U.S. puts Pakistan on notice: Do more to stop terrorism

[webfact]

U.S. puts Pakistan on notice: Do more to stop terrorism

By Steve Holland and Drazen Jorgic

 

A State Department contractor adjust a Pakistan national flag before a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Pakistan's Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan on the sidelines of the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism at the State Department in Washington February 19, 2015. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/Files

 

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The United States accused Pakistan on Tuesday of playing a "double game" on fighting terrorism and warned Islamabad it would have to do more if it wanted to maintain U.S. aid.

 

"They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters.

The White House said it would likely announce actions to pressure Pakistan within days, shortly after U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that Washington would withhold $255 million in assistance to Pakistan.

 

"There are clear reasons for this. Pakistan has played a double game for years," Haley told reporters. "They work with us at times, and they also harbor the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan.

 

"That game is not acceptable to this administration. We expect far more cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against terrorism."

 

The comments followed an angry tweet from President Donald Trump on Monday that the United States had been rewarded with "nothing but lies and deceit" for "foolishly" giving Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid in the past 15 years.

 

"They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!" he tweeted.

 

Pakistan civilian and military chiefs on Tuesday rejected "incomprehensible" U.S. comments and summoned American Ambassador David Hale to explain Trump's tweet.

 

Pakistani U.N. Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi said in a statement that her country's fight against terrorism was not based on any consideration of aid but on national interests and principles.

 

"We have contributed and sacrificed the most in fighting international terrorism and carried out the largest counter terrorism operation anywhere in the world," Lodhi said. "We can review our cooperation if it is not appreciated."

 

Relations with Washington have been strained for years over Islamabad's alleged support for Haqqani network militants, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban.

 

The United States also alleges that senior Afghan Taliban commanders live on Pakistani soil, and has signaled it will cut aid and take other steps if Islamabad does not stop helping or turning a blind eye to Haqqani militants crossing the border to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.

 

In 2016, Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed by a U.S. drone strike inside Pakistan and in 2011, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was found and killed by U.S. troops in the garrison town of Abbottabad.

 

STATE DEPT: PAKISTAN NEEDS TO EARN AID

 

At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants.

 

Pakistan needs to "earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance," she said.

 

Islamabad bristles at the suggestion it is not doing enough to fight militants, noting that its casualties at the hands of Islamists since 2001 number in the tens of thousands.

 

Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on Tuesday chaired a National Security Committee meeting of civilian and military chiefs, focusing on Trump's tweet. The meeting, which lasted nearly three hours, was brought forward by a day and followed an earlier meeting of army generals.

The committee, in a statement issued by the prime minister's office, did not name Trump but spoke of "deep disappointment" at a slew of critical comments from U.S. officials over the past few months.

 

"Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation," it said.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland in Washington and Drazen Jorgic in Islamabad; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, David Alexander and Timothy Gardner in Washington, Rodrigo Campos in New York and Syed Raza Hassan in Karachi; Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by James Dalgleish and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-03

[AhFarangJa]

Why on Earth the west gives so much foreign aid to a country that has enough money to develop nuclear weapons has always been a mystery to me.

[car720]

4 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

Why on Earth the west gives so much foreign aid to a country that has enough money to develop nuclear weapons has always been a mystery to me.

Amen.

[Skeptic7]

Until the USA gets it's own financial house in order...which is a disastrous mess...most foreign aid should be slashed drastically or eliminated completely. 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Until the USA gets it's own financial house in order...which is a disastrous mess...most foreign aid should be slashed drastically or eliminated completely. 

If The USA were  not  in  control  of  the  international  trading  currency then  they  would  not be  able  to  dish  out funds  as  they do. But as  the  situation  stands  the  can  simply  print   multi  trillions of  new $ and  artificially maintain its   value. Then  again   240  million  is a pittance fund  for  the corruption  it  is  probably utilized  for.

Who  is  playing  games ?  Or... who thinks  they are  winning  the  game?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Until the USA gets it's own financial house in order...which is a disastrous mess...most foreign aid should be slashed drastically or eliminated completely. 

 

Many foreign aid budgets are allocated for purchases of US products and services. Drastically slashing foreign aid or eliminating it would have some adverse economic effect on US firms and their workers. Just one example. Others could be loss of leverage and international standing etc.

 

Saying that foreign aid ought to be reviewed, revisited and perhaps re-conceptualized - definitely yes. Making dramatic moves without consideration of consequences, perhaps not so much.

