Report: Pakistan rejects U.S. plan, wants drones By Bridget Johnson Posted: 04/08/09 11:56 AM [ET] U.S. envoys met with Pakistani leaders on Tuesday to ensure that the $7.5 billion that President Obama plans to send their way over the next five years will be used to achieve common goals in the fight against extremism. But according to a Pakistani newspaper, regional envoy Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen came up empty-handed and received a "rude shock" when a proposal for joint operations against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the volatile tribal regions was rejected. Dawn newspaper reported that Pakistan also asked the U.S. to turn over the unmanned drone missions over the territory to them, saying that the drone strikes were fueling extremism. And The Independent published an interview with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday in which he said Pakistan would go after high-value targets on their own if the U.S. would hand over its drone technology and intelligence. "President Obama once said that he would act if we weren't willing and able," Zardari said. "We certainly are willing and with international support we will become even more able." President Obama's plan to battle extremism in Afghanistan includes sinking $1.5 billion each year for the next five years into neighboring Pakistan, up from the current aid of $500 million. But the plan is being watched with a skeptical eye by legislators who doubt the ability of Pakistan â which recently brokered a deal with Taliban in the North-West Frontier Province that allows the militants to impose their brutal interpretation of Islamic law on the populace â to use that money as intended. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during a hearing last week that there was "ambivalent evidence" to suggest that Pakistan would rein in extremism to America's satisfaction. Mullen and Holbrooke's two days of talks in Pakistan seemed aimed at reassuring those who may doubt the expenditure on an unstable government. "It's got to be that we are supporting Pakistan policies, because if we appear to be buying something they otherwise would not pursue, it is counterproductive," Levin said at the hearing. But support for the Taliban peace deal will be thin considering the human-rights ramifications that come along with it. Two-week-old video from Pakistan's Swat Valley â of which control was relinquished to the Taliban in the peace deal â showed Taliban flogging a 17-year-old girl for reportedly refusing a marriage proposal, drawing outcry from the human-rights community and a muted response from the White House. The human-rights offenses under the new Islamabad-sanctioned Taliban rule could vex Obama's Afghanistan strategy in a manner similar to the way that human-rights concerns in Afghanistan have been among the reasons for NATO's reluctance to contribute troops to Obama's planned surge. A new law in Afghanistan, applying only to the Shiite minority, states that women need "a legitimate purpose" to leave the house and must submit to their husbands' sexual advances. âWe are there to defend universal values and when I see, at the moment, a law threatening to come into effect which fundamentally violates womenâs rights and human rights, that worries me,â NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said at the recent summit where Obama tried to rally more volunteers. âI have a problem to explain to a critical public audience in Europe, be it the UK or elsewhere, why Iâm sending the guys to the Hindu Kush.â Obama has stressed that the aid to Pakistan will come with strings attached and won't be a "blank check." Reacting to the no-blank-check vow, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said during a joint press conference with Holbrooke, "We neither accept nor give one."
They must really take Obama for a fool to even make such a proposal. Giving the pakistanis money and expecting cooperation is hopeless. Far better to pay them on an incentive fee basis for killing taliban or al qaeda members. Better yet, hit those villages that support taliban with a few B-52 strikes. That will put drone attacks in perspective for them.
Funny how the left did nothing but complain that we went alone into Iraq even though 40 or so nations also sent in troops with America. South Korea had more troops in Iraq than Obama was able to persuade all of Europe to add to Afghanistan. New U.S. troops-21,000 New Euro troops-5,000 all non-combat and 3k for only a month or two during Afghan election season. This is why homo-Europe loves Obama. Hugs, kisses and then they can stick it up his ass while he smiles and waves.
This where the rubber meets the road. Pakistan is providing a haven to tens of thousands of taliban and al qaeda members. It refuses to do anything about them, complains when we do and now expects billions more in "aid." All this from a country that is aided nuclear proliferation and treats the man behind it as a hero. They know they have nothing to fear from Obama.
Causal relationships are hard to grasp for some in the "conservative community" here. Idiot W destabilized pakistan to no end and musharraf had to leave office in disgrace. What is truly tragic (as far as pakistan is concerned) that the only person who could piece that rathole together got killed (bhutto). After Afganistan is a mess and pakistan is volatile you judge obama harshly. I believe W is a total degenerate and his policies need to be reversed (practically) everywhere, HOWEVER going on a "tour" and saying how much he is different from W(trashing W) is a mistake. W, while a total misfit used to occupy office of the president of the united states, by trashing him publicly you trash the office(Realize that Obama is president now and while trashing W was acceptable for candidate Obama it is not for PRESIDENT obama). Reverse his policies, but stop saying how much you are better than your predecessor. It is bad for the country.
As far back as 2004 Obama was favoring the EXACT same policy in Pakistan as perused by Bush. So why isn't it Obama's problem? Bottom line: Among Western leaders only Obama is interested in warring it up in Pakistan. His appeal for help was REJECTED. Period. Europe spit in his face. Obama said "I'm fighting the REAL threat and Europe said 'cool ,you go dude."
I don't see how you can blame Bush for the problems in Pakistan, which date back decades. Taliban were a creation of Pakistan's intelligence service, and they continue to support them. Pakistan has tolerated radical islamists and allowed Saudi Arabia to bankroll them. They are playing us and will continue to play us, using the threat of becoming a failed state with nukes to deflect our demands that they actually clean up terrorist havens. I agree that Obama inherited a bad situation, but so did Bush. Of course, he could have done nothing and allowed taliban to continue to rule afghanistan, but even Obama was against that. Bush's people made many of the same mistakes in afghanistan as they did in iraq, starting with the idea that the appropriate model was an islamic democracy, an oxymoron of the first order. They should have worked through the local tribes, which was the model that finally produced relative stability in iraq. Instead, we put all our eggs on a central government that is incompetent and corrupt and commands no loyalty. This has a very real chance of turning into a vietnam for Obama. I agree with you that obama is beginning to sound less than presidential in constantly blaming bush. He is beginning to look like what many of us feared, a naive and inexperienced radical with no leadership skill. He already is polling with the largest partisan gap of any president. Close to half the country sees him as not up to the job; the other half thinks he is the Second Coming. Not a great situation.