Bachmann: Perry’s position on cutting off aid to Pakistan is “highly naive”

posted at 10:21 pm on November 22, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. I want to agree with Perry that it’s long past time to cut these lunatics off from U.S. military aid. Morally, that’s unquestionably true. As a policy matter, though, I don’t see what it accomplishes. We’re not going to attack so there’s no stick in our stick-and-carrot arsenal, and if we take away the carrot, one of two things will happen. Either Pakistan will replace American aid with Chinese aid, which is unhelpful given their shared interest in neutralizing India, or the Pakistani military will break down and the country will become destabilized. We don’t have much leverage via the aid we send them, but we have a little. Why give it up? And if the answer to that is that paying them creates an incentive for countries to go nuclear, well, that incentive already exists in spades thanks to the role nukes play as a deterrent to western invasion/regime change. For all the heat Bachmann takes for supposedly being a wild-eyed ideologue, she’s taking a hardnosed, unpalatable realist position here.

If you missed this post a few weeks ago, read it now. The Goldberg/Ambinder article on which it’s based (and which also supported continuing aid to Pakistan) was also the source of Bachmann’s memorable line tonight about how Pakistan is “too nuclear to fail.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Meh. I’m beginning to think what the world needs is a couple of nuclear bomb drops, just to shake things up a bit.

Living4Him5534 on November 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Perry’s not cutting them off. He’s suggesting Pakistan has to earn the support we give them.

Of course, cutting them off would create a vacuum for Russia or China to fill in. But I don’t think Perry would be naive enough to allow that to happen.

Nethicus on November 22, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Too nuclear to fail was a good line, and is perfect for explaining why we can not allow Iran to go nuclear because look how it paralyzes out Foreign Policy when a nation goes Nuclear.

As for the Perry/Bachmann exchange, I am with Perry on this one and that Foreign Aid to Pakistan needs to be reset to zero where they have to earn it each year. We can never win in Afghanistan as long as Pakistan serves as a sanctuary and training ground for radicals and it is becoming abundantly clear that is exactly what it is. If getting tough with Pakistan drives them into the arms of China, then we get in bed with India. If China really wants Pakistan to become their problem while a nuclear India and America strengthen their ties and influence in the region, then that is their mistake. We should not allow a nuclear state to hold us hostage and blackmail us as Pakistan had done, it’s like detente and we need to start throwing our weight around. We have thousands of Nuclear weapons far more powerful than what Pakistan has, they would be retarded to cross us or not secure their arsenal.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

All in all I thought Bachmann had a good night. The danger of these debates is that they take complex geopolitical issues and try to reduce them to a sound bite. Any Pakistan policy would be complicated and partially classified.

Throwing out aide numbers is pure speculation and they know it.

NickDeringer on November 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

i agree with perry…

cmsinaz on November 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

AP,heres a few more from tonight:)
=====================================

GOP national security debate highlights
****************************************

Republican presidential candidates gathered in D.C. on Tuesday night for a debate centered on national security. (Nov. 22) (/Courtesy of CNN)
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++

Gingrich: Debates ‘don’t get at the core issues’
*************************************************

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich took issue with the questions asked at debates Tuesday night, saying they were ‘narrow’ and didn’t get at the core problems behind them. (Nov. 22) (/Courtesy of CNN)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-national-security-debate-highlights/2011/11/22/gIQAcNDmmN_video.html
++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++

Huntsman takes on Romney over Afghanistan
*****************************************
Republican presidential candidates Gov. Jon Huntsman and Gov. Mitt Romney argued over the number of American troops necessary in Afghanistan. (/Courtesy of CNN)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-national-security-debate-highlights/2011/11/22/gIQAcNDmmN_video.html
+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

It seems to me that we begin to make overtures to India, and encourage India to take Kashmir while at the same time reducing funding to Pakistan.

Then, we tell Pakistan: See what we can do?

I suspect that Pakistan would fall into line.

Special Forces Grunt on November 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Eliminating, or sharply reducing, military aid to Pakistan would have consequences, but they may not be the ones we fear. Diminishing the power of the military class would open up more room for civilian rule. Many Pakistanis are in favor of less U.S. aid; their slogan is “trade not aid.” In particular, Pakistani businessmen have long sought U.S. tax breaks for their textiles, which American manufacturers have resisted. Such a move would empower the civilian middle class. India would no doubt welcome a reduction in military aid to Pakistan, and the U.S. could use this as leverage to pressure India to allow the Kashmiris to vote on their future, which would very likely be a vote for independence. These two actions might do far more to enhance Pakistan’s stability, and to insure its friendship, than the billions of dollars that America now pays like a ransom.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Meh. I’m beginning to think what the world needs is a couple of nuclear bomb drops, just to shake things up a bit.

