i don't see anyone saying that we have cracked the code on that. and i do think i would like to make a distinction because i am a moderately optimistic that afghans want to defend themselves. now would be through a purely volunteer local defense force? that may be the case in some of these places, especially if this laboriously created a system for paying these guys breaks down and the u.s. goes away, which i think is right now looking at the headlines there is an equal chance that we are going to walk away from afghanistan and i just -- that really makes my blood run cold because there's been so much effort and sacrifice not just military. ..

>> for a these great conversation instead also linda, her book is for sale she will be signing books after word so be sure to get your book she will set here

doing that but this was a great conversation also figure for coming and for your great questions. we look forward to use the new next time. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> host: delighted to be here with husain haqqani read his book just released "magnificent delusions" pakistan, the united states, and an epic history of misunderstanding". delighted to be here with you today. use served as the ambassador as the embassador to pakistan 2008 through 2011 you advised benazir bhutto dow professor at boston university of the director and thuds tin is to he writes extensively for the "wall street journal" and "the new york times" today

matthew. you obviously have a very in side few of this relationship and i think just the title is a strong indictment of u.s. policy. and is in your words you save u.s. pakistan relationship the tale of the exaggerated expectations with disastrous this understanding. i want to delve into what you mean later in the interview but first a simple question, what motivated you to write this book? >> guest: it has been in my mind many years i was the college students during the fall of pakistan but when his love of god burned down the u.s. embassy in and people wanted to burn down

the u.s. consulate all of this over in the incident that happened at mecca of with the holiest shrine was taken over by a gunman and they thought the americans were involved. and i said no. we have to wait if we burned down the building we cannot run burned if the americans are not involved in because of that i was always wondering why do pakistan news have a knee-jerk anti-americanism? what i had known wives the intuitive flies even domestic policy at someday i would try to analyze but

during the course of serving as ambassador i would see how both sides they said thing that was just plain wrong so as soon as i finished being ambassador and i was pushed out of the position i thought my first priority should be to write this book is going from 1947 to help pakistan in the united states became allies but what has always concerned me why this relationship is dysfunctional and why has a death benefit if from an ally of the post second world war? i visited south korea but then became a close american and allied is house korea

has prospered why did it pakistan? what did we do wrong? i realize not just pakistan leaders with their place in american leaders also were delusional about what to expect from pakistan hence the title of the book "magnificent delusions." >> host: let's talk more about those dilutions you talk early about somebody who did not have such solutions and goodness he the value to the united states and wanted to make clear that the shed non have inflated hopes and they think there was some contrast from what he thought and somebody like

john foster dulles in the mid-50s thought and he did think the u.s. could by pakistan's loyalty if such as provided enough military it would develop this save strategic interest as the u.s.. so what you think accounts for these differences? has anything changed? >> has not an a minute but go to the beginning when they came to the united states they said to have unrealistic expectations of you really want military assistance? we have no interest to fight india with toady helped bond testily and realistic path from a the first request in

1947 in the united states could only give him 10 million. but we must understand as a foreign policy realists most known for conceptualizing containment the genius of canada was what did he say? we need to understand what is russia about? what does the soviets want? unfortunately united states was not that keen to have any pool of experts few people the new south asia very broadly those of gandhi and india many compared it to jefferson davis by some

people in the american media but even the british said they shared the lead the coalition and pakistan knees our hospitable people. pakistan was about to get one-third but only 17 percent it would not have a vibrant economy it did not have the means to pay for its own military and eventually it was with its own future they decided it would be by saying that pakistan is constantly under threat so they have to keep to military but who would pay for that? face said it would be the graphic location and get

assistance from the united states that pakistan cannot be involved but from the beginning it was about getting the assistance under false pretenses so interact with american military leaders you, and came to america our army becomes your are me if you give us many people were very acreage where dallas has a conversation in which he says to him we cannot fight communism without on our side but they said they are not pakistan neece and ellis

says the at least they are muslim and then they say they're not muslim either so dulles is typical acre of politicians who didn't know the details what he wanted against the soviet union and pakistan was willing to be an ally pat india was not. within a few years wind dulles rose secretary of state it is a mistake to seek out allies and arms them when it will never be available to fight any effort gave troops for korea

and then to fight the indians. the assumption that we could make him change their focus of dulles found out early that pakistan's focus was in the yen not the soviet union but he thought long term good relationships that now has anything changed? life year after serving as ambassador that some of the same process is leader has just a little bit more aid we can change their perception of wind that it

would be to educate the people but that is the establishment. >> talk about the world view an end to it is learned this at of basing a form policy of fact with the identity can you talk about with the identity as has strengthened it? to talk about the beginning stages was established? had a different view in a

