U.S. aid was used on defence against India, says Musharraf

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
I am not going to argue with your experience. But do answer one thing for me. In a post US/ ISAF Afghanistan, would these guys support the real Taliban?

More importantly, are these guys beneficial for Afghnistan as a nation?
Pathans are a majority ethnic group in Afghanistan. If the Pathans get an alternate leadership that was sincere with them, they will support that instead of Taliban. Life under the Northern Alliance was never good. We can go to any length and talk about all the ills of Taliban, but do we really have anything good to say about the Northern Alliance? Taliban did not come from out of nowhere. They were welcomed by the ethnic Pathans because lawlessness was at its peak in Afghanistan in those days. NATO/ISAF occupation has changed nothing. So until and unless a leadership comes forward that listens to the grievance of the Pathans and commit itself to solve their problems, Pathans will keep supporting the Taliban or any other insurgent fraction. Taliban are strange for you, but not for the Pathans. They are the same people who practice the same religion with the same vigor.

Which brings me to back to my point. they are certainly not beneficial to a stable, properous Afghanistan.

The only people seriously doing something good about Afghanistan are the "Occupied forces". Case in point, many have tried to do away with the opium trade, including the Tqaliban. Noone till now has provided an alternative which USAID had in ther form of pomegranete cultivation
No they are not beneficial to a stable, and prosperous Afghanistan because in such an Afghanistan, they will just not be there. They are a product of war, unrest, and anarchy. To get rid of them, you have to bring peace in Afghanistan. The peace comes only through Justice and law enforcement. In NATO/ISAF occupied Afghanistan, there are killings, there is bribe, and there is corruption but there is no justice.

Pomegranate or any other cash crop, opium is there to stay. No other cash crop can give quick money as does the opium. You can literally harvest two to three crops a year. You don’t have to wait for the tree to get mature enough to bear the fruits. There is a reason why poppy is preferred over other crops. The alternate is not pomegranate; the alternate is justice, peace, and the industrialization of Afghanistan.
 

tiger usa

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
13
Likes
0
Taliban is a type of ghost that needs to go back in the bottle. There stone age thinking will not get anyone any where, especially the poor Afghans.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
BBC NEWS | South Asia | US gives $3bn in aid to Pakistan

US gives $3bn in aid to Pakistan



The United States has provided more than $3bn in aid to Pakistan since President Zardari came to power a year ago, its ambassador in Islamabad says.Anne W Patterson said the money was given in "combined security, economic and development assistance".

She made the comments in response to media reports that US aid to Pakistan was determined on an assessment of the government's performance.Ms Patterson said partisan politics did not determine assistance to Pakistan.

"The US government will continue to deliver assistance to Pakistan through a variety of long-standing vectors as required by American law to ensure transparency and accountability, and is not depriving the Pakistani government any degree of direct funding as a result of a lack of confidence or trust," the US ambassador said.

Ms Patterson said that some of the anticipated non-military aid would be "directly transferred to the government" and the remainder sent through government institutions and non-governmental organisations.

"There's a huge internal capacity to develop Pakistan, and we want to tap into it," she said.
"Using a deliberate qualifying process, we will stream more funding through national, provincial, and local institutions, and built their capacity to work with us in the future."Earlier this week, Pakistan's former president, Pervez Musharraf, reportedly said the US military aid given to Pakistan during his tenure had been used to strengthen defences against India. But in a statement issued on Wednesday, Mr Musharraf, currently on a lecture tour of the US, said Pakistan "never violated any agreement or mis-utilised US funds".

"As far as the equipment issued to a military unit is concerned, the equipment moves wherever the unit is deployed," he said.The US gave $10bn to Pakistan to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda.In 2007, Pakistan rejected a report which said it had used $5bn on weapons systems designed to fight India. Pakistan's military described the New York Times report as "nonsense".

In May this year, the US announced it was sending $110m (£71m) in aid to Pakistan to help it cope with the refugee crisis in the north-west.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Shocked US monitoring Pak post Musharraf bombshell

Shocked US monitoring Pak post Musharraf bombshell

Shocked and concerned by former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf’s recent disclosure that the military aid provided to Pakistan by the US was diverted to strengthen its defence against India, Washington has now sent a team to Islamabad to review the whole process through which the aid is being channelised.

In a written reply to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said the team was sent to review the Coalition Support Funds (CSF), which provides reimbursement to Pakistan for expenses incurred during the war on terror.

“We recently sent a team to Pakistan to review, with the Pakistan military, the CSF documentation and other requirements in order to improve accountability and timeliness of payments,” Mullen said.