Living4Him5534 on November 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Ah. Okay. So your screen name is meant to be ironic, then?

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Can anyone remember in 2008 Obama’s response to these questions?
I am Googling but coming up empty.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I’m surprised she was able to find fault with any side of an issue, given that she seemed to occupy every side of each.

eucher on November 22, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I think Perry is right. We need to stop pretending Pakistan is an ally. I think we need to take the Pakistani nukes by force. That would also help us with Iran and North Korea when they realized that nukes are not a golden shield.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I find it very hard to believe the Pakistani military, which now basically owns that state, would allow itself to wither away as funds dry up. They’ll resort to graft even more than they already do. They’ll take over industries if need be. See Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for an example.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I think Perry is right. We need to stop pretending Pakistan is an ally.

No one’s pretending that, including Bachmann.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM

They’ll resort to graft even more than they already do. They’ll take over industries if need be. See Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for an example.

Whoever posted this…
+100

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:38 PM

The way I take him, he doesn’t mean STAY at zero, just everybody starts there. In other words, take a LONG hard look at every dime.

What’s wrong with that? OR… naive ?

golfmann on November 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

No one’s pretending that, including Bachmann.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Then we are paying the Danegold aren’t we?

When has that ever worked out?

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

golfmann on November 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

i’m with ya buddy

cmsinaz on November 22, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Then we are paying the Danegold aren’t we?

When has that ever worked out?

What’s the alternative when we’re not prepared to wage war instead? Does Danegold psychology apply to nuclear states the same way it does to others?

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:42 PM

I like Bachmann and thought she gave a good answer, but it was a functionary’s answer, whereas Perry took the executive’s view that it is possible to shake things up.

The truth is, there is no national security problem for which our only option is to continue to send someone money.

In some situations, like Pakistan, that’s our most convenient option. It doesn’t mean it’s the only one, and it doesn’t mean we’re stuck with the same dynamics and schedule, etc to the end of time.

They were both right. Bachmann described the nature of the problem, and Perry expressed a more open-ended perspective on what’s possible. He’s not saying leave the table and go out for an afternoon on the back nine while Pakistan starts packing suticase nukes for their 100 most promising teenagers. He’s saying renegotiate the deal to get more benefit out of it.

J.E. Dyer on November 22, 2011 at 10:43 PM

I find it very hard to believe the Pakistani military, which now basically owns that state, would allow itself to wither away as funds dry up. They’ll resort to graft even more than they already do. They’ll take over industries if need be. See Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for an example.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM

So….we should be remain in the untenable position of paying them off in order to try to pacify them? How very Chamberlainesque. Don’t you think they’re already receiving lots of covert Chinese aid?

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:44 PM

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Good article and pretty where I stand and sounds like what Perry is talking about.

I find it very hard to believe the Pakistani military, which now basically owns that state, would allow itself to wither away as funds dry up. They’ll resort to graft even more than they already do. They’ll take over industries if need be. See Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for an example.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Then they’ll be occupied warring with themselves instead of us.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Then we are paying the Danegold aren’t we?

When has that ever worked out?

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Ha ha. Just saw that, Loretta. Mind twin powers activate!

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM

The crazies have come out on the bigger thread. Yikes.

andy85719 on November 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Then they’ll be occupied warring with themselves instead of us.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM

And that won’t last long when one side decides they need to get another faction involved because they are loosing ground.
We have been here before.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

And that won’t last long when one side decides they need to get another faction involved because they are loosing ground.
We have been here before.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

What other faction?

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:48 PM

I think it’s time to give Thaddeus McCotter a second look.

flataffect on November 22, 2011 at 10:48 PM

I think Perry is right. We need to stop pretending Pakistan is an ally.

No one’s pretending that, including Bachmann.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM

AllahP, this is one of the instances where I have to disagree with you.

1. Pakistan is NOT behaving as an ally should. They have shown their allegiance lies more with radical Islamists than with us.

2. We keep sending them huge amounts of aid, despite us being broke!

And Bachmann is calling Perry naive for wanting to cut off aid? A sentiment you appear to agree with.

Isn’t this another instance of Bachmann opposing a perfectly good idea simply because she hates Perry and is peeved it didn’t originate with her?

And the best argument you can give, AllahP, is that if we do not give them aid – China will?

