Musharraf admits US aid diverted to nuke program

MusharrafsKhanMan-X.gif

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has admitted to what many of us have known for some time: Pakistan has diverted US aid – money that was intended to be used to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban – to programs designed to strengthen the military against India. From The Times of India:

Musharraf admitted that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, and justified his actions by saying he had “acted in the best interest of Pakistan.”

In an interview with a news channel, he said he “did not care” whether the US would be angered by his disclosure.

The former military ruler, who resigned as President in August last year to avoid impeachment, said he was not ready to compromise on Pakistan’s interests.

And although Musharraf doesn’t explicitly say so, US money was used to fund and advance Pakistan’s nuclear program:

Musharraf said Pakistan’s nuclear programme was so advanced during his tenure that scientists had not only begun enriching uranium but had also developed plutonium-based weapons.

Pakistan is demanding that the US release $1.6 billion under the Coalition Support Fund. “Pakistan needs the funds to cater to its deteriorating economy and to fulfill the requirements of its defence and armed forces,” Dawn reported on Sept. 10. The government has insisted the money be given directly to Pakistan, with no checks on the spending.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.

Tags:

19 Comments

  • zotz says:

    Is there any chance of cutting these guys loose? These are bad allies. They are now attacking the Taliban in order to prove to us that they are on our side. After they get their dirty money how long will it be before they turn on us?
    Let’s get our supplies through the north and stop enabling terrorists and their sympathizers.

  • bard207 says:

    Bangash
    so what ?
    The current Pakistani Administration asks for more funding & equipment to fight the Taliban, yet they likely would have the right stuff if they would have spent the earlier funds on the needed equipment.
    There is moaning & groaning by Pakistan since future funding will be more directed by the U.S. than in the past, yet Pakistan didn’t demonstrate Good Faith and misspent U.S. aid in past years. Why the wailing by Pakistan when there was an obvious failure to follow past instructions? Have you heard of the saying to Be a Man and take responsibility for one’s actions? Pakistan is a petulant child rather than a responsible adult.
    It could very well be that Pakistan Won a Battle by misappropriating past U.S. funding, but is Losing the War in U.S. opinion – sympathy for various issues of concern to Pakistan.

  • Mayuresh Gaikwad says:

    Money is always fungible. Pakistan shall now spend US money to keep the economy afloat and also fight the Taliban, while it shall use its own money exclusively to manufacture Nukes and fight India.
    So, the answer to this conundrum is very simple. Just stop funding them and see them collapse!
    Get US marines in Pakistan and secure the nuclear weapons. Better still, take the Nuclear weapons away from them.

  • T Ruth says:

    Bangash:
    so what?
    ———-
    BEGGAR’S BANQUET! That is what.
    Enjoy it while you can, for all good things must come to an end. As must, BAD.
    _________________________________
    bard207, good to see you back! And patient as ever, explaining to these people who take pride in being outcasts in the world.
    _____________________________________
    Bill i loved your choice of cartoon and laughed at your emphasis on the word (Pakistan is) ‘demanding’ 😀
    The truly funny one is this thing called “Friends of Pakistan”. And one can’t help but go ‘Really?’
    _________________________________________
    zotz, couldn’t agree with you more.
    Its time for Obama to press the ‘reset’ button on the whip to Pakistan….”either you’re with us, or you’re against us”.
    On the subject of their nukes, frankly one can’t see why one can rely on Pakistan any more than one can on Iran.

  • Zalmay says:

    The US has spent more money in one month in Afghanistan and Iraq losing the war than Pakistan has spent over the last 8 years. 50% of the money was meant for providing all those supplies and fuel that are keeping NATO forces healhty in their fortified bases.
    The most moaning and groaning I see is from the US/NATO side which still doesn’t get that Pashtuns are unbeatable in their homeland. Once this simple reality is realized, everything else will make sense.

  • bard207 says:

    Zalmay
    I reread the story that Bill wrote and missed any mention of Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
    Please Copy and Paste the sentence(s) that mention Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
    If there aren’t any, then you are wandering Off Topic and it would be inappropriate for others to respond to you here.

  • bard207 says:

    T Ruth
    Thank you!

  • T Ruth says:

    Zalmay,
    What has what the US has spent in Iraq got to do what Pakistan has (allegedly) spent?
    And do you know what Pakistan has actually spent anyway?
    And has Pakistan acftually been fighting a war the last 8 yrs (or nourishing their unholy alliances)? They’ve certainly become the world’s experts on how not to do peace deals.
    Their leaders have probably put away enough to fortify their vaults for generations, and wake up in the morning and sing ‘Oh what a lovely war’. Don’t take my word for it talk to the Pakistanis, including your Pashtun bretheren.
    You say “50% of the money was meant for providing all those supplies and fuel “–do you mean the actual supplies and fuel? Or do you mean the (safe???) passage thereof? So how much of that 50% has been invested in the Pashtuns education, drinking water and nutrition in order to make them as healthy as their bravado of your refrain?
    Once all these simple questions are answered in truth, everything else does (not will) make sense.

  • T Ruth says:

    bard207, my last post crossed yours.
    i thought similarly about the reference to iraq. But then some of these gems are irresistible!

