Five challenges faced by Washington’s Pakistan analysts
In Washington, Pakistan analysts enjoy a charmed life. We are sought out by the media, invited to join the lecture circuit, and called upon to enlighten the general public. As students of what is alternately described here as the most dangerous, strategically vital, and perplexing country in the world, our expertise is constantly in high demand.
Of course, it’s not all fun and fame. To be a Pakistan specialist in this town — and in America on the whole — one must navigate numerous challenges.
Hate mail
If your writing is critical of Pakistan, many Pakistanis will brand you as an all-around dimwit with few redeeming qualities. You will also be labeled a hypocrite for criticising Pakistan’s corruption, violence, and poor leadership even while the US suffers from the same problems (my reply — my job is to analyse Pakistan, not the United States — is typically met with silence).
Conversely, if your writing is complementary of Pakistan, many Americans — and, most vociferously of all, Indians — will brand you as an all-around dimwit with few redeeming qualities. After I suggested several weeks ago that Pakistan has no immediate desire to nuke India, multiple respondents denounced me as a clueless dolt.
It’s not the criticism itself that bothers me (anyone who expresses their opinions publicly requires thick skin). What is frustrating is the tone of this criticism — vitriolic and personal, not reasoned and constructive.
Allegations of government ties
I am constantly accused of being a shill for the US government — whether in the form of a CIA agent, a propagandist, or a paid flunkey. “Michael, is this once again a State-Dept-assigned-let-me-explain-America’s-intentions article?” queried one interlocutor regarding a piece that innocently points out the unlikelihood of Pakistan completing a gas pipeline to Iran. Additionally, I am often informed that my employer is a US government stooge — a curious accusation given that the Wilson Center is strictly nonpartisan and does not take positions on any policy.
The challenge for Washington’s Pakistan analysts is to convince Pakistanis that we do not necessarily support our government’s policies simply because we are Americans. The knee-jerk reaction among many Pakistanis is that we analysts all adore drone strikes, are hell-bent on getting Pakistan to launch a military operation in North Waziristan, and are paid handsomely by the US government to make these cases in our writings and presentations. Alas, it’s not true — but it’s a tough myth to shatter.
The “been to Pakistan?” litmus test
Many Pakistanis will not take American Pakistan specialists seriously unless they have visited Pakistan (fortunately, I pass this test). I wholeheartedly agree that there’s no substitute for knowledge and experiences amassed in Pakistan. However, I think holding Americans to this standard is too harsh. For one thing, there’s a double standard at play — I’m sure many Pakistanis claiming to be experts on America have never visited the United States. Additionally, with the proper contacts, and through vehicles such as Twitter and Skype, Pakistan specialists in America can instantaneously gain access to insights from inside Pakistan.
One may retort that such insights come courtesy of the Internet-savvy, cosmopolitan Islamabad/Lahore/Karachi crowd, which bears little resemblance to the “real” Pakistan. Fair enough. Still, US-based specialists do have opportunities to interact with visiting Pakistanis from the “real” Pakistan — from low-level civilian bureaucrats to rural-based youth. One of my most rewarding professional experiences was meeting with a group of high school students visiting from Fata on a US government-sponsored exchange.
Pock-i-staan vs. Pack-i-stan
Pakistanis frequently point out how often their country’s name is mispronounced by Americans. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton correctly say Pock-i-staan. Yet George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and most of the general population (including celebrities with a demonstrated interest in the country, such as Angelina Jolie and Madonna) erroneously say Pack-i-stan. (The majority Pack-i-stan adherents are a feisty lot and denounce the Pock-i-staan pronunciation as pompous and exotic.) I try to say Pock-i-staan, but confess to occasionally getting sloppy and reverting to awkward hybrids such as Pock-i-stan or Pack-i-staan. Either way, the line has been drawn: If you say Pock-i-staan, you’re a legitimate authority on Pakistan. If you say Pack-i-stan, you’re a fraud. Slip up before a large Pakistani audience, and your reputation could take a significant hit.
The dominance of security issues in policy discussions
I have written previously that traditional security issues — militancy, violence, instability — dominate policy debates about Pakistan, to the detriment of topics such as natural resource constraints that affect millions more Pakistanis. The most credible and sought-after US analysts of Pakistan are those who can wax eloquent about the root causes of radicalisation, not health care crises, water shortages, or deforestation. In effect, the voices of prescient US specialists focused on Pakistan’s most serious — and perhaps even existential — long-term challenges are marginalised, and unable to rise above the din of security-related chatter.
The author is the Senior Program Associate for South Asia at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. You can reach him at michael.kugelman@wilsoncenter.org and follow him @michaelkugelman.
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
@Shahid: I never refer to myself as an expert here. An analyst, yes, but that’s not the same thing as an expert, alas! For my thoughts on the notion of an “expert” on Pakistan, please see:
http://dawn.com/2012/04/26/where-have-washingtons-pakistan-experts-gone/
the author is a more informed Pakistan analyst, however I would take issue with his point you don’t need to visit a country to learn about it. In Pakistan’s case there has been pretty much 100 % negative press in the west. So judging the ‘real Pakistan’ would be impossible. Your comparison about analysing the US, doesn’t quite hold as the US is not completely portrayed in a negative light, there is much more balance.
I do still believe if a ‘Pakistan analyst’ has not set foot in Pakistan, his opinion is worthless, as its not a balanced source from which he is forming his opinion. You need to get away from the metropolitan areas, outside also from Punjab to get a real insight of the people. unfortunately the western nations themselves form their policies from such poorly informed opinions (as does elements within Pakistan also have poor understanding of others).
