[Newsbot]

Title: US cuts Pakistan aid over lack of 'decisive actions' against terror groups
Category: World
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2018-09-02 16:28:34

[N_Fiddledog]

So America cut funding to what they're calling Palestine and the actual country of Pakistan in a week.

Wonder who's next.

[xerxes]

Wherever it will have the worst results.

[desertdude]

Well Trump and his lying ass can go fuck it self, First of all its not aid, it's the coalition support fund, reimbursements for money which we spent fighting America's fuck all war. Just cheap optics to please his MAGA's back home.

We have already spent over 120 plus billion dollars fighting that war and gotten not even half of that back in CSF payments.

Just looking for a scapegoat for its failure in its 17 year old war in Afghanistan. We have paid heavily in lives and money for it, but we have also fought and fought it hard and won on our side. Decisive action in the form of Operation Zarb e Azb and Operation Radd ul Fasad has eliminated this terrorism on Pakistani soil to almost nil.

We are the one paying for the massive fence being built on the Afghan Border all 2000 plus kilometers of it, as majority of all terror attacks launched inside Pakistan come from that side of the border and then retreat back, ironically this is also always been the same excuse Americans used, oh we can't do anything, they run away to Pakistan.

And BTW a border we can totally shut and seal but keep it open to support US forces, or if the dick waving from the US gets too much, we have done it in the past after the salalah incident where the American attacked and killed our soldiers and specially with the new govt, with its policy of Pakistan above all can easily do again, talking of which we can also just increase the cost of military supplies passing through Pakistan and more than make up for the 300 million owed to us.

This is something Cheeto never tells his MAGAs about. That Pakistan has US by the balls in this regard. You try to act too smart, sorry no more cheap land access for NATO supplies, go fly your shit in like you had to do for a while and started crying to reopen the border because it was getting too expensive.

So one way or the other we are getting money owed to us, or make the US pay a lot more in return if we don't.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

We are the one paying for the massive fence being built on the Afghan Border all 2000 plus kilometers of it, as majority of all terror attacks launched inside Pakistan come from that side of the border

Well, isn't that perfect.
Even the Paki's can get a wall, but America ?

Nope.

[CharlesAnthony]

What were the Americans aiding???

[Freakinoldguy]

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

What were the Americans aiding???

Corruption apparently.

From 2009

$1:

Summary
There is widespread agreement that aid to Pakistan has not been spent effectively over the past decade. There is less agreement over how to fix it. This paper contributes to the debate in two ways.

First, it provides the most comprehensive survey of the publicly available information on U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001 to provide an evidence base on which recommendations can be based.

Second, it suggests three ways to improve aid to Pakistan, by proposing three principles which should underlie any conditions which are attached to future aid. They are:

Cooperate to Reduce Obstruction, Sanction to Reduce Opposition—Conditions should only be imposed to prevent clear harm to explicitly expressed U.S. intentions (such as Pakistan spending funds on nuclear weapons). Other outcomes, however desirable, (such as requiring Pakistan to shut madrassahs which encourage extremism), should be achieved through cooperation, not conditionality.
First, Do No Harm—It will be counterproductive to use conditions to micromanage specific positive outcomes by institutions beyond U.S. control—that would be to invite failure. Rather, conditions should focus on preventing harm (i.e. preventing Pakistan moving in the wrong direction, such as reducing civilian oversight over the military budget, for example).
Put Conditions Only on How the Aid is Spent—Pakistan and its electorate are acutely sensitive to the perception that the country may be being bullied or bribed. Some argue that this speaks to the necessity of not imposing any conditions. This is equivalent to arguing that Pakistan’s sensitivity licenses it to more years misspending a large proportion of U.S. aid money. A more logical response is to draw a distinction between how Pakistan spends the aid funds and general Pakistani actions which do not directly relate to how Pakistan spends U.S. aid. The most important aspect of this paper is the recommendation that conditions should only be tailored to the actual use of the funds themselves (apart from conditions preventing Pakistan from moving in the wrong direction). The funds should not be used as leverage to impose positive collateral requirements on Pakistan.
Underlying these conditions is the recognition that conditions will never be effective unless Pakistani sensitivities to them are properly understood and taken into account. After all, they will determine how Pakistan reacts.

