All US aid to Pakistan MUST CEASE

[cosmicone]

The US has traditionally been sympathetic to Pakistan because it was an old cold-war ally. However, this has driven the US foreign policy to wearing blinders.

Pakistan is a terrorist state, based solely on a hatred of India and reminiscing about muslim rule of India like in Mughal times.

Pakistan is too small and economically too weak to compete with India, so it resorts to terroris,

* The 9/11 attacks were funded by Pakistanis via wire transfers by Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
* The London terrorists were all of Pakistani descent.
* Several terrorist attacks have been proven to be funded by Pakistan, including the latest one - an attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul (as reported by the CIA)
* Pakistan still harbors and gives safe haven to Osama bin Laden and other Al Q'aeda militants.
* Most of "Taliban" is comprised of Pakistani active duty military, trying to control Afghanistan for its "strategic-depth" policy.
* Pakistani or Pakistan-trained terrorists have been captured in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir, Malaysia, Thailand, Xin Jiang, Indonesia and Philippines.


Solution?

ALL US AID to Pakistan MUST CEASE immediately.

Pakistan should be balkanized into smaller states on ethnic lines - Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, Pashtunistan and Khalistan.

This will bring peace in a lot of places in the world.

Pakistan has no strategic importance to the US. In the end, India, a multi-cultural constitutional democracy is a better ally than a tinpot Islamic Republic.

[nebenaube]

1. agreed n/t

[Idealism]

2. Pakistan is highly polarized

It makes diplomacy quite difficult, especially when you have an administration that deals with them unilaterally and doesn't differentiate. The current regime in charge may be on a revenge memo because their leaders wife was murdered by militants. The tribal chiefs run much of the rural country and the Waziristan region itself is a terrorist stronghold that is unsafe for many of the country's own inhabitants. The word quagmire comes to mind. The acts you describe as being 'backed by Pakistan' may have links to parts of the country, but I doubt the credibility of those ties to the current ruling body. The country is in economic chaos as well, and currently asking the IMF for financial assistance to remain afloat. This means I seriously doubt any involvement with the Mumbai massacre, even though some people have claimed Pakistani intelligence may have had its hand in this. They wouldn't do anything to jeopardize funding from the IMF when the country make go bankrupt if they don't receive aid soon.

[cosmicone]

7. No matter who is a figurehead in Pakistan,

the ISI and military are in power.

The terror in India is and always has been the work of the ISI and the military.

[Idealism]

13. I don't think they would jeopardize their financial aid plea from the IMF

The state will go bankrupt shortly without the billions they asked for

[cosmicone]

16. That is not true.

The ISI and military have always been separate governments.

In 1999, when PM Nawaz Sharif was negotiating peace with India, the military and ISI (under Musharraf) launched an attack on Kashmir.

There is a massive disconnect. ISI and the military live for the hatred of India they harbor.

[Idealism]

17. The aid goes to the government, not the ISI

[Chulanowa]

3. Very strange notions you have

Not very good at the whole "history" thing, huh?

[Democrats_win]

4. Send them some nuclear bombs especially the northwest area.

Here we have bush sitting on his lead bottom again doing nothing. He already failed to get the terrorists in the past 6 years. Pirates, terrorists? When will our overpriced military get off it's ass and do something to actually stop the terrorists?

[Idealism]

5. Its a bit more complicated than that...

And I don't really appreciate you demeaning our military. There is this thing called diplomacy and laws, though they seldom seem to get followed by the Bush administration, they still exist. We cannot go into a sovereign nations borders without just cause and the fact that the terrorist-heavy region isn't easily scalable (Waziristan itself is a quagmire, literally) it would take a lot of organization between the nations.

[Pastiche423]

6. K&R!

[JCMach1]

8. Pakistan is not a terrorist state... However, it is fast approaching failed-state status

Secular, moderate voices hold the balance of political power... However, that center has difficulty in holding the rest of the country together.

However, there is a big chance that the political gambit will fail.

Then, it will go back to the only government institution that currently works in Pakistan: the military.

The tribal areas of the NW territories are virtually 'no go' zones even for the military these days.


No Stategic importance? The OP is dead wrong on that point. Pakistan is the lynch-pin of Central Asia... Do we even need to mention the nuclear capabilities and a very capable army? You want to see a failed stated(think Somalia but wilder and more populous) with nuclear weapons?

