____________________
The United States is continuing to make large payments of
roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls
reimbursements to the country's military for conducting
counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan,
even though Pakistan's president decided eight months ago to
slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters are most active.
The administration, according to some current and former
officials, is fearful of cutting off the cash or linking it
to performance for fear of further destabilizing Pakistan's
president...
____________________
See also:
21 May 2007 Afghanistan begins to unite against US
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2565&lists=newslog
It seems the US adventure in this region is falling apart.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Original source URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html
May 20, 2007
U.S. Pays Pakistan to Fight Terror, but Patrols Ebb
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID ROHDE
WASHINGTON, May 19 - The United States is continuing to make large
payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls
reimbursements to the country's military for conducting
counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even
though Pakistan's president decided eight months ago to slash patrols
through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.
The monthly payments, called coalition support funds, are not widely
advertised. Buried in public budget numbers, the payments are
intended to reimburse Pakistan's military for the cost of the
operations. So far, Pakistan has received more than $5.6 billion
under the program over five years, more than half of the total aid
the United States has sent to the country since the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks, not counting covert funds.
Some American military officials in the region have recommended that
the money be tied to Pakistan's performance in pursuing Al Qaeda and
keeping the Taliban from gaining a haven from which to attack the
government of Afghanistan. American officials have been surprised by
the speed at which both organizations have gained strength in the
past year.
But Bush administration officials say no such plan is being
considered, despite new evidence that the Pakistani military is often
looking the other way when Taliban fighters retreat across the border
into Pakistan, ignoring calls from American spotters to intercept
them. There is also at least one American report that Pakistani
security forces have fired in support of Taliban fighters attacking
Afghan posts.
The administration, according to some current and former officials,
is fearful of cutting off the cash or linking it to performance for
fear of further destabilizing Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez
Musharraf, who is facing the biggest challenges to his rule since he
took power in 1999.
The White House would not directly answer the question of why
Pakistan is being paid the same very large amount after publicly
declaring that it is significantly cutting back on its patrols in the
most important border area. But Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for
Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, emphasized
Pakistan's strategic importance in the region.
"Pakistan's cooperation is very important in the global war on terror
and for our operations in Afghanistan," Mr. Johndroe said. "Our
investments in that partnership have paid off over time, from
increased information sharing to kills and captures of key terrorist
operatives. There is more work to be done, the Pakistanis know that,
and we are engaged with the Musharraf government to ramp up the
fight."
The Pentagon, in response to inquiries, said Friday that the payments
to Pakistan since October 2001, when the war in Afghanistan began,
had averaged $80 million a month. The Congressional Research Service
estimated last year that they accounted for about a fifth of
Pakistan's total military expenditures.
The administration told Congress in January that the Pakistanis
performed operations that "would be difficult for U.S. Armed Forces
to attain," and the Pentagon said those included carrying out joint
operations, commanding observation posts and conducting land and
maritime interdictions.
But General Musharraf announced in September that under a peace
agreement with local militants his regular army troops in North
Waziristan, the center of Al Qaeda's operations, would no longer
operate checkpoints and that they would stay in garrisons, a decision
that came after Pakistani forces suffered heavy casualties in the
lawless tribal areas.
Soon after, appearing with President Bush, General Musharraf promised
that tribal leaders and local militia would handle Al Qaeda and the
Taliban in the tribal areas. Outside powers have long struggled to
gain firm control of the remote and impoverished region, where
fiercely independent tribes have largely ruled themselves for
centuries. American officials say they think Osama bin Laden and
other senior Al Qaeda members fled there in 2001.
Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said in an
interview that the agreements were working and that his country's
military activities on the border itself were increasing. He said
that Pakistan was being properly reimbursed for fuel, munitions and
wear and tear on military equipment. "There are multiple small and
big operations going on, we have deployed troops along the border,"
he said. "There is a lot of coordination."
American officials tell a different story, saying that Pakistani
cooperation was mixed at best in 2005 and 2006, though they
acknowledge that the Pakistanis have been more responsive to NATO and
American requests in recent months. Still, they complain that the
Pakistanis are paid whether they go on operations or sit in their
barracks.
"They send us a bill, and we just pay it," said a senior military
official who has dealt extensively with General Musharraf. "Nobody
can really explain what we are getting for this money or even where
it's going."
After visiting Pakistan last year, Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of
Rhode Island, wrote in a report that the Defense Department's
military office in Islamabad, the capital, recommended changing the
aid program so that it was "paying for specific objectives that are
planned and executed, rather than simply paying what the country
bills." A senior military official engaged in battling the Taliban
said many commanders and diplomats in the region agreed with that
recommendation.