The United States must also recognize that conditionality is only part of the solution; conditions are not an appropriate means to achieve all the outcomes which the United States seeks. For each, Congress should look into the various options, excluding sanctions, which it has available to it, in a hard‐headed way.

The United States must not provide Pakistani institutions with incentives to act counter to U.S. foreign policy objectives in the future. It has done so in the past. But until the spring of 2009, no comprehensive overview of the full funding to Pakistan was possible as the figures were kept secret. Those figures, as well as a full analysis of what is known about how they were spent, can now be evaluated. The available information paints a picture of a systemic lack of supervision in the provision of aid to Pakistan, often lax U.S. oversight, and the incentivization of U.S. taxpayer–funded corruption in the Pakistani military and security services. The author believes that this is the first attempt to present an overview of U.S. aid to Pakistan since 2001, evaluate it, and present recommendations on how to ensure that mistakes are not repeated and lessons are learned.

Since 1951, the United States has given significant funding to Pakistan. Since September 11, 2001, U.S. funding has been intended for the following five purposes: to cover the extra cost to Pakistan’s military of fighting terrorism; provide Pakistan with military equipment to fight terrorism; to provide development and humanitarian assistance; covert funds (such as bounties or prize money); and cash transfers directly to the Pakistani government’s budget.

Pakistan one of only four countries to receive direct cash transfers. Between 2002 and 2008, this “thank you” to Pakistan for help in fighting terrorism cost the U.S. taxpayer $2,374,000,000. By its nature, these cash transfers became Pakistani sovereign funds, precluding U.S. oversight.

Since 2001, there have been significant concerns over the funding:

The United States has not been transparent about the funds. Until 2009, information has been either hidden from the public or released in a form too aggregated to allow for effective public oversight. Those who have seen the agreements on how funds are to be spent say they have lacked concrete benchmarks, sometimes even concrete figures, and were too vague to be effective.
The United States misused development funds. Operating costs were high, too much of the aid was ineffective, and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs have been hampered by insufficient resources and security concerns.
There was a lack of agreed strategy for use of funds. Aims for the military aid were poorly defined, and many of the agreements on how funds were to be spent were inadequate.
The United States had inadequate procedures for checking how Pakistan spent the funds. U.S. Embassy staff in Pakistan were not required to check how the Pakistani military actually spent U.S. funds, the Pakistani army insisted that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)—where much of the money was to be spent—were too dangerous to visit, making sustained oversight there impossible; the United States has not been able to check Pakistani army records on how the money was being spent; the procedures in place to check how Pakistan spent the money were inadequate, and the decision to give Pakistan funds in the form of reimbursements made adequate oversight impossible.
U.S. funds disincentivized democratization by giving the military a disincentive to submit to civilian control, increasing its independence from government, and ignoring evidence of profiteering from military budgets.
The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F‐16s, aircraft‐mounted armaments, anti‐ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability. Over half of the total funds—54.9 percent—were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter—26.62 percent—on support and other aircraft, and 10 percent on advanced weapons systems.
There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army. The United States provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road‐building for which there is no such evidence either. Fifty‐five million dollars was provided for helicopter maintenance for the entire national helicopter fleet which was not performed. Pakistan continued to receive around $80 million per month for military operations during ceasefire periods when troops were in their barracks. U.S. officials visiting the FATA found Pakistani Frontier Corps units poorly equipped, one reporting that he saw members of the Corps “standing ... in the snow in sandals,” with several wearing World War I–era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with “just 10 rounds of ammunition each”. At one point, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself complained that Pakistan’s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite reports from U.S. military officials that the United States had provided $8 million worth of Cobra parts over the previous six months. “The great majority” of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes. For many years, U.S. officials ignored clear evidence that the military was not using U.S. funds to further U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Pakistani counterterrorism failed until 2009. During the years 2001 to mid‐2009, significant parts of the FATA were under Taliban control, and according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda has reconstituted a safe haven in the FATA. Tellingly, when the Pakistani army did launch an effective operation in Malakand in mid‐2009, it was primarily in response to public pressure within Pakistan, not U.S. aid.
Sadly, it seems that Pakistan’s military and security services have for many years been a black hole for U.S. funds. They have enriched individuals at the expense of the proper functioning of Pakistani institutions and the country’s ability to fight its extremist enemies and provided already kleptocratic institutions with further incentives for corruption. Many of the incentives for Pakistani army corruption are longstanding, institutional, and remain in place today.