The problem is that no empire has every successfully controlled the Pathans (Pashtu speakers) for long. Even the US hold in Afghanistan is tentative.

The OP is dead wrong! Pakistan needs US help and aid today to support even the most fragile return to democracy. However, it must be tied-in to real corruption reform. Otherwise, it is literally pouring money down a rat hole.

[EFerrari]

9. The US sends aid to Pakistan because the leadership can be bought.

It's not money going down a rat hole; it's money creating a rat hole and maintaining it.

The is now a democratizing wave sweeping across Pakistan -- the lawyer's movement, for example. We can either support it or do what we normally do, send money to whoever will play ball with us at the moment and to hell with the future.

[JCMach1]

10. The political culture is so corrupt even the 'good guys' take bribes

In fact, it is the only way to get anything done. The current President, Zardari, could be a poster boy for corruption during Benazir Bhutto's Presidency.

When this civilian government most likely fails in the coming 12-24 month period, expect the military to step back into power.

Nothing will change in Pakistan with the same old faces in charge.

What the U.S. cannot do is allow Pakistan to become a failed state. That is a nightmare scenario.

[yellowwood]

11. Give Obama a Chance to Make a Difference

The situation in Pakistan is delicate. We've probably interfered too much already. To cut off aid that's already in place would be viewed there as a hostile act.
All we need is to completely alienate the people of Pakistan, which is a large country with nuclear capability.
The Bush Administration began with labeling Iraq as part of the axis of evil, thus creating an atmosphere that led to our Iraq conflict. We can see how that's worked out.
Obama's election has been greeted around the world with hope that the United States is not such a hostile, militaristic nation after all.
Give our new President the power to use his powers of negotiation.
Why does it seem to me that people who want to jump on just one country have an ax (either nationalistic or religious)to grind?

[cosmicone]

22. Obama is naïve about India and actually precipitated this

His statement that "the US should send aspecial envoy to resolve the Kashmir issue so Pakistan can focus on the western border with Afghanistan" was utterly stupid and emboldened the Pakistanis who have been waiting since 1971 to internationalize the Kashmir issue. Indian government will never allow the issue to be internationalized because Pakistan is treaty-bound to keep it bilateral.

Obama needs to stick with India and let Pakistan be flushed. Pakis will never ever help the US against Al Q'aeda -- they will act like they are but will never be true.

Pakistan has 0 strategic or economic importance to the US whereas India offers much more.

When the US aid to Pakistan stops, the Kashmir issue will automatically resolve itself. It is kept alive by Pakis and giving them aid only prolongs it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. That's ridiculous; your OP is wrong about various things

and I can't work out why you have such a complete hatred of Pakistan, but:

Pakistan is not a 'terrorist state'
It has a population well over 100 million - not 'too small' (countries do not just 'compete' with their neighbours)
The 9/11 attacks are thought to have been funded from Arabia as well as possibly Pakistan
One of the London attackers was of Caribbean descent
"Most of "Taliban" is comprised of Pakistani active duty military" - this is complete fantasy on your part

You've shown your ignorance of Islamic terrorism around the world on another thread.

I have to wonder where your beliefs come from; your idea of forcibly splitting Pakistan into several states (what, you want to invade to do this? It would be against all UN principles) appears to come from the neocon Ralph Peters:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Who wants this:

http://i74.photobucket.com.nyud.net:8080/albums/i265/LondonYank/map_middleeast_change.jpg

[cosmicone]

27. I wasn't aware of that neocon doctrine until you posted the link,

however, Pakistan as a country was built on hatred of India and most Paki military people think their mission is to take over all of India and establish a muslim rule there as they reminisce about the mughal emperors.

Not all Pakistanis think this way. The Baluchis, Pakhtoons and Sindhis, by and large, want peace with India and prosper. However, Pakistani military is 70-80% punjabi.

The Taliban was formed by the Paki military and the ISI, with a tacit support of Bush41 to take over Afghanistan from Ahmad Shah Masood who was pro-India. Google Pakistan's "strategic depth" policy and you'll see that Taliban was a minority Afghan force and fully funded, armed and trained by Paki military.

The funding for the 9/11 attacks came FROM PAKISTAN. See Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's wire transfers to Atta, Khalid Al Midhar and others.

