U.S. (Bush etc) Bamboozled by Pakistan

[SteveGrenard]

The administration continues to rack up embarassing incidents of being suckered
by Muslim nations .... the Taliban (=Afghanistan) and now Pakistan. When will they learn?
Why doesn't Pakistan's rich Muslim friends in Saudi Arabia prop them up? Why should they when they can convince Bush to let U.S. taxpayors to do it.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jl5MNQFFLje7vFx-YdByJ6LVixxw

US aid to Pakistan diverted, squandered: report
10 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — More than five billion dollars in US aid to Pakistan has often never reached the military units it was intended for to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and was instead diverted to other programs, the New York Times reported Monday.

Much of the money meant to reimburse frontline Pakistani units was channeled to weapons systems aimed at India and to pay inflated Pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and other costs, unnamed US government and military officials told the daily.

Pakistanis critical of President Pervez Musharraf said he used the reimbursements to prop up his government, and one European diplomat said the United States should have been more careful with its money.

 

[corplinx]

News flash: foreign aid squandered

 

[SteveGrenard]

News flash: foreign aid squandered

One minor difference .... aid squandered that was earmarked to go after and apprehend our enemies including the Taliban, alQueda and Osama bin Leden.

 

[WildCat]

One minor difference .... aid squandered that was earmarked to go after and apprehend our enemies including the Taliban, alQueda and Osama bin Leden.

Wasn't much else they could do there, seeing as they basically surrendered to the tribal forces last summer.

 

[PAC]

How much longer before Islamic fundamentalists take control of Pakistan and use our aid for their purposes? Remember when we gave military aid to our "friend" Saddam Hussein?

No learenrs!

 

[SteveGrenard]

Remember when we gave aid to the Taliban? Remember when we helped them kick the USSR out of Afghanistan?

 

[Wildy]

Didn't Gorbachev (sp?) say to the US that there should be a joint effort to fix that country?

 

[WildCat]

How much longer before Islamic fundamentalists take control of Pakistan and use our aid for their purposes? Remember when we gave military aid to our "friend" Saddam Hussein?

No learenrs!

Dude, Islamic fundies take control of a country that has nuclear weapons and you're worried about what they'd do with whatever economic aid was left over?

I tend to worry more about unstable (not just Pakistan) 3rd-world countries with nukes.

 

[WildCat]

Remember when we gave aid to the Taliban? Remember when we helped them kick the USSR out of Afghanistan?

That's quite odd, considering the Taliban didn't exist prior to 1994. 5 years after the last Soviets left the country...

 

[SteveGrenard]

We gave money to the Taliban about a year before the 9-11 attacks. We supported the mujhadeen in their battle to throw the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. The Taliban may not have existed by name but it evolved or was born out of these events.

The "economic aid" you mention above was targeted military aid.

It has been diverted from fighting the Taliban and AlQueda to, among other things, targeting India, an ally of the United States but not of Pakistan.

Anyway Karzi was visiting with Mushareff yesterday, pitching him no doubt on redirecting his efforts to fight terrorists on their borders.

Yes, definitely worried about Pakistan membership in the nuclear club, especially now and since they took a good part of the billions given to them by the U.S. used it to develop and aim their weapons at India. You don't seriously believe they were going to nuke the Taliban, AlQueda or bin Leden?

Bush, if he did, is a bigger idiot than we could imagine. Which gets back to the OP that Bush was bamboozled by Pakistan.

 

[WildCat]

We gave money to the Taliban about a year before the 9-11 attacks.

We gave them some aid. We give most needy countries aid, even N. Korea. Your point is...?

We supported the mujhadeen in their battle to throw the Soviet Union of the country. The Taliban may not have existed by name but it evolved or was born out of these events.

Sorry, the Taliban are not the same group as the mujahedeen. What became the Taliban started in Pakistani madrassas in the early 90's.

The "economic aid" you mention above was targeted military aid.
It has been diverted from fighting the Taliban and AlQueda to, among other things, targeting India, an ally of the United States
but not of Pakistan.

I've pointed out to you that Pakistan already surrendered to the Taliban. Perhaps the US should have asked for the money back after that happened, but as of now Pakistan isn't fighting the Taliban because they got their asses kicked when they tried.

 

[SteveGrenard]

We gave them some aid. We give most needy countries aid, even N. Korea. Your point is...?

We, well the Adminsitration, was bamboozled by the Taliban as well.

Sorry, the Taliban are not the same group as the mujahedeen. What became the Taliban started in Pakistani madrassas in the early 90's.

I didn't say they were the same group. Go back and read what I said.

I've pointed out to you that Pakistan already surrendered to the Taliban. Perhaps the US should have asked for the money back after that happened, but as of now Pakistan isn't fighting the Taliban because they got their asses kicked when they tried.

They have surrendered? Reference please. You honestly believe the Pakistani Army got its ass kicked by the Taliban? Or is it more likely they didn't do anything but turn and ignore them. Perhaps as co-religionists they (Pakistani Army & Taliban and AlQueda) were allies, not enemies where one one surrenders to the other. Perhaps they are not fighting the Taliban or AlQueda because of that ..... geez, they are enemies of India, what do you suggest would happen to them if they attacked that country? Oh, that's right. They have nukes which bin Leden/al Zawahiri and AlQueda probably have their eye on.

 

[WildCat]

We, well the Adminsitration, was bamboozled by the Taliban as well.

We were? How so? What was promised to us?