Preventing this performance from recurring will require changes to the oversight system such as the use of experts and the creation of a dedicated monitoring group as described below. But that will not be sufficient. It will also require an understanding that conditionality is just one of the items in the toolbox available for getting aid right and an understanding of how and when it should be used, to which this paper contributes.

https://www.belfercenter.org/publicatio ... corruption

[desertdude]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

What were the Americans aiding???

Corruption apparently.

From 2009

$1:

Summary
There is widespread agreement that aid to Pakistan has not been spent effectively over the past decade. There is less agreement over how to fix it. This paper contributes to the debate in two ways............

Edited for space.

https://www.belfercenter.org/publicatio ... corruption

Yes absolutely true. But this is from 2009 as stated and a LOT has changed since then, from 1999 to 2007 Pakistan was ruled by a military dictator and he was an idiot and now hiding overseas escaping a treason charge in court and then from 2008 till 2018 two of the most back to back corrupt govts ever seen came into power.

But then 2014 a bloody attack on a Army Public School happened killing over a 100 children by the Taliban from across the border happened which rocked and shocked the nation and unlike the US of A we didn't just send hopes and prayers and get into stupid arguments like gun control every time a school or mass shooting occurs.

Our Army stepped up to the plate and launched massive operations against the terrorists and to rid the country of terrorists. And by and large by 2016-2017 it succeeded in getting rid of it and restoring peace in the country.As explained in my previous post

In 2017-2018 aforementioned PM was disqualified, trialed and then jailed for 10 yrs for corruption, his daughter 8 years and his son in law, his other two sons and former rime minister are now seeking refuge in the UK, and the process of accountabilty in the country continues as it goes after all the big corrupt fish from politicians to bureaucrats and bankers.

There are a lot of wrong facts in the article linked also but too lazy to go into detail in to each and every one of them.

But the fact remains this is NOT aid but funds owed to us which have been pay backed less than 50% of the amount spent and also not to forget the NATO supply route. Nato has been using Pakistan air space free of charge from day 1, that can change, as well as increasing tariffs on NATO supplies or sealing the border altogether. Specially with the new govt in charge who isn't going to take Cheetos bullying or sabre rattling.

[PluggyRug]

desertdude desertdude:

Yes absolutely true. But this is from 2009 as stated and a LOT has changed since then, from 1999 to 2007 Pakistan was ruled by a military dictator and he was an idiot and now hiding overseas escaping a treason charge in court and then from 2008 till 2018 two of the most back to back corrupt govts ever seen came into power.

But then 2014 a bloody attack on a Army Public School happened killing over a 100 children by the Taliban from across the border happened which rocked and shocked the nation and unlike the US of A we didn't just send hopes and prayers and get into stupid arguments like gun control every time a school or mass shooting occurs.

Our Army stepped up to the plate and launched massive operations against the terrorists and to rid the country of terrorists. And by and large by 2016-2017 it succeeded in getting rid of it and restoring peace in the country.As explained in my previous post

In 2017-2018 aforementioned PM was disqualified, trialed and then jailed for 10 yrs for corruption, his daughter 8 years and his son in law, his other two sons and former rime minister are now seeking refuge in the UK, and the process of accountabilty in the country continues as it goes after all the big corrupt fish from politicians to bureaucrats and bankers.

