Pakistan's leaders dread US Democrats win but its households are praying for it

[Blain2]

Possibly. Though no one in Congress opposed FMS to Pakistan to upgrade its PAF F-16s. But if the US were paying for the upgrade, Congress would oppose it. In January, Congress will take a closer look at the cryptocurrency deal, the mining deal, and assorted deals that look shady on the surface.

FMS is "Sales" and not "Assistance". Pakistan pays for the upgrades it gets. Pakistan has not gotten any military assistance from the US since 2017 (when they had the ISAF funding intact).

 

[Blain2]

It's very important Pakistan gets the space to fix its economy and society after decades of war and terrorism.

Nitpicking its internal politics and finger pointing is not the way forward. It's combative, needlessly so.

If overseas Pakistanis are so concerned then they should go back to Pakistan instead of trying to dupe their local politician into making statements.

I hope El-Sayed's flippant remarks are not a precursor to democrat party conduct if it gets into power in the next elections and the next President is more pragmatic in its engagements with Pakistan.

Abdul El-Sayed threw in Pakistan along with Egypt and others to hammer the point that military assistance to any country, including Israel, should stop. He obviously is not aware that Pakistan does not get military assistance like Israel, Egypt and Jordan do. That has not happened for close to a decade in Pakistan's case.

 

[nahtanbob]

It's very important Pakistan gets the space to fix its economy and society after decades of war and terrorism.

Nitpicking its internal politics and finger pointing is not the way forward. It's combative, needlessly so.

If overseas Pakistanis are so concerned then they should go back to Pakistan instead of trying to dupe their local politician into making statements.

I hope El-Sayed's flippant remarks are not a precursor to democrat party conduct if it gets into power in the next elections and the next President is more pragmatic in its engagements with Pakistan.

El-Sayed does not determine Congressional policy. but he was crystal clear on telling local Pakistani Americans that he considered Pakistan not to be a democracy. He compared Pakistani government with that of Egypt. He is of Egyptian ancestry

 

[Master Chief]

El-Sayed does not determine Congressional policy. but he was crystal clear on telling local Pakistani Americans that he considered Pakistan not to be a democracy. He compared Pakistani government with that of Egypt. He is of Egyptian ancestry

Yes. And ?

 

[nahtanbob]

Yes. And ?

He is not voting for any bilateral assistance to Pakistan if he is in a committee on foreign relations or armed services. I doubt he will be on the Senate armed services committee. It will be interesting if he seeks membership on Senate Committee on Foreign Relations or if he gets nominated.

In either case, it has no bearing on IMF loans which is probably what the Pakistani government wants

 

[Master Chief]

He is not voting for any bilateral assistance to Pakistan if he is in a committee on foreign relations or armed services. I doubt he will be on the Senate armed services committee. It will be interesting if he seeks membership on Senate Committee on Foreign Relations or if he gets nominated.

In either case, it has no bearing on IMF loans which is probably what the Pakistani government wants

Because USA has historically enacted biparty assistance to Pakistan? Because the Dems have always been pro-Pakistani in their outlook?

Did I completely miss this particular epoch in history?

 

[Pakistan First]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistans-leaders-dread-us-democrats-win-its-households-are-praying-it-2026-11-06/

Surprisingly accurate assessment from Reuters

I think it does not matter whether Republicans or Democrats.

They only see United State's core interests in the region. They don't care if democracy lives in Pakistan or not. I think they actually prefer military dictators in Pakistan. They know Pakistan army will not leave politics aside.

So this election won't matter as far as dire condition of Pakistan's democracy is concerned or its legitimate imprisoned national leader. Current Military establishment + current setup won't ever let him come out alive. They know its either him or them.

 

[nahtanbob]

Because USA has historically enacted biparty assistance to Pakistan? Because the Dems have always been pro-Pakistani in their outlook?

Did I completely miss this particular epoch in history?

only during times of war - Afghan war, WOT

no reasons for the money spigot at this point

 

[Watandar]

Abdul El-Sayed threw in Pakistan along with Egypt and others to hammer the point that military assistance to any country, including Israel, should stop. He obviously is not aware that Pakistan does not get military assistance like Israel, Egypt and Jordan do. That has not happened for close to a decade in Pakistan's case.

