Blogs and Stories
The Pakistan Army's Political Gamble
Arif Ali, AFP / Getty Images
The U.S. is on the verge of providing substantial aid to Pakistan’s struggling government—if only long-running civilian-military tensions don’t mess things up.
Pakistanis have been besieged with nine separate Taliban-led suicide attacks over the last 10 days aimed at the security forces—including a devastating and embarrassing siege inside the army’s general headquarters in Rawalpindi that claimed 22 lives. In that climate, you’d think the generals might have other things on their minds than making statements that threatened the elected government and Pakistan’s precarious relationship with the U.S. and other aid-giving countries.
But the army's chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, chose this point in time to challenge his government and the Obama administration—just as a crucial aid bill that has taken more than a year to pass on Capitol Hill was finally ready for President Obama’s signature.
The military launched a massive public-relations exercise, briefing key TV talk-show hosts and journalists who were urged to whip up public opinion against the U.S. aid bill.
For a moment, it seemed that despite promises that the army would no longer intervene in politics, Pakistan’s long-running military-civilian tensions about the army’s intentions gripped the country.
The U.S. bill will provide Pakistan’s civilian and development sector with $1.5 billion a year for the next five years, while the military would have a separate aid bill worth over $1 billion a year. It would be the first time in the history of the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan that Washington would be giving so much money to a civilian government for development purposes. In the past, America has lavished money on military regimes, but barely helped civilian ones.
The bill stipulates that Pakistan must remain a democracy with civilian control over the army and the defense budget, while obligating the government to continue its fight against terrorism. However, these conditions were wrapped in a clause giving the U.S. president waiver rights to continue aid, even if such conditions were not met.
• Reihan Salam: The Taliban-Al Qaeda ConnectionU.S. officials insisted the bill had no conditions, but rather only accountability and oversight demands so that the money reaches the people and is not wasted. The legislation had been through multiple drafts and had been watered down considerably after negotiations with the Pakistan government, foreign ministry, and army, which had objected to language used in earlier drafts—especially about Pakistan’s nuclear program.
With the government bankrupt and surviving on life support only because of a massive $11.3 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, the passage of the U.S. bill is critical to convince European and Arab donors to give more aid to Pakistan.
Pakistan is battling the Taliban in the midst of a huge economic downturn, massive unemployment, and an acute energy shortage; there is no electricity in major cities for up to 10 hours a day.
For nearly a year, 20 countries and international agencies known collectively as the so-called Friends of Pakistan have been promising to give over $5 billion in aid. But nothing has come of the pledges, because they were waiting for the Americans to go first.








Is this a joke?
Don't the Pakistanis know that the dollars are soon to be worthless than yen, or the peso?
A mere 1.5 billion a year? Why not 1.5 billion a day? What the hell, the government gave Citibank a few hundred billion dollars so they could funnel a bonus of $100 million to one Andrew Hall (energy trader extraordinaire), which works our to about $2,000,000 a week.
At least with the throwing of monopoly play money in the direction of Pakistan we may end up with something to show for it (ongoing peace with India?). Perhaps this makes some sort of sense as an investment.
But, I just can't get an answer to what kind of a return on the investment we can expect from Mr. Hall.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.