You don’t need to visit Pakistan to understand it’s Foreign Policy. The Foreign Policy is run by the ISI/Army, not the common man on the street.
There may be some arguable benefit from meeting the rank and file of the ISI but that’s like meeting with the rank and file of the Department of State.
With a country with so many baffling extreme contradictions – It’s a uphill battle Michael. One that you cant possibly win. But bless your heart for trying.
What remotely credible research paper or article have you written in your life time to make you an expert on Pakistan?
What makes you an expert Pakistan? part of the royal “we.” were you not a research associate (glorified name for menial jobs) until recently. Please don’t insult scholars like Stephen P. Cohen or others who have spent years studying and writing about Pakistan, by including yourself and others in the camp of Pakistan scholars.
I have rarely read an accurate portrayal of the Pakistani perspective from a Washington analyst, so it is no surprise that they don’t win any admirers. Whatever the issue, Pakistan is portrayed as the villan. For example, if it is nuclear weapons then Pakistan is depicted as a sneaky proliferator posing a threat to the world. However there is no mention of the Indian nuclear threat that forced Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons. There is no mention, or fault attributed to India for introducing the curse of nuclear weapons to South Asia by its original proliferation back in 1974, or the assistance it received from the USSR in this vile endeavor. There is no mention of the numerouss proposal Pakistan has made to India to keep the region free of nuclear arms, without ever receiving a response from India or support from America. None of the analysts ever say that even now Pakistan is ready to give up its nuclear weapons if India does the same.
Similar one-sided and anti Pakistani perspectives dominate the discourse of Washington analysts on many other issues. Thus, it is not a question of whether American analysts promote US government’s policies, it is the absence of an honest and balanced approach to Pakistan among Washington’s think tank circles that prevents them from being taken seriously in Pakistan.
However, whether they are taken seriously in Pakistan or not is perhaps not a concern for Washington’s analysts, as long as they can irresponsibly build their reputatations by misguiding American opinion by turning friends into enemies.
Those patriotic Pakistanis who want Pakistan to prosper (but are living outside the country and are mostly dual nationals), fully understand your dilemma. I appreciate your viewpoint perhaps because of the fact that i live in Canada
No one can be entirely objective, nor biased. Analyses, political or not, always embody fairness and bias. It is the mixture of the two that varies in any analysis. Good scholarship demands that bias be reduced to its minimum and fairness elevated to its maximum. But biased analyses are not necessarily useless; they offer insights into the minds of those who do them, and by extension into the minds of those the analysts represent. In my opinion highly biased American analysts of Pakistan and highly biased Pakistani analysts of America may have agendas to fulfill, may lack the attributes required to conduct objective analyses, or may simply lack deeper understanding of the issues they analyze.
In analyzing Pakistan-US relations, Michael Kugelman is as objective as it gets. I admire you, Michael. Make that thick skin even thicker, and keep up the good work.
I always enjoy your articles. Well balanced and to the point. Sadly, in this digital age, bloggers have set new trends of irrationality. Americans, Pakistanis and Indians are all irrational when expressing their opinions on line. None want to take the responsibility of short comings in their own land. Sadly, FREE US, Indian and now Pakistani media is the biggest culplrit. The seeds of irrationality are sown by digital media quite a bit. Please keep up the good work.
security issue dominate because that is what US interest are in relation to Paksitan. but i never thought that there is an issue with how you pronounce the state , aka Pakistan. I just hope Pakistan can emerge as a nation.
Interesting experiences. Well my dear, the state of mental illness in Pakistan has grown even worse. We Pakistanis have got so good at ignoring strong realities by just tagging them as conspiracy. You still an American branded American agent, we call everyone except Taliban as American agent, whereas, in reality it is only Taliban who are making the previously hypothetical concerns about Pakistan as a dangerous country, look real.
I do not know what is happen to us, a nation for whom bloodshed is acceptable, corruption isn’t.
I have spent 5 years in conflict ridden countries like Afghanistan, Sudan (Darfur specifically) and Iraq. The “been to so and so country” is a very valid litmus test. Any academic worth his salt writes with first hand experience and not sitting in a recliner sipping a beer while reading the news on the net. I have come across numerous idiots in Iraq and Afghanistan who get confused and lost in the local dynamics of the conflict and the projects never amount to anything. That is why the roll out of “Governance” in Helmand failed. That is why Sangin is always a mess and why the Afghan and Iraqi governments have not been able to extend their writ beyond their small fiefdoms. Why? Because all the NATO/ISAF/Coalition experts and specialists lacked on the ground first hand experience.
Yes, I agree with Faisal100%. You have to know, study, live in the deep culture, customs, language, etc, before you could say or write any about any individual, a country, a religion.Even know the westerns they think ” they’re the saviors of the universe, and the God has given them the right to that.The world has changed,and changing very rapidly. If the were right how could they are still mired in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, Pakistan, and euro is a fluke?Look after you problems before you venture out, and solve them.
very ggod article. I agree with the observations. Most of the people who write about US- Pakistan relations have neither been to US nor left Lahore/Karachi/Islamabad.
To get the feel of a place, there is simply no substitute to physically visiting it.
do you think the challenges are warranted or unwarranted? I think they are. In west most analysis of south asia is either too simplistic or biased. very difficult to find the correct analysis in a sea of errors