tv [untitled] October 10, 2011 3:30am-4:00am EDT
3:30 am
and to my. mind the old girls. are in a sense feed now with the palm of your. comb . a lot in thirty am in moscow these iraqi headlines dozens died hundreds injured in egypt as a peaceful christian march against islamic radicalism descends into the biggest clashes since the revolution that ousted president mubarak. he used the promise to wipe out homelessness could fail to cross the threshold of potentially hard pressed nations target basic social programs and a policy of books. prime polish prime minister in line for historical reelection as exit polls put the late president's twin brother in second place total toasts first term was in part characterized by warming relations with russia. pakistan or as
3:31 am
a dozen al-qaeda linked suspects but it's seemingly not enough for the us this ten year terrorist i.q. stations at pakistan's nuclear powered militant safe haven are driving a deeper way between the country. and that's up for discussion next as peter lavelle's guess examine where pakistan and the us go from here cross talk coming up after a short break. and . take a. listen to the. following a welcoming hostile computor little destined to be front of me again pakistan u.s. relations face a breaking point the u.s.
3:32 am
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 get lean brace 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 the aisle 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 marcia tell us about the arab in this key strategic relationship well relations between the u.s. and pakistan have never been after the fallout from the u.s.
3:33 am
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 are jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional and for in his speech to the senate mullen accused pakistan's intelligence agency the i.s.i. is colluding with the kani insurgent group the u.s. has long been aware of the fact that pakistan may be assisting insurgents but non-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
3:34 am
and the war on terror thirty thousand pakistanis it is well known that for the poor who are warming and consequent just. those with pakistan's intelligence and security agencies that interdicted a large number of operatives for the us losing pakistan as an ally would undermine a strategic goals in the region pakistan provides key military transit routes to vienna stand in 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 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. my brain astray sure has repeatedly pressure pakistan to attack a common network and groups the us teams a threat to its presence in afghanistan and on statements reflect washington's uneasiness over how the two countries geopolitical interests continue to diverse and the saltire region and that's where the relationship stands today to thank you
3:35 am
very much for that much of a shift that i to go to 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 and its relationship with pakistan because when we look at the relationship afghanistan is very much front and center. of 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. the official claim here is that the united states may want human rights may want stability but it's a stability which is there e much different from the way it's in visioned in islamabad specially in the
3:36 am
general headquarters armies general headquarters and there's a different perception jacob what do you think about so stability means one thing to one government and stability means something else to another government employee of washington and islamabad well absolutely i mean the us empire is 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 arky patient 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 arky patient all 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
3:37 am
probably created an accurate picture of how pakistanis feel clearly there's a division in pakistan between the army and some of the strategist who say want to help want to make sure there's a role for pakistan in afghanistan and they are 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 strategical by the most part is that he's a little upset with this kind of extension of pakistan into afghanistan given the fact that pakistan is a failing country on many dimensions as for the other statement i think it's totally silly i mean there's no imperial goal there that 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 the clear position now 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
3:38 am
a good treat will try to overthrow the taliban or even more corrupt even more vicious and brutal so i think that i disagree with with with and see if i can if i do go back to jacobson a little bit later in the program that i seen in islamabad i mean to be 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. well 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 our societies going to the us 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 us is doing something which is completely detrimental to pakistani interests. and are some of that is genuine as well i mean
3:39 am
there is that complete disconnect and i would say that it's a very direct a very typical you know kind of juncture was the endorsed of our 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 rooted in the premier that doesn't bode very well for going to jacob here it looks like i mean from an outsider looking in the u.s. with its drone attacks and in its criticism of the pakistani government it just didn't try to do huge a mindset 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 and jeremy
3:40 am
cannot 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 and 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 soviet 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
3:41 am
here because it's only people being killed by american drones as america goes over the the sovereign border of pakistan on a daily basis go ahead. now the long run i am sure is correct because i think 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 the move of american policy from alliance with pakistan which is a nominal answer and it's a mindset which both sides lie to each other it's like a very bad marriage where both sides were unfaithful to the other two containment we could see america moving towards a containing i think it did in pakistan but i don't think that's going to happen i think it's most pakistanis understand they need american bad relationship like an adult 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 and this was a charge of imperial ambitions it's fantasy i mean i haven't heard that since i was
3:42 am
teaching undergraduates in the seventy's and universe of illinois there is no imperial ambition there are we 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 it's not 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 bombing and killing of wedding parties at some point isn't it time to say a nice enough look at the price you're willing to pay for this occupation now jeopardizing the relationships with a longtime ally of the ninety's. i mean this is getting credit president announce a major troop withdrawal and congress agrees with you in the right wing americans
3:43 am
or the republican party want to get out of afghanistan and the facts are quite different than what you're saying jacob because the 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 another other civil war the afghans have 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 is worse than the american occupation most afghans welcome the american presence there they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell the one presence that they don't want to another civil war so i think that's the dilemma we're in all politics is tragic because bad things wind up in politics there's no good choices there's only bad and worst choice all right so if somebody shows me here we break even after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pakistan state party.