more pluralistic light but to be a democracy what changed? >> guest: the independence of pakistan the muslims moved by the idea of their own but not with the details of all searches scott and i have done another book before this on the relationship of their relationship e-the loss in the military air and i have never been able the detailed for the new country. but with the east pakistan

third 1971 have had a majority with the one country it comes from the migrant 78 removed from the poillon job province india was drawn from prune jab -- so there was disagreement early on they thought if you are not part of india we should have our own little area. pri india tries to regain pakistan but they said you want to be friends with you but don't want you back that will help the tensions in the country. so they chose an end and to

the part that is not muslim and it is almost one-quarter of your people who are not. the population of non muslim would climb over two years now has come down now only 3% non muslim. so there was allocating more resources for the military they did not locate each half with a billion dollars

of aid and it it has helped it is not the economic base as a percentage of gdp half of what the exports are in the emerging market countries thought. pakistan taxes our one-third appalling direct investment is one-third of what it is another comparative countries within very early in a the political vacuum after the death of the founder and the of his

leader was assassinated so there's too many politicians squabbling fend the military stepped in usually it makes straight lines they're not equipped for political thinking so they decided to decide the argument and teach it is in school with. they have been teaching this secular with the error the military leaders and they could teach people something but not have consequences so eventually what happened the next generation has been more and more islamist. >> host: that brings us to the point not only is the

foreign policy but very high levels of anti-american sentiment within the population but your book points out it is inspired buying pakistan's leadership if scaring the americans into supporting them to allow the demonstrations to argue you have got to support us or you cannot control the impulses of the society. this is extremely frustrating. we saw the obama administration with the secretary of state that she confronts the pakistan neece to say to the leadership behind the closed doors that

why are you putting articles in the newspaper if you know, you fuel this anti-american sentiment? people are miffed because their efforts to push for the bill provided several billion of u.s. civilian assistance over a period of five years that was a huge deal. as soon as it was passed you had a great deal of criticism coming from the pakistan military because they were not happy the military aid would be conditioned if so it is counter intuitive. >> guest: this is the word and misunderstanding in the title of my book called

"magnificent delusions" pakistan, the united states, and an epic history of misunderstanding" and the americans took too many things at face value. revelations looking at papers of the former presidential library or the state department. >> you were in a lot of these meetings. >> but i went after these because officials would say things that know they are not true they had a different narrative so i decided i needed to investigate. pakistan officials say they are against the united states because of a drone strikes they have only been there for a few years but

the truth is to begin in this he was burned down 1979 and in 1948 barely 78 months after the creation of pakistan, i have found the first time american officials complained was in 1946 when the newspaper said said the americans had dead new superpower but they don't care so i investigated the chain and the fact of the matter is pakistan wasn't getting the attention.

people in america i did not know and so anti-american demonstrations emerging the leaders want to be our allies but they were hot style. there was no way to get attention refocused solely of the cold war to save the the way we have a conflict with india we need your help we cannot help you so we have to find people with whom you have a shared interest step away is with a muslim country to be in the muslim world you need to take it seriously an a

military sense but just to provide technical assistance and fortunately with the hostility generated with a means of leveraging actually with the relationship you want to have. he tried to get more demonstrators if you're negotiating posture by m pro-american but white people are not so there are limits to what i can do but in the process he ended up tying his hands more and

more and kudu less and less put the problem in my opinion few officials are willing to talk straight to the people in the start to put -- the state department are my friends but a lot of times american diplomat basically don't want to confront at as high praise him for going to pakistan praising things that needed to be said. so there is a common i cannot understand and lo and gold so what she was trying to do to bring out into the

open discussions we for having a private but my view for this relationship to have a healthy way for verge to talk about the complaints could be based on any real perceptions. >> host: i thank you are right to arecoline tin had a unique ability to talk in a very straightforward fashion that she was still very much like a introspected. >> host. >> guest: and as a mother figure three days at a free hand to 65 days in several hundred days i wish the average american diplomat would be building to

sometimes say that is not how it happened because time after time pakistan officials say america left pakistan down but we ask for troops in curia and not to build a nuclear weapon and when we asked you not to support chee heidi groups groups, so we have cut off aid a few times with a more candid discussion would have less confusion. >> host: like you say sometimes just at the end of the ted years at finally

they let loose what they really think. >> guest: in those who read that will find that although it is chronologically written but eisenhower becomes president 1953 he since the editor of a small-town newspaper of the fed is called the monitor the editor gives the ambassadorship to pakistan then he writes something in a telegram when redoing? there is no mood in the

country to be a part of so all that will happen this is in 1957 and in nobody takes note but as the end of the tenure eisenhower starts to say he made a huge mistake to seek out an ally to buildup without realizing the primary objective is not the same as us. lyndon johnson when he becomes president he steers away from the jfk policy he says know that a cia listening post he tries to be as kind as possible and

