and welcome back this is on c.n.n. these are the week's top stories the spirit of the arab spring has come to the u.s. say protesters angry at wall street greed and economic depression all to the streets of american cities but they are searches have been cracking down on the demonstrations despite washington support of resolutions of this and. every soldier three people are killed and one hundred eighty injured as thousands of christian protesters clashed with police on the streets of the bipolar months of rising tensions as the country's revolution between radical muslims and christians including outskirts and transfer. of the woman in western media reported as being

obliterated by a bus on assad regime and syria appeared on television centrism live and crowd sourcing and embarrassed by leading a. class here's over possible for example sponsored by the e.u. emergency measures with france and germany agreeing on a plan to shop in europe to find trying to stabilize the euro zone it was probably grounded outlets came to me as a boiling point as right as protest video card approved by the government to secure rescue problems. they do us and pakistan friends oppose drawing peace love out of his guests for an in-depth discussion on american pakistani relations that's in the cost of the.

ok. listen to the. following welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle destined to be friended me again pakistan u.s. relations face a breaking point the u.s. says pakistan is hedging its bets by maintaining ties to militant groups that are trying to undermine the government in neighboring afghanistan and pakistan replies

that washington's rhetoric is counterproductive would only play into the hands of militant groups how long can this deadly embrace continue. to take. to cross talk us pakistan relations i'm joined by stephen cohen in washington he's a senior fellow at the brookings institution also in washington we have jacob hornberger he's founder and president of the future of freedom foundation and in islamabad we crossed i should say dk she's a pakistani political commentator and author of the book military incorporated inside pakistan's military economy all right folks cross talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want you know different points of view and i want my viewers to see it but first marcia tell us about the arabs in this key strategic relationship well relations between the u.s. and pakistan have never been smooth after the fallout from the u.s. assassination of osama bin laden the state of the alliance has gone from bad to worse admiral mike mullen one of the most pro pakistan officials in washington has

referred to the country as the epicenter of world terrorism but his most recent remarks have added fuel to the fire. and choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy the government of pakistan and most especially the pakistani army and i asked our jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence in his speech to the senate mullen accused pakistan's intelligence agency eyes side of colluding with kani insurgent groups the us has long been aware of the fact that pakistan may be assisting insurgents but mall in statement is the first of its kind it's cost furious reactions in pakistan where authorities have denounced the claims and pointed to the country's own losses and the war on terror thirty thousand pakistanis it is well known that for doing that they were warming and consequent

disposed to go off with pakistan's intelligence and security agencies that interdicted a large number of boko they were created for the us losing pakistan as an ally would undermine a strategic goals in the region pakistan provides key military transit routes through vienna stand and house as a base for unmanned u.s. drones but all this hasn't stopped u.s. officials from offering to support military action against the kind of network but if the experts believe that we need to elevate our response they will have a lot of bipartisan support on capitol hill bomb administrator has repeatedly pressured pakistan to attack the calming that work and groups the us teams of presidents presence in afghanistan and well in statements reflect washington's uneasiness over how the two countries geopolitical interests continue to diverge and the slow entire region and that's where the relationship stands today thank you very much for that much. i think you first and i like to quote the president of the united states transition out of afghanistan and leave a stable government behind one that is independent one that is respectful of human

rights one that is democratic you think that's the primary goal of the united states in its relationship with pakistan because when we look at the relationship afghanistan is very much front and center. course that is the. that is not how it appears from islamabad. i mean i may not necessarily necessarily share the view but the way the government and the strategic community looks at the relationship i think where this see is that despite whatever the american claim. the fischel claim here is that the united states may want human rights may want stability but it's a stability which is very much different from the way it's in visioned in islamabad especially in the general headquarters army's general headquarters and there's a different perception jacob what do you think about it so stability means one thing one government and stability means something else to another government

employee of washington and islamabad well absolutely i mean the u.s. empire is position is let's get some regimes that are going to be loyal to the empire and do is they're told it doesn't matter how croaking corrupt they are the afghan regime is about the most crooked in history possibly and now they're upset because the pakistani government and people within the pakistani nation are not willing to support this imperial occupation that's gone on for more than ten years now they're upset that the pakistani government won't kill its own people to support this crooked corrupt occupational regime that they've installed in the karzai regime ok stephen i guess i don't have to ask a question to describe how do you react to what we just heard. i think i should probably trade or get an accurate picture of how pakistanis feel clearly there's a division in pakistan between the army and some of the strategist who say they want to help want to make sure there's