Come on, you are almost making me wish I had to go up in a debate against you. Mind you – only on foreign policy. :)

TheRightMan on November 22, 2011 at 10:48 PM

What’s the alternative when we’re not prepared to wage war instead? Does Danegold psychology apply to nuclear states the same way it does to others?

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 10:42 PM

If we are not prepared to fight our enemies then paying them off for their forebearance is perhaps the best policy. It isn’t one I would support. We should attack them.

As to the nuclear weapons they possess I think they are overblown as a threat at the current time as a state weapon. They do not currently have ICBM’s.

The largest threat is there getting into the hands of a non-state actor. That is a threat that the Pakistanis have played as a card in their attempt to squeeze money out of the US. It is in the US interest to remove that threat now rather than later when Pakistan may develop ICBM’s.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Can anyone remember in 2008 Obama’s response to these questions?
I am Googling but coming up empty.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Electrongod:)
===============================================================

Obama’s Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center
***************************************

Published August 1, 2007

Speaker: Barack Obama
(Transcript)
****************************************
****************************************

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars inU.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional,
********************************************

and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistanmust make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks inAfghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must helpPakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

BeyondPakistan, there is a core of terrorists – probably in the tens of thousands – who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world’s most dangerous weapons. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.(More…..)
========================

http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/obamas-speech-woodrow-wilson-center/p13974

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Ha ha. Just saw that, Loretta. Mind twin powers activate!

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Great mind’s think alike, and fool’s never differ.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

The largest threat is there getting into the hands of a non-state actor. That is a threat that the Pakistanis have played as a card in their attempt to squeeze money out of the US. It is in the US interest to remove that threat now rather than later when Pakistan may develop ICBM’s.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:49 PM

CNN just did a fact check on Bachmann’s remarks about a nuclear Pakistan and revealed that though the intelligence community is concerned about Paki nukes, those nukes are kept in a dismantled state and would difficult for any terrorists to assemble and send to the USA.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 10:51 PM

good one canopfor

cmsinaz on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

And that won’t last long when one side decides they need to get another faction involved because they are loosing ground.
We have been here before.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Really it’s funny to think about how so many of our current foreign policy troubles are so firmly rooted in the Cold War (Afghanistan, Pakistan).

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Great mind’s think alike, and fool’s never differ.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

What’s that? I was busy checking on my MF Global investment accounts…

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM

What other faction?

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Saddam launched Scuds into Israel and Saudi during the Gulf War to change the dynamics of the war.
Iran can easily do the same. Turn this into a holy war.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Either Pakistan will replace American aid with Chinese aid, which is unhelpful given their shared interest in neutralizing India, or the Pakistani military will break down and the country will become destabilized.

But don’t you think the Chinese will drive a harder bargain than we do?

I’m certainly not a foreign policy expert, but providing foreign aid only to keep someone else from providing it, isn’t a winning position.

SlaveDog on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

The posters on Hot Air are increasingly inflexible. I wasn’t here during the 2008 campaign, so did it get like this during the primary, where people were calling the other candidates evil? I mean, yes, Cain isn’t prepared and Perry isn’t so articulate and Bachmann has outburst of ridiculousness and Mitt is a flip flopper and Gingrich is a squish on certain issues, but to hear some people on here, some of these people are evil incarnate bent on destroying the nation.

andy85719 on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

those nukes are kept in a dismantled state and would difficult for any terrorists to assemble and send to the USA.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Why? If they have the component parts it really isn’t that hard to assemble a weapon. The precise timing of the explosive implosion charges is the difficult part and those would be a part of the weapon.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

The posters on Hot Air are increasingly inflexible. I wasn’t here during the 2008 campaign, so did it get like this during the primary, where people were calling the other candidates evil? I mean, yes, Cain isn’t prepared and Perry isn’t so articulate and Bachmann has outburst of ridiculousness and Mitt is a flip flopper and Gingrich is a squish on certain issues, but to hear some people on here, some of these people are evil incarnate bent on destroying the nation.

andy85719 on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Consider what you know about peoples’ feelings toward our current crop of candidates. Now, imagine if that group included Mike Huckabee (!) and John McCain (!!!). So yeah, it was like this, but more so.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Saddam launched Scuds into Israel and Saudi during the Gulf War to change the dynamics of the war.
Iran can easily do the same. Turn this into a holy war.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Saddam failed. Al Qaeda, the supposed Holy Warriors, originally offered to wage jihad on Saddam but America gave Kuwait a better offer – the true story behind Al Qaeda’s quest for power. Pakistan warring with itself would weaken them and we will be dealing with Iran on our own.

