From Homeland Security NewsWire:
The brief // by Ben FrankelPakistan: duplicitous and impotent
Published 6 May 2011
While most of the attention in the past week was paid to who in the Pakistani government was protecting bin Laden, there is another question that the raid by the SEALs exposed: the impotence of the Pakistani military; since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in military aid; the United States wanted these funds to go to counter-terrorism efforts; the Pakistanis used this money toward conventional equipment geared toward a war with India; the raid exposed the fact that the Pakistanis have not done a very good job at that
Here are two comments of things that caught our eye this week.
1. Impotent Pakistan
Most of the attention paid to Pakistan this past week had to do with the obvious: powerful elements in the Pakistani national security establishment protected bin Laden and helped him evade the massive U.S. search for him. There is only one question left open: was this protection campaign conducted with the knowledge and approval of all the political, military, and intelligence leaders, or of only some of them? We will learn the answer to this question in time.
Less obvious, but equally important, is another reality which the brilliant Navy SEALs operation exposed: the incompetence — the impotence — of the vaunted Pakistani military. That seventy-nine soldiers of a foreign country could be ferried into Pakistan on several helicopters, take over a compound in the middle of a mid-size city, kill a few people, and leave — and do so unnoticed and uninterrupted — tells us something important about the capabilities of the Pakistani military.
The Unite States has given Pakistan billions and billions of dollars in military aid over the years. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that aid was increased sharply, and depending on what we count in, has reached more than $10 billion over the past decade.
There were two points of contention between the United States and Pakistan regarding this massive military aid. The United States wanted Pakistan to invest this money in augmenting its anti-terror capabilities: more and better equipped ground troops; more emphasis on small commando-type units; better gear for domestic surveillance; and more. The Pakistanis, on the other hand, wanted to use the money to augment their military capabilities against what they consider to be their arch-enemy — India. To do that, the Pakistanis wanted to use the money to buy fighter planes, radar installations, missiles, ships, and submarines.
The second point of contention: the Pakistanis cheated the United States in two ways. First, as is the practice in Pakistan, much of that military aid ended up in the personal bank accounts of the country’s top political and military leaders. Second, using false accounting and forged reports, the Pakistani military, while telling the United States it was using (what was left of) the money to buy terrorism-related gear, was in fact using the money to acquire equipment more suitable for an India-Pakistan conflict.
Which brings us back to last Sunday raid. It is now clear
that even this surreptitious and duplicitous augmentation of Pakistan’s capabilities against India — especially strengthening the country’s air defenses — were for naught.
Just think:: What if instead of American forces looking only for bin Laden, we would have had an Indian commando group entering the country to decapitate the Pakistani political and military leadership as a prelude to an all-out Indian attack on Pakistan? Pakistan would be doomed before the game even began.
Advice to U.S. policymakers: It is time to reconsider the massive aid to Pakistan. Recall former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir’s comment regarding an especially egregious corruption scandal in Israel: “Just see how much public money could have been wasted yet — had it not been stolen.” With regard to Pakistan: ditto
2. Nuclear weapons
Why is everybody worried about Pakistan? Because it has between 60 and 100 nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons are the poor man’s military equalizer. Even a poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional country like Pakistan can do a lot of damage because it has nuclear weapons.
A few months ago the administration brought to Congress a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which would have cut the nuclear arsenals of both countries. Senator John Kyle (R-Arizona) led the opposition to the treaty, but it was eventually passed. Kyle had specific reasons for objecting to the treaty, and was at the end mollified by some $80 million added to the defense budget for research into better and more efficient nuclear warhead.
Other critics of the president criticized the treaty, which they saw as part of the president’s sweeping vision of a world free of nuclear weapons — a vision he elucidated in a speech in Prague in May 2009. These critics view any call for nuclear disarmament — let alone the actual reduction in the number of nuclear weapons the United States has — as measures weakening the United States.
It is doubtful that the vision of a nuclear-free world can be realized. Let us assume, for a minute, that it could: Nothing would make a greater contribution to U.S. national security than ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Nothing — absolutely nothing — would bolster the position of the United States as the preeminent military power in the world than dismantling all nuclear weapons, including those of the United States.
The reason? When you list the countries of the world according to how much they spend on defense, the United States is not only in the No. 1 position — it spends more on defense the combined expenditures of the countries in positions 2 through 14. These vast amounts of money are used to develop and equip our troops with the most advanced weaponry and the most advance command and control systems.
These advanced systems, if used wisely, allow the United States to win every military engagement in which it is involved — and more often than not, as was the case in Abbottabad — win in trying circumstances.
No country in the world can withstand the U.S. military machine — except those countries that have nuclear weapons which they would use to kill many American soldiers, or even to destroy an American city.
Those who want to promote American interests, preserve U.S. global military preeminence, and allow the United States to lead with its strength should be the most ardent supporters of the vision of a nuclear-free world. It will be a world in which the United States more easily and at less risk to itself could throw its weight around.
Another advice to American policymakers: Strength is relative, not absolute. It is not enough to be strong. Better to be smart in what kinds of strength we accumulate, and what kinds of strength we deny our potential adversaries.
