The US & others working with Pakistan

[davidbfpo]

VCheng,

As I have posted before what happens to Pakistan if the USA decides it has had enough and stops / reduces the flow of financial support?

One wonders if the Pakistani military are prepared to think through the implications of such a reduction for their own institution. The civil Pakistani economy may be able to replace some of the funding, although IIRC revenue raising is a little difficult.

[carl]

VCheng:

The USA can't do much about bringing Pakistan under decent civilian control. I would be thrilled if we would just stop giving money to the killers in the Pak Army/ISI. If we did that at least it might start them, only start them mind you, down the path to realistic thinking. Beyond that, I don't think we can do anything despite the people inside the beltway thinking we can guide and influence anybody, anywhere, anytime.

I didn't think you were being hyperbolic at all.

[tequila]

Carl - Given the effects of the Pressler Amendment and subsequent cutoff of aid in 1990, I think that may be rather wistful thinking. The Pakistani Army saw itself isolated and without Western patronage. Rather than spurring a reexamination of its institutional priorities, this only aggravated its paranoia about Western intentions, especially towards Pakistan's nuclear capability, and saw the growth of ties to China.

The negative effects of the 1990 cutoff probably weigh on policymakers' reluctance to completely cut off ties to the Pakistani military.

[carl]

Carl - Given the effects of the Pressler Amendment and subsequent cutoff of aid in 1990, I think that may be rather wistful thinking. The Pakistani Army saw itself isolated and without Western patronage. Rather than spurring a reexamination of its institutional priorities, this only aggravated its paranoia about Western intentions, especially towards Pakistan's nuclear capability, and saw the growth of ties to China.

The negative effects of the 1990 cutoff probably weigh on policymakers' reluctance to completely cut off ties to the Pakistani military.

I will concede that probably nothing but a smashing defeat at the hands of somebody or other or a national collapse will get the Pak Army/ISI to change their thinking. The problem with our policymakers reluctance to stop the money is they use it to kill us. I don't like my money being used to kill a guy I may have sat next to in a chow hall. If the money were completely cut off, at least they would have use their own or somebody else's money when they try to kill us.

There were some negative effects to the 1990 cutoff but those negative effects have to be weighed against the negative effects that occur with aid being given. To me no aid or aid is a tossup so we should save the money.

[Ray]

VCheng,

As I have posted before what happens to Pakistan if the USA decides it has had enough and stops / reduces the flow of financial support?

One wonders if the Pakistani military are prepared to think through the implications of such a reduction for their own institution. The civil Pakistani economy may be able to replace some of the funding, although IIRC revenue raising is a little difficult.

If the US stops giving money and arms, Pakistan will be in a cul de sac.

It will turn to China with the bowl. And that would not be to US' advantage.

China is keen to have the Pakistani pear drop into its waiting hands so that Pakistan has no options but to stop all terrorists going into China and upsetting her attempt to change the demographic pattern in East Turkmenistan and assimilating them into the Han culture.

However, China has no qualms about niceties and so it will drive a hard bargain. As it is China is in control of Northern Areas with its Army working overtime out there. Pakistan will be owned!