says we have the american made tanks but then in 1968 he says anything my decision to support pakistan and i may have made mistakes knicks in is the only one that is unabashedly going against global opinion based that it is america's ally in india is the soviet ally then america would be alienated. and a supporting pakistan and genocide but the fast forward president reagan how

it started long before american support the cia provided the arms but the ims library of the operation. the george herbert walker bush becomes president and realizes those cheese party groups are now diverted to kashmir and in pakistan and to be a state sponsor of terrorism in president george of the bush in 2008 he writes that i realized the sharra off never kept his promises and should have warned me earlier he would

give his enemies to fighting terrorist. >> host: talking about presidents but also somebody who met with the general 26 times in four years? and he thought by developing this personal relationship the more he could build trust the greater the chances of pakistan would to like crack down on the haqqani network but he said the end of september 2011 that pakistan had not changed. but i think what really angered him and made him say these statements in congressional testimony that basically the haqqani network. >> in the viewers should know that that has nothing to do with the.

[laughter] >> host: we're talking about a very deadly network now to the north but moving back and forth between afghanistan and pakistan conducting deadly attacks and. >> guest: also the deadly attack on the u.s. embassy in kabul. >> host: right before word the admiral testified before congress. >> guest: i have full details between the pakistan government in the u.s. government related to that the attack because i was ambassador. % as i see it there has been issa and how we can find the right leader in the military he could turn around off the ship of state of pakistan has the erroneous

conclusion. sometimes you have to combat the narrative with a narrative that if his the islamic country and therefore those nuclear weapons police said reanimating nukes but in the end we said what we were not making a if nothing else, we broke a promise that could only be combated by a narrative but with a personal relationship it will help us. in those joint chairman chief who was mentioned

again a same phenomenon meeting with the pakistan the leader and add pearl mollen works very hard with the 26 meetings he thought the army chief was really committed to eliminating terrorism if he wanted to that tipping point his desire to eliminate the terrorist and to maintain military balance with india to find fat to pinpoint where instead they would focus on terrorism as the problem. but interestingly throughout this period he did the

notice part of the pakistan the attitude is what another secretary of state for them if the pakistan the issues were substantive we would find a solution. don't put them on the border but the pakistan the fear of india is psychological. cannot do anything about it. they insisted to discuss the future of kashmir the of meetings were held they offered a substantive amount of military to make that adjustment pat pakistan said no. all or nothing. they ended up with nothing even though it fears

afghanistan will fall but india's influence comes from an economic influence which pakistan cannot match because the economy is smaller. so what pakistan really believes is to have an army chief however friendly he may be cannot change the psyche of the institution or a nation of although he eventually he did say he felt after four years of trying he publicly had to stay on dash say of the disadvantage it has i am concerned about pakistan i

always wanted to overcome its dysfunction i want good relations but not just out of love but it has to understand and realize no other nation can make you bigger than your neighbor. pakistan needs to get over to be happy with security with india pakistan has nuclear weapons until they need to trade with everybody in the neighborhood with dysfunction in and make sure the population does not continue to keep pace faster than growth.

>> host: that is true. looking relations over the past few years we have definitely seen a decline in the relationship with real tension in particular what is interesting you have information about a meeting that took place in 1998 with the clintons administration was planning to do attacks for the al qaeda bombing in the u.s. administration was in a quandary because they did not want to miss tip

them off ahead of time that the same time they knew there recovery federal pakistan the airspace to think india was attacking the clinton administration says it a trusted counterpart to have dinner. >> guest: but i think it was someone other thing that. >> host: but i just thought. >> guest: is this fascinating. >> host: that he could be there. >> guest: in about 10 minutes there will fly over your airspace. >> host: was this done at that time period would it make sense that the obama

administration right before the raid? >>, from the point of view the normal practice between allies would have been prudent they are told that we are conducting in your territory. the obama the administration had already made an effort what is called as the grand bargain with some kind of arrangement but the

suspicion and it was a question of the risk. so at least some people conjectured was it just take a coincidence? why the american generals having dinner use a self and in the bathroom. what if? there is no evidence of happened but the reason why everybody laughed so because of the background president obama decided not to involve pakistan before he and.

