May 5th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Should U.S. triple non-military aid to Pakistan?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the Taliban keeps advancing, the situation in Pakistan is becoming more critical. Half a million people are expected to follow a government evacuation order and flee one region ahead of an expected military offensive. The Taliban claims they are in control of 90 percent of the Swat Valley about 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad. Pakistan's army started its assault on these militants about a week ago.

A Pakistani Islamist wears a cap bearing the slogan 'Go Taliban Go' during an anti-Taliban/anti-U.S. rally in Islamabad.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers want to triple non-military U.S. aid to Pakistan. A Senate bill would authorize 47.5 billion to Pakistan over the next five years to help boost economic growth and development; and another $7.5 billion for the five years after that. Never mind that the Bush administration gave billions and billions of dollars to Pervez Musharraf's government ostensibly to fight terrorism.

Senator John Kerry points out that an alarming percentage of Pakistanis now see the U.S. as a greater threat than al Qaeda; and there's little chance of ending the influence of these terrorist groups until we change that. That's what the additional non military aid would be used for.

President Obama - who is set to meet with the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan this week - has said he's gravely concerned about the situation there. Washington believes Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure for now; but there is some concern that militants might try and seize them.

Here’s my question to you: In light of the increasing threat from the Taliban, should the U.S. triple non-military aid to Pakistan?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Dave from New York writes:
Yes, yes, and yes. This is the modern way you fight an insurgency like the Taliban. Think of it as a "free market" solution to terrorism: win people's hearts and make the Taliban unpopular.

Linda from Charleston, South Carolina writes:
No, it should triple aid to American people that are caught up in this society. You know, Jack, the jobless society that is allowing children to go hungry and live in tents in the U.S. The society that allows a single mother to suffer because the father of the children won't pay child support. The society where horses, dogs, and cats are dying because owners can't feed them. Give me a break to hell with Pakistan. We can't take care of our own people.

S. writes:
Why should all the money (or even the majority) come from the U.S.? The Taliban is not a U.S. problem, it is a global problem. The UN, EU, NATO and Arab alliance should all be doing their equal share of financing non-military aid to Pakistan. If the U.S. keeps financing the majority of these projects, then the international community will view the Taliban as a U.S. problem.

Dave from New York writes:
Yes, yes, and yes. This is the modern way you fight an insurgency like the Taliban. Think of it as a "free market" solution to terrorism: win people's hearts and make the Taliban unpopular.

Linda from Charleston, South Carolina writes:
No, it should triple aid to American people that are caught up in this society. You know, Jack, the jobless society that is allowing children to go hungry and live in tents in the U.S. The society that allows a single mother to suffer because the father of the children won't pay child support. The society where horses, dogs, and cats are dying because owners can't feed them. Give me a break to hell with Pakistan. We can't take care of our own people.

S. writes:
Why should all the money (or even the majority) come from the U.S.? The Taliban is not a U.S. problem, it is a global problem. The UN, EU, NATO and Arab alliance should all be doing their equal share of financing non-military aid to Pakistan. If the U.S. keeps financing the majority of these projects, then the international community will view the Taliban as a U.S. problem.

Sam writes:
Yes, in the long-run, we need the Pakistani people on our side. Right now, all they see are U.S. predator drones raining down missiles on their country. We need to change that image - and helping them build schools, hospitals, etc. is the way to go.

Gary writes:
Jack, Have we not wasted enough money the past several years? This is a joke. Are our elected officials really that foolish, naive and/or stupid? Also, where is the EU, invisible and inept as usual? Where is NATO, invisible and inept as usual? Why must it always be us? Hell, Jack, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, with no relief in sight.

Sam writes:
Yes, in the long-run, we need the Pakistani people on our side. Right now, all they see are U.S. predator drones raining down missiles on their country. We need to change that image - and helping them build schools, hospitals, etc. is the way to go.

Gary writes:
Jack, Have we not wasted enough money the past several years? This is a joke. Are our elected officials really that foolish, naive and/or stupid? Also, where is the EU, invisible and inept as usual? Where is NATO, invisible and inept as usual? Why must it always be us? Hell, Jack, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, with no relief in sight.

Filed under: Global matters
soundoff (194 Responses)
  1. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    I don't know what the answer is to the Pakistan problem, but I'm pretty sure throwing more money into Pakistan is not the answer. We have poured a ton of money in there already and what do we have to show for it? Pakistan has been in bed with the radicals for years and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  2. Jack - Lancaster, OH


    Since our financial industry is so clever, instead of the direct tripling of our aid to Pakistan, the banking industry should broker a loan to Pakistan from China.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  3. Samir from Florida

    My opinion as a Pakistani-American is that I think the US needs to rid the corrupt government of Pakistan. The aid will never make it to the areas where it is needed. Bribery is normal practice in Pakistan starting from the security guard at the airport all the way up to Ali Zardari.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  4. Terence

    Jack, We should triple our BOMBING of The Taliban instead and we would achieve better results then wasting three times more military aid to them . At least it will be military aid put to good use and we will know where the money was used every night on Wolfs situation room nightly as he reports the bombing strikes. Money well spent as far as i am concerned. BOMBS AWAY!!!
    Terence, Piscataway, NJ

    May 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  5. Colleen Brooks, Charlotte, NC

    I'd like to see them triple non-military aid to Colleen Brooks, Charlotte, NC. With, two kids in college, things are getting a little tight around here.....

    May 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
  6. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    We should just get out of everybody’s business and let the rest of the world, you know, that mythical “coalition,” deal with these people. If no one picks up the ball, just let Pakistan know that they will be wiped off the face of the Earth if they don’t get their act together, then follow through. I’m tired of solving the world’s problems. I have too many of my own.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  7. Russ in PA

    Good Lord, no, the US should stop meddling in that country's affairs, and bug out now. It appears that our government now wants us to fear the Taliban, since that is how the government now dictates policy. Fear this, fear that, when we should fear the reach of our government into our daily lives, and those in other countries.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
  8. Jason, Koloa, HI

    Why is it just our problem. Where is the rest of the world on this?

    May 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
  9. Juelene

    I think that we should do whatever it is to keep the United States safe. But, I also believe that we should not let any country bully us into anything, remember these lives our, our children, fathers and mothers and we should not send them anywhere unless absolutely necessary.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
  10. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    No amount of military aid or any other type of monetary aid will help any of those countries, especially Pakistan. The Pakistani's have been basically "at war" with India ever since the Brits gave them Independence in 1947, and neither the British or Russians could win in Afganistan. So what's the use of throwing good money after bad?

    May 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  11. Paul Austin, Texas

    Military or non-military we should not give them a dime. For years now we have been giving Pakistan millions and millions and for what. They act like they are looking for terrorist and the taliban but have always looked the other way until now when it is most likely to late to matter. Now we will be stuck to go in and get their nukes or destroy them we can not let them get in the hands of the thugs.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  12. Tony St. Louis, MO

    The specific distinction has to be made whether it's absolutely necessary first. Not prudent I would think for a country with as massive a defecit as ours to be tossing money around saving other countries. It seems unlikely that a group of militant extremists would have the money, military and political capacity to simply take over a country like Pakistan unless they had a major backer, but what do I know? This is where we need facts and transparency and not more fear!!

    May 5, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  13. Debbie/Kansas City

    Yes, Secretary Gates has said that is the only chance the Afganistan Government has to regain control of the country, from theTaliban. But, other countries should help as well, it can't just be all America all the time.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:38 pm |

    It is beginning to sound a lot like Viatnam and Iraq.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  15. Ed Reed

    Aid to Iraq, aid to Afghanistan! Now aid to Pakistan which was voted most likely to become the new Talibanistan. Will we ever tire of playing Whack-a-Mole?

