Though only two paragraphs, the editorial in question describes the situation in harsh terms several times. It is termed as “Washington’s punitive move to withhold military assistance”, “hitting back”, an attempt to “bully Pakistan into submission”, and “punitive actions”.

But is this really a case of US attempting to “bully Pakistan into submission”?

According to Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan, the funds are tied to training programs that have been suspended.

Equipment aid the United States is withholding is “directly tied to those decisions by the Pakistani military to curtail training and to not grant visas for some of the U.S. personnel that we need to get in,” Lapan said. “If those things change, then this aid will change as well.”

This was confirmed by the Foreign Office. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar told Dawn that “The $500 million cut in US aid to Pakistan is due to the drop in US trainers in Pakistan”.

Therefore the aid in question is on hold because the trainings are on hold. Now we must ask, why are the trainings on hold? Is this another sign of America abandoning Pakistan? Actually quite the opposite. The trainings are on hold because Army kicked the American trainers out.

Gen Kayani, confirmed American military trainers had been kicked out of Pakistan in retaliation at the American raid and said intelligence sharing had been curtailed.

Let us consider the confirmation of COAS Gen Kayani with that of the American military spokesman Col Lapan. If Pakistan kicked the American trainers out, but the Americans say that they will come back if re-invited then this cannot be abandoning Pakistan.

It should also be asked that if the US is punishing Pakistan, why did Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides telephone Minister for Finance Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh to assure the Minister that the Americans are committed to providing economic assistance to Pakistan?

At the State Department, spokesman Toner told reporters that Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides telephoned the Pakistani finance minister earlier on Thursday and discussed with him the importance of continuing cooperation on the US-Pakistan civilian assistance programme.

“Deputy Secretary Nides reiterated to Minister Shaikh that the United States remains committed to working in partnership with Pakistan to fuel economic growth and to improve its energy, education and health sectors,” the spokesman said.

Mr Toner noted that since the passage of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman, the US had dispersed about $2 billion in civilian assistance, which included over $550 million in emergency humanitarian assistance during the floods.

“We do have a slowdown on the security side, but our civilian assistance remains undeterred,” he said.

“The crux of the conversation was about the continuing flow of civilian assistance and how best to ensure that that meets Pakistan’s needs.”

DG ISI Pasha is presently in Washington to hold talks at the highest levels with his American counterparts. There are real issues that must be discussed and worked out between Pakistan and the US to promote each countries interests. When media mischaracterises actions such as withholding of aid, it makes it more difficult for officials on both sides to overcome suspicion and see the other side’s point of view.

An American political newspaper described the proposed changes as a request for greater transparency and accountability in how the Congress is spending American tax payer’s money.

Legislative language withholds three-quarters of the funds until the Defense and State Department come up with a report to Congress on how the money is being used and what metrics are being used to measure progress by Pakistan in rooting out terrorist and Taliban elements inside its borders.

These may be simply accounting details intended to prevent corruption, but this is not how the proposed changes to American aid are being characterised by the media.

On Friday, Dawn misreported proposed changes to American aid in an article titled, ‘Obama to address Pakistan’s concerns’. The Dawn article includes the following claim:

Earlier this week, lawmakers proposed linking 75 per cent of US assistance to Pakistan to its performance in the war against terror.

Dawn is not the only media group to sensationalise the story by characterising it as a punishment or another example of the ‘do more’ mantra. On Thursday, Dunya reported that ‘US Congress seeks to axe Pakistan’s aid by 75%’.

The US Congress Appropriations committee recommended a 75 percent reduction in the US aid to Pakistan.

This claim is incorrect. The American Congressmen did not simply recommend reduction in US aid to Pakistan, but asked only for greater accountability and transparency in how the money is spent. If the money is not being spent properly, then it would not be granted. Looked at this way, the proposal is an anti-corruption measure in the US Congress.

To its credit, The News (Jang Group) reported the story more accurately:

The panel approved the $649 billion in defense spending bill on a voice vote and forwarded it to the full House for consideration, expected later this month. The Senate is still working on its version of the bill. The two houses must pass the same bill before sending it to Obama for his signature.

However it should be noted that The News report was actually taken directly from a report by Reuters without giving attribution. Additionally it should also be noted that The News changed the headline from the original Reuters piece:

‘House panel backs $649 billion in defense spending’

To a different headline that gives a story about the American political process and accountability a different meaning:

House panel puts bar on US aid to Pakistan

The report published by The News may be the most accurate of the stories quoted here, but it should be asked why did Jang Group choose to change the original headline?

Many media groups are reporting that American aid is being ‘barred’ or ‘cut’ when careful examination of the facts reveals that the American Congress appears to be including additional accountability and transparency measures that affect the US White House, not Pakistan. This is an important difference that should be clarified for the people. Unfortunately, the reporting appearing in the media is not clarifying the issue, it is confusing it.

Stratfor research does not support The Nation's claims

Only two days after their failed attempt to blame the government for problems at the Oil & Gas Development Company (OGDCL), The Nation’s editorial writers published a new hyper-dramatic editorial declaring that the US is targeting Pakistan. After reviewing the evidence used by The Nation as well as actually reading the news this morning, it has become obvious that The Nation failed once again to do their homework before they published a sensational – and misinformed – editorial.

