Pentagon seeks $3B for Pakistan military

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by LETHALFORCE, Apr 2, 2009.

  1. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200904020931.htm

    Sources: Pentagon seeks $3B for Pakistan military

    WASHINGTON (AP): The Obama administration plans to seek as much as $3 billion over the next five years to train and equip Pakistan's military and is considering sending 10,000 more troops to battle the Taliban in Afghanistan, defence officials said on Wednesday.

    The money would include $500 million in an additional war budget request for the coming year that will go to Congress this month, The Associated Press has learned.

    In outlining the spending program publicly for the first time, defence officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee it is critical to train and equip the Pakistanis so they have the skills and will to fight.

    The $3 billion for Pakistan would complement a plan for $7.5 billion in civilian aid. That civilian request would come in legislation sponsored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Democrat John Kerry, and the committee's top Republican, Richard Lugar of Indiana.

    With the administration's backing, their bill would provide $1.5 billion next year, linked to Pakistan's counterterror and democracy-building efforts, officials said.

    Defence and other administration officials spoke about the spending plans on condition of anonymity because the specific budget requests have not been released.

    Also on Wednesday, senators questioned Gen. David Petraeus, who heads U.S. Central Command, and Undersecretary Michele Flournoy over the possible deployment of 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

    Petraeus said he had forwarded the proposed increase to the Pentagon. That plan could mean stationing almost 80,000 American forces in the country by next year. Currently 38,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan.

    Lawmakers asked why the extra brigade and headquarters unit requested by Gen. David McKiernan, who oversees U.S. forces in Afghanistan, had not yet been approved by U.S. President Barack Obama.

    ``I think it would be far, far better to announce that we will have the additional 10,000 troops dispatched,'' said Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's election, who lost partly because of his strong support for the Iraq war effort. ``To dribble out these decisions, I think, can create the impression of incrementalism.''

    Flournoy said Obama is aware of the request, but was told he does not have to consider it until late this year because the additional troops will not be needed until next year. Late in the year, she said, McKiernan will have had time to reassess his troop needs.

    The spending plan, defence officials said, would give commanders greater leeway to spend money more quickly to meet the needs of the Pakistani military, such as night vision goggles and communications equipment.

    There have been complaints that Pakistan's military is doing too little to take on the fight against extremists who use the ungoverned border as a staging area for attacks into Afghanistan.

    ``The will is growing, but the will is also helped enormously by a sense that we are going to be with them,'' Petraeus said. ``If they don't sense that, they will cut another deal.''

    The spending plan would include counterinsurgency training so the Pakistanis can better attack al-Qaida havens in the border region.

    The Armed Services Committee's Democratic chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, said he disagreed with the administration's argument that progress in Afghanistan depends on success on the Pakistan side of the border.

    He said Afghanistan's future should not be tied totally to the Pakistan government's decisions. He also was skeptical about Pakistan's ability to secure its border.

    The defence leaders, including Adm. Eric T. Olson, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, told senators the situation in Afghanistan is dire, and progress will demand a substantial, sustained commitment.

    Senators sounded largely supportive about the spending, but said the administration has yet to set clear benchmarks to determine whether the war strategy is working.

    ``We should not be committing additional troops before we have a means of measuring whether this strategy is successful,'' said Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
     
  2.  
  3. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    Previously this strategy was not successful when even Musharraf , who had his grip on Jehadis and ISI, was on power, so, how could Senator expect that this strategy is going to successful and connects this strategy with committing additional troops, Gilani and Jardari both lost control on Army, ISI . Controlling Jehadis is out of their reach.

    LF, my friend , Money for Counter Terror, can be argued, but what is for Democracy-building efforts, It is out of my knowledge that 'Democracy-building' effort can cost so much money. Where will they build Democracy when the foundation of building is so weak ?
     
  4. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    The stupid government is just giving money away and they will still lose in afghanistan.
     
  5. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    Rightly said.
     
