US support of Pakistan ‘strategic mistake’: Spanta

[cosmicone]

Source: Dawn

WASHINGTON: A senior Afghan official is urging the United States to re-evaluate its friendship with Pakistan, accusing the country of supporting Al-Qaeda and other extremists.

Writing in Monday's Washington Post, Afghanistan's national security adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta said Pakistani policy has helped maintain a level of violence that is leading to the erosion of western support for the war.

US-led troops are deployed with a mission to fight extremist groups, but the task “has been compounded by another strategic failure: the mistaken embrace of 'strategic partners' who have, in fact, been nurturing terrorism,” he wrote.

“While we are losing dozens of men and women to terrorist attacks every day, the terrorists' main mentor continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance. How is this fundamental contradiction justified?” Spanta wrote.

Read more: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-us-support-pakistan-spanta-qs-04

---

By supporting Pakistan, we are paying our enemy to kill our troops. This is only possible in a bizarro world.

[sabrina 1]

1. Wrong, our troops are working side by side with

the Pakistani army helping to save lives. This campaign you are on to prevent aid going to the victims of the flood, is not shared by the U.S. military who are in Pakistan at the moment, praising the Pakistani army.

John Kerry has just returned from Pakistan and together with former Sen. Luger has been working on how to use the money already allocated to Pakistan for infrastructure and education before the floods, in the best way possible to help those people.

From the U.S. Army's official site. They are very proud of and pleased with how things are progressing and very pleased with the security provided by the Pakistani Army:

Army Rescues 3000 Flood Victims, Delivers Tons of Supplies in Pakistan

Nagata said he expects the focus of the Marine element will be the same as the Army focus: providing relief to Pakistanis in the Swat River Valley. He said he expects U.S. military presence in the region to continue as long as it is desired by the Pakistani government.

"We will be here so long as the government of Pakistan requests and requires our assistance," he said. "Everything we do, both the locations we operate from, the access we are given to fly, the landing zones that are designated for our support operations -- all these things are requested, provided by, designated by the appropriate authorities here in the military and the government of Pakistan."

Challenges in Pakistan now include continuing bad weather, Nagata said, which have reduced flying days for American pilots by as much as 50 percent. Also, he said waterborne disease remains a challenge for Pakistanis -- though U.S. military personnel have remained unaffected by those same illnesses.

What's not been a problem for the Army during relief operations in Pakistan are security threats from the Taliban, Nagata said.

"The Pakistani military, ever since we stood up this task force, have done simply an incredibly energetic job and totally committed job at providing multiple layers of security around our activities both in the air and on the ground," he said. "Frankly we have seen no evidence of a threat so far -- we are not looking for it."

Very high praise from the U.S. General for the Pakistani Army, and they in turn are keeping the Taleban and extremists at bay.

This is the beginning of a new phase in establishing trust. Today I read reports of how the people of Pakistan are seeing the U.S. military as friends and even heroes.

This disaster is bringing people together as people now realize that only by cooperating can they survive and bring about a lasting peace.

[Alcibiades]

2. I'm not sure that the OP is part of any campaign

Perhaps you're referring to posts I have not read, but nothing in the OP or the article the OP references appears to suggest that we should not aid Pakistan with humanitarian assistance. It seems Spanta is raising the question of whether Pakistan is playing a double game. It's a question worth asking, given the amount of money we have sent and the lives at stake.

“We have failed to mobilise people for a cause where the fighting is in one place and the enemy is in another.”

That's absolutely true. No one questions why it is that so many Taliban are able to seek refuge in Pakistan, but how the Pakistani security apparatus (which is pretty vast) is also able to apprehend them apparently at will when they want.

[karynnj]

4. Much of this appears to be coming from the Wikileaks documents

- all of which are not recent - and from before Obama's policy changed in December 2009. (Per comments in the SFRC )

There is nothing new in the revelation that Pakistan helped the Taliban. In addition, there is nothing new in the idea that money was diverted in the past. A study saying just that was officially released a few months before the Kerry/Lugar/Berman bill was passed last year. It was part of the reason that the bill included specific things that had to be done to insure transparency and to insure the money was used for the reason it was allocated for. This demand for transparency greatly angered the Pakistanis, but it was not removed.