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX

    May 5, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  16. John from Alabama

    Jack: The United States should spend more in Pakistan when the United States Military is securing their nuclear arsenal. The Taliban are to close for comfort, and the United States does not need a terroist organization with a nuclear weapon. We have already paid billions of dollars for assistance in capturing Osama bien Laden. Look how that has truned out for the United States.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
  17. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Gee-Whiz Jack,we just never learn.............never never learn.This is an endless money pit that we help create.It must stop "now" no more money.The folks that own that money and paid that money can't even get dental care for their kids and yet our government once again just
    gives it all away leaving the people helpless and congress could care less as long as their big steaks are served on time.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  18. Jon in NH

    In light of the increasing threat from the Taliban, should the U.S. triple non-military aid to Pakistan? Let me put it this way: No, we should not.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
  19. Simpliticus

    Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal. It should be a major concern to the region in stabilizing this area. Imagine the world wide effort to assist Pakistan in its efforts against the Taliban. Here Obama can triumph where George W. Bush had stumbled and dropped the ball. It is quite obvious that Obama must spend a little more to constrain and take control of a problem that George W. Bush didn't take control of much like the rest of the American infrastructure!

    May 5, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
  20. Jackie in Dallas

    Not until the Pakistani government does more than make token efforts at closing their borders to the Taliban/al Qaeda, and controls the flow of munitions bought with American dollars to insurgants in Afghanistan!

    May 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm |
  21. Darin

    No, we need to end the war, not exacerbate it with growing numbers!

    May 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
  22. David Gerstenfeld

    Do to what ? Will the accounting of money given be as GOOD as it was with TARP funds? Who else is giving them money to control the spread of Muslim extremism ? Take your time, I'll wait.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
  23. Brian Riback - Waldwick, NJ

    You know Jack? I'm sick of this...people are tired of the US influence in the world, we're bullies, we're this and that, until they need us. I don't see any other countries standing up to the plate here. Tell Israel to go in there and take over...that'll piss off those religious nut jobs in Pakistan.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
  24. Gerry In Toronto

    Yes, providing it gets the Pakistanis to actually fight and destroy the Taliban.

    May 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm |
  25. Mark in OKC

    Oh, sure, let's just spend billions and billions more in other "sinkholes" around the world. If we didn't go around handing out Trillions of dollars every decade in foreign aid, we could spend the money here and have the best health insurance for every U.S. ciitzen, our schools would not be falling apart and no one would be living on the street. But, why try to improve the lives of U.S. citizens when we can give to money to people who hate us overseas?

    May 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
  26. Tina Tx

    No. We need to pack our mules and get the hell out of their business. We don't like anyone in ours so you know how they feel. We can't even govern our own people and look what a mess we are in?

    May 5, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
  27. Paula in Albuquerque

    Pardon me...but, what was all of hysterical talk about "economic crises", in this country...and the President's having to go to bat...every day of the week... for various segments of this society?

    Why... I thought that we were "on life-support"...or, at least we were "hemorrhaging" debt and expenses, badly!

    Somebody is LYING...or, I've been hallucinating! We either have enough money to stabilize the American economy, or we don't. We are either concentrating on pulling AMERICA out of its recession, or we aren't.

    Either way...we, most decidedly DO NOT have "enough" to bail-out Pakistan...period.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
  28. Terry from North Carolina

    Are you kidding, our economy is down the tubes and you are asking if we should triple non-military aid to a country who has no love for us to begin with.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  29. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    I would much rather we tripled military aid and non-military aid to the good ol' US of A.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  30. John Webster, Aldergrove BC Canada

    If the US could change their foreign policy and substantially improve their image internationally, then yes. If not, no amount will change the thinking of those behind the fundamentalist agenda of the Taliban. We seem to forget that ‘The pen is mightier than the sword’ is a concept that is actually true. Win their hearts and minds first and then anything is possible.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  31. Jim


    Pakistan is a nuclear power. The U.S. should do whatever it takes to ensure that nukes do not fall into terrorist hands. That might include propping up the current government with increased military and non-military aid, getting rid of the current government in favor of one more eager and willing to fight the Taliban, or just plain taking over their nukes and protecting them ourselves.

    Reno, Nevada

    May 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  32. Chuck in warren, Ohio

    Jack: Yes. When we lift up the people of Pakistan and rase their standard of living the Taliban has no hold on them. The Taliban can only exist when all hope for the people is gone.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  33. John Martin

    Financial aid to ANY country is irresponsible at this time with our own crises. Let's focus on fixing US first, and depend on our own Dept. of Homeland Security to deal with protecting the United States.

    John Martin
    New Orleans, LA

    May 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  34. William Joseph Miller, Los Angeles

    The Los Angeles Times just printed an article on this topic. The two big concerns of the average Pakistani on the street are drone bombers which kill and maim innocent civilians, and widespread poverty.
    Malcolm X once said the most dangerous man in the world is the man with nothing to lose. Millions of Pakistanis have nothing to lose. That's why they turn to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
    Militarily there is absolutely no way we can win the war against terrorism. We can only do this by eliminating the massive unemployment and poverty that exists in third world countries – including Pakistan.
    I might add that Obama's crack down on corporations is a great first step. American corporations locate overseas to avoid paying their employees a decent liveable wage. In addition, these corporations select countries that have no regulations on pollution and that impose few if any taxes. If a country decides to stick up for its workers, to protect its environment or to ask American corporations to pay taxes, American corporations simply pull up stakes and re-locate somewhere else. The current myth that large corporations are circulating in this country is another example of the way Crooks, Exorbitantly Overpaid (AKA, CEO's) lie to the public.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  35. Bill, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    I would give them more money only if it buys their support and approval for us to be able to go after the Taliban and Al qaida in the tribal areas.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  36. John in Virginia

    Wait, I though Obama promised to invade Pakistan to take care of this problem. Now he wants to send them money and food? So much for campaign promises...

    May 5, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  37. Dean in Macungie,PA

    If we give them any non-military aid it should be with the condition they hand over Bin Laden first, then we can help them with the Taliban.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
  38. Steve, Clifton,VA

    Yes but only after it has tripled its diplomatic efforts and military focus and determined the international role and standings of Pakistan as an ally of the US and the world as we move forward.......

    Clifton, VA

    May 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm |

    We should offer a bailout package to the Taliban. Make it conditional on them going home and behaving. I'm sure they would be just as repsonsible as the banks have been.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  40. Michael in Albuquerque, NM

    When we first went to Afghanistan we were able to throw out the Taliban within a matter of weeks. So, whats the problem with Pakistan? The Pakistan government does no cooperate with us in the task of eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaida. They hang back and put their hand out for more money. Pakistan is not sincere or friendly in its relationship with America.
    I say, increase non-military aid to INDIA. They have far more in common with us than Pakistan.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  41. marlene

    No Jack, the US should get out of the country. Marlene in Mich

    May 5, 2009 at 2:23 pm |
  42. Martyn Bignell

    Pakistan is a very difficult situation to handle, deploying troops their in my opinion would be a disaster as it will only serve to sway more extemists against us.
    It has to be done with diplomacy and probably a great deal of money, I would recomend a special forces contingent to assist in protecting their nuclear weapons against possible attack and even worse theft.

    But the only way is to get them on side and to work with us, any form of military threat will only go against us and not serve us well at all. Of course the timing of this is not good when you consider our economic situation, however, for me this would be our only way forward.

    Martyn, Fort Lauderdale.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  43. sandra/canada

    Dear Jack: Absolutely. I think of Cuba, Iran, the Soviet Union and how quickly things deteriorated with almost no warning to security forces around the world. To think it can't happen in Pakistan is not rational. All countries should be concerned. Very concerned. The best way to counter extremism is to raise the standard of living. When people don't have to worry about feeding their kids they are less likely to be influenced by violent ideology. Hopelessness, hunger, and oppression are the driving forces behind most revolutions. Anything we can do to help Pakistan is in all of our best interests.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  44. Dan FL

    No, if the Taliban takes over they will most likely seize all aid that we send to Pakistan. Tripling the non-military aid would only triple the waste. The only action we can take that would have a meaningful impact would be military action

    May 5, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
  45. Kim Smith, Dodge City, Kansas

    Aid to Pakistan is like giving heroin to a junkie, they'll promise you anything to get thier fix. America and their representatives are seen as suckers in the Mid-East, and I'm sure Pakistan and the Taliban would not mind splitting billions of dollars of American taxpayers money between the both of them. In other words, giving them money only perpetuates the problem. If they want the Taliban out, they have the means and technology to do it, just not the will power or courage.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  46. John

    I don't know. How can a country in a depression be in position to aid any international nation?
    Pampa, TX

    May 5, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  47. Pablo in Tejas

    I don't think so. It would be throwing good money after bad. Purely as a cost benefit exercise, we would probably get more value for money by carpet bombng the Swat Valley and the entire Paki/Afghan border.