I didn't say they were the same group. Go back and read what I said.

Yes, you did!

Remember when we gave aid to the Taliban? Remember when we helped them kick the USSR out of Afghanistan?

They have surrendered? Reference please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5315564.stm

Under the accord, the Pakistani military promises to end major operations in the area.

Sorry, it happened longer ago than I remembered!

You honestly believe the Pakistani Army got its ass kicked by the Taliban?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7003532.stm

Or is it more likely they didn't do anything but turn and ignore them. Perhaps as co-religionists they (Pakistani Army & Taliban and AlQueda) were allies, not enemies where one one surrenders to the other. Perhaps they are not fighting the Taliban or AlQueda because of that ..... geez, they are enemies of India, what do you suggest would happen to them if they attacked that country? Oh, that's right. They have nukes which bin Leden/al Zawahiri and AlQueda probably have their eye on.

Conspiracy Theories is thataway ------->

 

[SteveGrenard]

The deal to which you refer is for one district:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5315564.stm

Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta said the peace deal in North Waziristan was not enough on its own.

"I believe this is a cardinal mistake to believe that Waziristan is the only centre of terrorist activity," he told the BBC.

"I think it is [in] a lot of other places in our region and a lot of organisations and also madrassas [religious schools], that they are the centre of terrorist activity."

I understand and appreciate the confusion. There is no confusion that billions sent by the U.S. to combat the Taliban and AlQueda has been diverted toward targeting India.

 

[Beerina]

The "foreign aid" is intended to line the pockets of the dictator in said nations. They're supposed to siphon off some of it when nobody's looking, in exchange for being friendly (perhaps just behind the scenes) to the US.

Using it to re-inforce the line against India is just in bad taste.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Bhutto Asssination Underscores Bush Administration Faults

The "foreign aid" is intended to line the pockets of the dictator in said nations. They're supposed to siphon off some of it when nobody's looking, in exchange for being friendly (perhaps just behind the scenes) to the US.

Using it to re-inforce the line against India is just in bad taste.

I think India is a lot mnore concerned than to write off Pakistani noise at its borders as "bad taste." More so today than ever before.

That there’s going to be U.S. (e.g. Bush) responsibility for Bhutto’s death and Mushareff’s "dictatorship" is already being discussed:

The weeks to come will determine just how severe a blow Benazir Bhutto's death is to Pakistan, but debate over Washington's role in the run up to this tragic day will continue well beyond that. Even as the smoke still lingered in Rawalpindi, President Bush demanded that those responsible for Bhutto's death be caught and punished.

And it’s not necessarily coming from Democrats but rather from Pakistanis themselves:

But there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. "Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration," he says. "People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration." U.S. officials said they were leery of intervening in another nation's internal affairs, and didn't want to give Bhutto Washington's imprimatur.

And then there's aid totals since 1951, much of which was used by the Pakistani army of which Musharraf was its head to a few weeks ago after a fake resignation from the post of el general were basically used to target India. This was an Army we heard from Wildcat which surrendered to America's enemies and turned its attention to America's ally (India)...although frankly this may've always been the case:

Haqqani is not shy about pointing fingers. He blames Musharraf himself, above all, for Bhutto's death. "It's quite clear that Musharraf does not want an election — you can quote me — he is the one who has constantly wanted anybody who can threaten him or his power, out." Haqqani told Congress in October that U.S. aid for Pakistan has for too long been tilted toward the Pakistani military. "Since 1954 almost $21 billion had been given to Pakistan in aid," he told the House Armed Services Committee. "Of this, $17.7 billion were given under military rule, and only $3.4 billion was given to Pakistan and the civilian government."

On the nuclear issue, the situation is now far scarier than anything the Bush administration could dream up or fabricate for Iran. Peter Galbraith sums it up nicely and words have never rung truer:

One thing is clear, says Peter Galbraith, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: It is "not a good idea to have 70 nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that is falling apart." Some observers believe that U.S. policy in Pakistan has favored personalities over principles. "We have a bad habit of always personalizing our foreign policy," says P.J. Crowley, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "We've done it with Musharraf, and we did it with respect to Bhutto. We are very good at providing technical support to the Pakistani army. We are not good at building indigenous or effective local political processes or strong institutions of government." Given the realities on the ground, the U.S. is likely to continue to throw its support behind Musharraf. "In terms of political leadership, Pakistan does not have a deep bench," says Crowley.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698562,00.html

 

[SteveGrenard]

We gave them some aid. We give most needy countries aid, even N. Korea. Your point is...?

Five to ten billion?

Sorry, the Taliban are not the same group as the mujahedeen. What became the Taliban started in Pakistani madrassas in the early 90's.

FYI From the Guardian today:

Deep down, Bhutto considered these people the real enemy: 'I'm talking about the retired military officers who fought the jihad, who created the Afghan mujahideen, and later morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The real threat comes from them; it doesn't come from their puppets or their pawns. They have a lot of supporters within the echelons of [Pakistani] administration and intelligence.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,2233290,00.html

I guess we are reading different pages from the same book.....

I've pointed out to you that Pakistan already surrendered to the Taliban. Perhaps the US should have asked for the money back after that happened, but as of now Pakistan isn't fighting the Taliban because they got their asses kicked when they tried.

The US may've parted with billions for that purpose but when Musharref decided to retreat as you point out, we asked for permission to chase the perps over the meandering and rather nebulous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or "Pashtunistan" a border that crosses back and forth over both countries. Did we get it? No.