http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... _taseer_a/
What is of relevance here are the ideas advocated:
Finally, the United States must get serious about Pakistan; what must and can be done; and then do it. The editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post not withstanding and despite the hue and cry of complaints from Congress about Pakistan corruption and apathy to fighting the war on terror, does the United States and the West wish to succeed or not in bringing stability to the region? If the answer is yes, then real action must be taken.
Critics argue that since September 11th, billions have already been sent to Pakistan. More will not help. But money is not the major issue although if emergency loans from the IMF do not continue, the nation will go bankrupt and collapse financially.
Crucial are, as Taseer argued, political, strategic, economic and psychological support. First is textile tariff relief that will not cost U.S. workers a single job. Second is agreeing to discussions on a nuclear treaty similar to the one signed with India. Third is using U.S. and other major powers to encourage negotiations between India and Pakistan to reduce tensions and flash points whether over Kashmir or Mumbai-style threats.
Last and the administration may be moving in this direction, the U.S. must decide how critical Pakistan military action in North Waziristan is to success in Afghanistan. If vital, then Pakistan needs the tools in terms of military equipment to do the job. After spending many hundreds of billions of dollars in oil rich Iraq and Afghanistan in equipping those security forces, several tens of billions of dollars for Pakistan seems a bargain despite our own financial hardships.
Make no mistake: without these actions, the current Pakistani government will fall. The opposition, headed by Nawaz Sharif, is no friend of the United States or our Afghan policy. If that happens, in 2012, many will ask "who lost Pakistan?" The answer will be the Pakistanis. But we will have allowed it to happen.