    Arlington Texas

    May 5, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  48. M from NY

    No. That money won't be used for its intended purpose. Instead, the money will be used to keep corruption in the Pakistan government alive and prosperous.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  49. david from virginia

    Absolutely. The only path to "victory" goes through a more stable Pakistan, including a credible policy for Kashmir. Win Islamic moderates by building schools and hospitals - show them that there is a better life possible to them than extremism.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
  50. Sherman L. McClesky

    Versus sitting back and doing nothing?

    We need Pakistan to drive the Taliban back into Afghanistan, so that we can handle it from there. If Pakistan can do this, using non-military aid, so be it.

    The Taliban are trying to portray themselves as "Robin Hoods", the economic saviors of Pakistan.

    By providing non-military aid, we are sending a message to the Pakistanians that the water coming from the Taliban's "economic well" is not safe to drink.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
  51. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Hint, hint and hint; NO. We should not give away money to another country that we have to borrow. Let them get their own loan from China or India. $900 million would build 9,000, $100,000 homes.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  52. Daniel Indiana

    Why? Any money that would get sent to the Swat Valley or that vicinity would, no doubt, end up in the hands of the Taliban. We don't need to be helping the enemy. Only if it goes in and is disbursed by groups that would have no ties to the Taliban or al Qeada, or it is in the form of food, would sending more aid be sensible.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
  53. Jaimey Perham

    triple aid, reduce troops...

    May 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  54. Lynne Parker in N. Augusta, SC

    If we would get out of that part of the world I doubt the taliban would be a "threat" to us.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  55. Steve of Hohenwald TN.

    Aid to Pakistan probably equals aid to the Taliban.

    May 5, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  56. Jeff in Glen Carbon IL

    Touigh question, Jack, and probably above my paygrade. However, I do know that a nuclear power must stay a Democracy, even if we have to do it by force. Therefore, it seems cheaper to spend treasure if we can avoid spending blood. The question is, did we let the Pakistani's lie about how secure they were for too long, and now we have to do both?

    May 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  57. Mike S., New Orleans

    No. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with." Pakistan should be able to defend itself against the Taliban. And with the state of our economy, and so many Americans suffering, use those billions here at home instead of nation building.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  58. Remo .............. Austin, Texas

    Only if they give use the locations to all of their Nukes.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  59. Chris, NYC

    I say watch what the money is used for, then up the monies in increments after that......
    I tell you Jack, the crap stinks so bad from what the GOP got America into in the last administration............we are now in a forever war!!! We can't pull out b/c of the ticking time bomb, that could "blowback" our way...but the longer we stay in that region, whether Iraq, or Af/Pak, we continue to lose courageous blood of our soldiers......Last I checked, we were pushing 5000, soldiers dead......I can only assume that when the battle in Afghanistan begins to reheat up this fall, we stand to see those numbers reach almost 10,000 in the coming years......I predict, that in the President first, or second term, he will have to just end these wars, if no results come out of the whole bloody thing!!!

    May 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  60. BRUCE, CA.

    Hi Jack!

    Not so sure we should simply say 'tripple' it; but, we had better do whatever necessary...



    May 5, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  61. AndyZ Lynn, MA

    The U.S. should increase aid to Pakistan if and only if the U.S. can account for how the money is spent in Pakistan more accurately than they did with the Stimulus Funds.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  62. Ray Kinserlow

    Typical. Throw money at it and maybe it will go away.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    May 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  63. Ron

    The answer is NO. Have we not learned that trying to help these countries is a no win situation for the United States which is not only paid in money but also in the blood of our soldiers? We should give them notice that we will move in and take the nukes if necessary

    May 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  64. Jim S

    Jack, unless this government can find a way to end the farmer's dependence upon their poppie crop and the drugs it produces, it will never stop the income for the Taliban. That's their major source of income and to eradicate it, would aleniate the farmers and their families who have to feed their families. That's a major problem. Then, IF that's achieved, you have to re-educate the rural agriculture population on new ways to grow productive crops that doesn't wind up in the Taliban's hands. Defeating the Taliban is not a simple task and must have a multi-faceted approach. I'm not optimistic about us succeeding in this.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  65. Anthony.....Swedesboro, NJ

    Pakistan is a failed state. The military and the government are in constant flux. Their army is sympathetic to the Taliban and the government is corrupt and weak. We've spent billions already with little to show. The population trust the Taliban more than the US. Were it not for their nuclear arsenal, I'd say let them suffer their deserved fate. But we have no alternative but to provide or force American power on these bands of barbarians. We all remember Rome's fate.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  66. Gemma Staten Island

    Pakistan has been playing both ends against the middle since 9-11. They need to prove that they can do the job of securing their weapons or they will indeed become the weapons of mass destruction Bush was looking for in Iraq. Untl then the US should continue to wipe out these extremist and limit the amount of money they get from us. Right now we need it a lot more than they do.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  67. Dave NYC

    Yes, yes, and yes. This is the modern way you fight an insurgency like the Taliban. Think of it as a "free market" solution to terrorism: win people's hearts and make the Taliban unpopular.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  68. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: We cannot become the police force of the world. If there is a coalition of countries participating, we can be a member. Some aid is acceptable. Billions of $$ is not.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  69. DON IN MASS.

    Why would you want to send (so called) non military aid to a country that's about to be overun.
    Sure, let's triple the aid to Pakistan, the taliban can use it when they reach Islamabad. It seems these days all we do is throw money at a problem that requires bute force to fix.
    Let Pakistan launch there missles at the enemy, that will solve two problems. No missles , no enemy.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  70. Alan - Buxton, Maine

    The US should get out of the region and stop contributing to any part of the nonsense taking place there. Use the money for intelligence and keep track of any possible threat but stop interfering with Islamic countries. Our actions just serve to inflame potential terrorists.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  71. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Definitely because the solutions are not only military. if we do not face other being part of the solutions from other avenues beside military ones, then the extreme groups will take care of economic aid in their own ways!

    May 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  72. Adam Thousand Oaks, CA

    I don't care if the White House is short on paperclips and they forgot to put it in the Budget, No More Spending. If there hasn't been appropriations already set aside for this as part of Obama's overall Afghan effort, then I am sorry, he needs to cut something else to find the money. I am sure the Pakistani's will take great care of our money for us. We need to have control over how the money is spent to determine the merits of each project, but I will never be in favor or sending a blank check to Pakistan or any other country. No one will watch our money for us.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  73. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    In light of the increasing threat from the Taliban, should the U.S. triple non-military aid to Pakistan?

    May 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  74. joe stlouis mo

    No we should triple the military aid.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  75. Todd W.

    The country is in bankruptcy already, and now spending more and more money to the Pakistan doesn't make any sense. I would have alot easier time if we were actually reimbursed for our generosity but this is why taxes keep going up and will continue to do so in order to continue this excessive spending. I like Ron Paul's statements when he said "What about the people in this country that don't get food and medical services?" As a taxpayer myself I would have a much easier time spending money to help people in this country rather than shipping it to the Middle East.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  76. Hank in Chapel Hill, NC

    I think it would be a lot cheaper and more effective to nuke them now. Better yet – let's just get India to do it.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  77. Mark (from new york)

    No way Jack. They would just use our money to finance more terror so they could get more money under the pretense that this much was not enough.

    Using our nukes to wipe them out would be a lot cheaper and earn us major goodwill points in 80% of the world for eradicating the birthplace of 99% of the international terrorist plots and soldiers. Lets not forget the 1993 wtc plot, 1994 philippine air bombing, the plot to blow up airlines over the pacific, USS Cole, countless US embassy bombings, Spain and London bombings. Its all Pakistan.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
  78. Melissa

    Why not? It would make them more ammenable to working with us to catch Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, wouldn't it? Besides, its better to help build than it is to tear down.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  79. Roger from Espanola, New Mexico

    I feel that first priority should be to organise strong international support in this endeavor. Pakistan losing control of it's nuclear arsenal
    is a much too frightening prospect for the entire world. If we have no other choice, we will pobably have to pump more funds into this effort.
    But this is a situation where the rest of the world needs to step up to the plate!