Mullen also did not disclose that whether the team has returned or what the findings were.

Mullen, in his letter, said Washington would keep supporting Pakistan in its struggle against the extremists and also provide funds as it was a key element towards meeting the US’ objectives in its AfPak strategy.

“We continue to work with the Pakistan military to improve CSF processes, and ensure appropriate accountability and transparency for CSF,” 'The Dawn' quoted Mullen, as saying

Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson said the US would continue to maintain the various long standing accountability measures to ensure transparency in the distribution of the allocations.

“The US government will continue to deliver assistance to Pakistan through a variety of long-standing vectors as required by American law, to ensure transparency and accountability. The US is not depriving the Pakistani government of any degree of direct funding as a result of a lack of confidence or trust,” Patterson said.

Patterson said some the non-military aid under the Kerry-Lugar legislation would be transferred to Pakistan through government institutions, private sector firms and some international and Pakistani non-government organizations (NGO’s).

“There’s huge internal capacity to develop Pakistan, and we want to tap into it. Using a deliberate qualifying process, we will stream more funding through national, provincial and local institutions, and build their capacity to work with us in the future,” she added.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Taliban are strange for you, but not for the Pathans. They are the same people who practice the same religion with the same vigor.
If I understand most of the Taliban recruits were Afghan refugees born into poverty. They were schooled since a young age in foreign funded "Deobandi" madrassas. They were Afghans only in name their actions can hardly be associate with the noble humble hospitable Afghan or Pathan culture.

No they are not beneficial to a stable, and prosperous Afghanistan because in such an Afghanistan, they will just not be there. They are a product of war, unrest, and anarchy. To get rid of them, you have to bring peace in Afghanistan. The peace comes only through Justice and law enforcement. In NATO/ISAF occupied Afghanistan, there are killings, there is bribe, and there is corruption but there is no justice.
Can this also be phrased in a different matter. Taliban are product of a ruthless ideology and the only way you can defeat it , is by countering it with an antithetical ideology and at the same time take away those main factors which led to the rise of Taliban.


The alternate is not pomegranate; the alternate is justice, peace, and the industrialization of Afghanistan.
This is subjective.
I doubt if there is any justice, peace or industrialization for the millions in South Asia living in poverty.
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
If I understand most of the Taliban recruits were Afghan refugees born into poverty. They were schooled since a young age in foreign funded "Deobandi" madrassas. They were Afghans only in name their actions can hardly be associate with the noble humble hospitable Afghan or Pathan culture.
The foreign funded ‘Deobandi’ Madrassas are there from 1979 with no change in their syllabus. We did not see Taliban until early to mid 1990s. All those orphans who were getting religious education plus military training were going back to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. The same folks also fought in the Afghan Civil war after the Soviets left. The point I am trying to make here is, the Taliban of 1990s are not any different from the Mujahideen of 1980s. The only difference between the Mujahideen and the Taliban is, the Taliban appeared on the horizon when the Communist Soviets forces had left and the Afghanistan and the America was no longer interested supporting or more correctly the rehabilitating of the armed Pathan Mujahideen it had been supported during all these years. For some bizarre reason, the Americans decided to back the Northern Alliance after the Soviets left, the very same people American-backed Mujahideend had been fighting with.

As far as noble humble hospitable Afghans or Pathans you are talking about, I will suggest you to read James W. Spain, “The Way of the Pathans”. They indeed have all those characteristics that you mentioned but only for their friends… not for their foes. Whenever you will ask a person from Northern Alliance or those who are or have been fighting against the Pathans, you will always learn supposedly ‘bad’ characteristics of these people. And why not, who speaks good about his enemy?

Can this also be phrased in a different matter. Taliban are product of a ruthless ideology and the only way you can defeat it , is by countering it with an antithetical ideology and at the same time take away those main factors which led to the rise of Taliban.
Taliban are a product of three decades old conflict. They are a product of occupation, oppression, and civil war. There were going to be no Taliban had the America and her Western allies had not left Afghanistan to rot after the defeat of the Soviets. Taliban can only be eradicated if all the Ethnic groups of Afghanistan are given the equal rights to rule their country. The same mistake was made when the Soviets left, and even worst mistake is being made now by the occupation forces.

This is subjective.
I doubt if there is any justice, peace or industrialization for the millions in South Asia living in poverty.
But millions of South Asians are not under the ‘able’ occupation of the Western forces, are they? The Western forces came in the name of 'fixing things', and even after 8 years, they are talking about replacing poppy with the Pomegranates?
 

