Book Review: No Exit From Pakistan By Daniel S. Markey
Note: I am a proud Pakistani and would try my level best to offer my two cents in a neutral, honest, and practical fashion. My sincere apologies in case you find my review biased but it is what it is.
Warning spoilers ahead….
Why this Book?
I bought the book on the recommendation of multiple political commentators I like to listen to, such as Dr. Moeed Pizara, Orya Maqbool Jaan, Rauf Kulasra, and some others via their video logs. Regardless of who you are, where you live, and what you do for a living, if you are enthusiastic about global politics, diplomacy, US foreign policy, the future of power policies and power dynamics, and the rise of China as a global power, then it is a fascinating read for sure.
Author's Profile
The reading becomes more captivating if you know the profile of the author, which in this case is quite interesting. Dr. Markey holds a Ph.D. in International Relations and American Politics from Princeton University and did his postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University. He is a former Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations and is currently serving as a Senior Research Professor in International Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). You can read more about the author’s profile on his official website.
Pakistan as a Country
Dr. Markey views Pakistan as an elite-captured country, as he himself sees it as a place where, on the one hand, a chunk of elites send their kids to boarding school and live a luxurious life while, on the other hand, millions of children can’t read and write and people don't have clean drinking water. The elite selfishly keeps their tax contributions at a minimum level, which results in the tax-to-GDP ratio being the lowest in South Asia. From a political point of view, the public never gave a mandate of more than 10% to religious political parties at the National Assembly level.
Security
The author argues that the recent law and order situation and terror attacks on the soil of Pakistan have created concern among the international watchdogs that Pakistani nukes are not safe, but the situation is not as simple as it is observed by outsiders. Pakistan’s nuclear program is far better protected than apprehended by many.
Relationship of Love & Hate
The author is of the opinion that America, when dealing with other countries, focuses on the inherent value of trade, cultural affinities, or a shared worldview. Still, when it comes to dealing with Pakistan, the U.S. is only concerned with external goals such as containing communism, opening secret talks with Beijing, or arming Afghan mujahideen. Dr. Markey says, and I quote….
American leaders saw Pakistan as but a pawn in the broader geographical chess match.
Cat and Mouse Game of Democracy & Dictatorship
The decades-old Pak-U.S. friendship has its ups and downs. The U.S. has its fair share of relationships with the civil-military bureaucracy but it failed to take concrete actions to defend electoral democracy in Pakistan. Since the first attempt at a military coup until President Musharaf’s (late) rule, the U.S. has never shown any firm action to practically support civil institutions. This policy of the U.S. increased public resentment towards the U.S. The liberals and youth of Pakistan perceive America's support for military dictators rather than civilian leadership as hypocrisy with its own principles that the U.S. prefers on its own soil.
Dollar, Afghanistan, & Radicalization
In a chapter named Why Do They Hate Us? Dr. Mekery partially agreed to take the blame for the radicalization of Afghanistan and Pakistan after the fall of the USSR and the U.S. departure from the region. But at the same time, he points a finger at Zia’s Islamization campaign, which predated the Soviet invasion. The U.S. was concerned and afraid of the potential access to warm water within Russia’s reach. Obviously, Afghanistan was just a start for the USSR, as the objective was to capture the Arabian Sea. The author beautifully ended the chapter with a realistic, honest, and fair rationale that there are problems on both sides and that Pakistani public hatred is a result of a by-product of the interaction of Pak-U.S. and Pakistan’s own decisions, internal problems, and politics.
The icing on the Hate
Pakistani officials were never convinced of the U.S. intention for long-term investment and rehabilitation of Afghans after their departure, and it became increasingly apparent when Pakistan was asked to bring the Taliban to the table for talks with America. Pakistani officials had doubts that war-torn Afghanistan would collapse and that they would have to face the aftermath. The author is of the opinion that Pakistna’s mistrust of the U.S. long-term plan for the region led it to turn a blind eye to terror groups like LeT and the Haqqani network. Finally, the icing on the hate, not the cake, was the intense U.S. drone campaign using “Signature Strikes”. Signature Strike depicts the CIA's full authorization to use deadly drone strikes even if the target is not certainly a terrorist but apparently acts like one, such as by moving in armed convoys or visiting known terrorist camps.
Polymorphism of Pakistan & US’s Myopic Approach
Pakistan is afraid of an American tilt towards India, and that is the reason why Pakistan supports some homegrown terror groups and makes its all-weather friendship with China stronger, argues the author. The Indian threat is not only the problem but also part of the bigger equation. The other factors in the equation are the feudal system, growth without development, failing infrastructure, the garrison state, idealistic youth, and the same old mantra of Islam under attack. The author considers U.S. policy towards Pakistan based on a myopic approach that only focuses on short-term, immediate goals, often based on crises.
Some Positive Initiatives
To create a better image of the U.S. image among the common people of Pakistan, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) designed many projects, but they were ill-designed to achieve its prime goal of displaying the benefits of friendship with America to the general public, argued the author. One of the good examples of the wise use of USAID was its assistance in establishing the Lahore University of Management (LUMS) back in the 1980s. Another potentially wise point of investment identified by the author is the Citizen-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) of Karachi. In my humble opinion, community policing and education are the best sectors for the U.S. to depict the benefits of Pak-US friendship to an ordinary citizen.
No Exit From Pakistan
Dr. Markey proposed four solutions to the U.S. regarding policy towards Pakistan, depending on how the future Pak-U.S. relationship unfolds.
1. Defensive Insulation: With ifs and buts, it involves intelligence gathering, covert operations on the ground, U.S. eyes, and missiles in the sky, along with the policy of coercion and deterrence. The U.S. may impose sanctions and visa restrictions and keep using drone campaigns.
2. Military-First Security Cooperation: The name suggests it all; it is military-to-military cooperation and CIA-ISI ties. It revolves around giving priority to defence and strategic deals such as weapons and training.
4. Comprehensive Cooperation: Instead of military-to-military cooperation, this approach focuses on strengthening the partnership on a common agenda, for instance, strengthening civil democratic institutes, the rule of law, sustainable economic development, and, of course, combating extremism and terrorism.
The author concluded in a pulchritudinous fashion that there is no exit from Pakistan like how America can engage in a relationship in order to achieve certain goals and later pack its bags and leave regardless of whether the U.S. likes it or not. Dr. Markey suggested that the U.S. needs a constant relationship with Pakistan’s civil-military bureaucracy and public and diplomatic relationships.