    May 5, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  80. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    The US has given hundreds of billions to just about every country in the world. That's why they all like us so much. So how exactly is throwing money at the problem going to work better this time? I'd say a laser guided bunker-buster bomb on Pakistan's nuclear weapons storage facility will protect us more.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  81. Tim in Texas

    No, we should give them a billion or so to pay their military to fight the Taliban. If they are successful, then we should give them a billion in developmental aid along with a billion more to fight the Taliban. Continue to repeat the process.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  82. Ann from Hampton, New Jersey

    That is like throwing good money after bad. With all the money that we have sent there, nothing has changed for the better, only gotten worse. Enough is enough already.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
  83. Linda in Arizona

    I don't know. It's above my pay grade. Nothing we've ever done has done any good. Why would more billions help? We're stuck now though. Displacing half a million people so the Pakistani army can go in and try to wipe out the Taliban is sure to do nothing but make them hate us more. You KNOW eventually, the corrupt government of Zadari is going to be overthrown. He's only as secure as his military is loyal. When it does, we will just have to hope somebody reasonable will pick up the pieces and hide the nukes.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  84. Parveen, Los Angeles

    Absolutely not! What's the guarantee that this money will be put to good use? Billions of dollars were wasted on the former Musharraf government without much to show for it and the current government is headed by the biggest crook there ever was. If the U.S has so much money to throw away why not send it to some country that needs it more or better yet use it right here at home.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  85. Jim El Paso Tx.

    Jack...giving Pakistan more money because of the Taliban is like giving Mexico more money to "fight" the drug war....pouring more good money down the drain on policies that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of working!

    May 5, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  86. Mel - Rancho Mirage, California

    No, we should not. Pakistan is full of corrupt politicians. The money we give goes into their pockets and does not reach the people. This current Pakistani President has a long record of corruption. He will pocket most of the money and when things get tough he will run away to England like he did before. We have the capability of destroying those nuclear weapons. It is time to get out of there. More we are involved more we get in trouble but we never learn our lesson.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  87. Joe Unger, San Francisco

    It's a hare-brained idea. What did the billions Bush gave Pakistan to fight terrrorism get us? The Taliban controlling the Swat Valley, is what it got us. The situation is worse than before 9/11.
    Once we fork over the money, we have no control over it. Of course, Obama and other politicians will put a postive spin on it, but Pakistan is filled with corruption; the money certainly will not be spent as we intend it.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
  88. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    Tough one Jack. Definitely one to ponder. Where is the UN and the IMF? We're borrowing from China with alot of Americans unemployed and homeless. If the Taliban take over and help Al-Qaida, we'll be spending just as much and losing American lives fighting there too. Glad I'm not President.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
  89. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    If the non military aid is for rebuilding and education, then yes the U.S. should do so.

    May 5, 2009 at 4:57 pm |
  90. RI Santa Rosa CA

    Are there any other countries in the world who can help with these things?

    May 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  91. Molita Tx

    Are you kidding me? Way too many Americans are broke, homeless, unemployed and miserable yet lawmakers want to throw more taxpayers dollars to another country? Get a rope...there needs to be housecleaning up on the hill.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  92. Rokgoo

    Simply NO.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  93. Deborah in Blue Springs, MO

    Not unless President Obama wants to stoke a fire that's ready to burn out of control! Carry out a covert mission to temporarily remove the nuclear warheads and let the Pakistani government handle it.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  94. john .... marlton, nj

    Yes, increase aid to Pakistan .... IN respect to the "advancing Taliban" what exactly does advancing mean... aren't the Taliban a "politcal party"? Where are they advancing from, their homes ?? and to where, their neighbors? . These politically motivate statements that the gulible media goobles up are misleading. It would be like saying, the socialist Democrats are advancing and will soon be nationalising our banks and car companies.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm |
  95. Ed S.

    Hey, why not. Lets fatten up Pakistans coin purse so that when the Taliban take over the country they will get a bigger payday.

    Ed S.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  96. Dave Smith, Oklahoma

    I think we should just abduct all the tribal people in Afgh/Pakistan cross border regions we can get, temporarily relocate them to a secured base in Afgh for like 2 weeks..... Then launch a massive air assault on the mountains of the border region using Many C-130s dropping out DaisyCutters with edge to edge blast radius.
    just do that for 1 week, about 10,000 drops.
    I really do think that would take care of the situation, then bring the tribes back to the region to where they live and give them supplies to rebuild.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
  97. ingrid, new york

    if the money goes towards providing education, medical care, agricultural input and equipment as well as infrastructure, within the context of strong religious beliefs (a compassionate god not a punitive and angry god). the Taliban has been able to convince people that the USA is evil and, for that matter, that anyone not the Taliban is evil. god needs to have a new face, and it cannot be not the face of the taliban. the problem is that so much of the money going to countries is corruption, the money never reaches those it needs to reach- case in point afghanistan.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:06 pm |
  98. Kelly Golden

    We should work with the rest of the world community to give Pakistan as much money as they need within our budget to fight off the Taliban, provided we believe the money would be effective, of course.

    At the same time, every single troop in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be brought home immediately before we screw that all up and end up stuck there like we are in Iraq.

    Louisville, Colorado

    May 5, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  99. Ken in NC

    I think the US should triple non-military to Pakistan after it triples non-military aid to the US first. I’m sick and tired of every other country in line begging ahead of us. After we take care of home then we can work with other countries but HOME FIRST.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  100. Dee in sunny (and dry) Florida

    Frankly, I am totally sick of aiding every country in the world when we can't even aid our own people in this country.

    But since Pakistan has nukes, we'd better do SOMETHING to help them. (either that or BUY their nukes and remove them from their country. That would probably be cheaper) I'm just not sure if pouring more and more money down the aid pit is the something we should do.

    I have a feeling that most of what we send as aid to other countries winds up in the hands of a bunch of crooks, who will desert our interests in a heartbeat if they think their interests are better served by doing so.

    I just do not see more aid helping them fight the Taliban or al Qaida. I feel the only way to even make a dent into those and other terrorist organizations is NEVER to spend billions, but to have better intelligence and go after the radicals ourselves.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  101. james sloan

    Jack, absolutely not! We cannot throw money at every problem. It's time to take a long hard look at where we are in Pakistan and realize the depth of this problem. First, it's a world problem and the powers globally are threatened. If those nukes end up in the hands of Al Queda, or the Taliban, what then? we [the world] cannot allow this to go that far. President Obama can play a leadership role, but America cannot solve this problem alone. If the UN and European union choses to drag thier feet we will all have hell to pay. Jim Sloan/Phoenixville, Pa.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  102. Susan from Twin Falls Idaho

    Absolutely not, Pakistan has not shown itself to be an enemy of the Taliban. They have traipsed across the borders at will. Let the chips fall where they may over there and get out all together we don’t need the burden of being involved.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
  103. Skatercarol

    No More Money! End The Wars! Bring Our Soldiers HOME!!!!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  104. Alex

    Haven't we spent enough of our money over seas? Its time to work on our own problems, rather than theirs.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  105. Matt from billings, MT

    Yes, if we want to see the same results that we are in Africa. Though terorrism is certainly a threat, the U.S. can't use it's funds to police the world

    May 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  106. mark

    Pull the plug!!!! If the DC Politicians and Defense Dept always had their way, we'd still be supporting South Vietnam right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  107. Derrick

    No, I think this is a trick to get money from the US. If Pakistan really thought they were losing they would bomb the hell out of the rebels. You know I'm right. They are testing him. Let India be 60 miles from their capital and see what happens.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  108. John, Fort Collins, CO

    This is something we can turn over to the private sector. In the future, companies shipping jobs overseas should send them to Pakistan instead of India. It would be a huge boost for their economy. The next time the phenostrat in my computer fails I'm sure I would not be able to understand the Pakistani customer service and technical support people just as well as I can't understand the folks in India.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  109. dave

    This bad we're caught between a rock and a hard spot on this. If we don't help them they could drop about 10 to 20 nukes into the Terrorist org. hands. If we do help they will just spend it on things not related to preventing terrorist activities so we're dam if we do and dam if we don't.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  110. Steve