a role for pakistan in afghanistan and they are using such groups as well as tele bone and counties and others to ensure that they have are all mostly to keep the indians out that's a primary strategic goal but the most part is that he said a little upset with this kind of extension of pakistan into afghanistan given the fact that pakistan is a failing country along many dimensions as for the other statement i think it's totally silly i mean there's no imperial goal there at one point in the bush administration they considered having a position in central asia including afghanistan but that was given up a long time ago this is a clear position no of the president on down as it were in afghanistan to prevent al qaeda from rising up again and attacking us for that we need a more or less stable afghanistan government but the goal of democratizing afghanistan has long since been given up and it is a corrupt government there are more corrupt governments in the world fact it's a corrupt government on our side and they get treated trying to overthrow the taliban or even more corrupt or even more vicious and brutal so i think that i disagree with with with that if i can if i don't go back to jacob said

a little bit later in the program but ice and is limited i mean the tone coming out of washington right now how is that going down with the average pakistani because from what i understand anti-americanism is extremely high in pakistan because of america's war on terror. you know there are two pinions in that i mean my personal opinion is that. go and ask an american diplomat if there is been a reduction in the queues or in the visa applications of pakistanis going to the u.s. and the answer probably will be no. i mean there is that disconnect there is a lot of media hype people are reacting to the information which are which they are being fed and that information is that u.s. is doing something which is completely detrimental to pakistani interests and are some of that is genuine as well i mean there is that complete disconnect and i would say that it's a very direct

a very typical you know kind of juncture towards the end of pakistani u.s. alignment i mean the pattern has always been that there is a crises which brings the two nations together there is a lot of music and dancing in the air and there is strategic convergence and tactical divergence and as we move on at the end of eight or nine years or at the end of a decade there is tactical you know convergence and there is strategic divergence and that is where we are at the moment ok that is a value that is another very limited in the premier that doesn't go very well i'm going to jacob here and looks like i mean from an outsider looking in the u.s. with its drone attacks in the end its criticism of the pakistani government is just didn't try to do you jim eyes it in the eyes of its own people and certainly not making it on straight about the same time he gets criticized chastised for not doing more on the war on terror and we could have it both ways. well though there's obviously some some severe hypocrisy here i mean let's keep in mind that the head

conny are being entirely consistent when when that was the soviet union the soviet empire doing the occupying of afghanistan the u.s. was funneling money into pakistan funneling money into the hit conny supporting people like osama bin laden who are all trying to end the foreign occupation of this country now it's the u.s. government that's doing the occupying the tables are turned but the economy and those people in pakistan and afghanistan that are trying to rid this country of foreign occupation are operating entirely consistently it's the us empire that saying hey now that we're in the occupiers instead of the state of union we want you to start killing your own people we want you to start destabilizing things it's the hypocrisy right here in washington what do you think about that stephen because every pakistani government's really put into a tight position here because its own people be killed by american drones as america goes over to the sovereign border of pakistan and i daily basis go ahead.

in the long run i am sure is correct because what could happen it's one of several possible futures is it because american and pakistani interests are so different you know afghanistan with regard to support for these terrorist groups we could see a move of american policy from alliance with pakistan which is a nominal lie and so it's an alliance of which both sides lie to each other it's like a very bad marriage where both sides are unfaithful to the other two containment we could see america moving towards a containing containing block of stone but i don't think that's going to happen i think it's most pakistanis understand they need american bad relations you're looking at what we culturally politically and of course america needs a stable pakistan one of the reasons why congress passed the kerry lugar bill was to provide a huge amount of conventional assistance economic assistance pakistan as was the charge of imperial ambitions is fantasy i mean i haven't heard that since i was teaching undergraduates in the seventy's and universe of illinois there is no imperial ambitions in fact we're trying to get out we try to punish the people who

attack the united states we've done some most of that and there's a lot of arguing for getting out very quickly certainly obama and much of the right ministry of the republicans want to get out about that as very quickly jake if you want to just send their kids please stephen the government's been killing people for more than ten years how many terrorists do you have to kill before you finally say enough's enough i mean the government there been no constraints on the number of people that have been able to be killed ten years of this no constraints drone attacks assassinations bombings killing of wedding parties at some point isn't it time to say nothing nuff look at the price you're willing to pay for this occupation now jeopardizing the relationships with a longtime ally of the united states you know. i mean this is getting out present president announce a major troop withdrawal and congress agrees with it even the right wing americans or the republican party want to get out of afghanistan and the facts are quite different than what you're saying jacob accurate picture is that we do want to get

out of afghanistan. afraid that we will we do get out of afghanistan this could be you know the civil war the uk and so signed a security green with the indians this is going to lead to another another potential civil war between the north and the south in afghanistan that's most often fear that it's worse than the american occupation most often welcome the american presence there they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell the one presence and they don't want another civil war so i think that's the dilemma we're in all politics is tragic because of bad things wind up in politics there's no good choices there's only bad and worst choice all right so somebody shows me here we go in for a break even after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pakistan state park you. can. see. wealthy british style.

markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy. watch on our t.v. . bringing you the latest in science and technology from the ground for. the future coverage. if you can still. welcome back to cross talk about command you were talking about u.s. pakistani relations. in.

a shipping go to you considering the conversation we heard between jacob and stephen before we went to the break it sounds like in the end all exaggerate a little bit just for discussion's sake here is that the u.s. has to actually destroy pakistan to win in afghanistan. well i don't think i mean that. superficially looks like that i would know that just to not only destroy it maybe even invade it one point ok because regime change seems to be a popular flavor of this year go ahead i don't think that they're you know that they should have my view that all hype or life would be i said i would prefer exact even used a word for exaggeration exaggeration for a conversation think general yes go ahead i use again is i'm going exaggeration a misrepresentation misrepresentation i should go right ahead. i don't think that you know u.s. can despite what it wants despite the divergence i don't think that that should be

on the cards that ought to be on the cards or it is on the cards it would be far too risky a strategy for you know for the u.s. to you know try to come in they tried to do you know another mistake in kind of an operation until it has actionable intelligence with a mate second we have to be very clear that they had actually actionable intelligence and have the daughter have the same there is definitely what is happening in pakistan is that there is a public opinion which is building up either generally or has been primed to go that way which does not kind of permit for you know boots american boots on ground and in case that happens that is going to be very destabilizing and extremely annoying for the buck stanny state and society which then in turn it's not going to be. for the peace project in of grandstand and pakistan i think ok us

will have to think carefully stephen really i wouldn't ask both of you because it's really about of the future of afghanistan what kind of state it will be what kind of alliances it will have what kind of friends it will have that's what's really at stake here is not afghanistan in and of itself it's how it's going to interact with the neighborhood and it's pakistan it's very interesting thank you stephen first time i go ahead steve. i disagree with that a number of other people in washington for argue that it's really and should be there could should be. no pockets that is far more important and for more critical country to american interest than afghanistan afghanistan as a week for a tribal society which everybody contributed in destroying with the americans the russians the off. the pakistanis and others you know it's been a victim more than anything else pakistan is a very dangerous state and i'd like a streak of what he would do should there be an attack on the united states that

was launched from pakistan whether or not the pakistani government do but we had one attack like that in new york the times square bombing that didn't go up there but other attacks organized from pakistan against you that it's what would he do to can respond to that would you simply accept the do nothing response i think that's a danger that america might overreact to the united states launch for a purpose to you would lead to a great value because you had to go to the u.s. which i think would be you know the problem the problem the problem with steven and others of his philosophy is they don't go to the root of the problem and the root of the problem is the u.s. imperial. foreign policy that he denies even know anything about you've got it you've got an empire here with seven hundred thousand military bases all over the world is primary goal is regime change we've seen that in libya a country that never attacked the united states we see it in iraq a country that never attacked the united states goes back to iran to lead the regime change under most of the incident airplane cuba. goes on and on but what he

also fails to recognize is the more people they kill in afghanistan and now in pakistan people get angry over that and that's why you have this perpetual war on terrorism that's why they would be attacking because of the occupation because of the killing this is what ron paul has pointed out they come over here to kill us even because the empire's over there killing them the best thing to do to stop this nonsense is dismantle this imperial machine and he said you look like you want to go right ahead. yeah see the thing is that. whatever designs the us has right at the moment you know i think there are things which need to be put in context which is that pakistan one pakistan has to seriously look at non-state actors even if the u.s. leaves or does not leave. i would not agree with the notion that you know part of the or

a large part of the non-state actors are that problem is there i mean it has been excessive baited by american presence but it may not have started with the american presence there they're all interconnected there are a lot of threads of terrorism and extremism and violence which are going on in the region which would actually go back to the 1980's interesting lee a lot of people in pakistan as well do not question the war which we shouldn't have thought which is the war of the one nine hundred eighty s. . you know and that is where the problem has begun and ad that is going to continue the way of pakistan handles it is going to you know determine pakistan's future as well as i mean little or that's a very good point i like our second jacob and steve in this because you know if we get stepping back in the senate i think stream we rational in