Mr. Johndroe, the national security spokesman, said the White House
was unaware of any such debate and was not currently considering
changing the program.
"I'm not aware of any serious discussion to cut off the funding," Mr.
Johndroe said. The payments are critical to bolstering the military,
General Musharraf's greatest source of support, particularly as he
faces growing street protests over his removal of an
independent-minded Supreme Court chief justice as the court was about
to consider the legality of the president's decision to hold the
nation's top military and political posts at the same time.
"In funding the Pakistani military, we are making it easier for
Musharraf to fulfill his objectives, and we are keeping the military
off his back," said Xenia Dormandy, a former director for South Asia
for the National Security Council who is now a scholar at the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard.
"It is a very good question to raise," he added. "If we are giving a
billion dollars to the military each year, would that money not be
better spent building schools, roads and health services in that
region?"
A study of the roughly $10 billion sent to Pakistan by the United
States since 2002, conducted by Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, found that $5.6
billion in reimbursements was in addition to $1.8 billion for
security assistance, which mostly finances large weapons systems.
But those weapons are more useful, the authors concluded, in
countering India than in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The
United States has also provided about $1.6 billion for "budget
support," which Pakistan can use broadly, including for reducing debt.
In contrast, only about $900 million has been dedicated to health,
food aid, democracy promotion and education, in a country where
illiteracy rates are about 50 percent, and American policy makers say
the education gap has opened the way for religious schools that can
become hotbeds of extremism.
The Pentagon says the Pakistani expenses are reviewed by the Central
Command and the American Embassy in Islamabad, and reported to
Congress. But current and former commanders and diplomats say that
the review is cursory and that there is no real way to audit the
Pakistani operations.
Meanwhile, American and NATO military frustration with Pakistan's
performance in the border area is growing, say current and former
senior American military officials. They said that Taliban fighters
had been seen regularly crossing the border within sight of Pakistani
observation posts, but that the Pakistanis often made little effort
to stop them.
Pakistani and American military commanders established direct radio
communications between Pakistani and American border posts about two
years ago, after a series of meetings on border issues. Since then,
the system has worked well on some parts of the border and poorly in
others, they said.
Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO supreme commander, said that
when American or NATO forces saw Taliban fighters crossing the border
and radioed nearby Pakistani posts, there sometimes was no answer.
"Calls to apprehend or detain or restrict these ongoing movements, as
agreed, were sometimes not answered," General Jones said. "Sometimes
radios were turned off."
General Jones said he raised the problem with Gen. Ehsan ul Haq, the
chairman of Pakistan's Joint Chiefs of Staff, during General Haq's
visit to NATO headquarters last fall.
Mr. Durrani, the ambassador, denied that Pakistani troops were
failing to stop Taliban fighters at the border. He said the troops
were carrying out joint operations with American forces based inside
Afghanistan.
Two American analysts and one American soldier said Pakistani
security forces had fired mortars shells and rocket-propelled
grenades in direct support of Taliban ground attacks on Afghan Army
posts. A copy of an American military report obtained by The New York
Times described one of the attacks.
"Enemy supporting fires consisting of heavy machine guns and R.P.G.'s
were provided by two Pakistani observation posts," said the report,
referring to rocket-propelled grenades. The grenades killed one
Afghan soldier and ignited an ammunition fire that destroyed the
observation post, according to the report. It concluded that "the
Pakistani military actively supported the enemy assault" on the
Afghan post.
James Dobbins, an analyst at the RAND Corporation and a former senior
American envoy to Afghanistan, said soldiers had relayed similar
complaints to him. "I've heard reports of Pakistani units providing
fire support from positions inside Pakistan for Taliban units
operating against Afghan Army units inside Afghanistan," he said.
A second American analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said
American soldiers had told him that Pakistani forces supported
Taliban ground attacks with mortar fire and rocket-propelled grenades
at least two dozen times in 2005 and 2006. Senior American military
officials said that they had not heard of the incidents, but added
that Pakistani tribal militia, not Pakistani soldiers, could be
supporting the Taliban attacks.
Mr. Durrani, the Pakistani ambassador, called the reports of direct
Pakistani military support for the Taliban "preposterous." He said
the Pakistani military, which has lost 700 soldiers fighting
militants in the tribal areas, would never tolerate such activity
from its soldiers. "If even once this happens," he said, "the whole
system will come down like a ton of bricks on this person."
David E. Sanger reported from Washington and Brussels, and David
Rohde from Washington and New York. Carlotta Gall contributed from
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework:
http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Subscribe cyberjournal list: •••@••.••• (send
blank message)
cyberjournal blog (join in): http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
Moderator: •••@••.••• (comments welcome)