    No. Haven't we learned about that thing the CIA preach about, BLOWBACK. Last time we helped out Pakistan, we gave them our money, which went into blowing up bridges, then we had our military fix those bridges. I'm all for change, but you got to practice what you preach. Lets stop our imperialistic empire, mind our own business, and spend some resources HERE.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  111. len heeg

    I believe that we should get out of there and let them figure it out.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  112. Randy

    No! All foreign aid must be stopped until and only when we get this country back on track. This never-ending supply of money and weapons to the middle east (including israel) only makes the world more dependant on the U.S.. Time for a little tough love.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  113. Brian

    No. Pakistan has been struggling with the Taliban for much of this decade and it is time for them to have some guts and do what's right: vote in a government that can actually do things to remedy this crisis. We did last November, and we're doing just fine.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  114. A.K. Toronro, Canada

    No way! US is being led down the garden path by the corrept Pakistani Government.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  115. JanDat

    Should we triple aid to Pakistan? Will the Taliban/extremists get control of the funds we send to Pakistan? I was already concerned about the Pakistani president's desire to have our drone technology just given to them, rather than our military controlling use and operation. So if the Taliban/extremists get control, everything we've sent becomes 'theirs'. All right, frankly I'm just worried if in aiding Pakistan the only thing we are doing is funding and arming our enemies.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  116. Jay Hind

    No, absolutely not. Pakistan will use that money to buy more North Korean Missiles and sponsor terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan is essentially a failed state and should be treated as such. We can use that $7 Billion dollars for lots of good cause within our country or towards more friendly countries.


    May 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  117. Sherri Illinois

    Only if their is the same amount of non-military aid from the other countries in this world union. President Obama has to fix this economic meltdown FIRST & FOREMOST and stop being policemen of the world. The more we are involved with the self-inflicted gunshot wound that is Pakistan, the more we neglect the dier needs in our own country.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  118. hameed sharifi

    The more US support Pakistan, the more Taliban gets powerful., because all the money US give to Pakistan gov. are going to Taliban.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  119. Haider Raza, Chicago, IL

    Non-military aid is required to Pakistan in order to rectify outstanding issues. Looking at the profiles of the Taliban, poverty and illiteracy are one of the main features of these people. Increasing aid is not the only solution, but rather accountability. Financial aid has been given to Pakistan ever since the country's independence. It is high time that the money invested in Pakistan is not allowed to fund their nuclear program (as Reagan allowed) or towards building their military (as Musharraf did). Just like President Obama is making a down payment on US education, the same is required in Pakistan in order to stop further generations from turning violent.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  120. Brock, Canada

    Pakistan should recieve as much aid as possible. Remember, they are one of our greatest allies in the Mid-East.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  121. Tony St. Louis, MO

    It's imprudent at best for a government with as big a defecit as ours to be throwing money around saving other countries. It seems unlikely to me that a group of militant extremists would have the money, military or political capacity to simply take over a country like Pakistan without major backing. But then again, what do I know? This is when we need facts and transparency, not more fear!!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  122. Saif

    After living in Pakistan for 7 years I think its safe to say that with our without an increasing threat from the Taliban, any so-called "aid" money to Pakistan is money thrown. Pakistan needs to deal with the most critical issue that their nation is facing - corrupt politicians sitting in Islamabad.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm |

    Since Pakistan won't do anything about Al Qaeda operating in their country, no aid should be given to them. I believe they support Al Qaeda. They won't admit it knowing full well their aid will be cut off. I would say that about 85% of Pakistani's support Al Qaeda or sympathize with them

    May 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  124. Rod

    Yes. If the aid is used directly in constructive projects that will lead to better services for the Pakistani people. The strategy should be for the US to be more visisble and active in society-building initiatives, in turn presenting a more promising, practical and constructive vision of the future than if extremists like the Taliban gain influence.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  125. Blair

    Throw good momey after bad, what have they ever done for us? i guess the correct answer is hell "NO"
    Pahrump, Nevada

    May 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  126. Abdiel Galindo

    Jack, propping-up puppet governments around the world with millions or billions of dollars is just the price an imperialist power has to pay. There are no free lunches.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  127. David A Whitaker

    Hey Jack, this is David from Martinsburg,WV. I am in support with the funding of the Pakistan government, if we didn't have too I would vote against it. However Jack we are in a dam if we do and dam if we don't situation.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  128. Ruth of Perry

    Jack, I just don't trust the Pakistani government especially after they made a pact with our enemies. If we give them money to help better their lives, then it should be extremely closely monitored. As for the list of weapons they want, especially the drones, how would we train them to use the weapons if they don't want our military on their soil? That makes me think they may have another pact with the Taliban and that list may be the bargaining chip. Help them out with the money but don't dare give them more weapons. The way things are going over there, those weapons just may be pointed back at us.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  129. john j. grimes Watertown, Ma.

    Absolutely not! Non-military aid sent to Pakistan will be lost to the corrupt policies of the past. The president of that country isn't the most shining example of honest government yet our leaders believe that billions in aid will solve the problem of Taliban threats.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  130. Ed Pelton

    Hi Jack. I say absolutly NO.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  131. Habiba Khan

    Jack, It seems all a political drama to me. Swat valley used to be the most peaceful region in the country.Can someone ask the Pakistani government that how come their strong millitary cannot tackle the situation as per the mideia, 90%of the area has been controlled by the taliban..It's really scarry though!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  132. Hernan from Richmond, VA

    I think the whole world should increase non-millitary aid to help the people feed in poor communities. That sets example that we are willing to help solve problems here at home and around the world.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  133. Joe

    Do you remember President Bush's remarks after 911, as I understand it he said that the US would go after terrorists no matter where they were in this world. I do not remember one time when you, the media mentioned how Pakistan is harboring terrorists and at the same time the US is sending military troops to eliminate them from Pakistan. The media allowed the Bush administration to get away with a personal war in Iraq without talking about the Taliban safe-haven in Pakistan being left alone. As a consequence of our lack of action in previous years against terrorist control in Pakistan I certainly do not believe in any form of aid to Pakistan or other anti-American countries. Our money only takes care of their financial problems and military whims (such as Pakistan being better prepared to fight India), but does not assist our efforts for a safer world.

    Joe, Binghamton, NY

    May 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  134. Jim Blevins

    Absolutely. There is no possible way that we can defeat the Taliban militarily. What we can do is help Pakistan (and many other countries) eliminate extreme poverty. This is what the Taliban has to offer people that provides for most of its support among the majority people - it helps them survive. If survival was not such a problem, the Taliban could be quite easily defeated.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    May 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  135. larry rowland

    jack, i don't think we should give any more money to any of these countrys, pretty soon we will be in 3 wars with the same kind of enemy, all created by g. w. bush & his henchmen, we should pull out of all 3 wars, we haven't won any of them so far, & we won't gain a thing by getting in deeper, pull out & save thousands of lives & billions of dollars. larry, michigan

    May 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  136. Richard W.

    No.! We should send aid to and "back" India from now on....Both Cuba and India turned to us first in the 1950s-1960s....we said No...result, they turned to Soviet Union...it's never too late...we should strongly back India....result....Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran would all have to "watch their back door".....and not be able to export terrorism.....if Pakistan falls....well, India can more than match anything they (or Iran) would like to "start".....

    We should have had Israel watching the "front door".....and India watching the "back door" for decades........from Allen Dulles to Donald Rumsfeld......our major policy makers blew it....now is the time to correct that mistake....if you think I'm wrong.......ask Fareed Zacharia if being a strong ally with India isn't more important than being one with Pakistan?

    May 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  137. Sam B.

    Yes - in the long-run, we need the Pakistani people on our side. Right now, all they see is US predator drones raining down missiles on their country. We need to change that image - and helping them build schools, hospitals, etc. is the way to go.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  138. Bob Field Toronto

    No , Recall the words of Victorian poet of the British Raj, Rudyard Kipling: "Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia and she is too old."

    May 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  139. Brock, Canada

    Or, instead of flying all that aid to Pakistan. We could end this war by flying a few B-52's over and dropping enough conventional weapons to kill every Taliban fighter on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Problem solved...

    May 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  140. Ryan N.

