Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

saif · Jul 16, 2007, 03:58 am

On July 12 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel that the United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan. These payments are funded to Pakistan are “for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror.” Boucher admitted to the panel that this “reimbursement” totals around $1.2 Billion per year and is explicitly earmarked for paying for Pakistan’s military expenses in the region. In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher. In 2006, Congress authorized to aid Pakistan with an additional $ 738 million in assistance programs which also include $ 300 million in separate military aid. This overall figure now places Pakistan in the top three recipients of U.S. aid for military assistance with Israel and Egypt. But wait that’s not all! The United States has set aside an additional $750 Million dollars which will be pouring into the lawless tribal areas of northern Pakistan in an effort to win the “hearts and minds” of the people. This area is home to 3.2 million people and remains a desolate landscape where the Pakistani government has no authority and the smuggling of opium and other contraband is routine. Although there was recently a 10 month old peace accord with militants in the area, on July 14 they ended the peace pact with the government and launched two days of suicide attacks and bombings that killed at least 70 people. The violence comes on the heels of last week's government storming of a radical mosque in the capital, Islamabad, a clash that left more than 100 people dead. These new developments have offered a respite to President and Military Chief Pervez Musharraf who has been under pressure by pro-democracy movements to renounce his army post and allow fair and free balloting. Some now believe the Musharraf may put off elections scheduled for this year and declare a state of emergency. But the respite from political pressures has now placed Musharraf in the line of fire of militants and tensions are quickly heating up to what could become a large scale civil war. In an analysis over the weekend, Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation argued that “if President Musharraf is to succeed in liquidating extremism, he would need U.S. support. U.S. officials should make it clear, that eliminating terrorism requires that the Pakistan army resumes its offensive in the Tribal Areas.” Pakistan has played the fence with both the United States and Islamic militants for years and is now forced to make a decision that will dictate the future of the country. Considered one of the most dangerous places in the world it is home of significant senior al Qaeda officials, possibly including Osama bin Laden and the former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Recently, Danielle Pletka, Vice-President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute characterized Pakistan as a Nation that “has teetered between quasi-democracy and autocracy for decades, is home to a significant stock of nuclear weapons, has gone to war three times with its nuclear armed neighbor, and has a small but committed minority of extremists bent on killing the Pakistani President and taking over the country.” If the United States continues to ignore Pakistan’s failure to make significant political and social reforms then Pakistan could quite easily dissolve into civil war – making it much easier for militants to cease even more territory, support, weapons and stability. The U.S. must take a harder stance on how Pakistan disburses the financial aid we supply in order to ensure that these reforms are met. This includes insuring that free elections are held this year and that the recommendations set by the 9/11 commission report regarding education reform are instituted. We should as well demand that either Pakistan begins a campaign to rid the militants from its borders or allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory to do so. With the growing militant and civil unrest in Pakistan as well as an uncertain future with Iran that could include U.S. military action at some point, Pakistan remains a vital component in the war on terrorism. Although some experts feel that we should not pressure Pakistan by issuing demands for reform which may decrease Musharrafs ability to wage war, I believe this is a mistake. Success in the region hinges upon empowering the civilian base as well as empowering the army at the same time. We must enter into a long-term, broader working relationship with Pakistan to ensure that it remains an ally or risk the possibility of nuclear armed militants.

Zeebadee · Jul 16, 2007, 11:38 am

Ah, yes, the traditional American approach to any problem - throw huge sums of money at it.

Do we really expect to win "the hearts and minds" of these people by funding a military crackdown designed to beat them into submission?

Battig1370 · Jul 16, 2007, 12:43 pm

["On July 12 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel that the United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan."]

Are these 80,000 Pakistani muslim troops friends of the United States of America? If they were, they would welcome the US ARMY to help them root out the Al Qaede organization within Pakistan.

saif · Jul 16, 2007, 03:56 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Zeebadee

Ah, yes, the traditional American approach to any problem - throw huge sums of money at it.

Do we really expect to win "the hearts and minds" of these people by funding a military crackdown designed to beat them into submission?

I am curious as to what solution you are proposing here or is it just to try and collect posts. What would you do in this situation? or have you not any ideas or thoughts regarding Pakistan's very serious state of affairs?

**Matt W** · Jul 16, 2007, 07:02 pm

Quote:

Are these 80,000 Pakistani muslim troops friends of the United States of America? If they were, they would welcome the US ARMY to help them root out the Al Qaede organization within Pakistan.

As has been already been pointed out elsewhere, allowing the US Army is political suicide for President Musharref. And probably literal suicide, too.

Aside from that, to coin a phrase - 'only an idiot starts a war on 2 fronts, and it takes a madman to start a 3rd'. You really think the US Army can take on this extra fight? Please, pass me your rose-tinted spectacles....

saif · Jul 16, 2007, 07:57 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Matt W

As has been already been pointed out elsewhere, allowing the US Army is political suicide for President Musharref. And probably literal suicide, too.

