Bush awards Pakistan ‘major non-Nato ally’ status

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

Bush awards Pakistan ‘major non-Nato ally’ status

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Florida: US President George W Bush rewarded Pakistan on Wednesday with “major non-Nato ally” status, tightening military cooperation as both countries jointly battle terrorism.

“I hereby designate the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally of the United States for the purposes of the act and the Arms Export Control Act,” Bush said in a statement released by the White House.

The decision, announced as the president made a rally-the-troops speech on Iraq here, means Pakistan is joining an exclusive club of countries that enjoy a privileged security relationship with the United States.

The announcement came despite US concerns about nuclear proliferation by the Pakistan’s atomic nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and followed a finding by the official probe into the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that Islamabad had helped Afghanistan’s Taliban regime shelter Osama bin Laden.

The decision was also expected to upset ties with Pakistan’s rival India, which does not enjoy the special status. Major non-Nato allies, including Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand, are granted significant benefits in the area of foreign aid and defence cooperation.

Major non-Nato allies are eligible for priority delivery of defence material and the purchase, for instance, of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds. They can stockpile US military hardware, participate in defence research and development programs and benefit from a US government loan guarantee programme, which backs up loans issued by private banks to finance arms exports.

Daily Jang: Urdu News - Latest Breaking News update Pakistan - jang.com.pk

see how long will it stay like this?

does it mean we can get our F 16’s already paid years ago??

2

This is great news, :jhanda:

3

I don't see any significant out of this 'status'. If it was worth anything, Pakistan would've had ateast it's F-16s by now.

4

Re: Bush awards Pakistan ‘major non-Nato ally’ status

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shak killS: *
does it mean we can get our F 16's already paid years ago??
[/QUOTE]

We will never get those, because the money we paid was refunded in the form of an equivalent value of soya beans.

We are now allowed to purchase as many F-16s as we like, but we will have to acquire and use new funds to do so, for the above reason.

In fact, we can now purchase just about any equipment made in the USA short of WMD, ballistic and cruise missiles, and stealth technology.

But Pakistan does not have the funds to do so, and, quite frankly, should not attempt to purchase expensive top of the line equipment when it can buy or manufacture comparative equipment that delivers 75% of the capability at a mere fraction of the cost.

The era of US equipment in the Pakistani arsenal must gradually wind down, with a limited number of exceptions.

The only benefit that I can see is potential cooperation in military training activities, such as that which went on in the 50s,60s,70s and 80s.

5

Is the Pakistani Army trained by the US or has it been since the 60s?

if that was true, they wouldn't have lost in 1971 so badly.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniDragon: *
Is the Pakistani Army trained by the US or has it been since the 60s?

if that was true, they wouldn't have lost in 1971 so badly.
[/QUOTE]

I dont recall they are ever trained by US. and I personally think, Paksitani army is better than US if you remove the equipment and technology behind both.

7

:rotfl:

8

I cant belive your comparing PAK troops to US troops, have you ever seen them in action, they are ****… Now if you had said that PAk troops ae better then british troops, well then i would have to say maby not.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniDragon: *
Is the Pakistani Army trained by the US or has it been since the 60s?

if that was true, they wouldn't have lost in 1971 so badly.
[/QUOTE]

The performace in 1971 on both the Eastern and Western fronts had little to do with the performance of individual units, which is where the US training helped. It was strategic errors by the general staff which was the problem.

We had severe problems in 1965 too. I recall that there was one Pakistani battalion that was deployed to a location to block the Indian advance, but was explicitly forbidden to dig in and establish a defensive position until a general arrived to review their positi

Needless to say, their position was attacked by an entire division of the Indian army before a general could arrive. Fortunately, the Indians (who had smashed through all previous Pakistani positions) were lacking in intelligence information and mistakingly believed that they had hit encountered the Pakistani main line of resistance, rather than just 600 men with a single anti-tank gun battery, and the Indians began digging in for a major battle rather than pressing home their attack and seizing Lahore before sunset.

Another prime example of general staff incompetence was how Pakistan's main tank force in 1965 was sent to attack a retreating India formation without infantry support - they ended up being ambushed by Indian anti-tank units and suffered heavy casualties.

And 1971 is riddled with countless examples of general staff incompetence.

10

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Enforcer: * I cant belive your comparing PAK troops to US troops, have you ever seen them in action, they are ***... Now if you had said that PAk troops ae better then british troops, well then i would have to say maby not.
[/QUOTE]

There are nearly a hundered Pakistani troops killed in Wazistan alone (a tiny enclave) compared to just 100 American troops killed in whole of Afghanistan in an opration lasting nearl 3 years. So who looks like the real technician?

11

now we can buy all the weapons we want and waste the money thats more needed in other departments.

US has never kept its words, it will change.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniDragon: *

There are nearly a hundered Pakistani troops killed in Wazistan alone (a tiny enclave) compared to just 100 American troops killed in whole of Afghanistan in an opration lasting nearl 3 years. So who looks like the real technician?
[/QUOTE]

Ok firstly i think you mena to say tactician. Secondly the troops are only efective when they have clear and concise orders from the top, and secondly the PAK army only sent troops while the US army is supported by the Joint Operations Unit which includes fighter jets,gun ships, Anti-Tank Choppers, Transport and fire support vheicles, A10 Wart-hogs and Thunderbolts, Satalite and UAV real-time image data support and the list goes on.

unfortunetly Pakistan lacks those things but still manages to operate in such tough conditions. So next time think of those things before you start comparing Pak army to US army, Pak army rely on training while the US rely mostly on technology and superior firepower to subdue thier enemy.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Enforcer: * the troops are only efective when they have clear and concise orders from the top,
[/QUOTE]

They have clear orders.. eliminate the defenceless.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Enforcer: * and secondly the PAK army only sent troops while the US army is supported by the Joint Operations Unit which includes fighter jets,gun ships, Anti-Tank Choppers, Transport and fire support vheicles, A10 Wart-hogs and Thunderbolts, Satalite and UAV real-time image data support and the list goes on.
[/QUOTE]

USA attacked a whole country with a territory of over 600,000 square km. Pakistan Army only attacked a village. Surely your not saying, they need Abrams tanks, B-52 Bombers, and Cruise Missiles to put down a little rebellion in a village are you?

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Enforcer: *

I cant belive your comparing PAK troops to US troops, have you ever seen them in action, they are ****... Now if you had said that PAk troops ae better then british troops, well then i would have to say maby not.
[/QUOTE]

exactly!
US army is just kit equiped people up for some advantures, courage, dare to die is somthing you can find in them.