Ben Frankel is editor of the Homeland Security NewsWire
The brief // by Ben FrankelPakistan: duplicitous and impotent
Published 6 May 2011
While most of the attention in the past week was paid to who in the Pakistani government was protecting bin Laden, there is another question that the raid by the SEALs exposed: the impotence of the Pakistani military; since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in military aid; the United States wanted these funds to go to counter-terrorism efforts; the Pakistanis used this money toward conventional equipment geared toward a war with India; the raid exposed the fact that the Pakistanis have not done a very good job at that
Here are two comments of things that caught our eye this week.
1. Impotent Pakistan
Most of the attention paid to Pakistan this past week had to do with the obvious: powerful elements in the Pakistani national security establishment protected bin Laden and helped him evade the massive U.S. search for him. There is only one question left open: was this protection campaign conducted with the knowledge and approval of all the political, military, and intelligence leaders, or of only some of them? We will learn the answer to this question in time.
Less obvious, but equally important, is another reality which the brilliant Navy SEALs operation exposed: the incompetence — the impotence — of the vaunted Pakistani military. That seventy-nine soldiers of a foreign country could be ferried into Pakistan on several helicopters, take over a compound in the middle of a mid-size city, kill a few people, and leave — and do so unnoticed and uninterrupted — tells us something important about the capabilities of the Pakistani military.
The Unite States has given Pakistan billions and billions of dollars in military aid over the years. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that aid was increased sharply, and depending on what we count in, has reached more than $10 billion over the past decade.
There were two points of contention between the United States and Pakistan regarding this massive military aid. The United States wanted Pakistan to invest this money in augmenting its anti-terror capabilities: more and better equipped ground troops; more emphasis on small commando-type units; better gear for domestic surveillance; and more. The Pakistanis, on the other hand, wanted to use the money to augment their military capabilities against what they consider to be their arch-enemy — India. To do that, the Pakistanis wanted to use the money to buy fighter planes, radar installations, missiles, ships, and submarines.
The second point of contention: the Pakistanis cheated the United States in two ways. First, as is the practice in Pakistan, much of that military aid ended up in the personal bank accounts of the country’s top political and military leaders. Second, using false accounting and forged reports, the Pakistani military, while telling the United States it was using (what was left of) the money to buy terrorism-related gear, was in fact using the money to acquire equipment more suitable for an India-Pakistan conflict.
Which brings us back to last Sunday raid. It is now clear
that even this surreptitious and duplicitous augmentation of Pakistan’s capabilities against India — especially strengthening the country’s air defenses — were for naught.
Just think:: What if instead of American forces looking only for bin Laden, we would have had an Indian commando group entering the country to decapitate the Pakistani political and military leadership as a prelude to an all-out Indian attack on Pakistan? Pakistan would be doomed before the game even began.
Advice to U.S. policymakers: It is time to reconsider the massive aid to Pakistan. Recall former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir’s comment regarding an especially egregious corruption scandal in Israel: “Just see how much public money could have been wasted yet — had it not been stolen.” With regard to Pakistan: ditto
2. Nuclear weapons
Why is everybody worried about Pakistan? Because it has between 60 and 100 nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons are the poor man’s military equalizer. Even a poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional country like Pakistan can do a lot of damage because it has nuclear weapons.
A few months ago the administration brought to Congress a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia which would have cut the nuclear arsenals of both countries. Senator John Kyle (R-Arizona) led the opposition to the treaty, but it was eventually passed. Kyle had specific reasons for objecting to the treaty, and was at the end mollified by some $80 million added to the defense budget for research into better and more efficient nuclear warhead.
Other critics of the president criticized the treaty, which they saw as part of the president’s sweeping vision of a world free of nuclear weapons — a vision he elucidated in a speech in Prague in May 2009. These critics view any call for nuclear disarmament — let alone the actual reduction in the number of nuclear weapons the United States has — as measures weakening the United States.
It is doubtful that the vision of a nuclear-free world can be realized. Let us assume, for a minute, that it could: Nothing would make a greater contribution to U.S. national security than ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Nothing — absolutely nothing — would bolster the position of the United States as the preeminent military power in the world than dismantling all nuclear weapons, including those of the United States.
The reason? When you list the countries of the world according to how much they spend on defense, the United States is not only in the No. 1 position — it spends more on defense the combined expenditures of the countries in positions 2 through 14. These vast amounts of money are used to develop and equip our troops with the most advanced weaponry and the most advance command and control systems.
These advanced systems, if used wisely, allow the United States to win every military engagement in which it is involved — and more often than not, as was the case in Abbottabad — win in trying circumstances.
No country in the world can withstand the U.S. military machine — except those countries that have nuclear weapons which they would use to kill many American soldiers, or even to destroy an American city.
Those who want to promote American interests, preserve U.S. global military preeminence, and allow the United States to lead with its strength should be the most ardent supporters of the vision of a nuclear-free world. It will be a world in which the United States more easily and at less risk to itself could throw its weight around.
Another advice to American policymakers: Strength is relative, not absolute. It is not enough to be strong. Better to be smart in what kinds of strength we accumulate, and what kinds of strength we deny our potential adversaries.
Ben Frankel is editor of the Homeland Security NewsWire
No comments:
Post a Comment