  • Zalmay says:

    I am amazed that I have to actually explain the relationship between Iraq and Afghanistan in this discussion. Resources from one theater were diverted to another and the result is that at least one of the wars is completely lost for the West.
    If the US can play merry with people like Chalabi, Muqtada Al Sadr, Dostum, Ahmed Wali Karzai in other countries, what Pakistan does in its own country with its Pushtun tribes that it knows it can never conquer is completely justified.
    Like they say, don’t start a war you can’t finish. It holds true for both the US and AQ.

  • bard207 says:

    Zalmay
    I am still waiting for you to illustrate the references that Bill made to Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
    ————————————————————–
    what Pakistan does in its own country with its Pushtun tribes that it knows it can never conquer is completely justified.
    You forgot to mention the part about Musharraf diverting U.S. funds. U.S. funding and how Pakistan mismanaged it is the essential part of Bill’s writeup.
    Please stick to the topic or leave this discussion.

  • Mr T says:

    “Pashtuns are unbeatable in their homeland.”
    Being in a basic state of war for years and years and years is not exactly “winning” in my book.
    Their lifestyle can’t even start with the basic needs of security. They probably don’t even know what they means. Sounds like they may have been beaten for years. They are just too proud to admit it. Big difference.
    Perhaps Musharraf should have spent that money teaching the Pashtuns what a lie they have been living. He could have spent that on military operations, economic aid, education, and a host of other thngs that would help them turn it around and live a better life. But I guess they don’t want to be beaten so they live under constant threat instead.

  • T Ruth says:

    Zalmay
    I’m afraid i have to agree with bard. The story is about US aid to pakistan. IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COST OF WAR IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN.
    Anyway in my last post i asked you “What has what the US has spent in Iraq got to do what Pakistan has (allegedly) spent?”
    And your response “I am amazed that I have to actually explain the relationship between Iraq and Afghanistan in this discussion.” !!!!!
    Well i am not amazed that you don’t get it for you seem to be in your arrogance all caught up in your singular, pet refrain of pashtun bravado. The war is against AQ/Taliban not against the pashtuns. Kindly take the limitations of your comprehension elsewhere.

  • mark says:

    Don’t try to run off Zalmay and stay polite. It is good for discussion to occur with people who disagree.
    On that note, I welcome you all to go to //www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
    It is an eye opener and has taught me alot of how other people think
    I have commented on certain articles there to give a USA opinion. They don’t always appreciate me though.
    Wish more of, not sure what to title them as, lets say Islamist, would come to this site to give their opinion.

  • AL says:

    Dawn just reported that Musharraf never said he diverted US aid. Indian media had lied about the entire thing. You can even go to google and search for the recent news from Dawn.

  • bard207 says:

    How America Is Funding Corruption in Pakistan (page 1)
    How America Is Funding Corruption in Pakistan (page 2)

    The rot goes still deeper. U.S. taxpayers paid $1.5
    million to repair damage to Navy vehicles that did not see combat (the terrorists don’t have navies, either). Another $15 million went for bunkers that were never dug; $30 million paid for roads that were never built; $55 million went to maintain helicopters that were not, in fact, maintained; and $80 million per month was paid for soldiers to fight during periods when there was a cease-fire.

    Meanwhile, U.S. officials visiting the frontier areas,
    where militants including the Taliban are most entrenched, found that the paramilitary Pakistani Frontier Corps was poorly equipped, even “standing there in the snow in sandals,” according to one report. Several soldiers were equipped with World War I-era pith helmets and barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with “just 10 rounds of ammunition apiece.” In an interview with the New York Times in November 2007, Musharraf complained that Pakistan’s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite the United States’ having given his country $8 million worth of helicopter parts over the previous six months.
    Rebuffing U.S., Musharraf Calls Crackdown Crucial to a Fair Vote (page 1)
    Rebuffing U.S., Musharraf Calls Crackdown Crucial to a Fair Vote (page 2)
    Musharraf Interview
    —————————————————–
    Al
    Dawn just reported that Musharraf never said he diverted US aid. Indian media had lied about the entire thing. You can even go to google and search for the recent news from Dawn.
    If I remember correctly, the Frontier Corps don’t rotate much outside of the FATA — NWFP and since they were the ones who were tasked with doing the majority of the fighting against the Taliban in FATA — NWFP (until the past few months), shouldn’t the Frontier Corps have been better equipped? I don’t understand Musharraf’s explanation about the equipment going along with the rotation of troops when the Frontier Corps never really rotates outside of FATA — NWFP. Could you explain that for me?

  • bard207 says:

    mark
    I have stayed on topic and provided some good links.
    You should admonish the Pakistanis who aren’t interested in discussing the topic that Bill wrote about.

  • T Ruth says:

    bard thank you for providing those links. Very revealing indeed!
    One always comes to the same conclusion. There are only two ways to look at Pakistan:
    EITHER THERE IS NOTHING SHOCKING ABOUT IT OR, EVERYTHING IS SHOCKING ABOUT IT…

Iraq

Islamic state

Syria

Aqap

Al shabaab

Boko Haram

Isis