Antimony

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
487
Likes
14
The foreign funded ‘Deobandi’ Madrassas are there from 1979 with no change in their syllabus. We did not see Taliban until early to mid 1990s. All those orphans who were getting religious education plus military training were going back to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. The same folks also fought in the Afghan Civil war after the Soviets left. The point I am trying to make here is, the Taliban of 1990s are not any different from the Mujahideen of 1980s. The only difference between the Mujahideen and the Taliban is, the Taliban appeared on the horizon when the Communist Soviets forces had left and the Afghanistan and the America was no longer interested supporting or more correctly the rehabilitating of the armed Pathan Mujahideen it had been supported during all these years.
They may very well have emanated from the same sources. But till the Taliban came in, Afghasnistan, ravaged as it may have been, had not face the stifling version of Shariah that they imposed. I think you know the consequences that befell women more than we do

For some bizarre reason, the Americans decided to back the Northern Alliance after the Soviets left, the very same people American-backed Mujahideend had been fighting with.
Er, what?

Ahmad Shah Massoud received strong support from Reagan. Before that of course, the US was funding that animal Hekmatiyar, who had been traditionally close to Pakistan.

The mujahideen that went on to form the NA later had much to do with ousting the soviets. The one thing that you might say is that they don't have too many Pashtuns among them.

But millions of South Asians are not under the ‘able’ occupation of the Western forces, are they? The Western forces came in the name of 'fixing things', and even after 8 years, they are talking about replacing poppy with the Pomegranates?
Yet at least they are sincerely trying to achives something, regardless of the derision you hold them in for growing pomegrates. They are trying to remove some of the economic roadblocks and develop infrastructure. They are trying to train something resembling a national army and police.

Who else has done anything else to bring some semblence of civilisation to the country? Pakistan certainly hasn't regardless of whatever hold the GOP had over the Taliban.

Taliban are a product of three decades old conflict. They are a product of occupation, oppression, and civil war. There were going to be no Taliban had the America and her Western allies had not left Afghanistan to rot after the defeat of the Soviets. Taliban can only be eradicated if all the Ethnic groups of Afghanistan are given the equal rights to rule their country. The same mistake was made when the Soviets left, and even worst mistake is being made now by the occupation forces.
These 2 statements are contradictory. The US/ ISAF are trying to avoid their mistake the last time around and ensure they leave something enduring. Whether they succeed or fail is a different question.

About your comment that Taliban can be eradicated only if all ethnic groups are given equal rights, I am interested in that. Can you elaborate?

I would have thoguht that briging some measure of legitimate economic solutions and rapid development of social sector infrast5ructure would be the answer (hospitals, schools, roads, water)
 

qsaark

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
177
Likes
2
They may very well have emanated from the same sources. But till the Taliban came in, Afghasnistan, ravaged as it may have been, had not face the stifling version of Shariah that they imposed. I think you know the consequences that befell women more than we do
Before Taliban ‘shariat’ was not there because there was no Government, and no law enforcement. When Taliban came into power, they were able to setup a Government, and enforce the law and order. Even before Taliban, women were still covering themselves up in the shuttle cock Burqa and were not allowed to leave their homes. The ‘stifling version of Shariah’ you are talking about has lot more to do with the Pathan culture than with the religion. They have been living their lives like this and they will continue to do so. Any attempt to bring about a sudden change in their culture and custom will only result in the retaliation from these people.

Er, what?

Ahmad Shah Massoud received strong support from Reagan. Before that of course, the US was funding that animal Hekmatiyar, who had been traditionally close to Pakistan.

The mujahideen that went on to form the NA later had much to do with ousting the soviets. The one thing that you might say is that they don't have too many Pashtuns among them.
There was no difference between Hikmatyar and Masood. You are calling Hikmatyar an ‘animal’ only because he happened to be closer with Pakistani administration. This is not a good way of discussing things.

Yet at least they are sincerely trying to achives something, regardless of the derision you hold them in for growing pomegrates. They are trying to remove some of the economic roadblocks and develop infrastructure. They are trying to train something resembling a national army and police.

Who else has done anything else to bring some semblence of civilisation to the country? Pakistan certainly hasn't regardless of whatever hold the GOP had over the Taliban.
This you need to tell to the Afghan people who are not willing to support the occupation forces no matter what the occupation forces want to do for them. Certainly, those who are living in Afghanistan and resisting the occupation know better about the occupation forces and their good or bad deeds more than you and I do.

