U.S. Pays Pakistan $1B A Year To Fight Terrorism, Whether They Do Or Not
U.S. Pays Pakistan to Fight Terror, but Patrols Ebb
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/wo...&partner=MYWAY
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID ROHDE
Published: May 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, May 19 — The United States is continuing to make large payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls reimbursements to the country’s military for conducting counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.
The monthly payments, called coalition support funds, are not widely advertised. Buried in public budget numbers, the payments are intended to reimburse Pakistan’s military for the cost of the operations. So far, Pakistan has received more than $5.6 billion under the program over five years, more than half of the total aid the United States has sent to the country since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, not counting covert funds.
Some American military officials in the region have recommended that the money be tied to Pakistan’s performance in pursuing Al Qaeda and keeping the Taliban from gaining a haven from which to attack the government of Afghanistan. American officials have been surprised by the speed at which both organizations have gained strength in the past year.
But Bush administration officials say no such plan is being considered, despite new evidence that the Pakistani military is often looking the other way when Taliban fighters retreat across the border into Pakistan, ignoring calls from American spotters to intercept them. There is also at least one American report that Pakistani security forces have fired in support of Taliban fighters attacking Afghan posts.
The administration, according to some current and former officials, is fearful of cutting off the cash or linking it to performance for fear of further destabilizing Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is facing the biggest challenges to his rule since he took power in 1999.
The White House would not directly answer the question of why Pakistan is being paid the same very large amount after publicly declaring that it is significantly cutting back on its patrols in the most important border area. But Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, emphasized Pakistan’s strategic importance in the region.
“Pakistan’s cooperation is very important in the global war on terror and for our operations in Afghanistan,” Mr. Johndroe said. “Our investments in that partnership have paid off over time, from increased information sharing to kills and captures of key terrorist operatives. There is more work to be done, the Pakistanis know that, and we are engaged with the Musharraf government to ramp up the fight.”
The Pentagon, in response to inquiries, said Friday that the payments to Pakistan since October 2001, when the war in Afghanistan began, had averaged $80 million a month. The Congressional Research Service estimated last year that they accounted for about a fifth of Pakistan’s total military expenditures.
The administration told Congress in January that the Pakistanis performed operations that “would be difficult for U.S. Armed Forces to attain,” and the Pentagon said those included carrying out joint operations, commanding observation posts and conducting land and maritime interdictions.
But General Musharraf announced in September that under a peace agreement with local militants his regular army troops in North Waziristan, the center of Al Qaeda’s operations, would no longer operate checkpoints and that they would stay in garrisons, a decision that came after Pakistani forces suffered heavy casualties in the lawless tribal areas.
Soon after, appearing with President Bush, General Musharraf promised that tribal leaders and local militia would handle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the tribal areas. Outside powers have long struggled to gain firm control of the remote and impoverished region, where fiercely independent tribes have largely ruled themselves for centuries. American officials say they think Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda members fled there in 2001.
Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said in an interview that the agreements were working and that his country’s military activities on the border itself were increasing. He said that Pakistan was being properly reimbursed for fuel, munitions and wear and tear on military equipment. “There are multiple small and big operations going on, we have deployed troops along the border,” he said. “There is a lot of coordination.”
American officials tell a different story, saying that Pakistani cooperation was mixed at best in 2005 and 2006, though they acknowledge that the Pakistanis have been more responsive to NATO and American requests in recent months. Still, they complain that the Pakistanis are paid whether they go on operations or sit in their barracks.
“They send us a bill, and we just pay it,” said a senior military official who has dealt extensively with General Musharraf. “Nobody can really explain what we are getting for this money or even where it’s going.”
After visiting Pakistan last year, Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, wrote in a report that the Defense Department’s military office in Islamabad, the capital, recommended changing the aid program so that it was “paying for specific objectives that are planned and executed, rather than simply paying what the country bills.” A senior military official engaged in battling the Taliban said many commanders and diplomats in the region agreed with that recommendation.
Mr. Johndroe, the national security spokesman, said the White House was unaware of any such debate and was not currently considering changing the program.
