Transcripts For CSPAN2 After Words 20131111

You advised of the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Youre now professor at Boston University and the director of the south and central asia institute. You write ostensibly for the new york times, the wall street journal, the International Tribune to name a few of the publications. So you obviously have an inside view of this relationship. And i think just the title is a strong indictment of u. S. Policy towards pakistan. And in your words if i may quote, you said the u. S. Pakistan relationship, a tale of exaggerated expectation, broken promises and disastrous misunderstandings. I want to delve into what you mean by that a little later in the interview but first i want to ask you a simple question. What motivated you to write this book . As this book has been on my mind for many years i went to college in 1979 when several of my colleagues i was in karachi in the south of pakistan but my colleagues as students in islamabad burned dow turned dow. Embassy and people at karachi also wanted to go and burn down the u. S. Consulate. All of this was over an incident that had taken place in the holy place of islam. The shrine had been taken over by government and the threat americans were involved so people just went berserk. I was somebody that said we cant do this. We have to wait. We will not be able to unburden it to the next day if we find out that the americans are not involved. And because of that, i was always sort of wondering why do pakistanis have this kneejerk antiamericanism . Because what i had read about the United States and id never been to the u. S. Until then and what id known about the United States was the weaknesses and flaws of American Foreign policy and even domestic policy. While it was in my mind that i was analyzing and then of course the ambassador to the u. S. In the serving as ambassador i was concerned about how both sides sometimes say things about historical events that were just plain wrong. So as soon as i finished being a master, i decided that my first biography should be writing this book and researching it. And as you know, ive gone from 1947, the very beginning of how pakistan and the United States became allies herriot the thing that has always concerned me is why is this relationship dysfunctional, and why hasnt pakistan benefited from an alliance in the United States like others in the postsecondary war . Ive been to south korea and japan that was devastated in the Second World War but then it became an american ally after the Second World War and look at where japan is economically. South korea has prospered. All east Asian Countries have done it. Why didnt pakistan do well economically . What did we do wrong blacks i discovered there were productive pakistani leaders that have delusions about what they could get from the United States and american leaders were also delusional about what to expect from pakistan and hence the title of the book, magnificent delusions. Host lets talk more about those american delusions because you talked earlier in your book about George Kennan, that he was somebody that maybe didnt have such delusions. That he couldnt see the value of pakistan to the United States, and he in fact wanted to make it clear to the pakistanis that they shouldnt pay and hopes to the u. S. And i think there was some contrast between what he thought and what some of that, like john foster dulles, when he was secretary of state and 1950s had thought. And he apparently did think that the u. S. Could sort of by the standards loyalties. But if the u. S. Presented as military aid, pakistan would develop the same strategic interest as the u. S. So what do you think accounts for these differences and has anything really changed . I mean do we have the same guest we come to what has changed and what has not changed in a menace but lets go to the beginning. When pakistans first Prime Minister came to the United States in 1950, George Kennan was the first man that sent you have Unrealistic Expectations. Do you want assistance to confront india . We have no interest in new fighting india. Thats not what we want. You have thoroughly Unrealistic Expectations of what amounts of aid you want from the u. S. Pakistans first request was for 2 billion in 1947. A billion with a b. And the United States could give away 10 million, million within an. As it was a huge disparity. Now we must understand that can then of course was a foreignpolicy realist. He is most known for devising or conceptualizing the demon because he understood what the soviets wanted. The genius of George Mckenna George Kennan was he said we need to understand what the soviets were what race russia about, what did the soviets wa want. Unfortunately, the United States wasnt very keen on getting involved in pakistan in the beginning and didnt have any pool of experts about pakistan pakistans. Most of them were people of gandhi that like india and didnt actually found the idea of pakistan rather unrealistic. Many of them compared it to the pakistan poundage compared to Jefferson Davis by some people in the american media. But once pakistan was out to become a reality, the british suggested to the americans that they should activate palestinian leaders and develop. As you know, we