There are a lot of wrong facts in the article linked also but too lazy to go into detail in to each and every one of them.

But the fact remains this is NOT aid but funds owed to us which have been pay backed less than 50% of the amount spent and also not to forget the NATO supply route. Nato has been using Pakistan air space free of charge from day 1, that can change, as well as increasing tariffs on NATO supplies or sealing the border altogether. Specially with the new govt in charge who isn't going to take Cheetos bullying or sabre rattling.

Hope your new PM Imran Khan does as well as he played cricket.

[Freakinoldguy]

desertdude desertdude:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

What were the Americans aiding???

Corruption apparently.

From 2009

$1:

Summary
There is widespread agreement that aid to Pakistan has not been spent effectively over the past decade. There is less agreement over how to fix it. This paper contributes to the debate in two ways............

Edited for space.

https://www.belfercenter.org/publicatio ... corruption

Yes absolutely true. But this is from 2009 as stated and a LOT has changed since then, from 1999 to 2007 Pakistan was ruled by a military dictator and he was an idiot and now hiding overseas escaping a treason charge in court and then from 2008 till 2018 two of the most back to back corrupt govts ever seen came into power.

But then 2014 a bloody attack on a Army Public School happened killing over a 100 children by the Taliban from across the border happened which rocked and shocked the nation and unlike the US of A we didn't just send hopes and prayers and get into stupid arguments like gun control every time a school or mass shooting occurs.

Our Army stepped up to the plate and launched massive operations against the terrorists and to rid the country of terrorists. And by and large by 2016-2017 it succeeded in getting rid of it and restoring peace in the country.As explained in my previous post

In 2017-2018 aforementioned PM was disqualified, trialed and then jailed for 10 yrs for corruption, his daughter 8 years and his son in law, his other two sons and former rime minister are now seeking refuge in the UK, and the process of accountabilty in the country continues as it goes after all the big corrupt fish from politicians to bureaucrats and bankers.

There are a lot of wrong facts in the article linked also but too lazy to go into detail in to each and every one of them.

But the fact remains this is NOT aid but funds owed to us which have been pay backed less than 50% of the amount spent and also not to forget the NATO supply route. Nato has been using Pakistan air space free of charge from day 1, that can change, as well as increasing tariffs on NATO supplies or sealing the border altogether. Specially with the new govt in charge who isn't going to take Cheetos bullying or sabre rattling.

It's not exactly a fact it's just Trump's lack of tact when negotiating a deal that he and the Americans feel hasn't been lived up to. As for now it's only the military aid and it isn't gone it's just frozen.

$1:

“I just want to be clear that it’s been suspended. Nothing has been reappropriated,” a senior administration official said of the $1.9 billion in aid. “We’re hopeful that we can lift the suspension and the aid will be able to go forward.”

$1:

The funding freeze affects $1 billion for military equipment and another $900 million in payments to defray the cost of counter terrorism operations, officials said Friday.

Apparently the American administration isn't to happy with the lack of effort shown by your gov't in removing the terrorists from their safe havens in your country.

$1:

Ghafoor also denied U.S. allegations that Pakistan was giving either the Taliban or the Haqqanis any sort of safe haven from which they can attack U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states ... 94906.html

So, I guess if your gov't wants the military/anti terrorism aide restored you're PM will have the unenviable task of getting some people in your military and gov't to follow orders and stop assisting the border region terrorists and destabilizing you neighbour. Unfortunately, I doubt that is going to happen given your countries long standing policies towards Afghanistan and unbridled hatred of India.

$1:

Pakistan has long been a difficult and disruptive neighbor to Afghanistan, hoping to limit India’s influence there, and cultivating radical groups within Afghanistan as proxies. It has augmented Afghanistan’s instability by providing intelligence, weapons, and protection to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network. But years of U.S. pressure on Islamabad and Rawalpindi (the seats of Pakistan’s government and military establishments, respectively)—alternating with economic aid and efforts to forge a strategic partnership—have failed to induce Pakistan to change.