Been pointed out somewhere else> I thought we were debating not hashing out baseless opinion? Could you perhaps be a little more specific and try to purpose an arguement here? Granted, allowing us troops in the country may lead to more attempts upon his life, but what is the loss if they succeed? Will that not propel the people, who already dislike having these terrorists in their country, to rise up even more? Certainly his death would alleviate the civil strife regarding democratic elections..

Quote:

Quote by: Matt W

Aside from that, to coin a phrase - 'only an idiot starts a war on 2 fronts, and it takes a madman to start a 3rd'. You really think the US Army can take on this extra fight? Please, pass me your rose-tinted spectacles....

Do you really believe that the theatre of war is exclusive to Iraq when dealing with terrorists? Have you not watched enough mainstream liberal media to discover that terrorism is all over the world?

The Decider · Jul 16, 2007, 11:11 pm

Quote:

Quote by: saif

Have you not watched enough mainstream liberal media to discover that terrorism is all over the world?

Have you not read the recent National Intelligence Estimates that credit the Iraq disaster for hurting the War on Terror? US Occupied Iraq incubates new terrorists.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight - washingtonpost.com

As for Pakistan, your analysis ignores Musharraf's role in the current instability. He has alienated the important moderate leaders with attacks on press freedom and the judiciary. Musharaff angered millions of Pakistanis when he suspended the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He's cancelled or postponed promised elections, and reneged on his own pledge to relinquish his military post and rule Pakistan as a purely civilian leader.

Simply throwing money at Pakistan without accountablity or pressure for political reform will probably fail. Musharaff is less popular in Pakistan than Bush is here, if that's even possible. Unless he bolster's his image and popularity, he'll become Pakistan's version of the Shah of Iran--a hated American puppet dictator. No amount of American greenbacks will save him then.

The solution, if one exists at this late date, will involve money and pressure on Musharaff. I see little cause for optimism.

NPR : Pakistan's Musharraf Suspends Media Crackdown

NPR : Pakistanis Protest Suspension of Chief Justice

Zeebadee · Jul 16, 2007, 11:57 pm

Quote:

Quote by: saif

I am curious as to what solution you are proposing here or is it just to try and collect posts. What would you do in this situation? or have you not any ideas or thoughts regarding Pakistan's very serious state of affairs?

I think that very little of the money that we send Pakistan ever filters down to the people of the region in question, and I further believe that when the little bit that does make it to those people, the U.S. doesn't get any credit for it.

I wish there was some way to get the aid that we send to the people that need it, and that there was some way that they knew where it was coming from.

I'm on the verge now of believing that it's more economical and beneficial to withhold such payoffs and let nature take it's course in such backwards states as these. The few years that we can keep such regimes in power by buying their friendship aren't, in the long run, worth the backlash and hatred we get for supporting them when they eventually fall. What, exactly, is Musharraf delivering for all the money we send? Let his government fall and any new regime, if overly extreme in it's actions, face the reality of an India that's ready to flatten it. Nukes?? So what? They've been used before, and it's probably inevitable that they will be used again, possibly even against the U.S.

You want 100% security?? Want in one hand and crap in the other, see which one fills up first. Even in totalitarian regimes, no one ever gets it. Welcome to the 21st century.

**Matt W** · Jul 17, 2007, 06:51 pm

Quote:

Quote by: saif

Been pointed out somewhere else> I thought we were debating not hashing out baseless opinion? Could you perhaps be a little more specific and try to purpose an arguement here? Granted, allowing us troops in the country may lead to more attempts upon his life, but what is the loss if they succeed? Will that not propel the people, who already dislike having these terrorists in their country, to rise up even more? Certainly his death would alleviate the civil strife regarding democratic elections..

Do you really believe that the theatre of war is exclusive to Iraq when dealing with terrorists? Have you not watched enough mainstream liberal media to discover that terrorism is all over the world?

It's an easy enough argument to follow. The encouragement of more attempts on an allies' life is generally considered to be a bad thing. The next thing to note is that support for the Taleban is strongly concentrated in the Northwest Frontier - the tribal area where central government has little influence - and has had pratically none for 60 years. So, if you want to split another country into regional/factional infighting, then, by all means, I'm sure it's a great idea.

And no, I was not referring to the 'war on terrorism' - I was referring to 3 physical fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - when your forces are already stretched to breaking point, with the 'surge' not sustainable for any length of time....logistically, it's a bad idea.

saif · Jul 23, 2007, 02:41 pm

US won't rule out force in PakistanPresident Bush's homeland security adviser said that the United States was prepared to take additional measures, including military force, to curb Al Qaeda's operations in remote regions of Pakistan.

