U.S. undertakes Iraq-scale embassy project in Pakistan

[Turborama]

Source: Miami Herlad

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The U.S. is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The White House has asked Congress for - and seems likely to receive - $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.

The scale of the projects rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million.

Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a "surge" of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1068872.html

---

later in the article it states that they're also "negotiating the purchase of a five-star hotel that would house a new U.S. consulate."

[InfiniteThoughts]

1. i don't like this ..

i didn't understand the need to spend $750mn of taxpayers money on an embassy in iraq; i don't see the need to spend $750mn in afghanistan & pakistan.

all it does is encourage kickbacks in one of the most corrupt places on earth ... no more than 30%-40% of the overall amount will be used on the project, the rest will go into the pockets of the local politicians ..

[emilyg]

2. Agree.

[No Elephants]

11. The "embassies" in Afghanistan and Pakistan are unlikely to cost as "little" as

$740M.

I bet yIraq cost us a lot more than we are admitting and I will also bet that the ones in Afganistan and Pakistan will cost even more, both in actual direct and indirect costs and in the price tags the gubbamint is willing to fess up to.

[bemildred]

13. It's probably about fending off the car-bombs and stuff like that.

People don't want to serve in places where they expect to get blown up.

[shadowknows69]

3. Can we dispense with the "Embassy" euphemism and just call them what they are?

Fortresses for Empire America.

[Jane Austin]

4. If you're going to expand diplomatic efforts

in these countries significantly - which is something both Obama and Clinton have long supported, you're going to have to have a safe place for those diplomats to live and work.

They're not building a military base; they're building a diplomatic base.

[No Elephants]

10. A TRUE embassy has to be how big and cost how much, even a very safe one?

[Jane Austin]

16. If it's going to house hundreds or thousands more State Department

people and civil officers to help rebuild Pakistan in safety, it's going to need to be pretty big.

Beats the hell out of building a big military base.

[Alamuti Lotus]

5. I hear the Marriott is nice and cozy.. it would make a fine location for this 'diplomatic' Titanic

[EFerrari]

6. Unteachable. n/t

[DLnyc]

7. Alternative:

Don't

[dipsydoodle]

8. As I've said before :

Welcome to Animal Farm.

[onehandle]

9. Yay, a new military base! Hey, China. We're just working our way to you. nt

[No Elephants]

12. Except that China would have to lend us the money and it probably won't. Just a guess.

[onehandle]

14. Doh! So much for the invasion. nt

[Wednesdays]

15. K&R

:kick:

[avaistheone1]

17. How about some healthcare not warfare for a refreshing change?

[Turborama]

18. Our New Super-Embassy in Pakistan is a Gross Example of How the U.S. Chooses Security Over Aid

By Allison Kilkenny

If this story sounds familiar, it’s because this has all happened before. Recently, Pakistanis learned that almost half of the $1.9 billion approved by the U.S. House of Representatives for aid will instead go toward "a new secure embassy and consulates" in their country. Of course, the United States has good reason to fear for their security in the region.

"Having a secure embassy and consulates is understandable considering that in 1979 the American embassy was burned down," says Ibrahim Warde, author of The Price of Fear. Thirty years ago, an angry mob burned down the embassy, killing a U.S. marine. According to the BBC, "the five-hour siege began as an organized student protest," but grew violent when protesters pulled down part of the embassy’s wall and stormed inside. The U.S. blamed the Iranian leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, for inciting the violence, and in turn the Ayatollah cast blame upon the U.S. for occupying Islam’s holiest site, the Great Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

=snip=

The idea of building an even bigger embassy in Pakistan is unwise, says Warde. First, there is the small problem of using half of U.S.-approved Pakistani aid ($900 million) for the new secure embassy and consulates. Warde explains, “there is some symbolism in building what is perceived as a fortress, at the expense of…humanitarian aid.”

Pakistan badly needs that aid because poverty is one of the principle causes of destabilization and terrorism, according to many experts on the region. Author and historian, Tariq Ali, believes poverty is the biggest threat to peace in Pakistan. “The United Nations development figures for Pakistan show that over the last twelve years, 60% of the children born in Pakistan are born severely or moderately stunted because of malnutrition,” says Ali, adding that many poor Pakistanis send their children to be educated by the Taliban because they cannot afford to feed or educate them through any other means.

Continues: http://www.alternet.org/world/140313/our_new_super-embassy_in_pakistan_is_a_gross_example_of_how_the_u.s._chooses_security_over_aid/

-- --- --

I understand the importance of keeping diplomatic staff and civilian aid workers safe but the way they're going about it does have a ring of neo-colonialism to it...

[Karenina]

19. A ring? Sounded like a huge GONG to me...

;-)