Why does Pakistan act this way? It fears an unstable Afghanistan that becomes a safe-haven for anti-Pakistan militant groups and a dangerous playground for outside powers (even though this has already happened). Pakistan bets that the Taliban will maintain significant power in Afghanistan—and perhaps even obtain formal political power—and does not want to alienate it. After all, the Taliban is Pakistan’s only—however reluctant and unhappy—ally among Afghanistan’s political actors.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... ce-change/

So after years of the "carrot" method for getting some in you're country to deal with the overt support for terrorism you're finally getting the "stick" method of compliance and the easiest way to fix all this would be to do what the deal required.

So the question isn't what's owed to you it's why should the Americans continue to pay your country to fight terrorism when there's a very strong evidence it isn't happening?

[Sunnyways]

It’s an odd thing to do when a new PM has just taken power. Imran Khan has an odd set of policies but he has already spoken out on corruption and government misspending - for a start he wants to trim down the vast fleet of ministerial cars - and the need for better relations with India. He’s more familiar with India than any previous PM since Jinnah and would be well known there from his cricket days when he was a global star. The army has a leaden grip on the country’s strategic priorities but better relations with India could bring big change to the region. India wants gas and oil from Iran and recent US moves may push all three countries closer together.

[Thanos]

Trump calling the Chadians a bunch of moochers resulted in four dead US soldiers when Chad got pissed off and withdrew their help in anti-terrorist activities in west Africa. Him pissing off Pakistan in the same way will probably result in something even more catastrophic, either in the region itself with increased local terrorism or by effectively allowing Al Qaeda or ISIS to reform in the badlands and plot another Sept 11 style strike on the United States.

Trump is an idiot and everything he does makes things worse. History will probably show that his angering Pakistan is as bad a decision in hindsight as Bill Clinton not having Bin Laden killed in Sudan when the US had the chance to get him.

[desertdude]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Apparently the American administration isn't to happy with the lack of effort shown by your gov't in removing the terrorists from their safe havens in your country.

$1:

Ghafoor also denied U.S. allegations that Pakistan was giving either the Taliban or the Haqqanis any sort of safe haven from which they can attack U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

The American idiots are never happy. As stated in the quote in less diplomatic terms this is bullshit. There are no safe havens, safe havens were in Afghanistan being used against us, hence building "the wall" and with our money along our entire border with Afghanistan and the biggest proof of this is, also mentioned before the restoration of peace in the country and halt of attacks on the civilian population, after the two major military operations which once again I mentioned earlier, remember we have lost around 50,000 civilians as a direct result for supporting the US in its war in Afghanistan, we didn't have a taliban problem in Pakistan prior to Sept 2001.

America has been constantly lamenting "Do more" well this time round we are saying.
No More!

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So, I guess if your gov't wants the military/anti terrorism aide restored you're PM will have the unenviable task of getting some people in your military and gov't to follow orders and stop assisting the border region terrorists and destabilizing you neighbour. Unfortunately, I doubt that is going to happen given your countries long standing policies towards Afghanistan and unbridled hatred of India.

Once again this is just the American and Indian narrative (which every one knows is trying to wage its own influence and act like a soft power in Afghanistan so it can squeeze Pakistan on both eastern and western fronts) which I already discussed. And Pakistani Army and the civilian govt is totally on one page and under totally civilian command. When we had corrupt wankers in power who were least bothered with anything other than filling their pockets, unwillingly the Army had to take up some decisions in the past, not this time round.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Pakistan has long been a difficult and disruptive neighbor to Afghanistan, hoping to limit India’s influence there, and cultivating radical groups within Afghanistan as proxies. It has augmented Afghanistan’s instability by providing intelligence, weapons, and protection to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network. But years of U.S. pressure on Islamabad and Rawalpindi (the seats of Pakistan’s government and military establishments, respectively)—alternating with economic aid and efforts to forge a strategic partnership—have failed to induce Pakistan to change.

