2. Northrop-Grumman X-47 UCAS:
Unmanned Combat Air System
Stealthy • Autonomous • Armed • Carrier Capable • Mid-Air Refuelable •
Can be operated from the Carrier it is launched from and not from a
control room on the other side of the world.
The Future of U.S. Naval Power Projection

3. To enable to the structural integrity needed for so small an aircraft
to handle the pounding of carrier launch & recovery, large amounts of
TITANIUM are needed in the construction of the X-47.
Additionally, as a very high-tech system utilizing state of the art
miniaturization, considerable RARE EARTH ELEMENTS are required for
many of its components.
Domestic sources for these two
CRITICAL COMPONENTS are lacking.
Titanium is most abundant in
Russia, while China possesses most of
the rare earth elements.
Just as was done to obtain the
titanium needed for the landing gear
of the famed SR-71 Blackbird, the CIA
has been setting up dummy companies
in Russia & China to support the X-47
program.

4. The Cyber-Warfare specialists (Hackers) of
the PLA have uncovered the identities of some
of the CIA front companies and have shared
this information with Russian officials.
In addition to political fallout from such
disclosures, there are concerns that unfriendly powers may be able to
steal technology that will assist them in reverse engineering and other
efforts to enhance their indigenous drone programs.
What are the policy options
moving ahead, with regard to the
practice using covert operations to
obtain critically needed resources
from denied areas to support our
VITALLY IMPORTANT drone agenda?

6. HELL…I DON’T KNOW!
AREN’T WE ALL SICK OF HEARING ABOUT
DRONES BY NOW?
Let’s just talk about something else
instead, shall we?

7. U.S. – Pakistan Relations:
Options for the Way Ahead
ADRIAN | OTAP
American Foreign Policy (POL 4733) Fall 2012

9. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and
the United States of America have had a
long and tumultuous relationship.
To understand the dynamics of this
relationship, the American side must be
viewed through the dual prisms of the
Cold War with the Soviet Union and
American self-interest, while the
Pakistani side should be viewed through
those of its conflict with India and its
need to prevent self-destruction at the
hands of its own internal problems.

10. To reach this understanding, it is
necessary to first review the origins and
history of Pakistan and the initial reasons
behind its relations with the United States.
What we know as the modern state of
Pakistan was formed on August 14, 1947.
The United States was one of the first
countries to establish diplomatic relations
with Pakistan, starting on October
20, 1947. It is a relationship that has been
based almost exclusively on military and
economic support.

11. When India gained independence from
Great Britain, it was partitioned along
religious lines at the behest of Dr.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of
Pakistan.
Those areas that had a majority Muslim
population became Pakistan, while the
remaining areas with Hindu majorities
became the Republic of India.
The problem with this partition plan was
that Muslims were in a majority on opposite
sides of India. Thus East Pakistan and West
Pakistan formed a single country, in two
non-contiguous parts, separated by 1000
miles of Indian territory.

14. The partition of India gave rise to the largest
migration of people in history: Muslims going to
Pakistan, while Hindus, Sikhs and others went to India.
These mass movements of people did not always go
smoothly or peacefully, resulting in the deaths of
hundreds of thousands.

17. At this point, the U.S. had a choice of
what to do about these two poor, heavily
populated countries in Asia.
America chose only one of the two
countries to become the beneficiary of
our friendship and over the following
decades, poured billions of dollars into
that country’s economy; training and
equipping its military and intelligence
service with the goal of creating a
reliable ally with strong institutions and
a vigorous democracy.

18. India was spurned this
opportunity of American friendship
and support because, despite being
a founder of the Non-Aligned
Movement, it was seen as tilting
toward the Soviet Union, while
Pakistan was seen as more of a
staunch supporter in the struggle
against communism.

20. And what has been
the end result 65
years later?

21. It is India that has become the nation
that the U.S. had hoped Pakistan would
turn out to be.
It is the world’s largest democracy –
and a robust one at that. They have the
rule of law and secular legal institutions
held over from the British days. India is a
rising global economic power; the “I” of
the BRIC countries.
They are militarily powerful, share
American interests and the United States
hosts an Indian diaspora that is becoming
more politically important domestically.

22. Pakistan, meanwhile, is one of the
most anti-American countries on earth, a
state-sponsor of terror and a nuclear
proliferator.
Socially, economically and politically, it
verges on collapse. It is a failed state that
pretends that it isn’t. It has been
described as not so much a country, but an
army that pretends it is a country.
Even then, it has a government that is
unable to control much of its territory and
an intelligence agency, the ISI, which
effectively functions as a state-within-a-
state.

