A Pakistan Plan

Barack Obama has what seems like a pretty good idea for Pakistan, basically "continue funding for Pakistan in the Foreign Operations bill in the areas of counter-terrorism funding, public education, health, micro-enterprise development, humanitarian assistance, and democracy and rule of law programs" but suspend the large general support grants to the Pakistani military until such time as the conditions are set for free and fair elections and the Pakistani government comes up with a credible al-Qaeda plan.

Ilan Goldenberg likes this approach as well. Basically, you'd be pressure the Pakistani military to pressure Musharraf to get back on a path to civilian rule. As I say, seems like a decent idea for the short-term.

Comments

I think a good place to start would be to get those people literate, I mean the country is only 53% literate, maybe if more of them knew how to read and write they wouldn't hate America so much. And no, we've never done ANYTHING to Pakistan to make them hate us, unlike to Iran (the Shah), Iraq (propping Saddam), or India (opposite side of cold war).
Also, they could then actually read a Quran and find out that the words "Kill all Americans" don't appear anywhere in it.

Posted by Multiple | November 9, 2007 12:18 AM

Musharraf just placed Benazir Bhutto under house arrest.

So much for our President's personal orders for him to behave.

Of course he will hold an election, as GWB ordered, but with all the opposition leaders of any significance either in exile or under house arrest.

Perhaps the Democratic Party should pay a visit to Islamabad to get some gonads from Parvez so that they can play Mr. Bush like a fiddle.

Posted by gregor | November 9, 2007 12:32 AM

A man, a plan, Pakistan?

Posted by dan k | November 9, 2007 12:39 AM

I'd say it depends on whom we're trying to influence. If it's just a way to push Musharraf, that's one thing. If it's designed to instigate another coup, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. That's what we did in Bangladesh, and the military has acquired a taste for governing. Of course, in Pakistan I suppose the damage has already been done. Still, this time a coup might not be so bloodless.

Also, this is the kind of thing that should be done by the executive. The danger with Congress getting involved is that Congress will lose attention and drift off, so that even when a democratic government is in place the aid doesn't resume (that might not be a bad thing on balance, but assume for the sake of argument that military aid to a democratic Pakistan is a good thing). This would be like table grapes: long after the boycott was over, people were staying away from table grapes.

Posted by minderbender | November 9, 2007 12:46 AM

but suspend the large general support grants to the Pakistani military until such time as the conditions are set for free and fair elections and the Pakistani government comes up with a credible al-Qaeda plan.

Which grants?

Do you know that when the Pakistani army mounts up and heads for Balochistan they start gathering up reciepts from the last tank of gas to KIA soldiers and presents a bill to Centcom in Florida? This money doesn't come out of the treasury or appropriations but the general defense budget.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 9, 2007 1:05 AM

Multiple,
What the hell are you talking about? What does literacy have to do with not hating America? A Madrassah graduate is, by definition, literate but he hates America much much more than an uneducated goat herder ever will. I'm sure Bin Laden has read the Koran many times, but he doesn't seem to care that the words "Kill all Americans" don't appear anywhere in it.

Posted by michesmith | November 9, 2007 1:14 AM

by definition, literate but he hates America much much more than an uneducated goat herder ever will.

Actually that's not true, these are usually people who learn by rote memorization.

The bigger problem with Multiple is that he doesn't get that those people aren't Musharaff's opposition by and large.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 9, 2007 1:20 AM

Actually that's not true, these are usually people who learn by rote memorization.

How is it, do you think, that they go about memorizing the verses? I take it you read that poorly written Telegraph article last week and now fancy yourself an expert.

Posted by michesmith | November 9, 2007 1:45 AM

Ed, I know they aren't Mush's opposition. Them and Mush play the good cop bad cop routine with us, but back at the ranch, they're all in the same bed. But my point is, that once the Pakistani populace becomes more educated, they'll shift to secular parties that pose a real alternative, as opposed to the Bhutto-Sharif duopoly, or God forbid the religious nutcases.
And I find the high level of anti-Americanism in Pakistan very disturbing, given that we have done absolutely nothing to deserve that (and no, I really doubt the average Pakistani gives half a shit about 'oppressed' arabs living 10000 miles away) and have done much to help them with Peace Corps and what not.

Posted by Multiple | November 9, 2007 2:35 AM

What about Charles Krauthammer's plan: What is America to do about Pakistan?

Posted by The Hammer | November 9, 2007 4:03 AM

The Devil is in the details. Cutting off ALL aid to the military would reduce recently re-established contacts between junior grade Paki officers and the US military--a bad idea.