are really hospitable people. Pakistans problems pakistan was about to get one third of British India military. But only 17 of the sources to need it wasnt going to have a vibrant economy and it didnt have the means to pay for its own military. They brought about pakistans own future and they value the nation together to be. But who would pay for the military. They said the pakistan could leverage the traffic location and get the system from the United States. The caveat was that in so doing, pakistan would not actually get involved in the American Military plans. So, from the beginning getting the assistance on false pretenses and they started interacting with military leaders absolve themselves as the yukon came to america and the first leader said our army will become your army if only you will give us money. People like dulles jean palmermoloney noted that he had a conversation with Walter Whitman in which he says to him you know, we cant fight and that is not a sign on pakistan and he said they are not pakistanis. And dulles says they are not pakistanis they are at least muslim and of course wit whitman points out that they are not muslims either, they are hindu. So its a typical ignorant american politician who didnt know the details between, but he knew he wanted allies against the United States, against the soviet union and he was lining up allies and pakistan was willing to be an ally. India was not. They wanted to be an ally in the cold war. But, within a few years, eisenhower was president and the secretary of state eisenhower said its a mistake to seek out allies and armed them and build up the military wing that when t military is never going to be for us to fight for which we are arming them. They will give the troops of her korea and the americas after and it provided to continue to fight communism. So this was how the mistake was made. The assumption that once we build up the army and we have equipped it, we will be able to make the change the focus. And dulles found that pakistans focus with india was not the soviet union, but still he thought if we remain in good relationships between the genders now your question has anything changed . Life year after serving as ambassador three and a half years is that some of the same thought processes linger and there have been people in the u. S. Government that think just a little bit more and we will be able to change this countrys perception of the national interest. There are people like me who view Pakistans National interest very differently. We think that the interest of pakistan should be to educate its people, to build a more prosperous country, to be at peace, but that isnt pakistans establishment. Host lets talk about how the military establishment has developed its worldview. You talk about in your book the fact that pakistani leaders instead of basing a foreignpolicy on the fact, that it is based on the nationalist identity. Could you talk a little bit about the evolution of this identity as you refer to it what has strengthened i and weakened overtime. You talked about in the beginning stages after pakistan was established the first leader over pakistan had a different view. Hheshe sold the country in a me pluralistic right and the identity of the nation, but it would certainly be a democracy. What changed in those initial years in pakistan . Guest the independence of pakistan came rather suddenly. The idea of pakistan was rooted and moved by the idea of having to separatthe separate country r own. Nobody talked about the details. In fact in all of my searches, i have and i have done another book about this on the relationship between pakistan groups and i called pakistan between the mosque and the military. And in all of my research i have never been most people havent been able to find what worth of detailed plans for the new country, demanding the new country should have a plan. It was it ended up being the country with two things in East Pakistan until 1971. It had a majority if you took it as one country but it came either from the migrants from india who moved to pakistan or from the punjab province. It was merrily drawn from the punjab, so you ended up having a potential interethnic disagreement really early on. Certain ethnic turks didnt agree with the notion of merging into pakistan. They said if you agree to be part of india than we should have our own. And all of these fears plus the potential of india trying to regain pakistan, which wasnt a realistic potential because in the early stage they said we dont want you back. We want to be friends with you, but we dont want you back. But the pakistani leaders thought that keeping enough security around would help overcome the ethnic and regional tensions within the country. And so, basically they just chose to make pakistan into orbit in islam o own nationalisc model. Of course there were riots but created another problem. Pakistan as conceived would have had 23 nonmuslim authorities. Having 23 percent of your population that is not muslim does not make it really easy to make it into a more religious. You have to provide for almost a quarter of your people who are not. About the riot was in a situation from which 23 percent of the population of the nonmuslims declined to 16 within two years. And that with