Since 9/11, the international narrative on Pakistan has painted a picture of a country that is a "safe haven" for terrorists and a "state sponsor of terrorism" that plays a "double game" as it pretends to fight militant Islamist extremists while nurturing them in its "backyard." This discourse came to prominence in January 2018 when US President Donald Trump famously tweeted that his country had "foolishly" provided military aid to Pakistan since 2001, in return for which Pakistan had given "safe haven to the terrorists [they] hunt in Afghanistan." This book questions this dominant narrative by showing how the great powers--the United States, the United Kingdom, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Iran--have directly caused the emergence of a militant ecosystem in Pakistan. Drawing on interviews with journalists, diplomats, academics, military officers, and government officials, it argues that it is Pakistanis who have borne the brunt of terrorist violence, especially since 9/11. The book uses the English School of International Relations' concept of great power responsibility to explore how powerful states could help fight militancy in Pakistan holistically. It highlights the Pakistani military's effort to rehabilitate young militants, and posits that international society must support not only "hard" counterterrorism through military aid, but also "soft" counterterrorism such as rehabilitation to address the root causes of radicalisation. With the Trump administration's suspension of military aid to Pakistan, this timely book offers guidance for policymakers in both the West and Asia on how best to approach Pakistan's security quagmire.

This book aims at uncovering the politics behind the provision of US foreign aid to Pakistan during three distinctive periods: the Cold War, the post-Cold War and the "war on terror". Focusing on a comprehensive analysis of aid allocation and delivery mechanisms, this book uncovers the primary factors behind historical as well as contemporary US aid to Pakistan so far not thoroughly and empirically studied, especially in the post-2001 period of the "war on terror". Furthermore, based on findings that have emerged from interviews with over 200 respondents, including government officials, representatives of donor aid agencies, the private sector, civil society organizations and primary beneficiaries of US-funded projects, this book offers significant insights to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners interested in the discipline of aid and development effectiveness. Making use of both quantitative and qualitative data and based on extensive fieldwork and primary data, this book fills a significant gap in the empirical analysis of US aid to Pakistan. As such, it will be of great interest to students and scholars of Asian and US politics, as well as to those who have teaching and research interests in disciplines such as international relations, history, strategic studies, international political economy and development studies. data and based on extensive fieldwork and primary data, this book fills a significant gap in the empirical analysis of US aid to Pakistan. As such, it will be of great interest to students and scholars of Asian and US politics, as well as to those who have teaching and research interests in disciplines such as international relations, history, strategic studies, international political economy and development studies.

Over the last fifteen years, Pakistan has come to be defined exclusively in terms of its struggle with terror. But are ordinary Pakistanis extremists? And what explains how Pakistanis think? Much of the current work on extremism in Pakistan tends to study extremist trends in the country from a detached position—a top-down security perspective, that renders a one-dimensional picture of what is at its heart a complex, richly textured country of 200 million people. In this book, using rigorous analysis of survey data, in-depth interviews in schools and universities in Pakistan, historical narrative reporting, and her own intuitive understanding of the country, Madiha Afzal gives the full picture of Pakistan’s relationship with extremism. The author lays out Pakistanis’ own views on terrorist groups, on jihad, on religious minorities and non-Muslims, on America, and on their place in the world. The views are not radical at first glance, but are riddled with conspiracy theories. Afzal explains how the two pillars that define the Pakistani state—Islam and a paranoia about India—have led to a regressive form of Islamization in Pakistan’s narratives, laws, and curricula. These, in turn, have shaped its citizens’ attitudes. Afzal traces this outlook to Pakistan’s unique and tortured birth. She examines the rhetoric and the strategic actions of three actors in Pakistani politics—the military, the civilian governments, and the Islamist parties—and their relationships with militant groups. She shows how regressive Pakistani laws instituted in the 1980s worsened citizen attitudes and led to vigilante and mob violence. The author also explains that the educational regime has become a vital element in shaping citizens’ thinking. How many years one attends school, whether the school is public, private, or a madrassa, and what curricula is followed all affect Pakistanis’ attitudes about terrorism and the rest of the world. In the end, Afzal suggests how this beleaguered nation—one with seemingly insurmountable problems in governance and education—can change course.

Since 9/11, the international narrative on Pakistan has painted a picture of a country that is a “safe haven” for terrorists and a “state sponsor of terrorism” that plays a “double game” as it pretends to fight militant Islamist extremists while nurturing them in its “backyard.” This discourse came to prominence in January 2018 when US President Donald Trump famously tweeted that his country had “foolishly” provided military aid to Pakistan since 2001, in return for which Pakistan had given “safe haven to the terrorists [they] hunt in Afghanistan.” This book questions this dominant narrative by showing how the great powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—have directly caused the emergence of a militant ecosystem in Pakistan. Drawing on interviews with journalists, diplomats, academics, military officers, and government officials, it argues that it is Pakistanis who have borne the brunt of terrorist violence, especially since 9/11. The book uses the English School of International Relations’ concept of great power responsibility to explore how powerful states could help fight militancy in Pakistan holistically. It highlights the Pakistani military’s effort to rehabilitate young militants, and posits that international society must support not only “hard” counterterrorism through military aid, but also “soft” counterterrorism such as rehabilitation to address the root causes of radicalisation. With the Trump administration’s suspension of military aid to Pakistan, this timely book offers guidance for policymakers in both the West and Asia on how best to approach Pakistan’s security quagmire.

