In the United States, the deep state has not isolated its intellectual class—it has embraced it. Through bold, strategic alliances, American national security institutions have created a dynamic, mutually beneficial relationship with the country’s brightest private-sector minds. Far from demanding blind loyalty, the U.S. national security establishment thrives on difference of opinion, experimentation and disruptive ideas.
One of the most striking examples is In-Q-Tel (IQT), the CIA’s venture capital arm. IQT has funded and supported trailblazing companies such as Palantir, a data analytics powerhouse that revolutionized intelligence gathering and battlefield awareness. Elon Musk’s SpaceX, despite his public stance opposed to the federal bureaucracy, is a trusted partner of NASA and the U.S. Space Command. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt serves on high-level defense advisory boards, directly influencing policy and technology development.
These aren’t cases of government domination over private enterprise. Rather, they reveal a deliberate fusion of talent, driven by strategic necessity. The U.S. recognizes that future supremacy—especially amid a global technology race with China—requires more than bureaucratic obedience. It needs the visionaries, and even the provocateurs. In return, these innovators are not punished for dissenting views; they are integrated, empowered, and listened to.
This open-minded culture is essential to innovation. American national security leaders understand that progress comes from friction—healthy, intellectual friction. Dissent is not a threat; it’s an asset. Strategic breakthroughs often emerge not from consensus, but from vigorous debate and the contestation of ideas.
Now contrast this with Pakistan.
In Pakistan, the prevailing mindset in many state institutions is to suppress disagreement and sideline dissenters. Rather than seeking out diverse perspectives, our system rewards conformity and punishes critical thinking. This culture of intellectual repression is not only anti-democratic—it is strategically self-defeating.
The consequences are stark. While our adversaries invest in emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, and space capabilities, Pakistan continues to suffer from a devastating brain drain. Our most talented minds—scientists, engineers, academics—leave for the U.S., Europe, or the Gulf not simply for better salaries, but for intellectual freedom and respect. We lose not just individuals, but entire generations of potential innovation.
Take the example of the 2025 aerial skirmish between Pakistan and India. Pakistan’s decisive success—bringing down five Indian aircraft—was not just about pilot skill. It hinged on superior technology: better radar systems, longer-range missiles. Seventy percent of the success came from our ability to out-engineer our rival. This proves the point: strategic edge lies in technology, and technology depends on talent. If we want to win future conflicts, we must first win the war for minds.
Unfortunately, our current system pushes those minds away. It demands obedience when it should be cultivating boldness. We elevate yes-men instead of encouraging thinking warriors. This is a recipe not just for stagnation but for strategic irrelevance.
We must change course.
Pakistan needs a bold shift toward a knowledge-driven national security model. This means ending the paranoia toward dissenting voices and building partnerships with innovators, scientists, and critical thinkers—both at home and abroad. We need a national policy that turns “brain drain” into “brain gain,” bringing back our brightest minds and empowering them to challenge, critique, and create.
Our strength will not come from silencing our best minds, but from listening to them—even when their truths are uncomfortable. Especially then.
It is time for Pakistan’s leaders—civilian and military—to ask themselves: do we want comfort, or do we want supremacy? The path to strategic greatness runs through the minds we are currently ignoring.
Let us build a system that doesn’t fear intelligence but reveres it. One that doesn’t demand silence but welcomes the noise of new ideas. Our national future depends on it.