Why? If they have the component parts it really isn’t that hard to assemble a weapon. The precise timing of the explosive implosion charges is the difficult part and those would be a part of the weapon.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

These aren’t suitcase nukes we are talking about and the locations of the components are not common knowledge.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Cr@p…I didn’t read the headline correctly.
I was thinking Iran.
My bad.

Electrongod on November 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM

These aren’t suitcase nukes we are talking about and the locations of the components are not common knowledge.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM

They would weight between 250 to 1200 lbs at a guess. They could load them into the back of an SUV. As to the location, that is probably not as much of a problem as we would like to believe. I know where the French nukes are, I know where the British nukes are, I know where the Russian nukes are and I suspect that Pakistani security isn’t any better. Its probably common knowledge where they are kept.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 10:51 PM
good one canopfor

cmsinaz on November 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

cmsinaz:I was going to go with this one:)
==========================================

The Audacity of Shallowness
What would the Democrats do?
20th August 2007 – The Weekly Standard
***************************************

To the senator’s credit, he sees that Iraq and al Qaeda do not define Muslims and Islam. What he does not seem to grasp–and the Bush administration is no better–is that America is the cutting edge of a modernity that has convulsed Islam as a faith and a civilization. This collision will likely become more violent, not less, as Muslims more completely enter the ethical free fall that comes as modernity pulverizes the world of our ancestors. Barack Obama’s newly devised “Mobile Development Teams,” which will bring together “personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon,

and USAID . . .
*****************
******************

to turn the tide against extremism” are unlikely to make America more attractive to devout Muslims who know that America is the leading force in destroying the world that they love. The senator can leave Iraq, shut down Guantánamo, apologize for Abu Ghraib, and build “secular” schools all over Pakistan, and he will not change this fact. This is the deep well from which al Qaeda draws.
(More…)
=============

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/the-audacity-of-shallowness/

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM

To hell with Pakistan! What would Reagan do? That was the dumbest thing I’ve heard yet in these debates, “Pakistan is too nuclear to fail?” Oh really? Like they won’t face any consequences for not being responsible with their nuclear weapons!

If you are a nuclear power, you better act like one or risk having your nukes secured by someone else. That should be our policy. We are already laying contigency plans in case they allow a nuke to get loose, to secure the rest of Pakistan’s arsenal. That should be our policy. Pakistan is no U.S. ally and we should stop pretending they are. They were housing Bin Laden for Pete’s sake!

Reagan called the Soviet Union what it was–an evil empire. He didn’t say dumb sh** like, “it’s too nuclear to fail.” He didn’t pussyfoot around with the Evil Empire. He stood up to them, challenge them, and was determined to defeat them and he prevailed!

If Pakistan wants to take the side of the terrorist, then they too will find themselves on the ash heap of history, where all enemies of freedom wind up, when a strong and assertive America opposes them!

milemarker2020 on November 22, 2011 at 11:08 PM

How much taxpayer money should be used to fund Pakistani terrorism? Not a dime.

El_Terrible on November 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

When the left does wealth redistribution to their chosen group evil
When the right does wealth redistribution to their chosen group good

Even if they are the same group but for different reason. One to pay penance for the evil America and intentionally make the US broke thus bring revolution. The other side is to protect us from terrorism but it still makes us broke.

tjexcite on November 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Didn’t the Pakistanis allow the Chinese access to the downed plane(?)during the raid on Osama bin Laden? Do we have adequate intelligence to know where our aid is going in Pakistan?

onlineanalyst on November 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Excellent post.

Hiya Ciska on November 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Pakistan will replace American aid with Chinese aid, which is unhelpful given their shared interest in neutralizing India

I don’t see why China would want to start giving Pakistan aid. What do they gain? How does it help them “neutralize” India?

Buddahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Target Iran
************

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM

What would Reagan do? So what if Pakistan have nukes. North Korea has nukes, we are not funding them. The Soviet Union had nukes we weren’t funding them. We need to stop this pussyfooting around and have a clear, determined policy concerning Pakistan.

If Pakistan wants to be a nuclear power, it must act responsibly. We have contigency plans in case Pakistan “loses” one of its nukes that we should make outright U.S. policy concerning Pakistan and any other rogue nuclear state. If you lose one of your nukes, we will come in and secure the rest of your arsenal.

Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire at the height of the Cold War, with Soviet nukes pointed at us. He didn’t mince words and meant to stare them down and defeat them. And he did. If Pakistan wants to side with the extremist and terrorist in their midst, then they’ll wind up on the same ash heap of history that all enemies of freedom find themselve on when the U.S. stands against them!

milemarker2020 on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

I don’t see why China would want to start giving Pakistan aid. What do they gain? How does it help them “neutralize” India?