You must be a Pakistani to defend a terrorist country that has armed, funded, trained and exported terrorists all over the world.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. No, I'm not

but I think you have an unhealthy obsession with that country if you demonise it so much, and distort the facts in this way. Your incorrect belief that all Islamic terrorism originates in either Palestine or Pakistan shows you have a one-dimensional view.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

12. Pakistan is an open-air lunatic asylum

that no one can successfully govern. As the OP observed, India is a much better strategic ally. It is actually a democracy where power has been peacefully transferred. As a basically pacifistic person, it pains me to say that Pakistan may have to be turned into a glass parking lotwithin the next 20 years for the good of the rest of the world. India has its problems, many of which are directly caused by Pakistan, but Pakistan is hopeless. Their military and intelligence are comfortably in bed with both the horrible Taliban and the worse al'Qaeda and have been for years. The only hope was Benazir Bhutto, and you see what happened to her.

[EFerrari]

20. Bhutto was as corrupt as any of the others.

The best hope for Pakistan, imho, is the judiciary. They need international support.

[JI7]

36. Bhutto may have been corrupt but she would still have brought more in the way of peace

in that part of the world you will get corruption by most.

[malaise]

14. Maybe you should read the history of India

Do you think Hindu extremists are blameless?
And what about the Dalits - aren't they tortured every hour of the day in India? Maybe they should have their state as well.

[cosmicone]

18. May be you should think before telling an Indian-American

to learn the history hahahaha.

Hindu extremists' actions are far far rare than Pakistani terrorist attacks.

How do you suppose the "dalits" get their own state? The "dalits" belong to every one of over 800,000 villages spread across India and speak 27 different languages and belong to 5 different religions. How could they possibly be gathered into one state?

Furthermore, India has a very strong affirmative action policy for the dalits with actual quotas. We have had dalit presidents, prime ministers, military chiefs, members of parliament and the current chief justice of the supreme court is a dalit.

You really need to learn more before hurling clichés.

[NNN0LHI]

25. Can a dalit drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, or ...

... wear shoes in the presence of an upper caste?

Don

[cosmicone]

26. You're talking about 70 years ago

Those things don't happen anymore except in rare instances in deep rural areas.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Not sure if you consider this a reliable source? But this is from one day ago

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bangalore/Untouchability_prevalent_40_km_from_IT_hub/articleshow/3757169.cms

Untouchability prevalent 40 km from IT hub

26 Nov 2008, 0001 hrs IST, TNN


Bangalore : Magadi is just 40 km from India's Silicon Valley but it seems to be stuck in a time warp. Untouchability reared its ugly head when a woman was denied drinking water at a tank only because she comes from a different caste.

Magadi taluk has a sizeable population of Dalits and untouchability is still very prevalent here. Last month, Gangamma, a young Dalit woman committed suicide because she was not allowed to take water from a tank by upper caste villagers. Villagers and the panchayat had asked her to pay a fine of Rs 101 as penalty for taking water from a tank meant for upper caste villagers.

The case has been registered with the State Human Rights Commission and an inquiry on but officials couldn't give the status of the case.

According to Yashoda P, state president, Karnataka Dalita Mahila Vedike, Gangamma went to fetch water from the tank usually used by upper caste villagers. Upper caste women verbally abused her and denied her access to the tank water.

When Gangamma protested, the women complained to the panchayat, which slapped a fine of Rs 101 on her. The next day, October 22, she was found to have committed suicide by poisoning herself. Yashoda pointed out that another bonded Dalit labourer in Kolar was cut to pieces around four months ago because he owed Rs 3,000 to the owner of the brick-making kiln where he was working and recently another Dalit man was murdered by an upper-caste villager in Anekal over a land dispute.

[cosmicone]

30. Politically motivated like Al Sharpton n/t

[Kurska]

15. Yes and NOW NOW NOW NOW

Stop the ships at the harbor, freeze the accounts in the bank, we need to do this NOW, as in RIGHT NOW.

Pakistan needs to be taught a brutal lesson about the fact it is responsible for the actions of it's nationals, how many more native indians and tourists must die before pakistan cracks down on it's terror cells

[NNN0LHI]

19. Better yet lets do some more missile strikes in Pakistan so they will respect our power

Who thinks that will work?

