I was born in South Asia (India). i know what terrorism is. Last year the city where I was born and where my near and dear ones live was savaged by terrorists from Pakistan. I'm an American citizen now.
Growing up in Mumbai, we experienced terrorism perpetrated and planned by foreigners year after year. My father was on an Indian Airlines jetliner hijacked by Pakistan-sponsored Sikh extremists on August 24, 1984. I've lost a couple of colleagues to terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Srinagar. Terrorism, to me, is not a vague, nebulous idea.
In India people often wonder why the U.S. rewards Pakistan with "aid" while it continues its aggressive posturing against its neighbours (notably India and Afghanistan) and against the U.S. by sheltering the Taliban.
From a recent article in The Boston Globe:
Congress passed a bill sponsored by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts to send $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. Kerry called it a “landmark achievement,’’ in which US assistance for roads, schools, courts, and hospitals will build trust between the United States and Pakistan.
But how is this a landmark achievement, when we have no clue where aid to Pakistan goes?
Kerry has described Pakistan as the world’s greatest security risk and argued that stabilizing the country and stopping Al Qaeda are the main US security concerns. These are common sentiments, which is why last week’s bill also allows for “such sums as necessary’’ for military purposes if Pakistan can demonstrate its cooperation in fighting global terror and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
This week, the Associated Press reported that between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million of $6.6 billion in military aid meant to help Pakistan fight militants was actually spent on its intended purpose. Former president Pervez Musharraf spent the rest on his own pet economic projects and arming his country against India. Such misuse of funds, alleged by current and former Pakistani military and government officials, came as Al Qaeda and the Taliban fortified itself in Pakistan. Despite the fact that Pakistan is the leading recipient of support money to fight terrorism, one general told the AP, “The army got peanuts.’’
This is on top of two analyses over the past year that clearly show that Pakistan is playing a shell game with US aid. The Government Accountability Office found last year that, even though support funds are critical to the effort against terrorism, the Defense Department has not provided enough oversight to be able to say how Pakistan is spending US military aid. From 2004 to 2007, 76 percent of US reimbursements to the Pakistani army - a total of $2.2 billion - were paid without adequate documentation of how the costs were calculated.
Where was all the outcry when more money was thrown at Pakistan with no accountability for how it is spent?
President Obama recognised that Pakistan was the problem. He said so at the beginning of his campaign in 2007.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
He gets it. This is not a war against Afghanistan. It's a proxy war against Pakistan, where most of the 9/11 hijackers got their training. It's a war against a country whose army formed the Taliban to uproot the Najibullah regime in Afghanistan.
It's a country where various militant outfits have been consolidating Al-Qaida's spread and presence.
It's a country where large swathes of territory have been ceded to the Taliban as "autonomous" areas with "self-rule" - just 50 miles north of the capital Islamabad.
In a nutshell, here's a country with upto 60 nuclear weapons, threatened by great political instability and not enough will to counter it. Nicholas Kristof:
The United States has squandered more than $10 billion on Pakistan since 9/11, and Pakistani intelligence agencies seem to have rerouted some of that to Taliban extremists. American forces periodically strike militants in the tribal areas, but people from those areas overwhelmingly tell me that these strikes just antagonize tribal leaders and make them more supportive of the Taliban.
While there are no easy solutions for the interlinked catastrophes unfolding in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are several useful steps that we in the West can take to reduce the risk of the region turning into the next Somalia.
First, we should slow the financial flow to Pakistan’s government and military. If the government wants to stop the Talibanization of Pakistan, its greatest need isn’t money but the political will to stop sheltering Taliban leaders in the city of Quetta.
Second, we should cut tariffs on Pakistani agricultural and manufactured products to boost the economy and provide jobs. We should also support China on its planned export-processing zone to create manufacturing jobs in Pakistan.
Third, we should push much harder for a peace deal in Kashmir — including far more pressure on India — because Kashmir grievances empower Pakistani militants.
Fourth, let’s focus on education. One reason the country is such a mess today is that half of all Pakistanis are illiterate.
Absolutely correct. However, this is a gruelling, slow process. Until then what do you with a situation where there's a large nuclear arsenal and country whose political situation has taken it to the verge of anarchy?
A country where there is so much political turmoil on the horizon that the President has been forced to cede control of the country's nukes to the Prime Minister? A country where the fear of Taliban infiltration of it's nuclear installations is very real.
A country that released it's chief nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has reportedly joined the Jamaat-e-Islami, which makes no bones of its hostility to the Pakistan government's recent offensive against the Taliban.
I have been sorely disappointed by President Obama on various counts - torture, DADT, the financial mess, healthcare - but with respect to Pakistan, I think he gets it.
Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. Let's hear how you would deal with a bunch of nukes in close proximity to crazy mullahs and an army that's in cahoots with them, threatening always, to topple the elected government.
Directly attacking Pakistan is out of the question. It would be more perilous than going into Afghanistan. Right now, the U.S emphasis is and should be on the assisting the Pakistani Army in dealing with the Taliban/Al Quaida in Pakistan's North Western Frontier Province and border areas.
I do not wish to see our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan. However, what do those opposed to the troop expansion in Afghanistan propose to get the Pakistani Taliban under control?
In all sincerity, I appreciate your input.