plus fears over a possible greek default sponsored by the e.u. emergency measures with said germany agreeing on a plan to shore up europe trying to stabilize the eurozone a lot of public anger and afghans continues at boiling point as rioters protest over deep cuts approved by the government to secure a rescue by. the u.s. and pakistan friends or foes join peace love out of his guests for an in-depth discussion on american pakistani relations that's a call style debate. following

a welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle destined to be a friend of 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 and would only play into the hands of militant groups how long can this deadly embrace continue.

to cross-talk u.s. 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 cross to the dk she's a pakistani political commentator and author of the book military incorporated inside pakistan's military economy all right folks crosstalk 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 tell us about the arab in this key strategic relationship where relations between the u.s. and pakistan have never been smooth after the fallout from the u.s.s. nation 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. choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy the government of pakistan and most especially the

pakistani army and. 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 the i.s.i. 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 bosses and the war on terror thirty thousand pakistanis it is well known that forming the tora bora being and consequent dispersal of it was pakistan's intelligence and security agencies that interdicted a large number of the operatives for the us losing pakistan as an ally would undermine its strategic goals in the region pakistan provides key military transit routes to afghanistan and houses a base for unmanned u.s.

drones but all this hasn't stopped u.s. officials from offering to support military action against the network but if the experts believe that we need to elevate our response they will have a lot of bipartisan support on capitol hill they are bomb i've been astray ssion has repeatedly pressured pakistan to attack the haqqani network and groups the us teams a threat to its presence in afghanistan and well in statements reflect washington's uneasiness over how the two countries geopolitical interests continue to divert and the slow region and that's where the relationship stands today thank you very much for that much of. that i have to go to you first 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 do 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 case but that is not how it is 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. official claim here is that the united states may want human rights may want stability but it's a stability which is the 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 the idea of stability means one thing to one government and stability means something else to another government i'm thinking of washington and islamabad well absolutely i mean the us empire's position is let's get some regimes that are going to be loyal to the empire do is they're told it doesn't matter how crooked and 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 at this point 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 sit want to help want to make sure there's a role for pakistan in afghanistan and they're using such groups as well as taliban and counties and others to ensure that they have are all mostly to keep the indians out that's a primary strategic goal but i think most pakistanis are 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 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 the clear position now of the president on down is that we're 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 the good truthful trying to overthrow the taliban are even more corrupt even more vicious and brutal so i think that i disagree with with with that statement well if i can if i don't go back to jacob said a little bit later in the program but ice and islam about it i mean you do 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 in our skin american diplomat if there is been a reduction in the queues or in the visa applications of pakistanis going to the us 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 us is doing something which is completely detrimental to pakistani interests and now some of that is genuine as well i mean there is that complete disconnect and i would say that it's a very very very typical you know kind of juncture towards the end of pakistani u.s. alignment i mean that 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 wanted in the premier that doesn't bode very well for i'm going to jake up here it 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 that in the eyes of its own people and certainly are making it unstable but at the same time it gets criticized chastised for not doing more on the war on terror i mean can it 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 finally money into the hit conny supporting

people like osama bin laden who are all trying to end the foreign occupation of this country now that 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 a u.s. empire that saying hey now that we're in the occupiers instead of the suv 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 i read the pakistani government's really put into type position here because it's only people being killed by american drones as america goes over the border of pakistan on a daily basis going ahead. in the long run i am sure is correct because what could happen it's one of several possible futures is that because american and pakistani interests are so different you know afghanistan and 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 it's an alliance in 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 pakistan but i don't think that's going to happen i think it's most pakistanis understand they need america back and relationship going on with we culturally politically and of course america needs a stable pakistan in fact one of the reasons the congress passed the kerry lugar bill was to provide a huge amount of conventional assistance economic assistance pakistan as for the charge of imperial ambitions is fantasy i mean i haven't heard that since i was teaching undergraduates in the seventy's and the universe of illinois there is no imperial ambition there effect 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 argument for getting out very quickly certainly obama and much of the right ministry of the republicans want to get out about going to very quickly jake if you want to jump in there. 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 i'm not enough look at the price you're willing to pay for this occupation now jeopardizing the relationships with a longtime ally of the united. states getting out president 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 though the facts are quite different than what you're saying jacob the history accurate picture is that we do want to get out of afghanistan but we're. afraid that if we when we do get out of afghanistan this could be a never know their civil war the afghan 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

afghans fear that it's worse than the american occupation most off guns welcome the american presence said they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell anyone presents and they don't want to know their civil war so i think that's the dilemma we're in all politics is tragic because in 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 break even after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pakistan state. and. wealthy british. markets. find out what's really happening to the global economy.