“I’m not aware of any serious discussion to cut off the funding,” Mr. Johndroe said. The payments are critical to bolstering the military, General Musharraf’s greatest source of support, particularly as he faces growing street protests over his removal of an independent-minded Supreme Court chief justice as the court was about to consider the legality of the president’s decision to hold the nation’s top military and political posts at the same time.
“In funding the Pakistani military, we are making it easier for Musharraf to fulfill his objectives, and we are keeping the military off his back,” said Xenia Dormandy, a former director for South Asia for the National Security Council who is now a scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
“It is a very good question to raise,” he added. “If we are giving a billion dollars to the military each year, would that money not be better spent building schools, roads and health services in that region?”
A study of the roughly $10 billion sent to Pakistan by the United States since 2002, conducted by Craig Cohen and Derek Chollet of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, found that $5.6 billion in reimbursements was in addition to $1.8 billion for security assistance, which mostly finances large weapons systems.
But those weapons are more useful, the authors concluded, in countering India than in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States has also provided about $1.6 billion for “budget support,” which Pakistan can use broadly, including for reducing debt.
In contrast, only about $900 million has been dedicated to health, food aid, democracy promotion and education, in a country where illiteracy rates are about 50 percent, and American policy makers say the education gap has opened the way for religious schools that can become hotbeds of extremism.
The Pentagon says the Pakistani expenses are reviewed by the Central Command and the American Embassy in Islamabad, and reported to Congress. But current and former commanders and diplomats say that the review is cursory and that there is no real way to audit the Pakistani operations.
Meanwhile, American and NATO military frustration with Pakistan’s performance in the border area is growing, say current and former senior American military officials. They said that Taliban fighters had been seen regularly crossing the border within sight of Pakistani observation posts, but that the Pakistanis often made little effort to stop them.
Pakistani and American military commanders established direct radio communications between Pakistani and American border posts about two years ago, after a series of meetings on border issues. Since then, the system has worked well on some parts of the border and poorly in others, they said.
Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO supreme commander, said that when American or NATO forces saw Taliban fighters crossing the border and radioed nearby Pakistani posts, there sometimes was no answer. “Calls to apprehend or detain or restrict these ongoing movements, as agreed, were sometimes not answered,” General Jones said. “Sometimes radios were turned off.”
General Jones said he raised the problem with Gen. Ehsan ul Haq, the chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, during General Haq’s visit to NATO headquarters last fall.
Mr. Durrani, the ambassador, denied that Pakistani troops were failing to stop Taliban fighters at the border. He said the troops were carrying out joint operations with American forces based inside Afghanistan.
Two American analysts and one American soldier said Pakistani security forces had fired mortars shells and rocket-propelled grenades in direct support of Taliban ground attacks on Afghan Army posts. A copy of an American military report obtained by The New York Times described one of the attacks.
“Enemy supporting fires consisting of heavy machine guns and R.P.G.’s were provided by two Pakistani observation posts,” said the report, referring to rocket-propelled grenades. The grenades killed one Afghan soldier and ignited an ammunition fire that destroyed the observation post, according to the report. It concluded that “the Pakistani military actively supported the enemy assault” on the Afghan post.
James Dobbins, an analyst at the RAND Corporation and a former senior American envoy to Afghanistan, said soldiers had relayed similar complaints to him. “I’ve heard reports of Pakistani units providing fire support from positions inside Pakistan for Taliban units operating against Afghan Army units inside Afghanistan,” he said.
A second American analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said American soldiers had told him that Pakistani forces supported Taliban ground attacks with mortar fire and rocket-propelled grenades at least two dozen times in 2005 and 2006. Senior American military officials said that they had not heard of the incidents, but added that Pakistani tribal militia, not Pakistani soldiers, could be supporting the Taliban attacks.
Mr. Durrani, the Pakistani ambassador, called the reports of direct Pakistani military support for the Taliban “preposterous.” He said the Pakistani military, which has lost 700 soldiers fighting militants in the tribal areas, would never tolerate such activity from its soldiers. “If even once this happens,” he said, “the whole system will come down like a ton of bricks on this person.”