all of the years its come down toda to dan pakin theres only 3 nonmuslims. So first came from muslim ossetian, muslimization and then he islalmization. He didnt allocate enough to education and therefore Pakistan Economic development got undermined. Of course american aid is a trend with 40 billion of aid since 1947. It has helped guide over but it hasnt created the economic base that is needed for a country might pakistan. I just gave two or three examples. Pakistans exports as a percentage of gdp or half of what the exports are of others of comparable sized market countries. Pakistans taxes as a percentage of gdp are one third of the amount of taxes that are collected in other countries. Foreign direct investment in pakistan is one third of what it is in other comparable countries. So, pakistan just didnt have an economic focus. And then very early on they were a political shall we say political vacuum after the death of the founder and the other big leader was assassinated. So there were too many politicians squabbling. And then the military stepped in to bring stability. And when the military stepped in, the military usually thinks in straight lines. They are not equipped for political thinking. So the military then decided whats not have an argument about what is Pakistani National or decide what it is. They have been teaching the islam of nationalism in schools and the early military leaders in the part that they could teach people something that they could have consequences in that position as an erroneous decision tree is eventually what would happen is that of the leadership that was emerging in the next generation have been more and more islamist than the founding fathers. Host that brings us to the point that not only is there an islam of nationalist foreignpolicy, but there is also very high levels of antiamerican sentiment within the population. But what your book points out that is so interesting is that a lot of this is actually inspired by pakistan leadership in order to get the americans are scared into supporting them. In other words, they may allow or fuel demonstration so that they can then argue that youve got to support us to control the antiamerican impulses into society. And this is nothing that is extremely frustrating. And i think that we saw that the recent v. Obama administration when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state you write about this that she confronts the pakistanis on this and says to the Senior Leadership behind closed doors at the meetings that why would you putting articles in the newspaper we know that you are fueling this antiamerican sentiment. It was missed because of her efforts to Carry Forward the bill providing, you know, 7 billion in u. S. Civilian assistance to pakistan over a perko of five years which is a huge deal to getting a bill passed through to congress and then as soon as it was passed you had a great deal of criticism that seemed to be coming from the Pakistani Military circles because they were not happy that the military aid was going to be conditioned with the whole aid package. So what is it, counterintuitive look, heres the thing. Heres why the word misunderstanding is in the title of my book. I could magnificent delusions pakistan, the United States, and an epic history of misunderstanding. The reason why i say that is that the americans took too many things at face value. Theres a demonstration they would say yes there might be people turning against us. There are many revelations in my book which people do find those revelations because they really delve into the declassified papers of the state department, gone to the former president ial libraries, you know, the eisenhower and nixon libraries. Host you were in a lot of these meetings. Guest when i was ambassador i was in a lot of meetings and the reason i went after these factoids is the meetings with officials they would say things, which the american official to say no, they are not true. So both sides have a different narrative. So then i decided i needed to investigate. And the pakistani officials often say pakistan is against the United States because the drowned strikes. But around the strikes have been there only a few years. The American Embassy was burned down in 1979. The demonstrations were as early as 1948 which is like seven or eight months after the creation of pakistan so what is the truth . And i have found that actually the first antiamerican officials complained to pakistan the potential because they did not exist at that time. And the newspaper to say you know the americans are sort of becoming the worlds new superpower in the world but they dont really care about the third world, e etc. So i investigated all the way to that first complaint. And the fact of the matter is that really early on, pakistans problem was getting attention. The people in america didnt know about this. And so, be antiamerican demonstrations were the way of getting attention. Heres this country emerging. Its leaders want to be the allies and the british people are potentially hostile. They have a very strong communist party. There is no serious common sense how do we attract that member was focused solely on the cold war. But if you came to the u. S. And sent by the way, we have a conflict with india we need your help to find them, then the answer is what can you give . So, you have to find people with whom you have some shared interest and the way to attract that is a Muslim Country that can possibly end up being the leader of the muslim world for the implications of the middle east if it has implications for the far east and felicia, indonesia. You need to take it seriously and if you want to take it seriously you need to take it serious in the military sense and not just in terms of providing aid or some technical assistance. You need to do that. Unfortunately, the way it has been done has created a dysfunction. Now, sometimes the hostility that is generated in the Public Opinion as a means of leveraging the relationship actually that hostility comes than with what relationship they want to have. So we have seen that on many occasions. You try to get more demonstrators out on the streets to help in the negotiating posture. I am pro american but my people are not. Therefore there are limits to what i can do for the u. S. And that in the process, what he ended up doing was he ended up tying his hands more and more. He could do less and less for the alliance and for the American Point of view, the problem in my opinion has been the very few american officials are willing to orchestrate. Look, i have dealt with the state department. Many are my friends who served in the state department at one time, but a lot of Times American diplomat basically pulled their punches. They dont confront leaders of other countries, which is why i actually praised Hillary Clinton for going to pakistan and saying things for which needed to be said, like remember she said that the greatest criticism is a comment that i cannot understand why nobody in pakistan knows that there have been where bin laden is. And when he told bin laden was found in pakistan. So what she was trying to do is bring out into the open a lot of the difficult discussions we were having in private. My view is that for this relationship to find some kind of a healthy way forward, miller of that needs to build. We need to talk openly about the complaints. But, it cant be based on these perceptions. Especially crafted perceptions. Host i think that youre right to be at Hillary Clinton had this unique ability to talk in a straightforward fashion but was still very liked by the pakistanis guest she was a mother figure and my point is that she three days out of 365 in a year and several hundred days you cant have just the secretary of state. I wish that the average american diplomat who wants to be willing to sometimes say excuse me, but thats not how it happens. Because time after time for the pakistani officials come to america and say america with pakistan down. And no american official turns around and says you know what, you also let us down and we asked you for troops in korea. We asked you for troops and we asked you not to build a Nuclear Weapon. Then we asked you to assist, to not support the groups after the Afghanistan War map. So yes, we have done a few things and cut off the aid a few times and havent put against india. We wont be able to do, but most candid discussions would have created with delusions. It would have created less confusion and there would have been less misunderstanding of people were honest with one another. Host and like you say in your book sometimes it is only at the end of the tenyear but u. S. Officials finally let loose with guest that is an observation in the book. People find it is chronologically returned and i come to my tenure as ambassador towards the end. But it is interesting. In 1953 and being elected in 1952. He sends the editor of a smalltown newspaper the New Hampshire newspaper called the monitor i think its called and the editor is james langley. He gets his support in the two campaigns. Then he arrives and goe it goesn and write something a bit like a long telegram saying what are we doing in this military that nobody in this military wants to fight the soviet . There is no node in this country to be part of and any anticommunist sort of activity. So, all that will happen is that our arms will end up being used against india and this is an 1957. And nobody take note that nobody towards the end of the tenure as the president by 1959, he starts seeing has he made a mistake by seeking out an ally and building it up without realizing that allys primary objective is not the same as us . That is eisenhower. Lyndon johnson when he becomes president , he actually steals away from john f. Kennedys policy of becoming closer to india and distancing it from pakistan. He says no. The cia is listening in pakistan and because pakistan is important. He tries to be as kind to pakistan as possible and when the congress cut off the aid he says we will try to get you the american tanks. And then he finally says to his team i think my decision to support pakistan i think i went overboard and made mistakes, you know. Mixing is the only one that is unabashedly pro pakistan and supports pakistan and the infamous 1971 war against the global opinion. Based on the assumption that pakistan is americas ally in indiana soviet ally and the allied wins and america is humiliated but guess what despite the american health, india did win and they were accused of supporting