- By Josh Rogin
Josh Rogin covers national security and foreign policy and writes the daily Web column The Cable. His column appears bi-weekly in the print edition of The Washington Post. He can be reached for comments or tips at email@example.com.
Previously, Josh covered defense and foreign policy as a staff writer for Congressional Quarterly, writing extensively on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, U.S.-Asia relations, defense budgeting and appropriations, and the defense lobbying and contracting industries. Prior to that, he covered military modernization, cyber warfare, space, and missile defense for Federal Computer Week Magazine. He has also served as Pentagon Staff Reporter for the Asahi Shimbun, Japan's leading daily newspaper, in its Washington, D.C., bureau, where he reported on U.S.-Japan relations, Chinese military modernization, the North Korean nuclear crisis, and more.
A graduate of George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs, Josh lived in Yokohama, Japan, and studied at Tokyo's Sophia University. He speaks conversational Japanese and has reported from the region. He has also worked at the House International Relations Committee, the Embassy of Japan, and the Brookings Institution.
Josh's reporting has been featured on CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, CBS, ABC, NPR, WTOP, and several other outlets. He was a 2008-2009 National Press Foundation's Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellow, 2009 military reporting fellow with the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism and the 2011 recipient of the InterAction Award for Excellence in International Reporting. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.
As Congress contemplates cutting U.S. aid to Pakistan in light of the discovery that Osama bin Laden had been hiding there for years, the funds most at risk from disgruntled lawmakers are those currently allocated to the civilian government that is more sympathetic to Washington, rather than the money going to the Pakistani military, which is more wary of ties to the United States.
This irony is not lost on senior U.S. lawmakers who are thinking about scaling back promises of economic assistance. Most vulnerable are the funds promised under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package, which total $7.5 billion over five years.
Top senators admit that the civilian government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has staked a lot of its credibility on its decision to stand by Washington. But many in Congress say that the United States needs the Pakistani military to help it fight the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, so they’re more reluctant to cut this funding.
"The part that I’m most skeptical of is the economic part, the 5 year Kerry-Lugar plan," Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) told The Cable in a Tuesday interview.
Levin’s committee has control of the Pakistani Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which goes directly to the Pakistani military, but he won’t cut that funding in his authorization bill.
"It’s not a matter of which part of the government to support, it’s the mission or activities that are in our interest. And the military pieces that we’re supporting, which is reimbursement of their costs for supporting our effort in Afghanistan plus training their military on the border, that’s clearly in our interest," Levin said.
He said it’s also in the U.S. interest for Pakistan to develop into a stable democracy that can provide for itself — but that’s not the most pressing issue at the moment.
"Sure, that’s also in our interest but not as clearly," said Levin. "Plus, the money is much more easily transferable on the economic side than on the military side."
Several top senators, including Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Ops chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), also want to scale back the Kerry-Lugar-Berman funding because they don’t feel it’s being wisely spent or that the oversight is in place.
Two lawmakers who have called for a review of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman funding in the wake of the bin Laden killing are Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), two of the three authors of the legislation. As leaders on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, they play a role in authorizing the funds each year.
"Very little of the money has been spent — only $179 million has been allocated from the $1.5 billion this year — largely because we never worked out the accountability of the money, who in Pakistan would spend, how we would audit what they were doing, nor have we agreed on the projects," Lugar told The Cable in a Tuesday interview.
"We’ve made very little headway," Lugar said, although he added that he is among those who want to keep up ties with both Pakistan’s military and civilian officials.
"We have to stay engaged and we’ve been through this before," he said. "We need to find ways to have a better rapport with Pakistan."
Berman has criticized the administration’s decision to certify that Pakistan "demonstrated a sustained commitment towards combating terrorism," a requirement under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill passed last year. He wants the administration to use the money as leverage to pressure the Pakistanis to more aggressively go after militant groups.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) told The Cable on Tuesday that he would soon send a letter to President Barack Obama demanding that funds to Pakistan be cut off if the administration can’t stand by that certification.
According to the most recent chart compiled by the Congressional Research Service (PDF), the U.S. government has given Pakistan $20.7 billion in aid since fiscal 2002, and is requesting another $2.9 billion for Pakistan in next year’s budget.
From that total, $14.2 billion has gone to the Pakistani military, primarily for coalition support funding, reimbursement for counterterrorism operations, and foreign military. Of the $6.5 billion in aid to Pakistan that has gone to the civilian side, $4.8 billion was provided to "economic support funds," and the rest was spread out between programs such as food aid and international disaster assistance.
UPDATE: Berman’s spokesperson Gabby Adler writes in to clarify Berman’s position on the aid:
Ranking Member Berman is primarily concerned about security assistance for Pakistan. The section 203 certification made by the Secretary of State applies to security assistance, not civilian assistance, and Mr. Berman maintains that strengthening Pakistan’s civilian government and democratic institutions remains one of the few ways to ensure a long-term, healthy relationship with that country.