    Jack, Pakistani's have been indoctrinated for too long with this falsity that their only real imminent threat exists on the eastern border with India. Countless wars have been fought between the two nations, but today this threat of military confrontation is not as apparent as it used to be. Pakistani's need to realize that their enemy doesn't exist on the border with India, it exists from within Pakistani society. It's a shame to see their country slowly implode; all at the hands of a group of uneducated, poor tribes-men.

    Ryan N,
    Toronto, Canada

    May 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  141. Michael from Salem, MA

    I think any "non-military" aid should come with conditions. I think the Pakistani government should allow US troops and aircraft to work inside of the Pakistani border. We all know that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have taken up residence in the northwest frontier regions of Pakistan and are conducting terrorist missions to both their west and east. Our overworked and undermanned US troops are taking the brunt on their western front, and a nuclear armed Pakistani goverment is continually being pushed from their eastern front. We also know that the only thing they understand is force. There is no negotiating with these people. Once the Pakistani govrnment allows the US military more freedom of movement, then (and only then) should we continue to throw these huge sums of non-military money at them.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  142. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    I'm with Dave in Oklahoma. We have appeased both these countries. Evacuate all civilians and non-Taliban from the region and put them up in safe refugee camps. Then, send a couple of our nuclear weapons over there and show them what it's like to play with nuclear weapons. Iran may learn a lesson from this too. Bush is at fault for this resurgence of the Taliban. He abandoned Afghanistan to go into Iraq to avenge Saddam's threat on his father's life. How many boots on the ground are we going to lose over there again because of Bush's failed policies? Nuke'em and end this quick.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  143. Vijji

    No way! But triple the military presence in Pakistan weather Pakistan likes it or not. They had their chance to cleanup the place all these years and they blew it bigtime! Now it is the world's turn to take charge.
    If the president of Pakistan is not sure about the safety of his own life, how can he assure the world about the security of deadly nuclear weapons?

    May 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  144. Roland - St George, UT

    We can't afford to keep throwing good money after bad. I'm sorry to say this, because it sounds very generalized, but the Pakistani's are not to be trusted. We should demand that they hand over control of their nukes to us, we should remove the nukes from the region and then dismantle/destroy them. Then we should go in there and stabilize the region, put an end to the Taliban for good, and Al Qaeda will be next. The rest of the world will call us Imperialistic as they always do, but we are always the ones who do the dirty jobs that the rest of the them are too cowardly to do...and yet they reap the benefits. So they can just shove it. (Roland/St George, UT)

    May 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  145. S.K.B

    As a pakistani living in USA for more than 5 years as a student, i can always look back and tell all the world that the so called "American Aid" which is used in hot discussions across borad NEVER trickeld down to where it was and is MOST NEEDED. I can testify to this as my parents who work in sensitive positions in the counter terrorism force in joint venture with US from the pakistani side. They say it never gets down to grass root levels of implemention of any viable solution to coup up with the terrorism. Pakistan is SOFT on these terrorists, there is an unofficial hesitation with in PAK agencies to take such measures. U.S needs to take some realistic approach as its intervention is MUCH needed than ever before!. I want to use this pedestal to reach out every one in charge to please change this policy of pouring in billions and billions of dollars into this useless effort. It is time to HELP us PAKISTANIS, please our country is under attack, Please HELP!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  146. lynne from lattimore, nc

    Nope. We need the money more. We can't go around being everyone's savior. Doing that along with being indebted to China and Saudi Arabia another stupid stuff the previous administration has done has all but sent us over the cliff. If anything, we need to get those nuclear weapons out of Pakistan and then unload militarily on the area where the disagreement is at.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  147. Joel

    Sure, at least we may be assured that the money will go to some better use. The money given to the military thus far does not have a whole lot to show for it.
    This is a sorta of "Hearts and Minds Campaign." Put the money where it affects the individuals that matter most. The only caveat is that we entail transparency in the disbursement. I would like to know EXACTLY how the government is distributing their money. With around 5% of their GDP committed to their military, they rank high on the list of countries with large military expenditures (more than the US). Money certainly isn't being channeled to the people.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  148. Khalid

    Yes, and the aid needs to go through American NGOs not through the corrupt pakistani govt. and it needs to very well adevertised. I am a pashtun from the afghan-pakistan border region. The problem is the people there see and know the united states through it's tanks and aircrafts and bombs. The United states sees them as all extremist. There hasn't been much any people to people contact. Ask yourself, have you ever met a pashtun? Once there is more civillian to civiallian contact you will see they are not much different from american and the will see the humaity of americans as well. We are all human with the same DNA. Hope we can see eachother that way.

    Atlanta, GA

    May 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  149. Hugh in Tracy, California

    No, why is throwing billions of dollars at a problem the answer to everything? Nations like Pakistan view America as a threat, but will gladly take our money. "Down with America, but give us your billions" is the best example of ingratitude I can think of. People in Washington that ask us to give billions of dollars to Pakistan are damn idiots. Throwing away money won't change a thing, except make our enemies stronger and us weaker.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  150. Marsha Harris Scott

    Wait a minute, we thought Iraq had nuclear weapons. We cannot allow these weapons to fall into unfriendly hands. Period. Wake up America. They attacked us on 9/11 with our own planes. What co you think would happen if they have WMD's?

    No matter how much money it costs we must protect ourselves and do it strategically and tactically.

    Marsha Harris Scott
    Houston, Texas

    May 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  151. Jag Yellesetty

    Pouring more money into Pakistan is like throwing it down a black hole and as always, ends up bloating the corrupt elite and the military who sustain themselves by supporting the very terrorists they pretend to be fighting. If their purpose was serious and genuine then the Pakistani intelligence and military would have squelched these groups a long time ago. We, the US, have been cajoling the Pakistani military for so long because our military has such cozy relations with them and we are unable to see past their noses and be objective. US interests have always been subverted in our willingness to co-opt and cooperate with the Pakistani military. It is sad that the new administration in Washington is still pursuing the same failed strategy of sixty years. We need to completely re-assess our plan there and be willing to take a chance on the people of Pakistan and not their corrupt military and Mr. Ten-percent who is now the President. Or else we will continue this quagmire for another generation or until we have a disaster on our hands.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  152. Vikas Sharma

    Are you kidding me ?
    $ 10 Billion over the last 10 years have been given to Pakistani government and each penny of that had been wasted in upgrading their military to spread terrorism by recruiting, training and spreading terrorism by ISI (Pakistan's CIA) and military.
    When are we going to wake up and tell Pakistan to straighten up this mess which is affecting not only us (USA) but the whole world.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  153. GlenB

    Really ask the question why are we in Afghanistan? Because of 911. August 2001 the Taliban was in Texas talking to Unocal executives about Oil Pipe Lines once the talks broke down how convienient the Sept 11 2001 attacks happened . The Bush administration who claimed that Osama B L was in Afghanistan attacked the Taliban the same group they were negotiating with one month before . ??? once you expose the truth about 911 you will collapse the wall of lies that have been built . The story of afghanistan falls apart at every turn and the "official" story of the Sept 11 2001 attacks has completely fallen apart . Hundreds of fire fighters were witnesses of bombs exploding in the buildings. US General Albert Stubblebeem has openly admitted that there is no eveidence of a 300,000 lb airliner crashing at the Pentagon. this is shameful and disgraceful 8 years later and all these questions hundreds of question ..DISGUSTING !!!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  154. Gary Sloan


    Have we not wasted enough the past 6-years? This is a joke. Are our elected officials really that foolish, naive and/or stupid? Also, where is the EU, invisible and inept as usual? Where is NATO, invisible and inept as usual? Why MUST it always be us? Hell Jack, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, with no relief in sight. Is it not about time we tell the world: "IT IS YOUR TURN...YOU DO SOMETHING FOR A CHANGE, EVEN IF IT IS WRONG, IT IS BETTER THAN YOU SITTING ON YOUR THUMBS AS ALWAYS"!!