Krauthammer's suggestion also sounds pretty good, but is also pretty unspecific. I think the most important thing for us is not to over-reach--there's only so much we can do, and our intelligence in Pakistan is so tragically deficient that any major move amounts to swinging wildly while blindfolded. Making generally pro-democracy statements while consistently pushing for elections ASAP is about the best we can do for now.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 9, 2007 4:47 AM

Sorry: Obama's prescription is naive. You can't tell the Pakistani military (which is what this is about): Guys you will have money for this and that but nothing for the army. Everything goes through the army.For long as American aid has gone to Pakistan it has been overtly political, in the sense that it was influenced by the Cold War and then by the need to keep the military strong. Neither Benazir nor Sharif (or even Zulfikar) have been regarded as pro-American unless it suited their immediate goals.

The army itself has conflicting sympathies: with the ISI most suspect of all.

The US will be nothingmore than an ATM for Mush. It is that or nothing. Ours is an astute foreign policy vis a vis Pakistan.

Posted by Alan | November 9, 2007 7:41 AM

but suspend the large general support grants to the Pakistani military until such time as the conditions are set for free and fair elections

Maybe Barack Obama isn't following the news, but this happened yesterday.

Posted by Al | November 9, 2007 7:42 AM

Maybe Barack Obama isn't following the news, but this happened yesterday

Yeah. In other news the leader of the biggest political party was put under house arrest. Naturally free and fair elections are just round the corner.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 9, 2007 7:52 AM

I do not see what we achieve by aiding Pakistani military. We should be ready to help a civilian government in restructuring the current military which is pretty much an extremist Islamic organization. Pakistan should have a security force not staffed by sympatizers of religious extremists, and which is not a "personal brigade of the President". Military dictators will not create it.

The other thing is that when our personel is training officers in army that is engaged in a dictatorship, I worry about the influence on our system. Besides exporting American values, we can get some imports.

By the way, what should be a requirement with a higher priority: elections or restoring the judicial system? It seems that Pakistan has sufficiently independent jurist to take care of elections, but with judiciary packed with freshly picked stooges and civil right suspended, what kind of elections there can be?

Posted by piotr | November 9, 2007 8:06 AM

Alan -
Would you still call Obama naive if you knew that Biden came out with a similar plan, after Obama did?

Posted by cb | November 9, 2007 8:18 AM

What is missing from this conversation...is not Musharraf responsible for the improvement of relations between Pakistan and India. Without Musharraf do they go back to bomb/missle testing and suicide bombers?

Posted by tin foil | November 9, 2007 8:33 AM

you'd be pressure the Pakistani military to pressure

Matt, can you start writing more posts in jive?

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 9, 2007 9:35 AM

Krauthammer is sure that Bhutto would win a Parliamentary elction? I'm not so sure. Benazir has never won a majority, even at the hieght of her popularity in 1988, when she won 93 out of 207 seats. In the 1997 election, after her atrocious second term, she wopn a pathetic 18 seats (out of 207).

There are a lot of political parties, and political leaders, in Pakistan. The USA shouldn't place all its bets on one, especially one with middling popularity.

By the way, this is fantastic:

As an expression of solidarity with our beleaguered colleagues at the Pakistani bar, the New York City Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, and the New York County Lawyers’ Association, in conjunction with other organizations, invite you to attend a public rally in front of the New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre Street on Tuesday, November 13, from 1:00-1:30 p.m.

Posted by Ikram | November 9, 2007 9:51 AM

Rudy will deal with a spoiler candidacy by pre-empting and letting faux-spoilers get on the ballot early then drop out.

This is a tried and true method.

Posted by Comment | November 9, 2007 10:26 AM

cb: have been out so unable to respond until now. My take: Biden has no special influence in Pakistan. I have had direct experience of US Senators visiting abroad full of themselves and reminding their hosts of their power to ratify treaties, etc. I have been on the other side of the table.

Essentially: no aid to Pakistan can be conditional. No matter the designation it will be used as the President of Pakistan and the military/ISI see fit. You want certification: sure the Minister of Education will certify that the funds have been received and applied as directed - except that it goes to the army for military education.

I am not being cynical. I just spent 5 years in Pakistan en post in the 90s and saw a lot that disturbed me.

Cheers

Posted by Alan | November 9, 2007 8:02 PM

"the Pakistani government comes up with a credible al-Qaeda plan."

Once again, Obama demonstrates that he doesn't his ass from his elbow.

There IS NO "credible Al-Qaeda plan" - at least not one that requires Pakistan to take out the FATA.

Get a clue. There are 40 million Pashtuns and they're running the show over there. And they're still allied with Al-Qaeda.

Find something you can use to drive a wedge between them and Al-Qaeda or fergeddaboudit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 10, 2007 2:05 AM

buckhorn prepeduncle bewimple adangle accurse candareen physcia sluicing
http://www.rosso-sport.de/ >Rosso-Sport
http://www.kawarthalakesonline.com/

Posted by Bettina Roberts | November 21, 2007 12:32 PM