Spreading Democracy?
The gang who can't shoot straight has done it again. After years of justifying war in the name of spreading democracy, the White House has backed down from that position in Pakistan. Yesterday morning's Los Angeles Times describes the problems the White House strategy now faces.
For six years, the United States has staunchly supported Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, choosing to back a military leader seen as a strong ally in the "war on terror" rather than push the general more forcefully for democratic reforms.
But the risks associated with that strategy have become increasingly apparent in recent months, as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have gained strength in Pakistan's northwest frontier area despite billions of dollars in military aid to Musharraf's government since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Now that General Musharraf has decided to crack down hard on his critics in Pakistan and has suspended the Constitution, there is really nothing the US can do to pressure him into backing off.
"The problem is we have a war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan is a coalition partner," said a senior U.S. official involved in Pakistan policy matters who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and it's hard to have a good outcome there if Pakistan is not cooperating."
That means the US will continue to send military aid (which is what the bulk of the money sent is used for), and that means the US taxpayer is paying for General Musharraf's repression of his people.
An AP wire report yesterday afternoon confirms the US position.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday the U.S. will review its aid to Pakistan after the country's military ruler suspended the constitution. ...
On a Mideast trip now overshadowed by the unfolding crisis in nuclear-armed Pakistan, Rice suggested that President George W. Bush's administration would not suspend aid wholesale.
The U.S. has provided about $11 billion to Pakistan since 2001, when Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, made a strategic shift to ally with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. ...
"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Rice told reporters traveling with her. "We just have to review the situation. But I would be very surprised if anyone wants the president to ignore or set aside our concerns about terrorism," Rice said. ...
The review cited by Rice would look in part at whether some current aid cannot continue because of U.S. legal restrictions that set conditions for governments to receive money. That probably would cover only a small amount of the total aid, which now runs to about$150 million (euro103.6 million) each month.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported in August that less than 10 percent of the aid bill since 2001 has paid for economic and social projects. [Emphasis added]
The Defense Department was a little less ambiguous in its statement regarding a review of the aid going to Pakistan:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, traveling in Asia, is closely monitoring the situation. "Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror," his spokesman, Geoff Morrell told reporters Saturday aboard Gates' plane on the trip to China.
Musharraf's declaration "does not impact our military support of Pakistan" or its efforts in fighting terrorism, Morrell said.
So, there you have it. It was never about spreading democracy. It was about buying support for our own military adventures from a man only too willing to take our money.
The administration has been outplayed once again.
And the results will be that even more people will resent our cynical support for brutal and repressive regimes, making for more terrorist support. We will be even less safe.
Heckuva job, George.
For six years, the United States has staunchly supported Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, choosing to back a military leader seen as a strong ally in the "war on terror" rather than push the general more forcefully for democratic reforms.
But the risks associated with that strategy have become increasingly apparent in recent months, as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have gained strength in Pakistan's northwest frontier area despite billions of dollars in military aid to Musharraf's government since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Now that General Musharraf has decided to crack down hard on his critics in Pakistan and has suspended the Constitution, there is really nothing the US can do to pressure him into backing off.
"The problem is we have a war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan is a coalition partner," said a senior U.S. official involved in Pakistan policy matters who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and it's hard to have a good outcome there if Pakistan is not cooperating."
That means the US will continue to send military aid (which is what the bulk of the money sent is used for), and that means the US taxpayer is paying for General Musharraf's repression of his people.
An AP wire report yesterday afternoon confirms the US position.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday the U.S. will review its aid to Pakistan after the country's military ruler suspended the constitution. ...
On a Mideast trip now overshadowed by the unfolding crisis in nuclear-armed Pakistan, Rice suggested that President George W. Bush's administration would not suspend aid wholesale.
The U.S. has provided about $11 billion to Pakistan since 2001, when Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, made a strategic shift to ally with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. ...
"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Rice told reporters traveling with her. "We just have to review the situation. But I would be very surprised if anyone wants the president to ignore or set aside our concerns about terrorism," Rice said. ...
The review cited by Rice would look in part at whether some current aid cannot continue because of U.S. legal restrictions that set conditions for governments to receive money. That probably would cover only a small amount of the total aid, which now runs to about$150 million (euro103.6 million) each month.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported in August that less than 10 percent of the aid bill since 2001 has paid for economic and social projects. [Emphasis added]
The Defense Department was a little less ambiguous in its statement regarding a review of the aid going to Pakistan:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, traveling in Asia, is closely monitoring the situation. "Pakistan is a very important ally in the war on terror," his spokesman, Geoff Morrell told reporters Saturday aboard Gates' plane on the trip to China.
Musharraf's declaration "does not impact our military support of Pakistan" or its efforts in fighting terrorism, Morrell said.
So, there you have it. It was never about spreading democracy. It was about buying support for our own military adventures from a man only too willing to take our money.
The administration has been outplayed once again.
And the results will be that even more people will resent our cynical support for brutal and repressive regimes, making for more terrorist support. We will be even less safe.
Heckuva job, George.
Labels: Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Pakistan
posted by Diane at 3:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home