[mrwebb8825]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

Saying that foreign aid ought to be reviewed, revisited and perhaps re-conceptualized - definitely yes. Making dramatic moves without consideration of consequences, perhaps not so much.

If Obama had had any balls he would have cut off Pakistan when we found Bin Laden living there.

 

Most foreign aid has been set up and shoveled out for decades. I'd bet dollars to donuts that less than 10% of congress and the senate combined even know where most of the money goes or why it goes there.

Maye President Trump has been reviewing some of this and is finding it to be a waste of taxpayer money. 

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

If Obama had had any balls he would have cut off Pakistan when we found Bin Laden living there.

 

Most foreign aid has been set up and shoveled out for decades. I'd bet dollars to donuts that less than 10% of congress and the senate combined even know where most of the money goes or why it goes there.

Maye President Trump has been reviewing some of this and is finding it to be a waste of taxpayer money. 

 

I wouldn't put much faith in the proposition that Trump "reviews" anything. He does not seem to have either the capability or the attentions span needed. There doesn't seem to be much by way of well thought-out planning at work here. 

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I wouldn't put much faith in the proposition that Trump "reviews" anything. He does not seem to have either the capability or the attentions span needed. There doesn't seem to be much by way of well thought-out planning at work here. 

 

 

Maybe it's just over your head? If you knew anything about the man you'd know he's always studying things to make them better or make them go away.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Maybe it's just over your head? If you knew anything about the man you'd know he's always studying things to make them better or make them go away.

 

I don't think it "over my head", or at least no reason to believe so. From what I know "about the man" the words "always studying things" doesn't quite apply. Unless we have a different take on what "studying" implies. Other than you saying otherwise, there is little evidence that Trump does apply much forethought to international affairs, or that he have a coherent strategy of how to deal with international issues. 

[ilostmypassword]

On 1/4/2018 at 3:56 PM, mrwebb8825 said:

Maybe it's just over your head? If you knew anything about the man you'd know he's always studying things to make them better or make them go away.

Well, has the Great Student considered how American troops in Afghanistan will suffer for this? It would take very little effort for the Pakistani military intelligence system to up its support for Islamist militants. 

Not just that but the threat of cutting American aid isn't nearly as potent as it once was. China is already doing far more than the US to assist Pakistan. And China, like Pakistan, and unlike the USA, considers India an adversary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/opinion/pakistan-trump-aid-engage.html

 

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, has the Great Student considered how American troops in Afghanistan will suffer for this? It would take very little effort for the Pakistani military intelligence system to up its support for Islamist militants. 

Not just that but the threat of cutting American aid isn't nearly as potent as it once was. China is already doing far more than the US to assist Pakistan. And China, like Pakistan, and unlike the USA, considers India an adversary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/opinion/pakistan-trump-aid-engage.html

 

Has the self proclaimed teacher considered that allowing the Afghan army along with the US troops pursue those same terrorists across the Pakistani border without worrying about some invisible line on a map stopping them and killing all who aided them, might give the Pakistanis reason to pause?

Have you stopped to consider that one of the biggest hindrances of past administrations was the need to secure permission from Washington while in the midst of a battle or chasing retreating terrorists who knew they had a safe haven?

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Has the self proclaimed teacher considered that allowing the Afghan army along with the US troops pursue those same terrorists across the Pakistani border without worrying about some invisible line on a map stopping them and killing all who aided them, might give the Pakistanis reason to pause?

Have you stopped to consider that one of the biggest hindrances of past administrations was the need to secure permission from Washington while in the midst of a battle or chasing retreating terrorists who knew they had a safe haven?

Have you considered that rules of engagement are only a small part of asymmetrical warfare? And have you considered that without US aid, if the US crosses the Pakistani border, then the Pakistanis will be far more motivated to help the Taliban? Have you considered how this strategy will enable the Chinese to challenge the US by proxy in a way that will cost them little and the US much?  And have you considered the extra cost that changing supply lines will impose on the US effort?

[Credo]

6 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Has the self proclaimed teacher considered that allowing the Afghan army along with the US troops pursue those same terrorists across the Pakistani border without worrying about some invisible line on a map stopping them and killing all who aided them, might give the Pakistanis reason to pause?

Have you stopped to consider that one of the biggest hindrances of past administrations was the need to secure permission from Washington while in the midst of a battle or chasing retreating terrorists who knew they had a safe haven?

You mean that invisible line called a border, like the one where someone wants to build a wall?

