So, the right wing is all a-fwitter over Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" in the debate and wherever else he happens to talk about that country. Conservatives on the right (I know, that's like saying porn in a pornography store) call it annoying and ostentatious. Liberals, of course, call it educated. And so, the culture war rages on...
Most people don't realize it, but there is, actually, a fine line between sounding educated and sounding like a pompous jerk. It's a shifting line, depending on who you're talking to, of course - for most people at a Sarah Palin rally, for example, if you don't actually have food falling from your mouth then you might as well be waving your Harvard shingle in their face - but an understanding of some basic phonology can go a long way toward keeping you in the mainstream when talking about world leaders and the places they live.
Follow over the fold for a quick primer that I call "How to talk about foreigners without sounding like an ignoramus or a total douche"
As babies, we're capable of producing any sound in any language. Just listen to a baby for a while and you'll hear them produce a whole gamut of sounds: labial fricatives, velar plosives, clicks, voiceless aspirated nasal consonants, etc. (Note that, any sounds not coming from the general head region should be brought to the attention of the infant's parents)
As we acquire our native language, we specialize, and lose the ability to pronounce a majority of sounds, while gaining extreme fluency with a small subset. The phonemic inventory of most languages is typically on the order of 30-50 sounds, though most of these end up being pronounced in a couple of different ways depending on the word. By comparison, the International Phonetic Alphabet describes some 107 distinct letters, along with 50 something diacritics that describe possible variations on these basic sounds.
Now the upside to this specialization is that our brains don't have to do a lot of work to keep track of and differentiate too many sounds - just enough to meet our communication needs. The downside is that the French treat us with enormous condescension when we try to order one those yummy pillsbury crescent rolls they have over there.
The problem, of course, with pronouncing foreign names and words is that the sounds used to produce them typically only kinda match the sounds we have available in English. To tackle those words, you have two options, either step outside your phonetic inventory and try to make your tongue do something unnatural, or find the closest match IN your inventory and make it work. Phonetically speaking, it's almost like trying to talk like a dog. Most of us can muster a good dog sound, but it's hard to write, and feels weird to do, so we just get by with "bark" and "woof"
Imagine, for example, if Obama, and not George Bush, were reading "The Pet Goat" to a bunch of third graders in Florida. Putting aside the fact that Obama would have actually gotten up to deal with a national crisis before getting too engrossed in the book, I suspect that, in making the goat sounds, Obama would have amused the children with at least an attempt at a goat impression. Bush, of course, would just say "Bleat", and probably pronounce it "Bilt"
Now in this case, because you're talking to children, who are generally smarter than the writers at the National Review, it's okay to get crazy with your phonetics. I'm sure, in this hypothetical case, only a small handful of parents would take issue with Obama's elitist pronunciation of goat sounds and accuse him of wanting to sit down with a cloven-hooved species without precondition.
But I digress....
The fact is, that, when you're mid-sentence in a public speech, and you're not carrot top, you need to use caution when stepping outside the phonemic inventory of the language you're speaking.
In the 80's, SNL did a great sketch on newscasters trying to pronounce Central American names with the proper accent ("Today, there was renewed fighting in NEEHARAHUA..." etc.). It was funny then, and it's funny now, because, even among us liberals, we can all tell when somebody has gone just a bit too far.
Which brings us to "Pakistan". Can you pronounce it with the back open-mid vowel /ɔ/ and NOT sound like one of those arrogant people who, ugh, reads? Here are the arguments for No:
-> The common English pronunciation is with a front open-mid vowel /æ/. The majority of people who hear you will recognize that you're saying it differently
-> You're saying it more like the people who live there would, signaling you understand and empathize with them
Here are the arguments for Yes:
-> You're only changing one sound from the common English version, albeit in two places
-> You're only using sounds that are native to English
-> You're saying it more like the people who live there would, signaling you understand and empathize with them
It's a tricky call, but my verdict is YES. You aren't going over the top with the difference, you're keeping it to native English sounds and the overall political climate does call for showing some empathy with the outside world.
One caveat, though. As I understand it, Urdu, and a bunch of related languages, recognize a phonemic distinction between a regular /p/ and an aspirated /pʰ/. By phonemic, I mean that changing those sounds can alter the meaning of a word - these are not just similar versions of the same sound conditioned by surrounding sounds. Aspirated /pʰ/ is a sound we typically make in English. We have trouble saying a regular /p/, particularly in front of a vowel, as in "Pakistan". The difference, phonetically, is that with a /pʰ/, your vocal chords take a moment to kick in while you say the next vowel. With /p/, they don't, which is why it almost sounds like a /b/, which is basically a /p/ but with vocal chords.
Therefore, unless you natively speak an indo-iranian language, my recommendation is to go heavy on the aspiration on that first P. Do NOT try to make it sound like "Bakistan". People will notice the difference, and the xenophobe sections of their lizard brains will punish you for it.