    May 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  155. Buzz Baer

    Jack: No unless the Pakastani Governmet accounts for every $$$ and where and how much was provided.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  156. Dick C

    I think Halliburton would do a bang up job of helping Pakistan, if the President would just give them an open cheque book and a chance. Lets not think about the past, but look to the future and how we (by that I mean you) can help Halliburton create jobs and participate in Pakistans future.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  157. James

    Yes. Quintuple it. The world cannot afford to allow a nuclear state to fall into the hands of religious extremists

    May 5, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  158. Anna

    We need to get out of other countries and let them work out their own problems. Our leaders need to read history books and learn from them so they would not get us into another trouble.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  159. Mark in Tucson

    Yes, yes, empathically yes. Pakistan is a house of cards and the winds of extremism are growing. A little benevolence and domestic assistance is desperately needed to compliment the ongoing U.S. drone strike campaign. For a country that spent $10 billion plus a month in Iraq, $15 billion over 10 years to win hearts and minds in Al Qaeda's backyard is chump change.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  160. Adnan

    I dont believe Pakistan deserve HUGE aid. They already got billions of dollars in aid in last 8 years we dont see any changes or differances in the peoples life or military capabilities. They still struglling and it seems they are still at square one. They need to improve ordinary people's life provide basic needs like health care, power, jobs, control law and order in every single town.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  161. John Francis

    It is very true for us Americans that we intentionally make same mistakes over and over. Not once , not twice and our great friends in Pakistan and their politicians knows that very well. So they do not make any mistake to take that advantage. Our congress wants accountability from Pakistan hahahhaha–! Surely they have real shortage of memory. A liar is a lier and Zardaree is a renouned and convicted criminal in Pakistan. A person to trust.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  162. Abdiel Galindo

    As long as we want to meddle and be pulling the strings in other countries affairs, we have to pay the price of meddling. Puppets and "tin horn" dictators don't come cheap. The days of our banana republic caudillos is long over.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  163. joan in Pittsburgh

    Unfortunately Bush administration did not recognize where the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION was a threat. The Pakistan situation has always been shakey. Why our experts never recognized it, is beyond me. Perhaps Bush, Chaney and Rumsfelt were just too anxious to topple Saddam. They have made a bigger mess in the Middle East than most people realize. Toppling Saddam just open the field for Iran. Should we continue to fund Pakistan.....to late need to fund their Army or take charge of the situation ourselves. Pakistan has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that the archaic Taliban will use because they have no idea of what they will unleash!!!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  164. Mark (from new york)

    It would be a big mistake Jack. They would use the money to buy nukes from North Korea or train more terrorists to infiltrate India and create Havoc there.

    It would be much cheaper to spend the money on putting more US troops on the Indian/Pakistan border and de-militarizing it so we can find out Pakistan's true intentions... being a partner in the war again Al Quaida or looking to settle petty squabbles with India.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  165. Mustafa / Dallas, TX

    Absolutely not. Pakistan government is playing all sides. they are the main problem. they are responsible for providing Taliban's and AL-Qaida with weapons. They know as long as the Taliban and Al-Qaida are out there, they will receive all this aid from the US government and others for military aid and humanitarian aid

    May 5, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  166. Kevin from Falmouth, Cape Cod

    Yes.......as soon as they double their aid to us......

    May 5, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  167. Bill, Upper New York State

    Jack, the media isn't doing its homework. When FDR wanted to send supply ships to England, he got a lot of flack at home. Hitler, Tojo, and pals were saying they were going to clean everyone's clock and win the war. England was on the ropes and we got smacked good at Pearl Harbor. Wow!, But we (the allies) did what we had to do and they didn't win the war, did they. The Taliban isn't any different. They're making some advances and doing a lot of posturing. There time will come and they'll be pushed back. So yes, help Pakistan with the proviso that they shake hands with India. It's time to push back, not cringe at words.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  168. Anba.P.

    Here comes the pakistani beggars again.Let them clean the taliban nuisance first and then give them money. Make sure the money is not spent on fighting the peaceful indians

    May 5, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  169. Philip a Canadian Observer

    No way at all!!
    American hasn't won a war since you used your might to kick two hundred Cuban Road builders out of Grenada (ummm that was a draw actually). America has to stop failing to policing the world and save it's self first.
    Once there is no illegal immigration, no unemployed, no crime in the streets, and here I mean Wall Street, when citizens get healthcare, pensions and opportunity here, then we can screw it up again, but not at this time.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  170. Barbary Coast

    We should not provide these people with additional non military funding or technology. Any money we offer them, will fund development of those madrasah's that teach hate and death. I could not believe the leader of that country, suggesting that we should share our drone or military technology with them, when we all know that any technology we share, will eventually end up in the hands of the Taliban. We've given them money in the past and they've done nothing to stop the Taliban. We've offered to help them get rid of the Taliban and they continue to turn us down. Now, these folks have dug themselves a hole and expect us to bail them out without any strings. When they see Americans, do they only see "STUPID" written across everyone's face? I wonder.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  171. Beth Roberts


    Look at your question as a cost and benefit analysis. Has any previous financial investments made to Pakistan, made Afghanistan, Pakistan, surrounding Countries, or the U.S. made us any more safe? If the answer is no; then no.

    Would anyone in today’s economy invest in any stock or business if previous or current investors have not received any financial benefit or have lost money, when they invested it? Would their investments be safe?

    Why does America have to fund other countries’ military or non-military anyway. Does any Country invest in our infrastructure, education, or military so that we can do a better job at supporting our poor civilian population or for protecting our borders from terrorists?

    When is enough; enough? Why doesn’t anyone consider that such a financial investment at home would be the most beneficial, whether it be for military or non-military?

    It is those who take care of themselves first before caring for others, who are able to provide the best (care), assistance, etc. than those who do not. We, the civilians who live here in America, have not cared for ourselves for so long, that we can no longer “care” or assist others (those asking for more money.)

    The world needs to know that we have never grown a money tree. Refer to China for seedlings of that particular tree.

    Albany, OR

    May 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  172. naveed sharifi

    Why not let’s give all the money to Pakistanis, so they can make peace deal with Taliban.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  173. Nancy

    Jack – I don't trust Pakistan to do the right thing with the money. I think they may just be manipulating or even staging these fights and threats because they think America is their own personal bank. I feel sorry for the Pakistani people who are just their pawns in this. If they don't get the money, maybe many things would change.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  174. ANDRES SAENZ--Albuquerque, NM

    NO, the US should not triple its non-military aid to Pakistan because that will most likely require tripling that portion of Uncle Sam's money to do so. Our economy is very weak right now, can we really afford to be helping other countries when our own unemployment rate is at 8.5%?

    I think that destroying the Taliban should be an international effort, why do we have to take it upon ourselves to rescue the entire world? Why can't other countries help us in defeating these radical Islamic terrorist groups?

    May 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  175. Ralph Spyer chicago Il

    NO way no how; Jack were do we get the money last I heard this country is broke. The U.S.banks, the U.S. auto health care,our roads our rail,our bridges give us a break.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  176. Rory Murray, San Bernardino, CA

    We need to stop Police-Forcing The Entire World and take care of Numero Uno, and I DON'T mean Mexico!
    Rory Murray
    San Bernardino,CA...you know, where the kid was napped .

    May 5, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  177. Arif

    Jack! CIA and ISI sponsored, trained and equipped these guys during Russia invasion to Afghanistan. The people of that region think, if these guys were good at that time why they are bad now. American lost the war in Afghanistan on the day they invaded Iraq. Nobody in that region is trusting what Obama says. This credit goes to Bush-Chaney pair tool. If the American wants to win in Afghanistan and make the Americans safe and secure, the option is to get out of that region and leave to ISI and CIA to clean that mess. Drones attacks and army presence makes Taliban Job easy to reach nuclear arsenals and the rest we can imagine.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  178. Karen Ducote

    No,everytime we send aid to countries that we think will be our allies because we are in a desperate situation,it ends up biting us in the buttocks. The Bush Administration sent Military equipment in to Pakistan so they could defend their country. In ten years,they could end up using our own technology against us,our allies or their own. Example: Saddam Hussein.
    Karen Ducote
    Myrtle Beach

    May 5, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  179. Ali Raoof

    Tripling Aid to Pakistan is not enough, the amount is insignificant compared to what US has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The financial impact of this war on Pakistan has been tremendous. Pakistan has gone bankrupt and is relying on loans from IMF and WB to survive, Pakistan has very few reserves and that too built on loans from donors, stock markets which were doing very well have now crashed and there is no Foreign investment coming in due to the security situation in Pakistan.