 

There is no doubt, that Pakistan is a fair weather friend, but they are a country that is best to had as a friend than an enemy.    

 

A lot of financial and military aide should be conditional on cooperation.  

[Bigfarang1948]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 12:48 AM, AhFarangJa said:

Why on Earth the west gives so much foreign aid to a country that has enough money to develop nuclear weapons has always been a mystery to me.

I agree completely. Why would we keep giving hundreds of billions in aid to countries that hate us and are driven by their Ideology and fanatical leaders to kill us?  I have been quite Pi%#ed over this since I started hating all Washington politicians. We give them aid, they buy weapons, support terrorism, kill us, and we still Kow Tow to them while millions here are homeless and hungry. America has lost sight of who they should be taking care of, and it need look no further than any American inner city slum or Ghetto.  Shame on us as a Nation.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Bigfarang1948 said:

I agree completely. Why would we keep giving hundreds of billions in aid to countries that hate us and are driven by their Ideology and fanatical leaders to kill us?  I have been quite Pi%#ed over this since I started hating all Washington politicians. We give them aid, they buy weapons, support terrorism, kill us, and we still Kow Tow to them while millions here are homeless and hungry. America has lost sight of who they should be taking care of, and it need look no further than any American inner city slum or Ghetto.  Shame on us as a Nation.

Closure of foreign aid programs will result in job losses, thereby more homeless and hungry US citizens. Additionally would likely result is further loss of live for US citizens overseas etc etc

[Morch]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

Closure of foreign aid programs will result in job losses, thereby more homeless and hungry US citizens. Additionally would likely result is further loss of live for US citizens overseas etc etc

 

The "job loss" thing is more strongly related to provision of military hardware and various infrastructure projects - which, interestingly enough, are among the more frequently criticized aspects of aid programs. Aid projects dealing with educational or humanitarian issues often rely more heavily on local workers.

 

As for risking lives of US citizens overseas - doubt this could be meaningfully substantiated. An obvious counter claim would be that cutting down arms sales and supply to certain countries and regime may actually improve US image in some parts.

[simple1]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "job loss" thing is more strongly related to provision of military hardware and various infrastructure projects - which, interestingly enough, are among the more frequently criticized aspects of aid programs. Aid projects dealing with educational or humanitarian issues often rely more heavily on local workers.

 

As for risking lives of US citizens overseas - doubt this could be meaningfully substantiated. An obvious counter claim would be that cutting down arms sales and supply to certain countries and regime may actually improve US image in some parts.

In one of the harshest actions in years between the troubled allies, the Trump administration moved Thursday to block an estimated $2 billion in military assistance.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistan-slams-us-suspension-of-military-aid-accuses-it-of-betrayal/2018/01/05/fb564c92-f1bc-11e7-95e3-eff284e71c8d_story.html?utm_term=.ac116fa610d2

 

We know some Pakistani politicians face significant balancing acts to stay in power whilst taking on Islamists which requires some give and take and to stop descending into an even more brutal internal armed conflict with Islamists. IMO it's rather odd to suspend military aid. To me it comes across as cutting off the nose to spite your face.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. 

[mrwebb8825]

15 hours ago, simple1 said:

In one of the harshest actions in years between the troubled allies, the Trump administration moved Thursday to block an estimated $2 billion in military assistance.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistan-slams-us-suspension-of-military-aid-accuses-it-of-betrayal/2018/01/05/fb564c92-f1bc-11e7-95e3-eff284e71c8d_story.html?utm_term=.ac116fa610d2

 

We know some Pakistani politicians face significant balancing acts to stay in power whilst taking on Islamists which requires some give and take and to stop descending into an even more brutal internal armed conflict with Islamists. IMO it's rather odd to suspend military aid. To me it comes across as cutting off the nose to spite your face.

It's more a balancing act between lying to the US and helping the home grown terrorists while pocketing huge amounts of cash. You think they'd stay in power long if they actually turned in terrorists?

[simple1]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

It's more a balancing act between lying to the US and helping the home grown terrorists while pocketing huge amounts of cash. You think they'd stay in power long if they actually turned in terrorists?

You may like to look up how many Islamists have been taken out by Pakistani security forces.

[watcharacters]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

You may like to look up how many Islamists have been taken out by Pakistani security forces.

 

 

It's all about numbers, Yes?

[simple1]

Just now, watcharacters said:

It's all about numbers, Yes?

No, it's an indicator of effort by the Pakistani security forces.