bringing you the latest. from. the future. welcome back to cross talk peter about remind you we're talking about u.s. pakistani relations. to. go to you considering the conversation we heard between jacob in stephen before we went to the break it sounds like an a.o.l. 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 but no not just to not only destroy it maybe even invaded it one point ok because regime change seems to be a popular flavor of this year go ahead i don't think that you know that they should have my view at all either like i said i we did for exact even used a word for exaggeration exaggeration for a conversation think general yes go ahead are you saying is i'm going to exaggeration or misrepresented misrepresentation i should go right ahead. right 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 in 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 invade or tried to do you know another may second kind

of an operation until it has actionable intelligence with a mate second we have to be very clear that they had actually actual intelligence and if they don't have the same there is definitely what is happening in pakistan is that there is a public opinion which is building up either genuinely or is being brined 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 on for the pakistani 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 franco do you really really i was asked even angie can hear both of you because it's really about the future of afghanistan what kind of

state it will be what kind of alliances it will have what kind of friends they 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 that is very interesting if i go to stephen first on my go ahead steve. i disagree with that a number of other people in washington argue that it's really the should be package should be packed pack that pakistan is far more important and far more critical country to american interests than afghanistan afghanistan is a weak fragment a tribal society which everybody contributed in destroying both the americans the russians. the part of the pakistanis and others you know it's been a victim more than anything else but pakistan is a very dangerous state and i'd like us jacob what he would do should there be an attack on the united states that was launched from pakistan whether or not the pakistani government knew but we had one attack like that in new york the times square bombing that didn't go up in the bin other attacks organized from pakistan against you but it's what would he do to respond to that would he simply accept the

do nothing in response i think that's a danger that america might overreact to attack on the united states launched from pakistan to get lead to a great good because you had jihadist ideas which are the good would be the problem the problem the problem with stephen 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 got it you've got an empire here with seven hundred to a thousand military bases all over the world it's 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 the regime change under most of the incident airplane. 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 stephen because the empire's over there killing them the best thing to do to stop this nonsense is you dismantle this imperial machine i mean you look like you want to go right ahead. yeah see the thing is that. you know whatever designs the u.s. has right at the moment you know i think there are things which need to be put in context which is the box on one park sun 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 excess abated 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 interestingly a lot of people in pakistan as well do not question the war which we shouldn't have fought 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 box on future as well as i mean little on that's a very good point i'd like to take up and steve in this because you know if we get stepping back pakistan is acting extremely rational and very pragmatic because of eventually the americans will leave afghanistan 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 that it has achieved 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 afghanistan from breaking apart into a civil war but we're going to pull out i don't think this administration even the republican right one i want to stay there the ground ball 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 have won 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 al qaeda does not develop a base there good facilities there to attack the united states it's a limited go the real goal should be and i think it is in fact to assist pakistan becoming a stable country because a fragmented pakistan would be

a catastrophe for india for china or for afghanistan for a whole range of for the whole region and i think especially with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's the strategic goal for us and south asia when 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 to stay for this go ahead you know absolutely i don't know what i would do you know i just got you know jacob to go ahead take a look there is an accused terrorist here in the united states luis posada kind of us who is accused of downing the cuban airliner over venezuelan skies the u.s. is harboring him they won't extradite him to venezuela how would we feel even as well all of a stud and started standing drone bombers assassins and started taking out americans that happen to be near by this guy i mean the pakistanis are acting totally irrationally here you've got a foreign occupier that's been there for more than ten years that 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 key. certainly you don't support you would support pakistani terrorist attack against the united states because it would be retaliation you would have supported the time it was a war that it was the i would support it and i would support the immediate evacuation instead of this nonsense that you're 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 or i want to change gears are going on changing on a stage in his pocket. and then right now and talk to does that make a difference about this well i think you make a difference make a difference at the polls you would support but already i want to do what you should here is a little bit here steve i want to show and islam about how much of this is

a game of bluffing on both sides when you hear comments coming out of islam bad you had a moment coming out with his you know and they're both they're both going to the extremes 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 as well but let me get back to in answering your question let me get back to a couple of points that were raised 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 u.s. leave now it's the box on the establishment even military establishment 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 and

told 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 establishments 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 which was being raised about drone attacks i think it's again a very confusing and complex subject because right now the if 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 they say that the only pressure on the taliban is from drone attacks so what reality am i supposed you want to jump in here almost out of time here stephen i to give you the last the

last word on this program where is the by us pakistan relationship going got twenty seconds. well i think it's i think it's headed toward some kind of crisis but we it's been in crisis for the best fifteen years so this could be nothing new that i think what would trigger a real break would be a serious american attack on a pakistani facility when there was an atrocity unlike most of those which was actually supported or a pakistani launched attack on the united states but for buying that i think we're going to bump along in a very unhappy marriage which needs to be reckoned reconciled in a major way. diplomacy works kicking the can down the road many thanks to my guest today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here. remember.

he used the promise to eradicate homelessness could fail to cross the threshold as financially hard pressed nations target basic social programs to balance the books . dozens die hundreds injured in egypt as peaceful christians march against radical islamists islamic radicals descends into the biggest clashes since the revolution which ousted president mubarak. and almost but not quite yet for a big foot against ground in siberia joins experts who say they found evidence of the slippery slope. good to have you with us here on r t our top story europe's social welfare programs which have been the.