It's abundantly clear that whatever alliance Bush made with Pakistan was simply one of convenience on Musharraf's part. Once again, Bush got taken for a ride, to the tune of $10 billion. For years, Musharraf did little or nothing to evict the Taliban from the federal tribal areas, while they built camps and hid Bin Laden. Finally, in the past two months, the Taliban have made the federal tribal areas a de-facto independent state and the rebellion has spread beyond the frontier into Swat Valley. Then our ally, Musharraf, boldly sprung into action. He declared martial law and threw the democratic opposition into jail. Then he got some of his troops that had been taken hostage in the tribal areas released, while continuing his winning policy of doing nothing about the rebellion on the frontier. This is what we got for $10 billion. Unless, of course, Musharraf throws in a war with India as part of the deal for his "support".
Bush seems to have no other card up his sleeve but military force and huge arms shipments. Reconstruction won't take place without security, and you can't get security without reconstruction. Meanwhile, the bill just gets bigger every day, and war becomes more likely in every area Bush's magic was worked. Russia and China get more powerful as we blow huge amounts of borrowed cash on two wars that increase regional instability. If another crisis erupts, Bush has few legions left to throw at it. His base speaks glowingly of the Long War, an endless series of conflicts across the globe in which we grind our heel into the face of any nations that fail to repeat our talking points. We will be "safe" only when we can dominate the world and dictate who takes power where. Those nations friendly to us, such as Israel, can have nuclear weapons (and already do), but those who are not under our hegemony are a danger to the world. Pakistan itself was once classified by the U.S. as a rogue state for its possession of nukes and failure to sign the NPT. But when the Global War On Terror was dreamed up, all that went by the wayside. Democracy is the goal and the watchword, unless it produces governments that don't bow to our whim, such as in Palestine, Venezuela, or Russia.
Even worse, pointing out this arrogance and hypocrisy earns you the label "America Hater" from Republicans. This Long War, if it is carried out, will cost this country multiple trillions of dollars and result in a military draft and national insolvency. It will cost us our allies and create new wars which we have no control over.
In a war between India and Pakistan, the big winners will be China and Russia. Money spent on goading one side into such a war is absolutely counter to our national interests, yet this is what "patriotic" Republicans are doing. Russia controls the energy supplies for our allies in Europe, and China has the ability to create economic collapse for us at the drop of a hat, at a far cheaper cost to them than war with us. At the same time, we are committed to defending Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, no to mention Israel. If Republicans would stop their incessant cheerleading and flag-waving for a moment and look at the big picture, they might very well put down the Kool-Aid. It has nothing to do with patriotism; it's delusion versus reality. Every nation that we defeated in the past "wanted to win", but that was not enough. Republicans seem to think that's all that is required to prevail. They are sadly deluded.
full story from ExpressIndia
Pak spent bulk of US aid on arming against India
Posted online: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 09:58:02
Silicon Valley, November 21: Pakistan has used a significant portion of the US aid since September 11 attack to arm itself for a confrontation with India instead of conducting war on terrorism, according to a strategic think tank.
Most of the USD 10 billion US aid is supposed to compensate the Pakistani government for sending its 80,000 or so soldiers to the Northwest Frontier Province and providing support to the US war in Afghanistan.
However, the money has been used for procuring high-tech weaponry to arm the military for its confrontation with India, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has said.
"We found that that the Pakistani military has been using that money and the majority of our direct military assistance for the purchase of high-tech weaponry such as the F-16 fighters," senior adviser in the CSIS Frederick (Rick) Barton said.
"It appears that the Pakistan military is continuing to arm more for its confrontation with India than it is for the war on terror because these weapons really don't have that much application for the kinds of low-grade persistent Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda fighters that you find in the Northwest part of Pakistan," Barton told the National Public Radio.
Urging Washington to make a more strategic use of the money it gives Pakistan, Barton said "If we had wise approach to war on terror, we would have found ways to align ourselves more with the Pakistan people. Because the only way you can deal this kind of insurgency is to have the people on your side and to not have the people harboring the insurgents."
One of the key points that the CSIS study pointed out was that the US needs to re-establish a whole new kind of relationship with Pakistan, Barton said in an interview with the public radio.
In 1990s, the US stayed away from Pakistan for 10 years, following Pakistan's nuclear weapons development.
He said Pakistan deserved a great deal of attention which the US has never done.
"We constantly flush them with money, then head for exits and none of those approaches really work."
He said only 10 per cent of the aid had gone to education and humanitarian causes and the majority of that went in response to the earthquake where tens and thousands of people were killed.
The US gave direct humanitarian assistance and military assistance and as a result the US public support in Pakistan went up from about 25 per cent to well over 50 per cent.
"None of these polls mean that much, but part of what we want to do as a country is to make it clear that we are on the side of the people, not just the powerful," said Barton.
He said America's second-largest area of humanitarian expense was in education, but there again the US is trying to do a million different things rather than focusing on particular areas where it might have higher impact.
2 comments:
I believe you are wrong when you say definitively that Pakistan is using U.S. aid money for a "war against India." Yes, aid given to Pakistan by the U.S. had major MAJOR trouble in accountability, considering much of the money didn't go to the Pakistani people or to counterterrorism but to allege that the military build up is definitely for war is a mistake, for it is way to early to make such conclusions. Ever heard of saber rattling for the sake of deterrence?
"We found that that the Pakistani military has been using that money and the majority of our direct military assistance for the purchase of high-tech weaponry such as the F-16 fighters," senior adviser in the CSIS Frederick (Rick) Barton said.
"It appears that the Pakistan military is continuing to arm more for its confrontation with India than it is for the war on terror because these weapons really don't have that much application for the kinds of low-grade persistent Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda fighters that you find in the Northwest part of Pakistan," Barton told the National Public Radio.
--------------------
That was directly from the article, not from me.
The money was not used for conterterrorism.
The issue is not that there was "trouble in accountability", but rather that the accounts showed that the money had been spent on the kind of weaponry thay would not be useful in a war against the Taliban. It was the kind of weaponry, however, that would be useful for a war against India.
India and Pakistan have already fought a few wars, so it's not as if there is some other prominent conventional military force that Pakistan would feel the need to arm itself against. Other than the U.S, perhaps.
Face the facts. We gave Musharraf $10 billion to fight the Taliban. He spent it someplace else. The federal tribal areas where the Taliban are based is now out of his military control. He is losing control of areas outside of the tribal areas, inside Pakistan proper. His 'state of emergency' was used to jail the political opposition, rather than confront the militants on his eastern border (the Taliban).
$10 billion bought us an unreliable dictator that hasn't delivered on anything we paid him for. Militarily, he's far more interested in his major foe, India, than the Taliban. It's the short-term thinking that makes him attractive to Bush, but it also makes him worthless to Bush.
Post a Comment