a very pragmatic because of eventually the americans will revive canister they will leave public opinion doesn't support anymore and victory is illusory ok mr karzai who knows where he's going to go after this and it's the pakistanis are waiting and it's their neighborhood pakistan isn't going anywhere so it sees it it has a chip a security challenge on its border and want to see certain outcomes when you think about that stephen. i think that's correct the pakistanis are really worried about they don't want the americans to leave they want us to stay and the indians want us to stay also because we we represent the force keeping us going to start from breaking apart into a civil war but we're going to pull out i don't think this administration even the republican right you know what i want to stay there the ground pool as opposed to staying in afghanistan i agree with it it's not a war we can win it's not a war was a war we should afford better to begin with we wouldn't want but we would have done better we would have left afghanistan with a stable government that opportunity is long since gone so there's no reason to

stay in afghanistan at the level we are now the purpose of staying in afghanistan will be to make sure that ok there's no to go at the base there facility there to protect the united states it's a limited go the real goal should be and i think it is in fact the assist book is now becoming a stable country because a fragmented pakistan would be a catastrophe for india for china or for afghanistan for whole range of for the whole region and i think with especially with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's a strategic goal for us in south asia do you think about that because again i repeat my point i mean the pakistanis are rational actors here they have to be concerned what's going on on their border and they know the americans are going to leave they have no stomach state for this go ahead. absolutely i don't know you know i was just going to take a. look there is an accused terrorist here in the united states luis posada kind of the less who is accused of downing the cuban airliner over venezuelan skies the u.s. is harboring him they will not extradite him to venezuela how would we feel even as

well all of a sudden start sending drones bombers assassins and started taking out americans that happen to be near by this guy i mean the pakistanis are acting totally rationally here you've got a foreign occupier that's been there for more than ten years and we don't know when it's going to leave it's killing people in afghanistan it's now killing people in pakistan and it's calling on the pakistani government to kill its own people why are they not acting rationally to be can. sir you don't support you would support pakistani terrorist attack against the united states because we were and should retaliation you would have supported the time it was a war that it was really i would support that i would support the immediate evacuation instead of this nonsense that your polling about some indefinite time in the future after the elections of get now don't kill one more person stephen don't don't kill one more wedding party don't don't do one more drone assassination pull the troops out home you're not doing them any favors by keeping them there all right i want to change gears are going tragedy honestly in his. room you know right

now and talk to does that make a difference guns about this well i think that make a difference make a difference in the polls that would support that already i want to do what you fear is losing your steam i want to ask you show and islam about how much of this is a game of bluffing on both sides when you hear comments coming out of islam about you had a moment coming out with his you know and they're both they're both going to the extreme how much is each side bluffing because it's a dangerous embrace but it's an embrace nonetheless. you know there is there is you know quite of course an extent of that of bluffing is well put let me get back to in answering your question let me get back to a couple of points i would raise i mean there's a very interesting point by steve here that people in pakistan want us to stay there now when you go out of the streets the common sentiment which has been built up over months now is that pakistani average common man on the street wants the us

to leave now it's the dark son establishment even military stablish one which keeps telling the american military establishment we think that the problem is that you will dump us and leave dump us with this problem. now that is not translated enthralled to the man on the street in fact the reality is that after may second after you know there was some differing nosediving of the relations between the two establishment and then it has been a little more steady you know steadily kind of getting better this is not told to the people there is a game and there is not just one game the games within games that are being played now the other point where it was being raised about drone attacks i think it's again a very confusing and complex subject because right now of this you if you talk to people not people in the planes not people who are far removed from the tribal

areas but if you talk to certain segments of the population there this is either the only pressure on the taliban is from drone attacks so what reality am i supposed to be sure jump in here almost out of time here stephen i'd like to give you the last the last word on this program we received our u.s. pakistan relationship going got twenty seconds. well i think it's i think it's headed toward some kind of crisis but we've been in crisis for the past fifteen years so this could be nothing new but i think what would trigger a real break would be a serious american attack on a on a pakistani facility would there was an atrocity like most of those which was actually supported or pakistani launched the attack on the united states but from buying out i think we're going to bump along in a very unhappy marriage which needs to be reckoned reconciled and i'm a major what i hope salvation. diplomacy works kicking the can down the road many thanks to my guest today in washington and in islamabad and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at the time remember.

you can see.