U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

==My arguments==C1: Generalities about aidMy arguments about foreign aid itself still applies, since if we come to the conclusion that foreign aid generally fails, then determining to continue to send aid to Pakistan is illogical. Besides, my opponent doesn't give much reason to as why Pakistan is different or should be treated differently then other countries in which aid has failed. Furthermore, I never tried to say that aid fails without total success. Instead, aid usually doesn't create enough of an impact. As I stated before, even places where aid has so called been successful, the area still seems to be struggling. Pro tries to justify aid through programs such as The Global Fund, but this organization isn't government controlled.My opponent also gives a source that states generally US Aid programs have positive democratic change in countries.However, from the same sources, it states:"Democracy assistance, however, is less effective when the U.S. provides larger amounts of military assistance. Our model suggests that, as countries receive larger amounts of US military aid, the impact of USAID democracy assistance matters less and less, and among the few countries that receive larger than 1.1% of US military outlays, the effect of USAID DG assistance is statistically indistinguishable from zero." [2]Since most of our aid since 2002 has been military aid (over two-thirds out of the 20.7 billion) [1], it seems like US aid has had no effect in Pakistan specifically.Aid can be used in foreign policy as a tool, as demonstrated by my opponent's example of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. However, that only worked due to mutual consent between Egypt and the US to deliver aid. However, in Pakistan, the majority of the population do not wish to receive American aid, meaning that they will likely not be influenced by our aid [3].C2: Is Pakistan an ally or enemy?Even if Pakistan is not an enemy, that just makes it more vital for us to follow their wishes. Many Pakistanis want the US to reduce their involvement in Pakistan, meaning that the US should just get out of Pakistan for now [4].Criminal networks are also drawn towards areas with low security, law enforcement, weak regulatory systems, etc [5]. Statistically, aid can worsen democracy, bureaucratic quality, the rule of law, and corruption, since it reduces government accountability [6]. States that are financed through aid are able to stay in power even with mismanagement and have lowered responsibility because leaders no longer need to care for the public as much [6]. Stopping aid will create a more efficient, productive government that benefits the people of Pakistan and further allows them to fight terrorists. The Pakistani government has shown signs of possibly supporting the Taliban [7], however the people of Pakistan disprove of the Taliban, along with several extremist groups [8]. The current government in Pakistan fails to recognize the popular opinion within Pakistan, hinting towards possible corruption.This would best be solved through the reduction of aid. Eventually, the entire government will hopefully be anti-Taliban and eventually support the US's fight on the Taliban.My opponent also claims that eventually a pro-terrorist regime will take control of Pakistan. This can't be true, since stopping aid will possibly lead to more democracy, meaning that the popular opinion which is anti-terrorist can prevail. ==My opponent's arguments==Past aid cutsI stated that cutting aid would likely not change a corrupt government's opinion, not that the policies in Pakistan would not improve. Instead, government change will be beneficial in changing Pakistan's policies. Even if Pakistan's current positions may present some benefits for the US, positive change through cutting aid can bring even more benefits.My opponent also states that the government of Pakistan is actually more supportive of the US then the population (which doesn't really represent a well developed democratic state that the aid supposedly lead to). The issue is that government inefficiencies reduce any benefit that our aid can have on the people of Pakistan, getting rid of the benefit the average citizen would get. Allowing improvement in the government develop would better allow future aid reach the people. Perhaps then, we could gain an ally with both the government and the people supporting us. Also, my argument on the possibilities of war and violence breaking out due to aid means that there is always a possibility for the government to start becoming overly aggressive. Although currently Pakistan may not be engaging in heavy warfare, the possibility is open if we continue to pour aid into the government. Prevention is key.Pakistan has already shown that it feels threatened by India and may decide to attack the country of India. With China behind Pakistan and the US behind India, major war can break out between these countries. Stopping the possibility of aggression is vital when considering that Pakistan has the ability to start WW3, with Pakistan and China attacking India and the US. Tension is already growing between China and India [9].Diplomats favor continuing aidI don't think this argument is as important as the rest, since diplomats opinions are not as valuable as solid expert opinions. Many of the arguments provided by the diplomats themselves have already been answered in my other responses. Also, an important thing to point out is that I don't support stopping aid forever. It is only necessary to stop aid and allow Pakistan to recover and develop, and then perhaps send aid if needed.Would withdrawing aid would make Pakistan an enemyMy opponent cites evidence that only shows the Pakistan military becoming more and more angry as we reduce aid for them. However, currently the same NY Times article that my opponent used also states.."rising anger from midlevel Pakistani officers and the Pakistani public that senior military leaders, including Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful army chief of staff, are too accommodating to the Americans."Furthermore, although Pakistan has demonstrated that it can ally with the Taliban to achieve its goals, this is unlikely through the fact that Pakistan now currently has a negative view on the Taliban and even sees it as a threat instead of a possible ally [8]. About 79% of Pakistan see political corruption as a major issue that needs to be solved [10].==Conclusion==Although I haven't addressed the issue of sources yet, I will touch upon the credibility of my sources. Anyways, the current negative influences in Pakistan can be solved through the US leaving and allowing the people to fix the situation. Perhaps then, a more prosperous relationship may be pursued. Clearly I have shown that continuing to provide aid at this rate can result in many bad outcomes including war.Sources[1] http://www.csmonitor.com...[2] http://pdf.usaid.gov...[3] http://www.mcclatchydc.com...[4] http://www.csmonitor.com...[5] http://citation.allacademic.com...[6] http://www.aeaweb.org...[7] http://www.aljazeera.com...[8] http://www.pewglobal.org...[9] http://www.time.com...[10] http://www.pewglobal.org...