    However, having said that throwing money on the problem is not going to solve it either. There has to be greater accountability about the money that goes in. Trusting this Pakistani Govt. would be a big mistake. Not even Pakistanis trust their Govt. and President Zardari has a long history of corruption charges against him hence the name given to him Mr.10%.

    People in Pakistan are moderates. They want to progress and live better lives as in the rest of the world. They don't fancy Taliban or their way of life but don't want their houses destroyed and families torn apart due to this war either. They believe this problem has been thrust on them due to poor management on the part of US after the end of the Afghan war.

    At least half of this aid should go to reconstruction efforts in these areas and Pakistan's genuine security concerns with regards to Indian encirclement in the region need to be addressed in order for the Pak. military to really focus on getting rid of the extremists. Plus educating people in these regions would help them and US in the long run, so that no other extremist organization ever takes root there.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  180. S.K.B

    I am from NWFP, Talibans have totally pulverized it, Total lawlessness, Chaos, I am from hardcore NWFP, Dara Adam Khel, in heart of this Taliban mess, I am telling all of you, IRON against IRON, the time for negotiations is long over, We definately need US to use FORCE as intervention, as this might be last resort. I Love PAKISTAN, and i cant see it FALL apart. The Money has not HELPED AT ALL! I Testify to IT, my family has suffered, and I am a victim.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  181. Omer

    What has the previous aid proven for the US? US can go ahead if they want to contribute to Pres. Zardaris personal savings account. It's time for Pres. Zardari to pony up.

    Omer, CO.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:36 pm |
  182. Annie, Atlanta

    No we should not send money to Pakistan. The world together needs to help them solve their problems. They have nukes. Our money could disappear down a black hole, like in Iraq, or put those nukes in the wrong hands, or fund those who would kill our soldiers. No!

    May 5, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  183. Conor in Chicago

    Any aid moving forward should be contingent on an official peace treaty with India over the Kashmir issue. Without that, Pakistan will use the money to advance their military technology in preparation of a future war with India and will do little to fight the Taliban. It's very simple.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  184. Ron - Baltimore, Maryland

    No, they have proven themselves not to be trustworthy. Until they stand up to the Taliban and show the US that they are serious in the fight against terrorism I don't believe that we should waste our money. Besides, Jack how many times have we given/donated to other countries only to find out later that we can't track the funds given or that the money was misused. While I believe that we will always lead the fight on terror, due to 9/11 I truly feel that we need to spend this large amount wiser.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
  185. John - Houston, TX

    Phoenix, AZ is now the US capital city of kidnappings... Tons and tons of Illegal drugs are being smuggled in the US by the drug cartels through our southern border... The criminality level is skyrocketing in most of our major cities ... Our education system is a joke... Millions of OUR people are currently living below the poverty line... If we CAN'T take care of our OWN problems how can we expect to take care of the Pakistan's??? As if we have a lot of extra money here to spend with overseas affairs...

    May 5, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  186. SAM

    We should not tripple Jack. What we should do is get out of the box we put ourselves in, so that we can see the real picture. If we do, then may be we will be realistic enough to stop trying change their way of life. We are on the offensive, we are making Taliban stronger and make the number of suckers who are after money and power increasing. The PM of Pakistan contradicted himself and said it clearly first "all the people living in that area are taliban for decades, the people living there with their own way of life" Then he assures if we give him what he wants he will defeat them. Defeat what? Isn't time yet to recognize what we are doing. People are not stupid and we must stop thinking they are. They see it clearly as USA coming to free their women and change their laws = their culture and religion. Taliban is getting more fighters against what we made them call: "THE CROSSADES". Instead of trippling their aids we really need to tripple our insight FIRST JACK..

    May 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  187. rp

    No I don't think the aid needs to be tripled. For god sake, haven't we learned enough? If the politicians want to give away taxpayers' money, give it away to very taxpayers who paid those taxes and who keep those very politicians in the office.
    I am not accurately familiar with the exact amount of aid given to Pakistan in the last decade but during the reign of dictator Musarraf how much free money, oh sorry AID, have we disbursed to Pakistan. I am sure with that AID somewhere we had an expectation that he will AID us in Global war on terrorism (neutralizing Taliban, extreme fanatics, or terrorist alike), particularly in his area of responsibility. Is there any accountability on that money! Did it ever reach the people intended for?
    Didn’t we give large amount of AID when that earthquake happened? Did that ever make it to help the victims or did it end up in Gov. officials’ pockets?

    I am not against helping people, but I am against giving money to countries with corrupt politicians. History with Musarraf should teach us that we gave free money but there was no significant return on that money since Pakistani gov. never could control Taliban. Matter of fact, they’ve done the opposite of our goal—allow that region to go to religious gov.

    I think, in this time of economic stress, we can spend that money domestically or for a better international purpose and not for a ever hungry nation.

    Sorry this queue for American banks and companies only and if any money leftover than for American taxpayers—me first!

    A Veteran who spent few years in the Middle East

    May 5, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  188. Bertha in SC

    NO. I'm upset that Pakistan provided an area for the Taliban and AL-
    Qaida. Why? Did they think these terrorists were going to farm the land? For our own protection we need to be involved concerning nuclear weapons and making sure they are secure. Let's see Pakistan fight to protect its people and prove to us that they aren't really buddy, buddy with the terrorists. Let's see Pakistan run them out of the country, and then we can help its people. If we help the people, the help needs to go directly to them. This won't happen and nothing will change until the bad guys are gone – one way or the other.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
  189. R.Landschoot

    Jack, read the book "The Fifty Year Wound"y Derek Leebaert. It has all the ansers, and poses many questions why this country continues to throw good money to foreign leaders whose concept is all for me, nothing for them, and open a swiss bank accoung

    May 5, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  190. Rafiq

    It is an American war so quite rightly America should pay for it. Too many Pakistani lives have been used up first to fight the soviuet Union for you in Afghanistan in the 70's, then to absorb the millions of Afghani refugees you paid them to absorb. Now that they have multilpied and raised their heads in Pakistan which is a weak economy third world country what are you expecting? 80 percent of the population is illiterate, the version of Islam is skewed to say the least, so unless you want the rest of that third world country to be swallowed up by the Taliban, yes you should pay for your mistakes of the 70's. This country was made a home for them by the the president General Zia Ul Haq, and now thanks to that 2 millio turning 20 million in 20 years, Pakistan is a playground for extremism

    May 5, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  191. Shamim

    Definitely yes.

    US should start spending money to correct a bad situation which it has to blame itself for.

    Today USA is consdered to be an unreliable and shortsighted ally whose policies have come back to haunt itself and Pakistan. 9/11 is the result of policies whose author was Bush Senior. After Soviet defeat, he simply walked away from its allies who helped it becoming a superpower while becoming the sole superpower while Pakistan and US allies (Mujahideen) were left holding the bag.

    After the win, he conveniently remembered the Pakistani nuclear program and slapped an embargo on F-16 sale to Pakistan using Pressler Amendment, author of which is now enjoying life as a Board member of corporations in India.

    US has lost trust and it needs to rebuild it to show that it will respect and honor its commitments to Pakistan and not use it as a rented ally.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  192. jack phoenix, AZ

    Don't give any country harboring extremists ,money. Not now, not ever. Bunch of backstabbers once they get the cash.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  193. Jasmine in Germany

    Yes. Since the USA (CIA) is largely responsible for providing arms to Afghanistan in the early 80's (thus supporting the Taliban and one of their key players, Osama bin Laden), we have a moral obligation to try to stabilize the area to the best of our ability. The USA is gradually starting to regain respect within NATO. I trust President Obama to make good decisions. He understands the core problems, is aware of history, understands foreign cultures, has foresight, and wants to improve the situation. Let the man do his job. It will be in the interest of national security.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  194. Manphool Dabas

    Even if USA pays one billion dollars a month, the Pakistani situation will never improve. What President Bush paid to Pakistan, achieved more or less nothing; most of the aid amount was spent on activities again India In fact, the Taliban problem provides bread and butter to Pakistan and Pakistanis do not want it solved. Without the US assistance, Pakistan is bankrupt. If they are interested in solving this problem, they can deploy enough force in the NWFA. But they keep bulk of their force on border with India, which does not pose any threat at all. Pakistan should be free to solve its Taliban problem peacefully with no threat from India.

    May 5, 2009 at 5:53 pm |