You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
90 per cent of US aid to Pakistan goes to army
2007-09-27
Washington, Sep 26 : Ninety percent of the current US assistance of two billion dollars a year to Pakistan goes to the military, a report has said. The report titled 'Pakistan: A perilous course', was unveiled at a meeting on Pakistan held at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The panel of speakers was made up of Teresita Schaffer of the CSIS, Robert Oakley and Wendy Chamberlain, former US Ambassadors to Pakistan. Rick Barton, a former senior official of the Geneva-based UN High Commission, conducted the meeting for Refugees.

Barton, introducing the report said that Washington had an "over-dependence" on President Pervez Musharraf who is viewed as a "key partner".
Because there are all sorts of choices in Pakistan; all sorts of people who can lead there. Obvious, huh ...
Chamberlain said that the US aid should be focused on the people of Pakistan, rather than go to the military. This leads some to conclude that US aid is working against the people, not for them. "The stability of Pakistan is too important for the US and the region in which Pakistan is located," she said.

Chamberlain noted that in the wake of the October 2005 earthquake, America's approval rating in Pakistan shot up from 23 per cent to 45 per cent, but by January 2006, it had fallen to 15 per cent because of a US attack in the tribal area.

The US should support the democratic process in Pakistan, and not an individual, the Daily Times quoted Chamberlain, as saying.

Commenting on the current situation in Pakistan, Robert Oakley said that Musharraf threw open a Pandora's box, which he couldn't now close the lid on. He said Musharraf had put the army in deadly confrontation with the extremists in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and it had lost many lives.

Oakley expressed satisfaction over the "quiet cooperation" between the two countries in the nuclear area in Pakistan, which remains military-controlled, and "we should see that it continues." He also suggested that Washington should reconsider its opposition to the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.

Teresita Schaffer said that the US should work "visibly" with "competing" leaders, and added that it must work for democracy, instead of latching on to one person. Turning to the possibility of an alliance between Musharraf and Bhutto, Schaffer said, "We are watching the last act of this drama."
Posted by:john frum

#10  LOL. Damn you been reading any Rantburg?
Posted by: HalfEmpty   2007-09-27 19:45  

#9  I suspect we want the Pak military so strong that it can act like the Turkish military--allowing Democracy only when it isn't Islamist, overthrowing the government if needed.

It basically opens up the possibility of a more secular government between the two sides.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-09-27 19:22  

#8  Where'd the other 10% go?
Posted by: HalfEmpty   2007-09-27 16:52  

#7  And the majority of the aid isn't being put into counterinsurgency... instead the Pak military is getting weapons only useful for fighting India.

And we all know what'll happen to those weapons if they ever try to use them. This is not a good investment. Here's an idea: Tell the Paks if they want the gravy train to continue they need to hand over the nukes before they burn their little fingies.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-09-27 14:46  

#6  All future aid delivered to Pakistan needs to be in the exclusive form of non-financial materiel dropped from a high altitude.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-27 13:13  

#5  I wonder how much of this goes to Taliban/Al qaeda??????
Posted by: Paul   2007-09-27 10:23  

#4  Honestly, though, 1200 carefully placed megatons would insure pakiwakiland "stability" for generations to come...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2007-09-27 09:48  

#3  90 per cent of US aid to Pakistan goes to army

Yeah, so? I'd say 90 percent of money goes to various congressional reelection funds in this country. You put your money where it'll have the most influence on people having the real power. In Pakland, that would be the Army.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-09-27 09:39  

#2  And the majority of the aid isn't being put into counterinsurgency... instead the Pak military is getting weapons only useful for fighting India.

Posted by: john frum   2007-09-27 09:06  

#1  I understand the part about the stability of Wakiland being crucial and all, but what we are doing there now doesn't seem sustainable.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2007-09-27 07:07  

00:00