But what do democrats think about this?

Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, agreed with Townsend that the US should go after Al Qaeda militarily "wherever they are."

"I don't think we should take anything off the table," Reid said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"Wherever we find these evil people we should go get them."

Very very interesting....

Jul 16, 2007, 03:58 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
saif Sword of Truth Location: Elmira, NY Posts: 225	Funding Pakistan's Future! On July 12 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel that the United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan. These payments are funded to Pakistan are “for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror.” Boucher admitted to the panel that this “reimbursement” totals around $1.2 Billion per year and is explicitly earmarked for paying for Pakistan’s military expenses in the region. In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher. In 2006, Congress authorized to aid Pakistan with an additional $ 738 million in assistance programs which also include $ 300 million in separate military aid. This overall figure now places Pakistan in the top three recipients of U.S. aid for military assistance with Israel and Egypt. But wait that’s not all! The United States has set aside an additional $750 Million dollars which will be pouring into the lawless tribal areas of northern Pakistan in an effort to win the “hearts and minds” of the people. This area is home to 3.2 million people and remains a desolate landscape where the Pakistani government has no authority and the smuggling of opium and other contraband is routine. Although there was recently a 10 month old peace accord with militants in the area, on July 14 they ended the peace pact with the government and launched two days of suicide attacks and bombings that killed at least 70 people. The violence comes on the heels of last week's government storming of a radical mosque in the capital, Islamabad, a clash that left more than 100 people dead. These new developments have offered a respite to President and Military Chief Pervez Musharraf who has been under pressure by pro-democracy movements to renounce his army post and allow fair and free balloting. Some now believe the Musharraf may put off elections scheduled for this year and declare a state of emergency. But the respite from political pressures has now placed Musharraf in the line of fire of militants and tensions are quickly heating up to what could become a large scale civil war. In an analysis over the weekend, Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation argued that “if President Musharraf is to succeed in liquidating extremism, he would need U.S. support. U.S. officials should make it clear, that eliminating terrorism requires that the Pakistan army resumes its offensive in the Tribal Areas.” Pakistan has played the fence with both the United States and Islamic militants for years and is now forced to make a decision that will dictate the future of the country. Considered one of the most dangerous places in the world it is home of significant senior al Qaeda officials, possibly including Osama bin Laden and the former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Recently, Danielle Pletka, Vice-President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute characterized Pakistan as a Nation that “has teetered between quasi-democracy and autocracy for decades, is home to a significant stock of nuclear weapons, has gone to war three times with its nuclear armed neighbor, and has a small but committed minority of extremists bent on killing the Pakistani President and taking over the country.” If the United States continues to ignore Pakistan’s failure to make significant political and social reforms then Pakistan could quite easily dissolve into civil war – making it much easier for militants to cease even more territory, support, weapons and stability. The U.S. must take a harder stance on how Pakistan disburses the financial aid we supply in order to ensure that these reforms are met. This includes insuring that free elections are held this year and that the recommendations set by the 9/11 commission report regarding education reform are instituted. We should as well demand that either Pakistan begins a campaign to rid the militants from its borders or allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory to do so. With the growing militant and civil unrest in Pakistan as well as an uncertain future with Iran that could include U.S. military action at some point, Pakistan remains a vital component in the war on terrorism. Although some experts feel that we should not pressure Pakistan by issuing demands for reform which may decrease Musharrafs ability to wage war, I believe this is a mistake. Success in the region hinges upon empowering the civilian base as well as empowering the army at the same time. We must enter into a long-term, broader working relationship with Pakistan to ensure that it remains an ally or risk the possibility of nuclear armed militants. (Click to expand) Come visit the Evolution of Thought Institute today!

Jul 16, 2007, 11:38 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,772	Ah, yes, the traditional American approach to any problem - throw huge sums of money at it. Do we really expect to win "the hearts and minds" of these people by funding a military crackdown designed to beat them into submission? "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Jul 23, 2007, 02:41 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
saif Sword of Truth Location: Elmira, NY Posts: 225	US won't rule out force in Pakistan US won't rule out force in PakistanPresident Bush's homeland security adviser said that the United States was prepared to take additional measures, including military force, to curb Al Qaeda's operations in remote regions of Pakistan. But what do democrats think about this? Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, agreed with Townsend that the US should go after Al Qaeda militarily "wherever they are." "I don't think we should take anything off the table," Reid said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Wherever we find these evil people we should go get them." Very very interesting.... (Click to expand) Come visit the Evolution of Thought Institute today!

Jul 16, 2007, 12:43 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Battig1370 Molten Ash Posts: 106	["On July 12 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel that the United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan."] Are these 80,000 Pakistani muslim troops friends of the United States of America? If they were, they would welcome the US ARMY to help them root out the Al Qaede organization within Pakistan.