Of more than $85 million requested by Pakistan in September 2006, Shinn said, $6.2 million was turned down.
Coalition Support Funds has come under scrutiny because the massive payouts to Pakistan have not been matched by significant progress against militant groups. In private, U.S. officials have acknowledged that they had little oversight of Pakistan's spending.
Under the program, the U.S. aid has paid Pakistan for costs incurred in staging military operations in the country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas -- operations that have been deadly for both sides, but have not significantly weakened Al Qaeda.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the terrorist network has been able to use its haven in the remote tribal lands of northwestern Pakistan to regroup and rebuild its ability to plan attacks against targets in the West.
U.S. officials have said that Pakistan used much of the U.S. military aid to pay for heavy equipment better suited for a regional conflict with its archenemy India than for anti-insurgency operations in the frontier territories.
Johnson, the author of the GAO report, said the agency was still examining where the military aid went and planned a more detailed account next month.
One congressional official who tracks U.S. aid said that the increase in aid denials suggested that U.S. officials had become more rigorous.
"But I wouldn't necessarily say 'problem solved,' " said the official, who discussed the politically sensitive program on condition of anonymity. The deferred or rejected amounts still represent only "a small fraction of the total that was allowed," the official said.
Congressional Democrats said the GAO report showed mismanagement of the Coalition Support Funds.
"The Bush administration has basically been shoveling taxpayer money to Pakistan, no questions asked, crossing its fingers and hoping that our Al Qaeda problem goes away," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who heads a subcommittee that has been investigating the program. "Our funding to Pakistan can no longer be a blank check."
--
peter.spiegel@latimes.com
greg.miller@latimes.com