What do they gain? A greater say over Pakistan’s military strategy, I’d think. That could be useful in coordinating against India, or in further reducing U.S. influence in Afghanistan. Money always makes people pay attention.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

If Pakistan’s nukes are at such risk, since we have a capable military force close by, let’s go get them and help our troops by having a free fire ROE while inside Pakistan.

Of course I’m being ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as the Pakistan military allowing a nuke to be stolen from them, because that nuke might end up being used against the Pakistan military leadership to gain access to the other 99 nukes in Pakistan. And if it’s not used there, whomever it’s used against, is going to hold Pakistan responsible along with the terrorists who detonated it. Being a nuclear power does have it’s responsibilities.

If a nuke is stolen, no matter how it’s used, it’s the end of Pakistan as a nuclear power and possibly a soveriegn nation.

If that doesn’t motivate them to be responsible, money won’t either.

Hog Wild on November 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

They would weight between 250 to 1200 lbs at a guess. They could load them into the back of an SUV. As to the location, that is probably not as much of a problem as we would like to believe. I know where the French nukes are, I know where the British nukes are, I know where the Russian nukes are and I suspect that Pakistani security isn’t any better. Its probably common knowledge where they are kept.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Our intelligence agencies, as well as India’s, are watching closely and will be just as vigilant were Pakistan to erupt into civil war. Sneaking a Nuclear Weapon out of Pakistan and into or near America is a heck of an undertaking, especially in this post 9/11 world. I have no doubt we will be striking known nuclear sites should Pakistan descend into chaos as well.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Pakistan Military Guide
***********************

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/index.html

canopfor on November 22, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Just watched a Frontline episode about the terrorist who planned Mumbai. Of course he and his group were supported by the Pakistani military and the ISI. I would really doubt any intelligence coming out of that cesspool. I disagree with Bachmann that we should give them any money. We might say that if we get “proven” intelligence, we give them money. The intelligence must be independently verified. Also, Bachmann doesn’t explain how giving Pakistan money keeps Paki nukes from falling into the wrong hands. Looks to me like they’re already in the wrong hands.

gordo on November 22, 2011 at 11:21 PM

What do they gain? A greater say over Pakistan’s military strategy, I’d think. That could be useful in coordinating against India, or in further reducing U.S. influence in Afghanistan. Money always makes people pay attention.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

So China’s allies and funds a radicalized state on the brink of chaos while we go all in with a much more stable and nuclear armed India? Sounds like a fair trade to me.

China is much more subversive with their Foreign Policy, they want no part of that mess.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Sneaking a Nuclear Weapon out of Pakistan and into or near America is a heck of an undertaking, especially in this post 9/11 world.

It may be a lot easier than you imagine. I mean tons of cocaine are brought in every month so it isn’t that difficult. One small fishing boat could do it and most large cities are coastal.

I have no doubt we will be striking known nuclear sites should Pakistan descend into chaos as well.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:20 PM

There is the problem of Pakistani nukes being moves around in trucks. Those could be nabbed easily. There is the possibility of a few men and an officer sneaking a couple off the airbases or bunkers they are stored at. There is also the problem of Pakistan being an enemy with nukes while developing ICBM’s. Then we have the problem of an American president knowing when to order a strike in the midst of chaos when the precise locations of the nukes is less likely to be known given events on the ground.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:26 PM

They can’t even sneak a terrorist onto or activate a sleeper cell effectively on our soil, smuggling in a nuclear weapon (in pieces or assembled) is one seriously tall order.

I remain unconvinced on Bachmann’s position that we should continue to fund Pakistan as they clearly are not earning it. Whatever threat they pose we deal with by forming the proper alliances and staying on the offensive at all times.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I remain unconvinced on Bachmann’s position that we should continue to fund Pakistan as they clearly are not earning it. Whatever threat they pose we deal with by forming the proper alliances and staying on the offensive at all times.

Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I also disagree with Bachmann as well, but I think we need to start dealing with states that threaten us either directly or by stealth. Pakistan has shown itself to be an enemy and we should act accordingly.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Allah, you may be right. Cut off the aid, then read them the riot act.

AshleyTKing on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Allah, you may be right. Cut off the aid, then read them the riot act.

AshleyTKing on November 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

He’s actually advocating the opposite of that.

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Seems to me the position Bachmann is advocating is what is wrong with our foreign policy. When a person looks at where our money goes it boggles the mind. Perry is correct IMHO and is taking a much more business-like approach than the so-called businessmen in the race. It is high time we do zero-based budgeting at all levels and make each department and country prove what they need and why and where it is being spent.

