Pakistan military aid safer than the economic aid

Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - 10:55 AM Share

As Congress contemplates cutting U.S. aid to Pakistan in light of the discovery that Osama bin Laden had been hiding there for years, the funds most at risk from disgruntled lawmakers are those currently allocated to the civilian government that is more sympathetic to Washington, rather than the money going to the Pakistani military, which is more wary of ties to the United States.

This irony is not lost on senior U.S. lawmakers who are thinking about scaling back promises of economic assistance. Most vulnerable are the funds promised under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package, which total $7.5 billion over five years.

Top senators admit that the civilian government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has staked a lot of its credibility on its decision to stand by Washington. But many in Congress say that the United States needs the Pakistani military to help it fight the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, so they're more reluctant to cut this funding.

"The part that I'm most skeptical of is the economic part, the 5 year Kerry-Lugar plan," Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) told The Cable in a Tuesday interview.

Levin's committee has control of the Pakistani Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which goes directly to the Pakistani military, but he won't cut that funding in his authorization bill.

"It's not a matter of which part of the government to support, it's the mission or activities that are in our interest. And the military pieces that we're supporting, which is reimbursement of their costs for supporting our effort in Afghanistan plus training their military on the border, that's clearly in our interest," Levin said.

He said it's also in the U.S. interest for Pakistan to develop into a stable democracy that can provide for itself -- but that's not the most pressing issue at the moment.

"Sure, that's also in our interest but not as clearly," said Levin. "Plus, the money is much more easily transferable on the economic side than on the military side."

Several top senators, including Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Ops chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), also want to scale back the Kerry-Lugar-Berman funding because they don't feel it's being wisely spent or that the oversight is in place.

Two lawmakers who have called for a review of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman funding in the wake of the bin Laden killing are Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), two of the three authors of the legislation. As leaders on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, they play a role in authorizing the funds each year.

"Very little of the money has been spent -- only $179 million has been allocated from the $1.5 billion this year -- largely because we never worked out the accountability of the money, who in Pakistan would spend, how we would audit what they were doing, nor have we agreed on the projects," Lugar told The Cable in a Tuesday interview.

"We've made very little headway," Lugar said, although he added that he is among those who want to keep up ties with both Pakistan's military and civilian officials.

"We have to stay engaged and we've been through this before," he said. "We need to find ways to have a better rapport with Pakistan."

Berman has criticized the administration's decision to certify that Pakistan "demonstrated a sustained commitment towards combating terrorism," a requirement under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill passed last year. He wants the administration to use the money as leverage to pressure the Pakistanis to more aggressively go after militant groups.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) told The Cable on Tuesday that he would soon send a letter to President Barack Obama demanding that funds to Pakistan be cut off if the administration can't stand by that certification.

According to the most recent chart compiled by the Congressional Research Service (PDF), the U.S. government has given Pakistan $20.7 billion in aid since fiscal 2002, and is requesting another $2.9 billion for Pakistan in next year's budget.

From that total, $14.2 billion has gone to the Pakistani military, primarily for coalition support funding, reimbursement for counterterrorism operations, and foreign military. Of the $6.5 billion in aid to Pakistan that has gone to the civilian side, $4.8 billion was provided to "economic support funds," and the rest was spread out between programs such as food aid and international disaster assistance.

UPDATE: Berman's spokesperson Gabby Adler writes in to clarify Berman's position on the aid:

Ranking Member Berman is primarily concerned about security assistance for Pakistan. The section 203 certification made by the Secretary of State applies to security assistance, not civilian assistance, and Mr. Berman maintains that strengthening Pakistan's civilian government and democratic institutions remains one of the few ways to ensure a long-term, healthy relationship with that country.

Getty Images

EXPLORE:SOUTH ASIA, DEVELOPMENT, DIPLOMACY, FOREIGN AID, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

MARTY MARTEL

11:13 PM ET

May 11, 2011

Rawalpindi generals outwit Americans

Clearly Osama’s shelter near the heart of Pakistani Army and Government hasn’t made a dent in lawmakers’ enthusiasm to keep pouring in billions in that terror center of the world.

Between 2002 and 2010, the US has, literally, poured nearly $20 billion, some 60 per cent of it in security-related aid, down a bottomless black hole called Pakistan on which the military-jihadi complex of that country has fattened itself. That’s the overt aid. Add to this the covert aid which remains undisclosed and the figure could be as high as $50 billion.

Pakistani government has U. S. by the throat. US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who kill US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.

So what gives?

There is the very real possibility that while the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout may have been conducted by a crack unit of the American SEALs without the participation of Pakistani forces and by keeping the effete Zardari-Gilani Government in the dark, the Pakistani military and the ISI may not have been entirely ignorant. Letting Osama bin Laden go at this point of time suits the Generals of Rawalpindi; Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani would consider it fair exchange for regaining ‘strategic depth in Afghanistan’.

Both Washington and Islamabad would insist it’s coincidental, but that the slaying of the world’s most wanted terrorist comes exactly two months before the US begins its drawdown in Afghanistan must not be seen as a mere coincidence. It is legitimate to ask if there was a trade-off somewhere along the line? Did Gen Kayani agree to let the US get the trophy it has been hunting for a decade in exchange of getting his own proxies into power in Kabul as America winds down its presence in Afghanistan?

President Barack Obama is looking at shoring up his fortunes in the 2012 presidential race by keeping his promise of “bringing the boys home” — the beginning of the drawdown has been timed for July 2011 with a clear purpose — Gen Kayani and his men know that sooner or later — sooner rather than later, really — the law of diminishing returns will set in as far as their double game is concerned. American interest in propping up Pakistan will remain as firm as ever, but the dollar flow will begin to thin down as the Afghan war reaches endgame.

As far the US is concerned, the war on terror is over; feeble clarifications by the State Department, that the larger war on Al Qaeda shall continue, are inconsequential. Pakistan knows that by skilfully holding out till now, it is close to getting its proxy regime in place in Kabul. If it is able to sell the idea of an Islamabad-friendly Government as being of strategic utility to Washington, there’s no reason why the Americans should object to that. Pakistani and American interests, both short-term and medium-term, converge at this point; a broke America cannot afford to look at long-term interests, not at this moment.

And thereby hangs a tale — of Pakistani and American perfidy. The US has been, and shall remain, mindful of the “paranoia of Pakistan”; Islamabad’s sensitivities, its faux victimhood, will always take precedence over New Delhi’s concerns in Washington. Hence, further pressure will now be mounted on India to wind down its presence in Afghanistan — we don’t need all those consulates, we will be told — to make it easier for America to begin its drawdown and finally exit the theatre of a war it is desperate not to be seen as having lost, not so much to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as to the wily Generals of Rawalpindi who have proved to be smarter than the Americans.

NORBOOSE

5:02 PM ET

May 12, 2011

Sad

This is so dumb, sooooo duummmbbb. Pressuring the Army and ISI by continuing to support them and putting the screws to the civilian government, and average Pakistanis everywhere. This makes me sad. Next, congress should pressure criminals to turn themselves in, by having FBI agents conduct random executions on every 100th person they see.