Senate Republicans and Democrats pressed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday to justify U.S. relations with an increasingly unpredictable Pakistan, a day after President Obama announced his troop-drawdown strategy for neighboring Afghanistan.
Mrs. Clinton defended the president’s regional strategy and the nation’s diplomatic relationship with Pakistan, which she described as a sometimes “very outraging experience,” in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senators pushed Mrs. Clinton to explain why Pakistan receives the third-largest amount of U.S. security aid in the world, despite its record of compromising ties to regional terrorists. In May, U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in Pakistan.
Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican, questioned Pakistan’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan.
“We’re understanding that many of the leaders of Pakistan really don’t want to see a stabilized Afghanistan. And so [their] interest, while we’ve given them billions and billions of dollars of aid, is different from ours,” Mr. Corker said. “Pakistan would just as soon we leave Afghanistan immediately.”
Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and committee chairman, said that the U.S. government spends $2.9 billion a year in aid to Pakistan, a country where polls find the U.S.’s approval ratings at 12 percent, equal to those of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
“It has a much more combustible brew of terrorist extremist groups than Afghanistan and its territory is being used today to plot attacks against neighbors, as well as against America and Europe,” Mr. Kerry said.
Mrs. Clinton said the State Department takes a pragmatic approach to Pakistan.
“We’re going to demand more from them,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But we are not going to expect any miracles overnight.”
“Despite the death of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups maintain a strong presence, and there is no question that the threat of these groups combined with worries about state collapse, a Pakistani war with India, the safety of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan’s intersection with other states in the region make it a strategically vital country, worth the cost of engagement,” Mr. Lugar said.
She declined to comment on whether U.S. generals in Afghanistan supported the plan.
“It would be totally understandable that a military commander would want as many troops for as long as he could get them,” she said.
In a separate hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, also on Thursday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he supported the president’s decision to withdraw the troops.
“More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course,” Adm. Mike Mullen testified. “But that does not necessarily make it the best course.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
By Andrew P. Napolitano
The president's men trash the Constitution to pursue antagonists
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
Musings of a bilingual, agnostic, combat veteran and jewelry maker.
Find up-to-date information on the D.C. and Baltimore live music scenes and read interviews with artists and reviews of the latest releases and concerts.
Doni Kandel shares his self-prescribed cocktail of humor and hard-nosed honesty required to remain a passionate and sane conservative and Zionist in today's tumultuous world.
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention