I have often been very appreciative of the Obama administration’s foreign policy initiatives, the Iran deal, killing of Osama Bin-Laden, ending of combat missions in Iraq, supporting Libyan pro-democracy groups and crackdown on ISIS. Still, the one blunder the administration continues to make is the financial aid to Pakistan.
“Since 9/11, the United States has lavished Pakistan with nearly $8 billion in security assistance, $11 billion in economic assistance, and $13 billion in the lucrative program known as Coalition Support Funds (CSF),” writes Christine Fair in an article titled, “America’s Pakistan Policy is Sheer Madness.”
Christine Fair is an expert on South Asian conflict and an associate professor at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University.
“Pakistan has availed of significant U.S. weapons systems and armaments, including: A used Perry-class missile frigate; 18 new and 14 used nuclear-capable F-16s; an array of munitions (i.e. 500 air-to-air missiles, 1,450 2,000-pound bombs); 1,600 kits that allow Pakistan to convert gravity bombs into laser-guided smarter bombs 2,007 anti-armor missiles, 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, seven naval guns, 374 armored personnel carriers, and much more,” Fair says, “What tangible benefits has Washington secured for these emoluments? Very few it appears. Victory in Afghanistan was lost long ago. Pakistan is more unstable than ever. Even though Washington justified this largesse in terms of securing Pakistan’s cooperation in the Afghan war, Pakistan unrelentingly supports the Afghan Taliban, which has killed 2,356 U.S. military personnel and is responsible for 677 coalition military deaths. As well as the deaths of thousands of civilian contractors (for whom there is no official count), more than 21,000 Afghan civilians since 2001, and more than 20,000 Afghan police and army personnel since 2003.”
There are two statements that were released after Bin Laden’s killing that need to be noted. In an interview on “60 Minutes,” President Obama said, “We think that there had to be some sort of support network for Bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don’t know who or what that support network was.”
The Obama administration carried out a surgical attack to take out Osama Bin-Laden with no ground support from the Pakistan Military because they feared Bin-Laden would be tipped off.
In an interview with “Time” magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated U.S. officials did not alert Pakistani counterparts of the raid because they feared the terrorist leader would be warned.
My point is, after giving such a huge amount of money to a country, it is logical that the nation supports U.S. interests. However, in the case of Pakistan, the opposite has happened.
No formal investigations have been carried out to who supported Osama Bin-Laden. Out of all countries, why did he choose to live in Pakistan, about five miles from a Pakistani military academy?
Pakistan has been good friends with the terrorists and the latter have considered the country to be a great territorial and strategic advantage. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed runs an organization declared terrorist by the U.N. called Lashkar-e Taiba, now re-named to Jamaat ud Dawa from Pakistan occupied Kashmir. He has carried out various attacks against the U.S., India and Afghanistan and was the mastermind behind the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. Recently, he filed a petition to ban a movie which was accepted by the Pakistani court which goes to show his political capacity in the country. Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the supreme commander of military operations from the JuD, currently resides in P.O.K. He is on the NIA’s most wanted list. There are countless others like Saeed and Lakhvi who find safe haven in Pakistan with strategic support from the establishment.
If Pakistan truly worked in U.S.’s interests, these men who carry out attacks against our troops in Afghanistan would have been behind bars or in our custody. There are good terrorists and bad terrorists in Pakistan. The good are people like Saeed and Lakhvi who work in the interests of the government and carry out attacks against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir; the bad are those who bomb a military school killing children in Peshawar. Two policies on terror mean petting a poisonous snake and then complaining it bit you.
For a while now, the U.S. has ignored a possible partner in the region, Iran. Using ports in Iran, the U.S. could get the ground support a military operation requires. Dependency on Pakistan is proving disastrous for us; why not try a country that hates the Taliban as much as we do?
Iran and the U.S.have a common enemy and that is the Taliban. Iran hates the Taliban on account of the Sunni Shia rift. 90 percent of Iranians are Shias and the Taliban is mostly Sunnis. With the Iran deal as a backdrop, if we can make Iran our strategic partner in the region, we could certainly end the war in Afghanistan quicker and withdraw our troops.