Rapunzel on November 23, 2011 at 12:16 AM

cynccook on November 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM

You are right.

AshleyTKing on November 23, 2011 at 12:17 AM

You are right.

AshleyTKing on November 23, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Okay, 2 people have actually said that to me here today. It *almost* cancels out how my 12 year-old rolls his eyes regardless of what I am telling him. “Patrick, you’re going to be late for school!” Eye roll. “Patrick, here’s a roll of twenties and the car keys!” Eye roll.

cynccook on November 23, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Cut off Pakistan’s aid and nukes start showing up on E-Bay to fill in the military budget. Not good.

michaelo on November 23, 2011 at 1:38 AM

They can’t even sneak a terrorist onto or activate a sleeper cell effectively on our soil
Daemonocracy on November 22, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Unless you have some inside information on how many terrorists may be on American soil, that’s a mighty big coverall statement.

smuggling in a nuclear weapon (in pieces or assembled) is one seriously tall order.

Would depend on the weapon, it’s not like in the old days of huge ICBMs. Could easily be transported across the north or south border on a 2-wheeler dolly or on to a remote stretch of shore with a small boat.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 1:43 AM

In July 1984 the New York Times reported that US intelligence had learned that the previous year that China had supplied Pakistan with the design of an actual tested nuclear device – the design of China’s fourth nuclear weapon tested in 1966 with a yield of 25 kt. This is said to be a low weight (200 kg class) solid-core bomb design.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Perry’s position on cutting off aid to Pakistan is “highly naive”

That’s gotta hurt, coming from a woman who was second-billing to a muppet on a talk show last night! :D

benny shakar on November 23, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Unless you have some inside information on how many terrorists may be on American soil, that’s a mighty big coverall statement.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Considering the success we’ve had in thwarting attacks aside from the Hasan shootings which were a direct result of politically correct apathy, it’s not that big of a statement than it is a factual observation. Unfortunately I do believe there will be more terror attacks on our soil, but out counter terror measures are exceptional and fearing a Pakistani nuke being smuggled into our country is not a convincing argument for maintaining the status quo in sending billions of aid to that terrorist haven.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:34 AM

Bachmann is wrong on this issue. Erick Erickson summed it up perfectly after the last debate when Bachmann spouted this nonsense:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/14/the-bachmann-santorum-rule-we-can-be-extorted/

She keeps claiming that the $$ we send them is worth it because they share intel with us… like the intel they didn’t share when Bin Laden was living down the street from their military academy? That intel? Sheesh.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 23, 2011 at 2:35 AM

Cut off Pakistan’s aid and nukes start showing up on E-Bay to fill in the military budget. Not good.

michaelo on November 23, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Why wouldn’t we just purchase their nukes?

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:35 AM

I also disagree with Bachmann as well, but I think we need to start dealing with states that threaten us either directly or by stealth. Pakistan has shown itself to be an enemy and we should act accordingly.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I agree with you, but it should start with making our aid conditional.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM

Wow! I learned a lot of interesting facts here tonight!
HAers never cease to amaze me with their breadth of knowledge, truly! There are some great arguments here; some with which I agree, some not so much.

But always enlightening!

herm2416 on November 23, 2011 at 2:40 AM

It may be a lot easier than you imagine. I mean tons of cocaine are brought in every month so it isn’t that difficult. One small fishing boat could do it and most large cities are coastal.

sharrukin

Cocaine and radioactive nuclear material are two different things.

xblade on November 23, 2011 at 3:55 AM

Cocaine and radioactive nuclear material are two different things.

xblade on November 23, 2011 at 3:55 AM

Radioactive materials can be shielded enough to allow an approach to the coast. They would face more difficulty in trying to move such a weapon past a port inspection due to detection devices. If they sailed into New York Harbor and immediately detonated the weapon that would not be a consideration.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 4:04 AM

CNN GOP National Security debate Video( 9 Parts)
================================================

Republican National Security Debate
Nov 22 201
*************
***************

http://www.youtube.com/user/VoteRonPaul12

canopfor on November 23, 2011 at 5:00 AM

If you missed this post a few weeks ago, read it now. The Goldberg/Ambinder article on which it’s based (and which also supported continuing aid to Pakistan) was also the source of Bachmann’s memorable line tonight about how Pakistan is “too nuclear to fail.”

So she used “too nuclear to fail” for sloganeering trying to compete with the left they love to use our foreign policy for sloganeering.