Why does Pakistan act this way? It fears an unstable Afghanistan that becomes a safe-haven for anti-Pakistan militant groups and a dangerous playground for outside powers (even though this has already happened). Pakistan bets that the Taliban will maintain significant power in Afghanistan—and perhaps even obtain formal political power—and does not want to alienate it. After all, the Taliban is Pakistan’s only—however reluctant and unhappy—ally among Afghanistan’s political actors.

This was all stuff of the 80s and 90s when the whole situation was a clusterfuck with the US trying to fight a proxy war with the USSR through Pakistan, Saudia trying to gain its influence, while Pakistan was milking both for money and weapons in return. But we payed the price for that, it landed us 10 million refugees and what is now know in Pakistan as the Heroin and Kalashnikov culture imported from Afghanistan

But ever since 2001 its the US that has created the clusterfuck in Afghanistan, since there was a porous border with us due to the previously mentioned Afghan and USSR war and that region at the time was best described as your Indian Land with minimal interference from the federal govt and basically the tribals with their own rules and regulations, but now that entire region has been merged into the KPK province, no longer a war/danger zone, in fact local tourism is flourishing and the provincial govt opening new resorts and vacations spots regularly ( I'm sure if you head over to Fighters thread you'll see plenty of pics from there )

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So the question isn't what's owed to you it's why should the Americans continue to pay your country to fight terrorism when there's a very strong evidence it isn't happening?

Like the point of all my posts in this thread, there is no evidence, let alone strong evidence and its just made up bullshit, that we are not fighting terrorists, we have fought the terrorists and won, just some figures 3500 Terrorist killed, 450 tried and executed, over 1100 arrested. US just needs a scapegoat to blame its failure in Afghanistan on someone.

And now Cheeto to distract and please his MAGAs starts to wave his dick around. Well this time around its a different Pakistan you are dealing with. Who won't agree to join your war on terrorism with just one phone call or like the previous govts dance with waving some dollars around.

Like I said American will pay, directly or indirectly what is owed to us, choice is theirs.

[desertdude]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

It’s an odd thing to do when a new PM has just taken power. Imran Khan has an odd set of policies but he has already spoken out on corruption and government misspending - for a start he wants to trim down the vast fleet of ministerial cars - and the need for better relations with India. He’s more familiar with India than any previous PM since Jinnah and would be well known there from his cricket days when he was a global star. The army has a leaden grip on the country’s strategic priorities but better relations with India could bring big change to the region. India wants gas and oil from Iran and recent US moves may push all three countries closer together.

If anyone listened to his inaugural speech his message was clear he wants peace and stability in the region and key to that is peace in Afghanistan and normalized relations with Indian, he even went so far as to say, if India takes one step towards us, we will take two towards them. As for international relations he also said he wants good relations with the west also but a relationship of respect and equal footing. No one sided dictations anymore.

Rumours are he has refused to go to the UN general assembly on the off chance he bumps into Trump and gives him a piece of his mind, so sending our Foreign Minister instead who has good ties and relations with many US politicians, including Hilary

[Freakinoldguy]

desertdude desertdude:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Apparently the American administration isn't to happy with the lack of effort shown by your gov't in removing the terrorists from their safe havens in your country.

$1:

Ghafoor also denied U.S. allegations that Pakistan was giving either the Taliban or the Haqqanis any sort of safe haven from which they can attack U.S. forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

The American idiots are never happy. As stated in the quote in less diplomatic terms this is bullshit. There are no safe havens, safe havens were in Afghanistan being used against us, hence building "the wall" and with our money along our entire border with Afghanistan and the biggest proof of this is, also mentioned before the restoration of peace in the country and halt of attacks on the civilian population, after the two major military operations which once again I mentioned earlier, remember we have lost around 50,000 civilians as a direct result for supporting the US in its war in Afghanistan, we didn't have a taliban problem in Pakistan prior to Sept 2001.

America has been constantly lamenting "Do more" well this time round we are saying.
No More!