  6. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    The money will be back channeled for Jehadi funding activity, it will be a total waste of money as well as prestige for the USA, simply can n't understand their logic, one hand they are arguing for giving Pakistan money and arms to 'fight against terror' read it fight against Al-quaeda, when in the other hand they are talking about 'Moderate' and 'Ultra' Taliban, and leave control of Afghanistan to the 'Moderates', when even a child can easily understand that there is no 'Moderate' or 'Ultra' in Taliban, The Taliban is Taliban, and they are Patron of Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and large Parts of Pakistan, how could they expect Pakistan Army , which cedes control of a Large part of its Country to the Taliban( they are not 'Moderate' but 'Ultra' if we argue with the Obama Administration's angle of view) fight the Taliban on their own.
     
  7. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    There is no logic this is clearly targeted against one country and we know who.
     
  8. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    sums up the US AfPak policy. if they use all that money to bail out companies that will be more helpful to the ppl of US. because this war is lost anyway unless US realises suddenly that as long as ISI/PA exist, peace is not possible in this region. US is infact giving all this money directly to train taliban which will kill US/NATO soldiers in Astan and indian civilians in india.
     
  9. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    Rightly said Johnee.
     
  10. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    You are right LEATHALFORCE, simply there is no logic, we have expected Obama administration's policy will be logical and practical enough to deal with the geo strategic issue and problems the USA faces, but I think he is going to Bush Junior way as the previous administration moved along.
     
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    this is the same exact moves Lyndon johnson made before USA lost the Vietnam war, sending more troops and more aid and losing. Obummer is not a president who can win a war.
     
  12. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    I think US still sees pak as a counterbalance to india so it is trying hard to keep it afloat even at a risk of some grave injury to itself.
     
  13. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    You right, LF , but I can see a future 'Nixon' in him . I honour President Obama's honesty and character but same type doubt his handling of international politics. Then how can after Teherik-e-Taliban's warning for striking the US capital , he sticks to his old way. I recall the USA think tanks some time compare the Soviet handling and withdrawal from Afghanistan as 'Vietnam' for the USSR, but the same Afghanistan is going to be the second 'Vietnam' for the USA, they are facing the 'Frankenstein' once they have created. Without US help Nato and its allies can not sustain the war for a week ! The Afghan Army is far too weak.
     
  14. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    if it continues like this I think we should stay more with the SCO, USA has not much to offer even economically anymore, Obama wants to cut outsourcing and trade and complain about Indian trade barriers while USA does 10 times more trade with China, I think at this point SCO serves our interests better in regard to regional stability and our energy needs, i think India-USA relations have peeked and Obummer is taking a pro Pakistan policy being a muslim which he denies could possibly be part of the anti -Indian bias?
     
  15. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    I think obama believes he can lock this problem within this region and return(withdraw) to US. as long as pak promises that taliban/terrorists wont attack US/europe they are fine and will shower pak with toys and $$$. who cares if india suffers?
     
  16. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    I don't respect or honor this Bandar he has made the US economic position worst and will be the president to help USA lose the war in afghanistan, there is very little to like about him, and his tax policies are a complete disaster and failure punishing the higher income earners while rewarding the unproductive leeches of society
     
  17. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    they are in essence funding the future terror that is guaranteed going to come for them, it will definetly not be limited to India as they wish.
     
  18. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    cant say about his 'muslim bias', but he is definitely pro-pak. bush was slowly realising the deception of pak and was tightening the screws on them. remember obama had opposed troop surge in iraq as well, which has now given positive results. similarly, bush could have won Astan as well if he had stayed longer but obama comes and osama celebrates. obama did virtually nothing to put pressure on pak to take action against 26/11 perpetrators or AQ khan. he is useless.
     
  19. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    he is differentiating between bad taliban(those who attack US) and good taliban(those who attack others). so the strategy is eliminate bad taliban and leave good taliban under the care of pakistan. we know who suffers due to good taliban- india.
     
  20. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,335
    Likes Received:
    6,286
    his father was a fundemental muslim and he has lived in pakistan with his stepfather I think this could have influenced him greatly?
     
  21. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    466
    exactly, even when he was campaigning, I had my doubts about his ability. he is just gas.....no substance.:Laie_63A:
     

Share This Page