bigmoneymaker
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 0
One of the toughest challenges facing the administration right now is figuring out how to maintain aid flows to Pakistan. The big hurdle is getting the Congress to approve more dollars for a country that seems to have abetted America's public enemy number one for years, is directly supporting a variety of major terrorist organizations, has a nuclear program that was conceived by a man, A.Q. Khan, who once affiliated with those organizations, undoubtedly is siphoning off our aid dollars to support those nuclear programs or for other unwholesome ends, and as a consequence doesn't seem very much like a top candidate to receive ever more largesse from a cash-strapped country that has already pumped $20 billion into the place.
But before we even get to that hurdle, there is a debate going on within the administration about what programs we should continue to try to fund. Administration officials are wary of being put in the position of defending the indefensible up on the Hill. Some -- notably from the intelligence community -- feel that Pakistan has become less cooperative on counter-terror efforts (despite all public rhetoric to the contrary by U.S. spokespeople.) Some -- including members of the top military brass -- feel that we have both some dependable friends in Pakistan and that given the opposition those friends face, this is precisely the wrong time to turn our back on them.
There is even concern that some of the aid programs we have that are purely humanitarian and undeniably need-based, like those still responding to the horrific toll caused by last year's flooding, will both become lightning rods for critics and that perhaps they ought to be administered differently to ensure that funds get directly to those in needs and that they are not channeled through unreliable Pakistani government channels.
With high profile visits to that country from top U.S. officials including Secretary Clinton and Senator Kerry looming, these issues are heating up in planning sessions. To say that there are as many or more points of view on the subject as there were on how to dispatch bin Laden would be an understatement according to one individual in a cabinet agency I spoke to this week.
It is thus very important for President Obama, Secretary Clinton and responsible leaders in the Congress to summon the political courage to publicly state in no uncertain terms that this is no time to cut off those in Pakistan who are sympathetic to and supportive of our interests. The country may be full of dangerous characters and factions that are actively enemies of the U.S. But consider where we would be if we simply cut ties with the country, withdrew support from our friends, and thus undercut them dramatically.
We should do everything we can to ensure our aid dollars are not squandered or directed to programs that exacerbated the risks to the U.S. and our allies. We should simultaneously work to contain the threats from Pakistan through active work with India, China, Afghanistan, Russia, the Saudis and the other Gulf countries. But we should also accept that even if some of the funds go missing and some of our deep and worrisome problems with Pakistan remain unresolved, active engagement and supporting of those within the country who can help us is absolutely critical - more now than ever before.
The costs of losing all support in Pakistan and possibly of undercutting moderate government there to the benefit of more extremist, anti-American forces or, alternatively in ways that send the country or parts of the country further down the road to failed-state status, are vastly higher than any aid programs currently contemplated. They are in fact, probably higher than all the aid pumped into the country to date. Losing Pakistan, putting its nuclear arsenal at risk, indirectly advancing the cause of extremists, invites a protracted terror risk to the world and raises the likelihood of further regional destabilization and conflict.
Manage programs more carefully. Demand more direct distribution of funds. Audit programs more carefully. Choose who we help and how fastidiously. But by no means should we succumb to the temptation to act on the emotions of the moment and undertake steps that while intended to punish our enemies would only have the effect of undercutting those friends we do have in one of the most treacherous and important places in the world today. The stakes are too high. And no one should want their name to be the one invoked when it is asked as it inevitably would be were we simply to turn our back on the country, "Who lost Pakistan?"
Who will lose Pakistan? | David Rothkopf
But before we even get to that hurdle, there is a debate going on within the administration about what programs we should continue to try to fund. Administration officials are wary of being put in the position of defending the indefensible up on the Hill. Some -- notably from the intelligence community -- feel that Pakistan has become less cooperative on counter-terror efforts (despite all public rhetoric to the contrary by U.S. spokespeople.) Some -- including members of the top military brass -- feel that we have both some dependable friends in Pakistan and that given the opposition those friends face, this is precisely the wrong time to turn our back on them.
There is even concern that some of the aid programs we have that are purely humanitarian and undeniably need-based, like those still responding to the horrific toll caused by last year's flooding, will both become lightning rods for critics and that perhaps they ought to be administered differently to ensure that funds get directly to those in needs and that they are not channeled through unreliable Pakistani government channels.
With high profile visits to that country from top U.S. officials including Secretary Clinton and Senator Kerry looming, these issues are heating up in planning sessions. To say that there are as many or more points of view on the subject as there were on how to dispatch bin Laden would be an understatement according to one individual in a cabinet agency I spoke to this week.
It is thus very important for President Obama, Secretary Clinton and responsible leaders in the Congress to summon the political courage to publicly state in no uncertain terms that this is no time to cut off those in Pakistan who are sympathetic to and supportive of our interests. The country may be full of dangerous characters and factions that are actively enemies of the U.S. But consider where we would be if we simply cut ties with the country, withdrew support from our friends, and thus undercut them dramatically.
We should do everything we can to ensure our aid dollars are not squandered or directed to programs that exacerbated the risks to the U.S. and our allies. We should simultaneously work to contain the threats from Pakistan through active work with India, China, Afghanistan, Russia, the Saudis and the other Gulf countries. But we should also accept that even if some of the funds go missing and some of our deep and worrisome problems with Pakistan remain unresolved, active engagement and supporting of those within the country who can help us is absolutely critical - more now than ever before.
The costs of losing all support in Pakistan and possibly of undercutting moderate government there to the benefit of more extremist, anti-American forces or, alternatively in ways that send the country or parts of the country further down the road to failed-state status, are vastly higher than any aid programs currently contemplated. They are in fact, probably higher than all the aid pumped into the country to date. Losing Pakistan, putting its nuclear arsenal at risk, indirectly advancing the cause of extremists, invites a protracted terror risk to the world and raises the likelihood of further regional destabilization and conflict.
Manage programs more carefully. Demand more direct distribution of funds. Audit programs more carefully. Choose who we help and how fastidiously. But by no means should we succumb to the temptation to act on the emotions of the moment and undertake steps that while intended to punish our enemies would only have the effect of undercutting those friends we do have in one of the most treacherous and important places in the world today. The stakes are too high. And no one should want their name to be the one invoked when it is asked as it inevitably would be were we simply to turn our back on the country, "Who lost Pakistan?"
Who will lose Pakistan? | David Rothkopf