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So, I guess if your gov't wants the military/anti terrorism aide restored you're PM will have the unenviable task of getting some people in your military and gov't to follow orders and stop assisting the border region terrorists and destabilizing you neighbour. Unfortunately, I doubt that is going to happen given your countries long standing policies towards Afghanistan and unbridled hatred of India.

Once again this is just the American and Indian narrative (which every one knows is trying to wage its own influence and act like a soft power in Afghanistan so it can squeeze Pakistan on both eastern and western fronts) which I already discussed. And Pakistani Army and the civilian govt is totally on one page and under totally civilian command. When we had corrupt wankers in power who were least bothered with anything other than filling their pockets, unwillingly the Army had to take up some decisions in the past, not this time round.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Pakistan has long been a difficult and disruptive neighbor to Afghanistan, hoping to limit India’s influence there, and cultivating radical groups within Afghanistan as proxies. It has augmented Afghanistan’s instability by providing intelligence, weapons, and protection to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network. But years of U.S. pressure on Islamabad and Rawalpindi (the seats of Pakistan’s government and military establishments, respectively)—alternating with economic aid and efforts to forge a strategic partnership—have failed to induce Pakistan to change.

Why does Pakistan act this way? It fears an unstable Afghanistan that becomes a safe-haven for anti-Pakistan militant groups and a dangerous playground for outside powers (even though this has already happened). Pakistan bets that the Taliban will maintain significant power in Afghanistan—and perhaps even obtain formal political power—and does not want to alienate it. After all, the Taliban is Pakistan’s only—however reluctant and unhappy—ally among Afghanistan’s political actors.

This was all stuff of the 80s and 90s when the whole situation was a clusterfuck with the US trying to fight a proxy war with the USSR through Pakistan, Saudia trying to gain its influence, while Pakistan was milking both for money and weapons in return. But we payed the price for that, it landed us 10 million refugees and what is now know in Pakistan as the Heroin and Kalashnikov culture imported from Afghanistan

But ever since 2001 its the US that has created the clusterfuck in Afghanistan, since there was a porous border with us due to the previously mentioned Afghan and USSR war and that region at the time was best described as your Indian Land with minimal interference from the federal govt and basically the tribals with their own rules and regulations, but now that entire region has been merged into the KPK province, no longer a war/danger zone, in fact local tourism is flourishing and the provincial govt opening new resorts and vacations spots regularly ( I'm sure if you head over to Fighters thread you'll see plenty of pics from there )

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So the question isn't what's owed to you it's why should the Americans continue to pay your country to fight terrorism when there's a very strong evidence it isn't happening?

Like the point of all my posts in this thread, there is no evidence, let alone strong evidence and its just made up bullshit, that we are not fighting terrorists, we have fought the terrorists and won, just some figures 3500 Terrorist killed, 450 tried and executed, over 1100 arrested. US just needs a scapegoat to blame its failure in Afghanistan on someone.

And now Cheeto to distract and please his MAGAs starts to wave his dick around. Well this time around its a different Pakistan you are dealing with. Who won't agree to join your war on terrorism with just one phone call or like the previous govts dance with waving some dollars around.

Like I said American will pay, directly or indirectly what is owed to us, choice is theirs.

Pray tell, how does your country intend to extract payment from the most powerful country on the planet? It's great to bluster and threaten but when push comes to shove and it doesn't go your way, you've backed yourself into a corner. Then, at some point you'll have to act or lose face and likely all funding. Besides, I don't think Pakistan has the resources or ability to inflict a punishment on America harsh enough to make them pay. But, allowing yourselves to be pulled into China's sphere of influence just to punish America would be making a deal with the devil especially since we're seeing how China likes to deal with their own Muslim populations.

And yes, you are fighting terrorism but it's mostly domestic and that's now what the Americans thought you'd signed up for. So, as long as there are people in you're military and security services who continue to assist the terrorists who are crossing into Afghanistan or attacking India you're going to remain on the worlds terror watch list which gives Trump the perfect excuse to withhold funding and there's not alot you can do about that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-paki ... SKCN1G70X7