pakistans genocide. Move fast forward. President reagan was involved in the jihad in afghanistan and that is a project that was started long before the american support. If there wasnt an american project was a pakistani project supported by the u. S. They provided the guns, but the isi, the rand operation. But towards the end, George Herbert walker bush becomes president and realizes that some of the jihad egroups of a train printer with afghanistan are now being diverted and he threatens pakistan with the potential of accusing it of being a state sponsor of terror purpose and. And in 2,008 they basically right in the memoirs that i realized that musharraf should have warned me earlier that he wasnt going to be that all of his energy to fighting terrorist. Host talking about the u. S. President also talking about admiral mullen who met with general key on the 26 times in four years. And he thought that by developing this personal relationship, the more that he could get to know key on the better chance that he would do the things like crackdown on the haqqani network. But what he found at the end of his tenure in september the 2,011th that, you know, pakistan had changed. It was still supporting the groups. But what really made him give these statements in the congressional testimony this is the end of 2011 when he said basically the network is an arm of the isi. They should know that it has nothing to do host talking about one of the afghans who has a very deadly network working out of north was interesting and moving back and forth between afghanistan and pakistan conducting these deadly attacks against the u. S. On the u. S. Embassy in kabul. Host that have been to a few days or maybe a few weeks before admiral mullen testified. I have a full detail of that conversation in the u. S. Government and in relation in my book because i was part of it as ambassador. There has been a presumption that somehow if you can find just the right leader, especially in the military, he would be able to turn around the state of pakistan. It is an erroneous conclusion. Sometimes we have to combat the narrative with a narrative. If the narrative is, you know, it is a Muslim Country and you have a special place in the world and therefore some of the global rules dont apply to us. We told the americans we are not making it kept getting there a bitheir agebut then in the end e nukes that we said we were not thinking and maybe we did something at least we broke if nothing else, we broke a promise. But that can only be commented by america. But if we develop a personal relationship with keeping an eye on the other side, it will help us. That is not new. And admiral mike mullen wasnt the first to defend the head of the Pakistan Army. And the other admiral that was the joint chiefs who is duly mentioned in my book and president eisenhower and there was the same phenomenon going repeatedly meeting with the pakistani leader and building relations and in all sincerity he worked very hard, 26 meetings with anybody in a lot of meetings. He thought that the general who was the Pakistani Army chief was really committed and he just wanted to find that Tipping Point where they have the desire to eliminate their risk and the desire to maintain military balance with india he could find that Tipping Point where instead of india, Pakistan Military would start focusing more on terrorism as a problem. But interestingly, throughout this perko heated and sort of, you know, notice that part of the pakistani attitude in relation to india is what another secretary of state have told another president , they told Richard Nixon that the pakistani issues with india is that they could find a solution dont do this or that. There can be some kind of deal that they said that the pakistani was political and psychological you cant do anything about it. For example, when kennedy insisted that india and pakistan discuss the future of kashmir, the meetings were held and very frankly the indians offered pakistan a substantial amount of the territory to make that adjustment and let that be the final settlement. It was all or nothing. They say that it fears that afghanistan has fallen to the influence. But the influence in afghanistan comes purely from the economic influence and able to spend 2 billion on assistance in afghanistan and pakistan cannot match because its economy is smaller. And it isnt going fast enough. So, whats pakistan really needs is to address its own dysfunction to have a holistic big picture and an army chief however frantically he might be to the American Joint chiefs cannot change the psyche of the institution or the nation. Eventually he did say all that he felt after four years of trying he publicly had to say that pakistan had been using terrorism as a means of offsetting the disadvantage it has in india. And i am concerned about pakistan. I always want pakistan to overcome its dysfunction for pakistans sake and i want good relations with the United States but for a love of pakistan. Pakistan has to understand and realize as a nation that no other nation can stretch you and make you bigger than your neighbor. So in siz some ways it is an advantage to india. Pakistan needs to get over one thing and be happy with security with india as long as pakistan has Nuclear