At a point where the US is questioning the corruption in the AFGHAN government, I wonder if part of the motivation of this comment is to change the subject to Pakistan.

[sabrina 1]

12. Good points, harynnj.

And the best way to prevent a takeover of Pakistan by extremists is to strengthen the current secular government, which appears to be what Kerry et al are trying to do.

[karynnj]

3. Not true

There are forces in Pakistan that have supported the Tabiban - they helped create it. The current government, which is fragile, has not supported the Taliban. The reason the non-military money is going to Pakistan in such large amounts is to directly help the people of Pakistan and indirectly help the Democratic government of Pakistan become stronger.

The reason for this is that that weak, very flawed democracy, is our best hope in Pakistan. The stronger it becomes, the more likely that it will act to restrain the ISI (the intelligence service) and the Army, which has for decades been the real power in Pakistan. At this point, the president has voluntarily ceded back to the Parliament the powers that were usurped by former Presidents, who were dictators. The government has taken action against the Pakistani Taliban and last week, even the head of the ISI spoke of internal terrorists (not India) being the biggest threat. This is progress.

What is the alternative? If we, especially now, cut aid to Pakistan, it would very likely greatly weaken the government. What regime could rise to power? Do we want to risk a nuclear armed rouge state?

I'm sorry, but I will trust people like Senator Kerry, VP Biden and President Obama on this over an Afghan security advisor with unknown vested interests. (I don't know what they are, but there is no way they don't have them. Not to mention, Karzai is himself speaking of Pakistan as the problem, in large measure to change the subject from Afghan corruption.) At minimum, Spanta's concern is the interest of Afghanistan. This is not necessarily identical to the interests of the US.

[Alcibiades]

5. We can take a guess as to what his interest would be

He probably doubts that the government will be able to reign in the security apparatus of Pakistan, or prevent their attempts to turn the current conflict to their advantage vis a vis the larger conflict with India. While I agree with your assessment, I think there are good reasons for this suspicion, and that folks such as Spanta are probably more invested in the long-term stability of Afghanistan than and government in Islamabad would be.

[BeFree]

6. Pakistan has nukes

Why does Pakistan need nukes?

[karynnj]

8. No country needs nukes - the point is that they have them

This is why many people have said this is the most dangerous situation in the world.

[closeupready]

14. So does India.

Why do they need them?

[Vehl]

15. cos China has it...and China says cos Russia has it..and Russia says cos US has it

this is why the whole NPT thing is a farce...and drips hypocrisy

Unless the 5 countries "allowed" to have nukes as per the NPT give them up...no one else will.
it all comes back to the old "practice what you preach" thingie.

right now the danger is not about states having nukes..but about extremists taking hold of them, especially in the case of unstable states

[Romulox]

7. We're going to give a gift of a functioning democracy to the Pakistanis?

Where are we going to get it from? :eyes:

[karynnj]

9. No - and I didn't say that

The Pakistanis themselves had an election and Zadari has - as he promised - returned the powers to the Parliament. What Kerry and others are speaking of is helping the people of Pakistan in an effort to help the Pakistani government become less fragile - and a military coup or terrorist taking over the government less attractive.

Pakistan is likely the key to that whole area. If a reasonable government there would stop Pakistani terrorists from attacking India and go after the terrorists in Pakistan, it could be the only way that we use diplomacy to make this region less dangerous.

Yes, I agree that this is a strategy which may not work, but it is a hell of a lot better than the idea that we can win militarily. I have listened to the SFRC hearings on this - and it is clear that no one is unaware that this is not going to be easy. (many said that the only reason we are still in Afhganistan is Pakistan and the very real threat of destabilizing it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

11. Precisely. And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[closeupready]

13. Yes, that would be helpful.

:)