These 2 statements are contradictory. The US/ ISAF are trying to avoid their mistake the last time around and ensure they leave something enduring. Whether they succeed or fail is a different question.

About your comment that Taliban can be eradicated only if all ethnic groups are given equal rights, I am interested in that. Can you elaborate?

I would have thoguht that briging some measure of legitimate economic solutions and rapid development of social sector infrast5ructure would be the answer (hospitals, schools, roads, water)
Soviet forces did the same, they made roads, constructed infrastructure and what not. Yet the Afghans fought against them, why? For the same reason we struggled against the British Raj. The British gave us roads, rail roads, telecommunication, excellent learning Institutions, industry, every thing but still we fought against them. There is no alternative to self-determination and that is exactly the Afghans are fighting for.

Right now, Taliban or other insurgent fractions working or cooperating with each other are ethnic Pathans. Pathans comprise of more than 55% of the total Afghan population yet they were denied their share in the government. This is a big source of contention and if this issue was not addressed, the insurgency is not going to die no matter what the occupation forces do.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
It's amusing how the Indian media uses extreme metaphors to describe such developments "shocker...shocking...bombshell(?)" (which the Indian Express editor show know is used to describe 'good looking' ladies, by the way.

India has always been paranoid about the aid Pakistan has been receiving, we've always alleged misuse of foreign aid to Pakistan, so please, let's not overreact to something like this. What we can do right now, is assess if Pakistan's defense expenditure, regardless of where the money is coming from, is proportional to its defense needs. And raise brows only when it isn't. Let them enjoy their sovereignty.
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
793
So you want to say we dont have to say anything about the sourse of funds?
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
252
So you want to say we dont have to say anything about the sourse of funds?
Whats the use in simply saying? Do Something, stop USA from giving aid if you can, otherwise if you keep Saying, the Paks label us as Whiners! I hate saying, do something! So far we havent been able to do anything!
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
I don't think it is the funds we are questioning as much as the intentions behind the funds, specifically the game USA is playing.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
So you want to say we dont have to say anything about the sourse of funds?
Yes. When we lack the capability to take covert action against the development (like for example how China blocked our ADB loan on Arunachal), then we're better off minding our own business.

It would be naive to think that the US had no idea about how its money was being spent. The American intelligence establishment in this region is perhaps as concentrated as it was during the Cold War with the Soviets. Of course they know where their money is going. It's just that they choose to give a blind eye to it all.

I don't think it is the funds we are questioning as much as the intentions behind the funds, specifically the game USA is playing.
The apparent intentions are that it's not buying its defense inventories to stockpile it, it has border disputes with a country much larger than it, and is acting accordingly, just as we are probably building our inventories against the larger neighbour we have boundary disputes with (China).
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
Yes. When we lack the capability to take covert action against the development (like for example how China blocked our ADB loan on Arunachal), then we're better off minding our own business.

It would be naive to think that the US had no idea about how its money was being spent. The American intelligence establishment in this region is perhaps as concentrated as it was during the Cold War with the Soviets. Of course they know where their money is going. It's just that they choose to give a blind eye to it all.



The apparent intentions are that it's not buying its defense inventories to stockpile it, it has border disputes with a country much larger than it, and is acting accordingly, just as we are probably building our inventories against the larger neighbour we have boundary disputes with (China).
that's a nice way of putting it another way could be fueling a arms race, especially when there is no transparency or results tied to the aid.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
In an arms race, it's usually only one party arming both belligerents directly or indirectly, to profit from it. In our case, we source our equipment from entirely different entities, and US is arming the weaker belligerent. So I don't think the US is orchestrating an arms race, especially when say Russia or Israel end up making the most out of it.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
look carefully you will find USA is arming both sides.
Our defense equipment/technology procurement contracts with the US are far limited compared to those with Russia. It can't be measured on-par with those of Pakistan.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
look at the buys by our navy, you will find we have bought more from USA than Pakistan.
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
252
Our defense equipment/technology procurement contracts with the US are far limited compared to those with Russia. It can't be measured on-par with those of Pakistan.
Actually the USA is giving us high tech stuff, the P8s, the Hawkeye, the F18s, F16s Block 70, attack choppers etc! They are doing as LF said, playing a double game!
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
look at the buys by our navy, you will find we have bought more from USA than Pakistan.
That's relative to our buying power and naval strength. I don't deny that the Americans are more than interested in the 50-odd billion dollars we will be giving away. The thing is, they're merely being contractors. You'll see how a company like say Raytheon will never have anything to do with our missile program/technologies, since we've already co-developed a lot of things with the Russians.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top