Double Game: Why Pakistan Supports Militants and Resists U.S. Pressure to Stop

Double Game: Why Pakistan Supports Militants and Resists U.S. Pressure to Stop

Author: Cato Institute September 28, 2018 Duration: 58:54
The Trump administration has taken a hardline approach toward Pakistan, cutting military and security aid throughout 2018 and accusing Pakistan of not doing enough to combat militants operating on its soil. Pakistan, however, maintains that it has eliminated all safe havens and that the United States is unfairly targeting the country.Washington’s conventional wisdom on Pakistan correctly links militant sponsorship with the state’s military and intelligence agencies. As such, U.S. policies to combat Pakistan’s militant sponsorship have primarily focused on pressuring the military. In a new report, Sahar Khan analyzes Pakistan’s anti-terrorism legal regime, judiciary, and police and finds that in the context of counterterrorism, civil institutions have developed policies and bureaucratic routines that reinforce the military’s policy of sponsoring militant groups. And this is one of the primary reasons why U.S. attempts to change Pakistan’s policy of militant sponsorship have failed.Please join us for a lively discussion, with lunch to follow.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.


Step inside the Cato Institute's renowned Washington, D.C. events without leaving your desk. The Cato Event Podcast brings the lecture hall and briefing room directly to you, featuring unfiltered audio from live policy forums, author discussions, and Capitol Hill briefings. Each episode captures the substance of these gatherings, where scholars, policymakers, and leading thinkers engage in detailed conversations about liberty, governance, and current affairs. You'll hear substantive debates and thoughtful commentary that cut through the noise of daily headlines, offering deeper analysis on the issues shaping legislation and public discourse. This isn't a produced studio show; it's a front-row seat to the kind of candid exchanges that happen when experts gather to challenge conventional wisdom. The Cato Institute, through this podcast, provides a direct conduit to these discussions, emphasizing a perspective rooted in individual freedom, limited government, and free markets. Tune in for a raw, intellectual experience that goes beyond soundbites, perfect for anyone who wants to understand the foundational ideas behind today's political news.
Author: Language: English Episodes: 102

Cato Event Podcast
Podcast Episodes
The Syndrome [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 27:45
During child abuse trials, jurors naturally defer to the testimony of medical experts who are called to explain an infant’s injuries. But if that medical testimony is based on questionable science, innocent people will b…
Panel 2: Obstacles to Ratification: If Not Now, Then When? [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:06:11
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement reached last year between the United States and 11 other Pacific-Rim nations. The deal was signed earlier this year, but congressional ratification faces substantive and…
Reforming the U.S. Postal Service [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 37:04
The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than $50 billion since 2007 as mail volume has plummeted. House and Senate committees are working on legislation to stem the losses, and a stamp price hike is in the mix. Meanwhile,…
Panel 3: The Case for Restraint: History and Politics [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:12:43
For the past two decades Democratic and Republican leaders have viewed U.S. military power as indispensable to global stability. Known as "primacy" or "liberal hegemony," U.S. military alliances, they believed, would sec…
The Case for Restraint in U.S. Foreign Policy - Lunch Address [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 34:56
For the past two decades Democratic and Republican leaders have viewed U.S. military power as indispensable to global stability. Known as "primacy" or "liberal hegemony," U.S. military alliances, they believed, would sec…