Don

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=HPIA,HPIA:2006-34,HPIA:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=missile+strike+in+pakistan&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 681,000 for missile strike in pakistan. (0.11 seconds)


Search ResultsNews results for missile strike in pakistan
BBC Birmingham British militant 'killed by US missile strike in Pakistan' - Nov 22, 2008
They told the Associated Press that the missile strike had targeted the house of a Taliban commander, Khaliq Noor, said to shelter foreign fighters. ...Independent - 1279 related articles »
'US missile strike' hits Pakistan - BBC News - 535 related articles »Pakistani chief minister urges end to US missile strikes - AFP - 66 related articles »

BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'US missile strike' hits PakistanNov 22, 2008 ... At least five people are killed in a suspected US missile strike on a tribal district in north-west Pakistan, say security officials.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7743303.stm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Deadly missile strike in PakistanFeb 28, 2008 ... At least 12 people, including suspected militants, die in a missile attack in Pakistan, officials say.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7268253.stm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from news.bbc.co.uk »
Suspected US missile strikes deep inside Pakistan - Yahoo! NewsThe US military apparently struck at Islamic militants outside Pakistan's lawless tribal belt for the first time Wednesday, firing a missile that killed six ...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan - 82k - Cached - Similar pages
U.S. strike in Pakistan kills 6 - USATODAY.comISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A suspected U.S. missile launched from Afghanistan ... The United States has launched about 20 cross-border missile strikes since ...
www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-11-19-us-pakistan_N.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
U.S. strike in Pakistan kills wanted British militant ...Nov 22, 2008 ... The missile strike said to have killed him targeted a house near the North Waziristan town of Mir Ali, and came just two days after Pakistan ...
www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AL0UO20081122 - 68k - Cached - Similar pages
Officials report US missile strike in Pakistan - Democratic ...5 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Nov 19
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- A suspected U.S. missile strike hit a village well inside Pakistani territory Wednesday, killing at least six ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3608583 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
FOXNews.com - British Militant Linked to Jetliner Terror Plot ...British Militant Linked to Jetliner Terror Plot Believed Dead in Suspected US Missile Strike in Pakistan, A British citizen connected to a terror plot to ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456404,00.html - 58k - Cached - Similar pages
Evidence U.S. missile used in Pakistan strike - Terrorism- msnbc.comDec 5, 2005 ... Shrapnel that appeared to be from an American-made missile was found at the house where Pakistan said a top al-Qaida operative was killed in ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10303175/ - 53k - Cached - Similar pages
U.S. missile strike in Pakistan hit al Qaeda nest | World | ReutersJan 31, 2008 ... PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - A suspected US missile strike that killed up to 13 foreign militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan region ...
uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKISL24645020080131 - 63k - Cached - Similar pages
Washington Times - Officials report US missile strike in PakistanNov 19, 2008 ... Intelligence officials say a suspected US missile strike reportedly killed at least four suspected militants in northwest Pakistan.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/19/officials-report-us-missile-strike-in-pakistan-1/ - 94k - Cached - Similar pages

[itsrobert]

21. I'm not an expert on India or Pakistan

So, maybe the major networks can air a couple hours of discussion to educate me and the public before we consider our options as the leader of the the Free world.

[JVS]

24. No.

[Riley133]

31. Obama/Biden to increase aid per change.org...and this on HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/a-new-approach-to-pakista_b_71733.html

[pettypace]

32. Its not Pakistan, its Islam thats the root of the instability

Pakistan and India share ethnic and cultural links, yet the former was created for the sole purpose as a homeland for Muslims in British India.

Its a pity Americans and westerners cannot come to grips with the scourge that Islam, yes ALL Islam has become on this thing called Earth.

Religion of peace, dear god.

[JeanGrey]

34. Only some of us have not. Many of us realize.

[Hanse]

38. Lemme guess.

You're a white male Christian.

[liberalpragmatist]

40. Yes, because 1.1 billion people are all would-be terrorists

What do you propose then -- mass conversions? genocide?

In the ends, there's no solution but to live together. And remember that you can't slander millions for the actions of a few.

Keep in mind that Pakistani terrorists have wreaked havoc on their own people -- Benazir Bhutto's assassination and the bombing of a major Islamabad hotel a few months ago are just a couple examples. Really, India is sort of caught getting the spillover from an incipient Pakistani civil war.

And since Al Qaeda loves chaos, Al Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-like groups targeting the West find safe haven there (with funding from the Saudis).

[JI7]

33. that is too simple, and you make no mention of the Kashmir issue

[Bucky]

35. Many of the attackers were British--we must cut off all military aid to Britain too!

You don't want to be half assed in these one-size-fits-all sweeping policy pronouncements.