A "profound and provocative" new work by the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Disgraced and American Dervish: an immigrant father and his son search for belonging—in post-Trump America, and with each other (Kirkus Reviews). One of the New York Times 10 Best Books of the Year One of Barack Obama's Favorite Books of 2020 Finalist for the 2021 Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Fiction A Best Book of 2020 * Washington Post * O Magazine * New York Times Book Review * Publishers Weekly "Passionate, disturbing, unputdownable." —Salman Rushdie A deeply personal work about identity and belonging in a nation coming apart at the seams, Homeland Elegies blends fact and fiction to tell an epic story of longing and dispossession in the world that 9/11 made. Part family drama, part social essay, part picaresque novel, at its heart it is the story of a father, a son, and the country they both call home. Ayad Akhtar forges a new narrative voice to capture a country in which debt has ruined countless lives and the gods of finance rule, where immigrants live in fear, and where the nation's unhealed wounds wreak havoc around the world. Akhtar attempts to make sense of it all through the lens of a story about one family, from a heartland town in America to palatial suites in Central Europe to guerrilla lookouts in the mountains of Afghanistan, and spares no one—least of all himself—in the process.

Winner of the 2021 Overseas Press Club of America Cornelius Ryan Award The former New York Times Pakistan bureau chief paints an arresting, up-close portrait of a fractured country. Declan Walsh is one of the New York Times’s most distinguished international correspondents. His electrifying portrait of Pakistan over a tumultuous decade captures the sweep of this strange, wondrous, and benighted country through the dramatic lives of nine fascinating individuals. On assignment as the country careened between crises, Walsh traveled from the raucous port of Karachi to the salons of Lahore, and from Baluchistan to the mountains of Waziristan. He met a diverse cast of extraordinary Pakistanis—a chieftain readying for war at his desert fort, a retired spy skulking through the borderlands, and a crusading lawyer risking death for her beliefs, among others. Through these “nine lives” he describes a country on the brink—a place of creeping extremism and political chaos, but also personal bravery and dogged idealism that defy easy stereotypes. Unbeknownst to Walsh, however, an intelligence agent was tracking him. Written in the aftermath of Walsh’s abrupt deportation, The Nine Lives of Pakistan concludes with an astonishing encounter with that agent, and his revelations about Pakistan’s powerful security state. Intimate and complex, attuned to the centrifugal forces of history, identity, and faith, The Nine Lives of Pakistan offers an unflinching account of life in a precarious, vital country.

By the time of Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th president of the United States, he had already developed an ambitious foreign policy vision. By his own account, he sought to bend the arc of history toward greater justice, freedom, and peace; within a year he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, largely for that promise. In Bending History, Martin Indyk, Kenneth Lieberthal, and Michael O’Hanlon measure Obama not only against the record of his predecessors and the immediate challenges of the day, but also against his own soaring rhetoric and inspiring goals. Bending History assesses the considerable accomplishments as well as the failures and seeks to explain what has happened. Obama's best work has been on major and pressing foreign policy challenges—counterterrorism policy, including the daring raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden; the "reset" with Russia; managing the increasingly significant relationship with China; and handling the rogue states of Iran and North Korea. Policy on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, has reflected serious flaws in both strategy and execution. Afghanistan policy has been plagued by inconsistent messaging and teamwork. On important "softer" security issues—from energy and climate policy to problems in Africa and Mexico—the record is mixed. As for his early aspiration to reshape the international order, according greater roles and responsibilities to rising powers, Obama's efforts have been well-conceived but of limited effectiveness. On issues of secondary importance, Obama has been disciplined in avoiding fruitless disputes (as with Chavez in Venezuela and Castro in Cuba) and insisting that others take the lead (as with Qaddafi in Libya). Notwithstanding several missteps, he has generally managed well the complex challenges of the Arab awakenings, striving to strike the right balance between U.S. values and interests. The authors see Obama's foreign policy to date as a triumph of discipline and realism over ideology. He has been neither the transformative beacon his devotees have wanted, nor the weak apologist for America that his critics allege. They conclude that his grand strategy for promoting American interests in a tumultuous world may only now be emerging, and may yet be curtailed by conflict with Iran. Most of all, they argue that he or his successor will have to embrace U.S. economic renewal as the core foreign policy and national security challenge of the future.