Perry said, it was time to stop writing Pakistan a blank check. Perry is right the aid to Pakistan has to be conditional not open ended. Pakistan and Mexico are the two countries on the CIA’s list that could fail. Who believes that our Military doesn’t have a contingency plan for Pakistan’s nukes if Pakistan fails? The folks at the Pentagon spend their days planning for unhappy outcomes.

Pakistan is 160 Million population. India is reaching 1 billion, and they have the 3rd largest army in the world, and also has nukes. India is our REAL ally. China’s sole interest in Afghanistan has been to avail it’s self of Afghan’s natural resources. If China builds a highway in a third world country, it’s so they can get to whatever they are after. China isn’t going to be involved in Nation Building. China has taken this same posture in African’ countries. Pakistan is like a welfare nation, they would have to go with their hands out to China, but China would expect something in return.

Perry isn’t being naive. Perry is stating pretty plainly that Pakistan needs to be leveraged they need pressure applied to them, and the only pressure they respond to is the influx of American dollars into Pakistan.

Supposedly Michelle Bachmann’s argument is we are giving them aid in relation to “intelligence” sharing. The only reason OBL is dead today is because no one alerted the Pakistanis that the mission was going to happen. So much for intelligence sharing. After billions of dollars the Pakistanis didn’t share with us where OBL was residing since at least 2006. Michelle Bachmann is no National Security expert. All Bachmann is advocating is “Status Quo” as far as Pakistani relations is concerned. Who wants our troops stuck in Afghanistan indefinitely? We have already been there 10 years.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 7:35 AM

As for Bachmann’s scenario that terrorist get a hold of Pakistan nukes. First the terrorist would have to go on a scavenger hunt they are not assembled they are in pieces in different parts of the country.

If Bachmann was really in the know, she would be speaking about the “armament” loose in Libya and why there is a high radiation reading in Eastern Europe. Accounting for old Soviet Union nuclear material should be what Bachmann is worried about if she thinks that a suit case bomb could be smuggled into the U.S. and set off.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM

I also disagree with Bachmann as well, but I think we need to start dealing with states that threaten us either directly or by stealth. Pakistan has shown itself to be an enemy and we should act accordingly.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I agree with you, but it should start with making our aid conditional.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM

Bachmann believes if she says something that sounds authoritative, people will buy into her being some kind of National Security expert. She’s sloganeering, and the media is picking up on it like she said something profound.

That Bachmann was speaking down to a 3rd term Governor of the second largest state in the Union and 13th largest economy and calling him naive speaks volumes. Bachmann thinks everyone listening to her can be buffaloed. But a tax attorney and U.S. House Representative is the expert on National Security because she read an article about Pakistan/

“Too Nuclear To Fail” Uh Huh, from memory the Soviet Union -The USSR had nuclear arms, lots of them. Someone needs to point to me on a map where is the USSR today? lol!

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 7:56 AM

Rick Perry is an U.S. Air Force Veteran and Pilot, that’s been deployed overseas. What is Michelle Bachmann’s military experience? Where has Bachmann lived and served overseas?

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:22 AM

By far Michele’s best performance so far.

SouthernGent on November 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Didn’t Michele say that Steven Gay, er, Jobs tell her that he is moving jobs overseas b/c China has better engineers?

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Still waiting for a candidate to say:

If a nuclear weapon set off by Islamic terrorist kills ANY Americans Anywhere – MECCA IS GONE.

Deterrance

LordMaximus on November 23, 2011 at 8:39 AM

By far Michele’s best performance so far.

SouthernGent on November 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM

I agree it was a “performance”

Best so far? It’s better than her tardasil moment.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Money always makes people pay attention.

Allahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:17 PM

They are playing both sides, except we are their enemy and China is their ally. They gave China our top-secret helicopter that was used in the bin Laden mission. It’s better for China to lay low and soak up all the intelligence that we are paying to give them than to advertise a relationship with Pakistan.

Buddahpundit on November 23, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Why wouldn’t we just purchase their nukes?

Because they know they could ALWAYS get a higher price elsewhere- and the act of selling them would be as punishment for cutting off aid (and pleasing the nutcases behind the scene who hate us).

michaelo on November 23, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Why wouldn’t we just purchase their nukes?

Because they know they could ALWAYS get a higher price elsewhere- and the act of selling them would be as punishment for cutting off aid (and pleasing the nutcases behind the scene who hate us).

michaelo on November 23, 2011 at 9:25 AM

The Pakistanis have the “Knowledge” we could purchase what they have, and they could make more.