Weapons and they have weapons that security has been achieved during it now pakistan needs to trade with everybody in the neighborhood and the 48 percent of children who dont go to school in school and make sure path the population doesnt continue to rise at a pace that is much faster than the pace of Economic Growth and none of those things can be addressed just by building relations between an American Military personnel in y and the pakistan host i think that is absolutely true. And you know, if we sort of fast forwarding to look at the relationships over just the past few years we have seen a decline in the relationship particularly over the rate. Whats interesting i find it you have some interesting information about a meeting that took place in 1998. This is when the Clinton Administration was planning to do a tax on the al qaeda camps in afghanistan in retaliation for the bombing of the two u. S. Embassies in africa. And that u. S. Administration was in a quandary because they didnt want to inform pakistan ahead of time about these attacks because they thought the pakistani isi would kick off al qaeda and other military about the attacks. But at the same time they knew the missiles were going to be flying through the pakistani airspace and they didnt want pakistan to think that they were attacking. So in order to resolve this, but Clinton Administration sent a very trusted u. S. Counterpart for the pakistanis to have been there with the senior Pakistan Military guest he was sent host anyway i just thought so that he could be there, so that he could until then by the way guest they will fly through the space to afghanistan. Host let me ask you give them that this was done in that time perko would it make sense that the Obama Administration did the same kind of learning to the Pakistan Military leadership during or after the raid guest i think what, from the point of view of normal practice between allies it would have been prudent to have some kind of an arrangement whereby the pakistanis were told that we are conducting an operation in your territory. But heres the problem. The Obama Administration had already reached a conclusion. They made an effort to try Ambassador Richard holbrooke made an effort to do what he called the grand bargaining, a big deal in pakistans problems in india and afghanistan that addressed some kind of an orange meant to whereby pakistan just got out of the jihad he game. And that hasnt worked in their opinion. The suspicion of the Intelligence Services and the pakistan jihad networks were so high that it was a question of the risks. Even in 1998, even when they did it, they didnt get any senior al qaeda leaders. All of the Senior Leaders had left, you know . So there were at least some people who said it was just a coincidence. It could have been, but what if the American General was having dinner somebody from the dinner table went and used the cell phone in their bathroom and there is no evidence it happened and no reason to believe it didnt happen but nobody who was significant al qaeda was hit in the 1998 strike. So because of the background of president obama decided not to inform pakistan before hand. Another option would have been to do it jointly. But then again, it was a question of how do we make sure clicks because the problem of this and i would say that my own, being removed from the ambassadorship and the treason towards pakistan, etc. , but it points in that direction and the atmosphere has become so poisoned that this is actually a toxic relationship. So what if the military operation had been conducted intandthey felt Osama Bin Ladens children but not Osama Bin Laden. And president obamthen could pre lived with that . It would have been a very difficult thing for him to survive the american public. The third thing that the Obama Administration considered and defined details of that in the book and i hope that people who are watching this will buy the book and read it is the kind of offer that we did it alone but you know what, we can build the world jointly. We will not get into, you know, how we did it. There were people in the pakistan leadership who actually attempted to do that. But then within two to three days, what i call the sort of narrative pakistan got into the act and people stopped asking the question why a osama bin osn was in our country which was the more relevant question and started out asking other questions how do the americans come and violate our sovereign sovereignty. Now, my point is that in most nations, peoples perceptions are actually the result of what they are told. In case of pakistan for most of pakistans history, they have either been controlled or as it is now, it has independence in terms of ownership in the media. The media isnt fully owned by the government anywhere but the narrative is still fully controlled by either the Intelligence Service or the military. And we have seen a lot of the things tha thats been admiral e bolan stood up against. This was around that he was stepping down as the char divvied cochairmen. He said without going into details that americans had intelligence and the decision to eliminate have been taken at the highest level in Pakistan Military circles. Now if that is the environment, then obviously the views of the