$81 million out of nearly $1 billion a year: It's only a start, if they even decide to follow through on it.
An update on this story. "Pentagon rejects some Pakistan aid requests," by Peter Spiegel and Greg Miller for the Los Angeles Times, May 7:
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has rejected or deferred millions of dollars in military aid requests from Pakistan amid criticism that the Islamabad government has squandered U.S. funding and allowed Al Qaeda to rebuild a haven in its western tribal regions.
In February, the Defense Department turned down or delayed more than $81 million requested by Pakistan, according to a report issued Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
The rejection represents a small portion of the nearly $1 billion a year Pakistan has received through a program called Coalition Support Funds, launched after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But it marks a sudden change in U.S. policy toward Pakistan, which for years has spent American military aid without having to show results in the fight against Al Qaeda and other militant groups. Even some officials in the Pentagon have acknowledged shortcomings in U.S. funding strategy.
The program was set up to reimburse the Pakistani military for offensives against insurgents along the Afghan border and assistance given to the U.S. military operating in Afghanistan.
The Government Accountability Office study says the U.S. has sent more than $5.5 billion to Pakistan under the program, making it the largest portion of the $10.8 billion in U.S. aid Islamabad has received since 2002.
The study was the second by the GAO in a month to criticize U.S. policy in Pakistan. In April, the agency said the Bush administration had not drafted a comprehensive plan to counter the resurgence of Al Qaeda and other militant groups in Pakistan's border areas. [...]
U.S. officials have said that Pakistan used much of the U.S. military aid to pay for heavy equipment better suited for a regional conflict with its archenemy India than for anti-insurgency operations in the frontier territories.
Give all the money to India instead, on condition that they put a complete end to the jihadis in Kashmir.
I am sure that Sikh and Hindu soldiers would be much more assiduous and effective in hunting down and disposing of jihadis, than Pakistan has been.
"But it marks a sudden change in U.S. policy toward Pakistan, which for years has spent American military aid without having to show results in the fight against Al Qaeda and other militant groups."
Even Wal-Mart has enough sense to close stores that are losers...
"$81 million out of nearly $1 billion a year..."
-- from the introductory comment on the article above
Since late 2001 Pakistan has received, in aid, military and economic, and in debt relief, not "$1 billion a year" but a total of about $30 billion, or about $4 billion a year.
The Administration has kept the real amounts hidden in various ways -- and the debt forgiveness has been overlooked -- just as much of the true expense of the war in Iraq, including the committed future costs of taking care of severely wounded veterans, has not been factored in, as it should be, by any of those discussing the war save for the economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Here's an idea, don't give them any money at all, ever.
Perhaps then the USA could afford things like Universal Health care free at the point of delivery for its citizens.
What spend money on its own citizens first. That would never do.
Pakistan, corrupt, next week's shock story, South American politician takes a bribe.
Democracies are failing. They must be if all we can elect are foolish dimwits.
"U.S. officials have said that Pakistan used much of the U.S. military aid to pay for heavy equipment better suited for a regional conflict with its archenemy India than for anti-insurgency operations in the frontier territories."
Would that be the advanced jet fighters, main battle tanks, and Patriot anti-missle batteries? Maybe there are a couple of spy satellites included..probably.