so the problem that has the verge with the ambassadorship that the points of that direction that this shiseido toxic relationship. one of the military relationship was conducted jointly then they found osama bin audience children but not him? could obama had lifted that? thought would be very difficult so to find the

details in that to say we did it alone to say we did it really. or how to do it publicly but people in the leadership attempted to do that but then people stop asking the question why is osama bin law been in our country? fence say how dare they come? in most nations people's perceptions are what they

are told in the case of pakistan it is either been controlled or as it is now to have ownership of the media but the narrative is controlled by the intelligence one of the things admiral will live spoke out against with the pakistan the journalist about the time he was stepping down but he said without going into detail the decision to eliminate the journalist than obviously the belief are being doctored i should be

in the diversity. what you're thinking or whether myself for a review of foreign policy over then is your bill before she returned -- before bhutto returned to anyone with the identity that narrative makes it impossible especially with counterterrorism they continue to be sympathetic with the word nuclear has not even been featured progress so its nuclear design if it happened in any

other country in less be a hero put all of these dysfunctional aspects make it very difficult for the american president to say i will not take osama been modified to not have full pakistan the cooperation. >> host: one wonders how loved the narrative can be sustained with the idea that the view that pakistan is half of their own country the way the rest of the world's seas pakistan because of the narrative the military a and i staten island is driving in the confusion about who is the enemy? to look at the differences between the reactions of the

terrorist strikes against nairobi kenya that leadership is very clear and also botches one team to cooperate where in pakistan said jewell suicide bombing of a church killing 85 people but there was no mention of what was implicated in the bombing was like an arm of al qaeda. >> one of the politicians with it too is a new rate it was of false operation to persuade the people of pakistan with the proposals

to have the talk. i don't know if you are familiar the one of the largest universities he is a physicist he came to the united states of the fulbright the basically he says that actually the world is run by baker's in british bakers to insinuate that he is anti-semitic views and give planting microchips into the brains of people so he is the head of the university and the prime minister does the assay and is a state run university. that is a state of denial.

so why do i feel compelled to write to this? the save as many other books somebody has to put out a correct narrative. when i was ambassador at one time with ed is not to harm but to correct the course i should have that right. point taylor how those groups would work together for much longer for them people understand. this book "magnificent delusions" pakistan, the united states, and an epic history of misunderstanding"

is meant to again to set the record right. for all their mistakes no free pass to the americans in the tent through the cynicism but nothing is manufactured sometimes people ask me what would set things right? the narrative change it is not backward because of denying ferrites pakistan has missed out opportunities

>> host: then asks the question in the narrative is just a clear it doesn't matter what the u.s. does it will live give ben with its policy supporting some terrorist groups in and will continue to do so confusion with the u.s. be better off ignoring pakistan rather the end work with a country that is in denial? if it has tried everything in the group and -- in the book to put it on the state sponsors of terrorism. >> you will find in my book

that was not credible. there is a lot of options between ignoring and increasing. shooting someone in and taking them out for tender united states feeds to explore those it is good for pakistan in the magistrates' with the view as the bad allied. the enemy for the intelligence services is india, not a terrorist is similarly for the united states expanding communism after that it is terrorism

but my view is pakistan and the united states should avoid that but they need to have a reality based have discourse from the assumption we are geographically located in such jay important area that americans need this more. if united states could supply west berlin it surely can do with afghanistan to say things have yet yavapai reinforces the dilution of the american side of the american assistance is

significant but pakistan at some point needs to connect for and reform its own economy. so slow to reform first to give billions of dollars of investment in taiwan's event south korea had you heard of a brand that is significant? you heard simpson on. why not? it is a nation of over 100 million people. they can be a productive people but if the university leaders have conspiracy theories rather than how the world really works if you deal with the europeans or the americans to have a microchip blocked in your

head and not a good muslim then you could have the ambition to be the leading member of the information in technology business in silicon valley. all of that needs to change. to say we're not buying good narrative. at the same time to keep pointing out it is not in america's interest but why allow the pakistan is to voice their interest? >> host: that is a great point if you wes stops going to the narrative people talk about pakistan holding a gun into its head. i will shoot myself but you don't provide a date. if the u.s. could just stop

listening to the pakistan the mind which over 50 or 60 years now it should be a textbook for anyone dealing with pakistan to go into the relationship know we what they will hear then getting past that not just understanding the limits of what it is capable of paul so fed dieter armageddons scenarios not to be the being those of us well. >> it would harm is and hurt the people the most to use that as a tool for foreign policy leverage. they should be concerned. but have you ever talked about why it is possible for

similar narrative to be used repeatedly with a separate event to a frigid frustration and? >> host: du say in your book you were quoting the current prime minister he said americans now look at history they just want the image as long as we can satisfy them with the image they will not look too deep. >> host: he said there is always somebody to defend. >> guest: we can always find someone in washington d.c. who will be willing to lobby for a second-degree with us and support us as it is about finding the right place -- price. i have minutes of those meetings i have cited but the window not only on the

u.s. pakistan relationship makes meander stand fell weaknesses of american is foreign policy. how decisions are made how many say that is history what you really mean that is irrelevant but with other nations it is not. history matters into illustrates a path for the future. . .