assume enough of Sindh is quiet to drop that to 150 million to include the likely areas that would be hostile if we went in - NWFP, Punjab, and Baluchistan.

That suggests a US force of about a million to clear, hold and build.

If the Dems were to push for that, the Dems would be quickly replaced by either a lefty party, a Ron Paul party, or something else. Short of a US city getting nuked, there isnt the support in the US population for that level of effort in South Asia.

There is no choice but to work with whomever is friendliest in pakistan.

While elements of the ISI are working with the Jihadis, it seems that elements in the civilian govt of Pakistan are working against them. The PPP despite its corruption and weakness, esp after the death of Benazir Bhutto, has been more effective than most would have expected before it returned to office.

The key will be to use the $$ to strengthen the good guys in Pakistan. That wont be easy. But thats what State and the CIA is paid to figure out.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-25 11:39|| 2009-09-25 11:39|| Front Page Top

#10 typo - 100,000 OR more US troops in afghanistan. I did not mean to imply 100k more than current deployment

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-09-25 11:40|| 2009-09-25 11:40|| Front Page Top

#11 At least one organisation-http://www.prlog.org/10154325-icat-demands-extradition-of-jihadis-and-isi-operatives-freezing-of-saudi-assets.html
is fighting the Pak/Saudi connection!

I have a horrible feeling the CIA/US are lining up again with Sunni extremists in dealing with Iran/Syria/Hamas and Hezbollah!

Posted by Ebbuper Ghibelline7533 2009-09-25 17:14|| 2009-09-25 17:14|| Front Page Top

#12 Yokay-y-y, Virginia, I'll bite, DEFICIT + BUSH RECESSION + PORKULUS/BAILOUTS + OBAMACARE + US DEBTBURDENS RISING TO US$12-13.0TRIYUHN-OF-US$14.0TRIYUHN- NET GDP, ...............@etal to come = USA HAS NO $$$.

But I digress ........

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-09-25 19:54|| na]">[na] 2009-09-25 19:54|| Front Page Top

#13 We'd be in a much better position should the 2010 Congress succeed in walking back the worst of the bills passed since January 21st, JosephM. I see no reason why, f'r instance, any remaining unspent Stimulus Plan commitments should actually go forward.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-09-25 22:54|| 2009-09-25 22:54|| Front Page Top

23:27 Cheaderhead
23:23 SteveS
23:22 Mike N.
23:13 Josephmendiola
23:07 Josephmendiola
23:00 trailing wife
22:59 Josephmendiola
22:56 gorb
22:54 trailing wife
22:54 Josephmendiola
22:50 Josephmendiola
22:48 gorb
22:47 gorb
22:47 trailing wife
22:44 gorb
22:43 trailing wife
22:39 no mo uro
22:35 trailing wife
22:34 trailing wife
22:30 gorb
22:25 gorb
22:20 gorb
22:11 Josephmendiola
21:52 Frank G