nation are being doctored. Theres a reason why if i should be teaching i at the universityf karachi and not Boston University i should be learning a think tank in islamabad. But if you think about it whether it is my malala or myself who calls for the review of the pakistan policies are Benazir Bhutto before she returned, anybody that has a worldview that is different to the narrow interpretation of the nationalist pakistan identity has been forced out into that narrative makes it impossible for cooperation between pakistan and the United States especially in the counterattack or was it because the narrative used to be sympathetic. And you have not asked the question to wor the word nucleat even featured. Pakistans Nuclear Design to third countries. If it had been in any other country he would be considered a killer. It is to be seen as a hero for enabled them to have a Nuclear Weapon. All of these dysfunctional aspects of pakistans life made it very difficult for the american president to say you know what, i am not going to take out Osama Bin Laden if i do not have the full pakistan cooperation. Host one wonders how long this narrative can be sustained in this idea that pakistan was abused and the pakistans have their own divergence from the way that the rest of the world sees pakistan and i think it is partly because of this narrative that the military and the isi is driving and the confusion that is so about who is the enemy and what is the threat . And you can just look out the distances between the reactions and the terrorist strikes that happened in Nairobi Kenya where ten days ago the leadership was very clear that he was part of al qaeda and that they want to cooperate with the counte counterterrorism efforts whereas in pakistan, and you have this bombing of th a church, killing over 85 people, but really the confusion reigns. There was mention of al qaeda and the fact that taliban and pakistan actually is like an arm of al qaeda. Guest one of the pakistani politicians went to the extent that the bombing was essentially some kind of a false operation to try to persuade the people of pakistan not to go ahead with the proposal to have talks with the ttp. I dont know if they are familiar with Punjab University which is one of the largest universities in pakistan. Hes a physicist. He has a phd and even came to the United States on a fulbright once. He wrote a book on 911 in which he says is kind of a 911 trooper. He says the world is run by bankers and he also has antisemitic views and then he says we control the world by planting microchips. Hes the head of the university and the president of the country doesnt say hey the staterun university. So, this is a state of denial. And you as asked at the outset y did i feel compelled to write this book . Its the same reason that i was compelled to write my earlier book. Somebody has to put up a with historical correct narrative. The previous but had the Pakistan Army at one time protested. And when i was the ambassador at one time copies of the book were so duly highlighted saying hes critical of the Pakistan Military. Im not criticizing to harm. Im trying to criticize to correct the course. As a citizen i should have that right. The first book pointed out how pakistans military had worked together for much longer than people understand and believe and realized. This book magnificent delusions pakistan, the United States and an epic history of misunderstanding is set again to set the record right. I have no i dont get any free pass to the americans or all of their mistakes, both in the mistakes that were made in an attempt to be made for pakistan and for the cynicism of individuals. But again, they have hundreds of citations of differences of course. Nothing is manufactured. And that is why i see. Sometimes people ask me in washington what do you think what settings apart right between pakistan and the United States and i would say an inherited change. What people face the truth. Pakistan is not economically backward because the world is denying it the right to be a Nuclear Weapon span. No, pakistan has actually missed our virginity on the economic front to become a nuclear pakistan. Host then we have to ask that question is this narrative stuck there and it doesnt matter what the u. S. Does in pakistan. Its not going to give him in terms of its policies supporting some terrorist groups and continue to sell confucians among the pakistani people about the threat of terrorism to the country. Would the u. S. Be better off rather than continuing to try to work with the country that is in denial . Do you get to the point that how is the u. S. Has tried everything in the book, putting pakistan on the list of the state sponsors of trigger was a mastermisuse in the early 90s. Guest if you see that episode in my book, you will find that the pakistanis never thought host maybe thats it. Guest here is the point. Theres a lot of options between ignoring and embracing between shooting someone into taking them out for dinner. The United States needs to explore those. But that first step would be for both an economic good for pakistan and it could be good for the United States to get over this view of the other as a data now i can read the truth is there is no ally and it is a shared enemy. The enemy