23. Not to mention the issues of regional
instability caused by the ongoing Cold War
between India and Pakistan – a standoff where
traditional MAD Doctrine does not apply,
despite both being Non-NPT nuclear states.

25. Pakistani Anti-American Sentiment:
Why do they hate us?
#1: Is it because of our freedoms, values
and decadent culture, as so many
suggest?
#2: Or is it, as suggested by Michael
Sheuer, former head of the CIA’s bin
Laden Unit & author or “Imperial
Hubris”, because of our actions and
policies in the Middle East and greater
Islamic World?

26. Probably the second reason…

27. Pakistan has been ruled by 4 military
dictatorships and has had the post of Prime
Minister abolished 5 times in its short
history.
Even when Pakistan is not under the
control of the military, its legitimate political
parties are dynastic, representing the
interests of the few select families
dominating the political scene.
Thus, there is widespread corruption
resulting, not from a lack of values in the
Western sense, but because of ancient
values of loyalty to family and clan, which is
looked upon positively in the region, despite
the nepotism that stems from it.

28. Policy Alternatives:
Alternative Policy #1:
The U.S. should continue the
current policy of nominally trading
economic & military aid for
Pakistan’s assistance with GWOT
activities in Afghanistan and, at
times, within Pakistan itself.

29. Policy Alternatives:
Alternative Policy #2:
Stop pretending that the U.S. and
Pakistan are not enemies; label
Pakistan as a state supporter of
terror & a nuclear proliferator and
place strict conditions upon any
future economic or military aid.

30. Policy Alternatives:
Alternative Policy #3:
The U.S. should work will all parties
with a stake in the Afghanistan-Pakistan
(AFPAK) region such as the EU, Iran and
particularly India, China & Saudi Arabia to
take a holistic approach (including some
elements of the Ijaz Memo to ADM
Mullen) to strengthening Pakistan’s
infrastructure & social institutions and
fostering greater integration with the
regional and world economies.

31. Alternative Policy:
Pros & Cons

32. Policy #1:
PROS: • Least amount of change required
• Consistent; Maintains status quo
• Current U.S. interests are served
CONS: • Continued public condemnation
of drone strikes
• Civil – Military split will remain in
place in Pakistan
• Must use careful target selection

33. Policy #2:
PROS: • Drone strikes continue
• No need to ask for Pakistan’s
“permission”
• Less likely that U.S. funds/arms
used to support terrorists or
military regime
CONS: • Condemnation of drone strikes
increased
• Pakistan’s civilian government
destabilized or overthrown by
military

34. Policy #3:
PROS: • Not just the U.S.’s problem –
Responsibility shared among a
number of countries
• Lessened tension between India &
Pakistan
• Pakistan globally integrated & stable
CONS: • Strong resistance from Army and ISI
• Terrorist proxies no longer under
control

35. Policy Recommendation:
Policy #3 is the course we should
pursue going ahead. A more stable
Pakistan that is integrated, both internally
and with the rest of the world is in
everyone’s best interest.
Over the course of our six-decade
relationship with Pakistan, we have
provided them with untold billions of
dollars in assistance. To say that we have
not received a very good return on this
investment would be an understatement.

36. It is time to cut our losses, but
without cutting Pakistan loose
entirely.
They should not be written off
completely as a bad debt. Past
experience during the Carter, H.W.
Bush and Clinton administrations
has shown that bad things
generally happen when Pakistan is
left bereft of foreign aid and left to
its own devices.

37. The United States has not been
dealing with Pakistan on the basis of a
long-term strategy to build them up,
better integrate them into the world
economy and fostering lasting stability
along the lines of our policies with
respect to Germany, Japan or South
Korea.
Still, Pakistan shares much of the
blame for their for their situation –
having relied too heavily on U.S. aid
instead of responsibly pursuing their
own internal development.

38. Pakistan presently has a civilian
government in place willing to work with
us to take bold steps for reform.
This is an opportunity that should not
be ignored.
There will still be areas where U.S. aid
can play a role, but NGO’s and
international organizations will be
required to fulfill the promise of building
the foundations, infrastructure and inter-
connectivity needed to stabilize Pakistan
and then the whole of South Asia as well.

39. Improvement in the areas of human
rights and women’s right issues should
also go a long way towards long-term
stability for Pakistan.

40. “…it’s disconnectedness that defines
danger. If you think about
globalization as a process of
integration, then the definitions of
crisis we now face, like a 9/11, are
instances where connectivity is
disrupted.”
Thomas P.M. Barnett
Author of “The Pentagon’s New Map”