The larger point is that Western assistance, whether cash or aid or bailouts via IMF/World Bank or other means like US Import Export bank loans etc, to all these dictatorships needs to end. The US needs to move on to a world where it builds long term relationships with the people, civil society and economies of these nations and not just autocrat elites who perform geopolitical favors. This is an approach similar to China's Belt and Road.

Western aid and assistance is keeping autocrats alive in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan etc who would have collapsed decades ago if they had to survive on their own resources. One example is Pakistan which has been in and out of the IMF emergency room since 1958.

These autocrats have deeply retarded the political institutions, civil society, freedoms and economies of their nations and then cunningly divert their people's anger to America.

The biggest loser of the US midterms was JD Vance. The second biggest was Asim Munir who put all his eggs in the Trump/Vance basket , thinking he is all set for another 6-10 years but who now faces a US administration more hostile to dictators in 26 months time.

 

[Blain2]

The larger point is that Western assistance, whether cash or aid or bailouts via IMF/World Bank or other means like US Import Export bank loans etc, to all these dictatorships needs to end. The US needs to move on to a world where it builds relationships with the people, civil society and economies of these nations and not just elites who perform geopolitical favors. This is the approach China has taken with its Belt and Road.

Western aid and assistance is keeping regimes alive in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan etc which would have collapsed decades ago if they had to survive on their own resources. One example is Pakistan which has been in and out of the IMF emergency room since 1958.

The biggest loser of the US midterms was JD Vance. The second biggest was Asim Munir who put all his eggs in the Trump/Vance basket , thinking he is all set for another 6-10 years but who now faces a more hostile US administration in 26 months time.

There is a vast difference between military assistance/aid vs. IMF/WB loans. All of Pakistani loans from IMF/WB go into the specific projects whether there is a military dictatorship or parliamentary government. So obviously these funds are going to the people, infra, civil society and for bolstering the economy with all of their conditions.

Second, I am not sure if I see Asim Munir or anyone in Pakistan being a loser or anything. Pakistani policies carry on regardless of whosoever is in the WH. There's nothing that Pakistan can do about that since we certainly don't have any clout like AIPAC etc. Pakistan's entire gameplay is to keep from crossing the US and creating trouble for itself. For some reason, you and some others have a lot of faith in the US politicians for restoring some sort of altruistic system of governance in Pakistan. Pakistan is too big and too complicated for that to happen except by muddling through it by itself.

He can stay in his appointment for the term that he has been granted, what can the Americans do? It is Pakistan's internal security architecture. Except passing some resolutions and asking for IK to be given more freedom (which he should be), what more can happen? Last, it is also very simplistic for you to suggest that just because it's the end of Trump's term, suddenly the whole USG will turn hostile. Biden was not as friendly, but he was also not hostile. By the way, the one who put the most severe sanctions on Pakistan was a Republican (Bush Senior). So Pakistan will carry on inshallah.

 

[Watandar]

There is a vast difference between military assistance/aid vs. IMF/WB loans. All of Pakistani loans from IMF/WB go into the specific projects whether there is a military dictatorship or parliamentary government. So obviously these funds are going to the people, infra, civil society and for bolstering the economy with all of their conditions.

Second, I am not sure if I see Asim Munir or anyone in Pakistan being a loser or anything. Pakistani policies carry on regardless of whosoever is in the WH. There's nothing that Pakistan can do about that since we certainly don't have any clout like AIPAC etc. Pakistan's entire gameplay is to keep from crossing the US and creating trouble for itself. For some reason, you and some others have a lot of faith in the US politicians for restoring some sort of altruistic system of governance in Pakistan. Pakistan is too big and too complicated for that to happen except by muddling through it by itself.

He can stay in his appointment for the term that he has been granted, what can the Americans do? It is Pakistan's internal security architecture. Except passing some resolutions and asking for IK to be given more freedom (which he should be), what more can happen? Last, it is also very simplistic for you to suggest that just because it's the end of Trump's term, suddenly the whole USG will turn hostile. Biden was not as friendly, but he was also not hostile. By the way, the one who put the most severe sanctions on Pakistan was a Republican (Bush Senior). So Pakistan will carry on inshallah.

Pakistan will of course carry on. The question is who will be in charge ? A civilian government that for its faults is still ruling the country according to the Constitution and interested in peace and domestic development or yet another dictator whose main value proposition to the world is that he is available for hire for geopolitical jobs ?



Slowly the view in the US is that preferring the latter option for Muslim autocracies like Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan has been bad for America in the long term and has deeply retarded the growth of these very nations as well.