"The instinct there is to stop aiding regimes that fundamentally harm American security interests," said LeVine, a history professor and Middle East expert. "I'm all for that, but if you're going to start with Pakistan, you're going to end up not giving aid to anyone."
Rohrabacher stuck to his position after the revelation that Bin Laden had been hiding out in Abbottabad, which is close Islamabad, for years and the persistent post-mortem questions about whether Pakistani authorities had been harboring America's most wanted man — and that it was not the first time Pakistan has behaved in a questionable way toward its American benefactor.
"After Osama, we can't fool ourselves into thinking Pakistan is our ally," Rohrabacher told the Pilot.
The type of legislation proposed by Rohrabacher is reactionary and too broad, given Pakistan's instability and its complex and delicate relationship with the United States, the academics said.
"It's more of a knee-jerk, more of a gut reaction, that doesn't allow for any nuance," said Lynch, a professor of history and director of UCI's Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies.
"The idea of pulling all aid is definitely not a good idea," she said. "It's sort of a reaction because there are other types of aid that are potentially more constructive."
On May 5, days after Navy SEALs swooped down on Bin Laden's urban hideaway in a nighttime raid and killed the Al Qaeda leader, Rohrabacher introduced House Resolution 1790 that would cut U.S. funding to Pakistan.
Pakistani military and intelligence leaders have maintained that Bin Laden had sought haven in Abbottabad.
Rohrabacher said that if harboring Bin Laden was the only instance of Pakistan acting as an enemy to the U.S., then such legislation would be premature.