The Nation’s editorial, “US targets Pakistan,” is based on a new article by the American think tank “Stratfor” titled “Annual Forecast 2010″ and is available for free by email. We were unsurprised to read the article and learn that it does not support the claims made by The Nation’s editorialists. Additionally, news reports today include new information from the American White House and American military chief Admiral Mike Mullen that directly contradict The Nation’s claims. Once again, The Nation has failed to do its homework.

To begin with, the think tank Stratfor is not part of the American government. Rather, according to their “About Us” page on their website, Stratfor is a private company that “provides an audience of decision-makers and sophisticated news consumers in the U.S. and around the world with unique insights into political, economic, and military developments.”

So, what does the US government and military say about plans to target Pakistan? Today’s Dawn reports that the Americans plan no direct military intervention in Pakistan.

The White House and the US military chief indicated on Wednesday that there would be no direct military intervention in countries like Pakistan or Yemen where Al Qaeda seemed to have established its bases.

…

“I’ve been to Pakistan one time before I took this job over, and I just made my 14th trip over the last couple of years just to give you an indication of the need to understand, the need to be there, the need to try to see challenges through other people’s eyes and not just take the American view from here in Washington,” he said.

This hardly sounds like the words of a military commander on the brink of invasion. Before The Nation decided that the Americans were knocking at Pakistan’s door, perhaps they should have rung them up to ask.

The original source of The Nation’s claims, however, is the Stratfor article titled, “Annual Forecast 2010.” We are publishing at the bottom of this piece the relevant portion in its entirety so that you may read and decide for yourself, but readers can also get the full paper for free by clicking here.

First, the Stratfor article does not say that the US is targeting Pakistan or that there will be a ground invasion of US troops into Pakistan, which The Nation’s editorial implies. What is says is that the military efforts being carried out in cooperation by US and Pakistani militaries may increase as more jihadis try to invade Pakistan while fleeing from Afghanistan, and that this would present some difficulties since the military efforts are unpopular already. In fact, the entire scenario is based on the US targeting Afghanistan with the Obama plan, not Pakistan.

Even The Nation says that this is the case in their own editorial:

“Officials in Pakistan also continue to express concern over the US troop surge in Afghanistan which they feel will not serve any meaningful purpose but will push more militants into Pakistan, thereby expanding the war further across the border into Pakistan’s FATA area.”

Which is it? Is the US secretly planning to target Pakistan? Or is the Obama plan going to increase the number of jihadis in FATA? The Nation’s logic makes no sense, and appears to be based on a predetermined political message rather than actual facts. The Nation says that “it now appears that the US intends to shift the centre of gravity of the war from Afghanistan to Pakistan,” but the Stratfor article that they provide as evidence says no such thing. The Nation’s editorialists have simply made this up.

Second, The Nation mischaracterizes the story as coming ‘in the wake of news that Americans in Pakistan are effectively operating outside of the law…’ This is simply not true. The article by Stratfor is clearly referring to the difficulty of anti-militant operations in Pakistan because both the US and the jihadis are unpopular: “U.S. efforts in Afghanistan (to say nothing of Pakistan) are already deeply unpopular.”

Third, The Nation also mischaracterizes what the Stratfor article says about relations with India. Unlike The Nation’s claim that Stratfor believes Pakistan’s assumed dependency on the US compels us to give in to American demands, the article actually clearly states that the US and Pakistan have their own interests and they both need to work in cooperation to find a way to engage with each other on fair terms. The Nation suggests that the US plan is to try to manipulate Pakistan, but the article they use as evidence says the exact opposite.

Fourth, The Nation says that “the US is aggravating the imbalance between Pakistan and India and actively encouraging the Indian leadership to up the hostile ante against Pakistan.” Their evidence for this is the recent statements by Indian military chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor. Perhaps The Nation staff does not know that Gen. Kapoor is not the American military chief and does not work for the Americans. In fact, The Nation’s allegation that Gen. Kapoor’s statements have any relation to America are simply conjured from thin air as there is no evidence of this at all. At this point, The Nation appears to be simply making things up for no reason.

The Nation concludes with the misleading assertion that “US aggressive designs towards Pakistan are becoming increasingly covert.” Nothing in the Stratfor article referenced by The Nation supports this claim. Actually, quite the opposite. The article quoted by The Nation calls for greater cooperation between US and Pakistani militaries.

Whatever your opinion about the current military and security situation in Pakistan, the fact is that The Nation’s editorial is once again not supported by the facts. Rather, it is simply a hodge-podge of unsupported conspiracy theories and make believe. Paranoid delusions might be entertaining, but they are not facts.

Perhaps The Nation thought that they could get away with this trickery because nobody would actually check their facts. They were wrong. A newspaper that claims to be “the most respected publication in English, with firm and constructive views, and excellent news coverage” should do a better job of getting their facts correct before they post alarmist and sensationalist editorials.

UPDATE: We received a request from Stratfor to remove the article that we had posted here as this is only supposed to be available to their membership. Actually, I think you can still get the full paper for free by clicking here. We recommend that you retrieve the paper directly from the Stratfor website so that you can read and judge for yourself.