[Hanse]

37. I say we all stop speaking English.

The terrorists were British.

[liberalpragmatist]

39. From another Indian-American, NO...

... well, I'm agnostic on the aid issue -- but the rest of your post is silly.

Dismember Pakistan? Just like the Neocons who wanted to dismember Iraq so it wouldn't threaten Israel.

As someone who wishes Pakistan had never been created, at this point, it's water under the bridge. Lots of countries have dubious origins -- at some point, countries acquire legitimacy through their continued existence.

And on a more practical note, dividing Pakistan (who, btw, do you propose to do the dismemberment?), would likely MORE problems. Do you seriously believe that an independent Pashtunistan or Baluchistan are going to be bulwarks against terrorism? You're even more likely to get a couple Taliban-controlled states and even greater fragmentation.

Moreover, it is insane to suggest that Pakistanis aren't suffering through this too. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last December. There have been terrorist attacks on a nearly weekly basis INSIDE Pakistan. Just a couple months ago, the largest, most prestigious hotel in Islamabad was blown up, nearly killing the entire Pakistani government.

Pakistan is a HIGHLY unstable, combustible country. It is riven by internal divisions. It has one of the most unsecure borders in the world and a military-industrial complex that makes ours look like a picnic.

But Pakistan also is a state that, in numerous elections, has NEVER given more than 11% of the vote to religious/theocratic parties (and that 11% came in a highly-rigged election which the opposition boycotted). Veiling (esp. in major cities) is relatively uncommon in much of Pakistan. Moreover, the country has a relatively free press and lots of besieged liberals.

The country shares an awful lot culturally with India. And India has shown it is susceptible to extreme politics as well -- witness the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and the Gujurat riots from 2001 in which thousands of Muslims were killed or the massacres of Christians in the Eastern state of Orissa this year.

ALL of South Asia is a developing region, with huge disparities between the wealthy and the poor and major inter-religious, inter-caste, and inter-ethnic conflicts. Governance throughout the subcontinent is weak and education has historically (for the past few decades) been poor. In those conditions, illiberacy thrives.

The reason India is more stable than its neighbors, all of which are in the throes of major civil wars or serious political instability and violence (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal) is because the Indian government is comparatively strong. Yes, governance is weak, but the fact that there IS a central government allows intra-Indian regional conflicts from spiraling into larger ones. Moreover, the fact that India is a democracy with an apolitical, secular military really has given the country relatively good government compared to Pakistan.

Pakistan's chief failing isn't its people: it's the lack of government. The Pakistani government is EXTREMELY weak. Pakistan is practically a country owned by its military and intelligence services. The result is the foreign policy orientation of the country, whatever the desire of its rulers, tends to be single-handedly focused on India. There has been an utter failure of government at every level. Most of the areas along the border with Afghanistan and rural parts of Punjab are completely lawless -- in those areas, extremist elements thrive and take advantage of the weakness of the Pakistani government to lash out and bomb targets all throughout Pakistan and throughout India and the rest of the world as well.

There's an element of letting the genie out of the bottle in all of this. The Pakistani Intelligence Service, the ISI, funded terrorist groups and the Taliban in order to (a) wrest Kashmir from India, and (b) plant a pliant regime in Afghanistan. The result has had serious blowback -- at this point, the militants are terrorists are completely out of control. They seek the Talibanization of Pakistan.

The irony is, the Talibanization of Pakistan will never actually happen -- the population of the country is too (relatively) moderate. As I said earlier, religious parties have never won more than 11% of the vote. Yet while they can never actually win control, they can make hell forever -- it's like a classic insurgency situation. Neither side can ever really win, but the insurgents can basically act like a chronic infection.

It's easy to propose simple remedies like "no aid to Pakistan." At the same time, it's harder to come up with actual policies that would work.

Most have said there needs to be Anbar-style diplomacy with tribal groups throughout the Afghan-Pakistan border. Many of the tribes have allied with extremists but can be bought off. There will need to be low-level counterinsurgency against terrorist targets within those regions. Moreover, there needs to be massive international pressure brought upon Pakistan to do as much as it can on its own and, to root out extremist elements within the ISI and the military.

[JCMach1]

41. This post is why DUers should never control US foreign policy

Yes, let's do cut off aid and cut the legs from under the newly democratic government in Pakistan. Yeah, that would be a great idea. NOT!