for most people in pakistans military Intelligence Services and the establishment is not a terrorist. In fact in many cases they are potential allies. Similarly, for the United States, during the cold war, the enemy was expanding communism. And after that it has been terrorism. And in neither case has pakistan been the ally the americans fault. My view is that pakistan and the United States dont need to become adversities. They shouldnt. They should avoid that. But they need to have a more honest realitybased discourse and get the pakistani assumption that we are so geographically located in such an important area geographically that we are America Needs us more. If the United States could supply to berlin it surely can do with afghanistan if it feels it is this very. Saying things like we cant do without pakistan reinforces the dilution. On the american side if they keep the Pakistan Economy the significance is, but pakistan at some point needs to connect access. Pakistan at some point needs to reform its economy. So it may be a good idea for someone to tell them to reform first and get billions of give f dollars of American Investment because they go wherever they make money. Billions of dollars of American Investment in taiwan and south korea. Have you ever heard of a pakistan grant . Why not . It is the nation of 180 million people. We can be very productive peop people. If the University Leaders say rather than how the world really works if you deal with the europeans an or americans to get the microchip planted in her head that would make you a thought a good muslim, that kid isnt going to grow up to have the ambition of being the leading member of the Information Technology business, for example, and in silicon valley. So all of that needs to change but that change can only come if america says you know what, we are not buying this narrative. And at the same time, they keep pointing out what is not in americas interest. Why are you allowing them to voice their interest clacks host of i think that is a great point that if the u. S. Simply stops diving into the narrative, you know, some people talk about Pakistan Holding a gun to its head. I will shoot myself if you dont provide this aid or you dont do this. Its like taking hostages. So if the u. S. Can just stop listening to the pakistani lines, which apparently has been missing for 50 years now. To read your book i think it should be sort of a textbook for any u. S. Policymaker dealing with pakistan so that they can go into that relationship and know what they are going to hear and then get past that because its not only understanding the limits to what pakistan is capable of, but also understanding the dire armageddon scenarios as if you dont do this, pakistan is going to implode. Not believing those as well. Guest a and implosion of harm and hurt the people of pakistan but most. So if pakistan leaders use that as a bargaining talk for a Foreign Policy leverage that is not a smart thing. They should be concerned about the implosion for pakistans sake. But have you ever talked about why it is possible for a similar narrative to be used and repeated, repeatedly with separate and different administrations clacks and i have an explanation for that. Host you said in your book when sharif was mr. Guest he was and he turned around and said look americans that are redact history. And as long as we can satisfy them on the images can concerned they are going to look too deep. Host they always find somebody to defend. Guest we can always find somebody in washington dc who would be willing to lobby for us and to agree with us and to support us. Its all about finding the right price and the right people. I have minutes of those meetings that i have cited and it gives a window not only on the u. S. Pakistan relationship. I sometimes think that this is working on the u. S. Pakistan relationship and its also made me understand some of the weaknesses in americas Foreign Policy how the decisions are made. I often say that it is the only nation in the world where when you see that history, what you really mean is that it is irrelevant. But in other nations in their case it is not irrelevant. History matters. And history actually illustrates a path for the future. Host lets hope that people in the administration will learn how to deal with pakistan and this is a great book for anybody that wants to know more about the history of the u. S. Pakistan relationship. I cant think of a better person to be able to tell that history than somebody who has served as the ambassador here. And so, thank you very much for discussing your book. Its a wonderful book. I highly recommend it to anybody that would like to learn more about pakistan. Thank you. Guest thank you. Was after words, booktvs Signature Program in which authors of the latest books are interviewed by journalists, Public Policy makers, legislators and others familiar with their material. After words airs every weekend on booktv at 10 p. M. On saturday, 12 p. M. And 9 p. M. On sunday and 12 a. M. On monday. You can also watch after words online. Go to booktv. Org and click on after words in the series and topic list on the upper right side of the page. Former Alaska Governor sarah palen explains that religion is being stripped away from christmas