It’s one of the reasons nuclear scientist working on Iran’s nuclear program have been getting assassinated. That doesn’t stop Iran from importing “nuclear scientist” or getting help from foreigners like the Russians. I fear this is like Pandora’s box, you can’t put back that which has already been released. Pakistan is well known for it’s nuclear proliferation.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM

I thought she said Steve Gatewood or Gates..:)

Dire Straits on November 23, 2011 at 10:05 AM

I think Perry is right. We need to stop pretending Pakistan is an ally. I think we need to take the Pakistani nukes by force. That would also help us with Iran and North Korea when they realized that nukes are not a golden shield.

sharrukin on November 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Trying to take the Pakistani nukes by force would be downright crazy. Pakistan is a dysfunctional and extremely divided country, but if the United States invaded with the express purpose of taking the nuclear weapons by force, the entire country would unite against us, and it could actually provoke a nuclear war.

Bachmann is mostly right on this issue. We probably have more foes than friends in Pakistan, but we need to support (at arm’s length) anyone who will prevent the nukes from falling into the hands of extremists–to ensure that they are not used against us or our allies, especially India and Israel. Any aid we provide SHOULD come with strings attached, which should be made clear to those we aid, and we should not write Pakistan any “blank checks”.

The fact that Bin Laden was living for years within a mile of a major Pakistani military base shows clearly that not all Pakistanis can be trusted. With Pakistan, we must go further than Reagan did with the Soviet Union: DON’T trust, AND verify. But to verify, we need to have a presence in Pakistan, which will require some cooperation with those in Pakistan who are, if not friendly, at least less hostile to us.

Steve Z on November 23, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Did anyone not watch Perry’s response to this very question on Fox News with Brett Baier and his crew?

Perry was thoughtful and nuanced.

Yet again, Bachmann opens mouth, inserts foot and punts badly. And Allahpundit should know better.

moochy on November 23, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I’m wondering… do we ever give up on Pakistan?

They hide Bin laden, we keep funding them.
They support terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, we keep funding them.
They support our enemies, we keep funding them.

When should this stop? If they invade India… they’d still have nukes; so what, we’d keep handing them billions?

If we catch them outright trying to give nukes to say North Korea… stop funding them then?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/north-korea-pakistan-nuclear-secrets_n_891923.html
Oh yeah, we already had that, and we keep funding them.

So there is what, nothing at all they could do to get us to stop handing them money forever? Do they have to nuke the US before we cut them off?

gekkobear on November 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Naive? I’ll tell you who’s naive. Anyone who thought Gingrich is a conservative. lol

kg598301 on November 23, 2011 at 8:35 PM

don’t see why China would want to start giving Pakistan aid. What do they gain? How does it help them “neutralize” India?

Buddahpundit on November 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Just a note: China has been giving Pakistan aid for decades, and is doing so as we speak. A lot of Pakistan’s military weapons are of Chinese design (many of them made in China, some made in Pakistan through production deals).

Pakistan and China have been conducting more and more military exercises together in the last half decade. Pakistan is ensuring China has plenty of access to Afghanistan. Pakistan is allowing CHina to build up troops in the Kashmir region disputed with India (primarily Gilgit-Baltistan).

China is blasting huge holes in the mountains of northern Pakistan to build a railway and roadway network dubbed the “New Silk Road.” She’s also improving the rail and road networks inside Pakistan, and has basically built all the infrastructure at the Pakistani port of Gwadar. China is a huge trading partner of Pakistan, but these logistic preparations will also allow China to flank India by driving armor and supplies around her territory and into that of her long-time rival.

The US policy in Asia isn’t one of giving money to the folks we like, or who like us. It usually plays that way in our domestic politics, but the truth is that it’s more a matter of cultivating counterweights against a single hegemonic power on the Asian continent. It’s a lot like Great Britain’s policy toward Europe, from the 17th century up to the end of WWII.

It does our security no good for China to have too free a hand in Pakistan. We can’t “fix” Asia’s problems, we can only influence conditions there. One way to do it is to give the minor powers alternatives to throwing in with the major ones. With Pakistan, the most convenient situation all around is for the US, Russia, and China to all be trying to cultivate influence in Islamabad. We don’t want either of China or Russia to win out entirely, but if they’re both there, that takes some of the load off of us, in the game of keeping Pakistan out of any one great power’s clutches.

We can’t conquer the place and run it our way, nor can we just leave it all to fester and produce armed jockeying and unrest. The latter would affect our security and well-being much faster than it did in the years leading up to WWII. A multi-sided tug-o-war is the least bad option.

J.E. Dyer on November 23, 2011 at 8:46 PM