3:44 am
the longest became hard to history. he was trying to stall and play to. what sprung the traps they laid for a. mark on the radio we have the surge walks around the. wall we've always missed. one shot trying to take. out the global drug industry's godfather became the most want to trophy the world's tyrants and hunters. escobar the great times and parties. of nature and discoveries buzy.
3:45 am
a communicate with the wild and let them. test yourself and become free to. see what nature can give you on all t.v. . and you can see. the future you want to. welcome back to cross talk about mind you were talking about us pakistan relations. in. the first. place if i can go to you considering the conversation we heard between shake up and stephen before we went to the break it sounds like an 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
3:46 am
i don't think i mean that superficially looks like that the guy with no notice 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 those are the rebels that they should do it all hype or live the way i said we did it for exactly even used a word for exaggeration or exaggeration for a conversation think just well yes go ahead i use a good islam because i did exaggeration and misrepresented my misrepresentation i should go right ahead. right i don't think that you know us 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
3:47 am
of an operation until it has actionable intelligence with the maid secondly we have to be very clear that they had actually actionable intelligence as the daughter of 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 been primed to go that way which does not kind of permit for your boots american boots on the ground and in case that happens that is going to be very destabilizing and extremely unnerving for the pakistani state and society which then in turn it's not going to be. for the peace project in of gonna stand and pakistan i think ok us will have to think carefully stephen ryan are you really really i was it asked even here both of you because it's really about the the the future of afghanistan what
3:48 am
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 that is very interesting if i go to stephen first time i go ahead steve. i disagree with that a number of other people in washington argue that it's really and should be quick and should be of pakistan is far more important and for more critical country to american interest in afghanistan afghanistan is a weak fragment of tribal society which everybody contributed in destroying both the americans the russians the off guns and the other part of the pakistanis and others and you know there's been a victim more than anything else but pakistan is a very dangerous state and i'd like us take it with you with you 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 you don't go up with another it's organized in pakistan against you that it's what would he do to respond to that would you simply accept the and
3:49 am
do nothing in response i think that's a danger that america might overreact to take on the united states launch for a quicker start to it would lead to a great player but you can hedge against that yes which i think would 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. and period. foreign policy that he denies even know anything about and you've got it you've got an empire here with seven hundred thousand military bases all over the world its 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 and goes back to iran the regime change under most of the incident airplane cuba. goes on in odd 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
3:50 am
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.e.c. 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 we need to be put in context which is that pakistan one pakistan has to seriously look at non-state actors even if the us leaves or does not leave. i would not agree with the notion that. part of the or a large part of the non-state actors or 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
3:51 am
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 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'd like to take up and steve in this because you know if we get stepping back to pakistan is i think stream we rational in a very pragmatic because 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
3:52 am
it's their neighborhood pakistan isn't going anywhere so it sees it it has a chip a security challenge on its border want to see certain outcomes we 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 to want to want to stay there the ground pull as opposed to staying in afghanistan i agree with it it's not a war we can win it's not a war we win so war we should afford better to begin with we would've won but we would have done better we would have left afghanistan with a stable government that opportunity has long since gone so there's no reason to stay in afghanistan it's a little we are now the purpose of staying in afghanistan will be to make sure that al qaeda does notable a base there to facility there to protect the united states that's a little bit ago the real goal should be and i think it is in fact to assist not just on becoming a stable country because a fragmented pakistan would be
3:53 am
a contest of it for india for china for afghanistan for a whole range of so the whole region and i think with their special with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's the scary thing if your goal for us and south asia if 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 you know jane jacobs is going to take a. look there is an accused terrorist here in the united states luis posada how do you let's 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 standing drones and 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 we don't know when
3:54 am
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 meet. sir you don't support and you would support pakistani terrorist attack against united states because it would be retaliation you would have supported the times it was a war that it was then i would support the point now i would support the immediate evacuation instead of this nonsense that you're polling about some indefinite time in the future after the election to get now don't kill one more person stephen go don't kill one more wedding party go go 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 to a.j. going to stay in his pocket. you know right now and talk to those that make a difference about this well i think you make it an issue for it does make a difference in the polls that would support it already i want to do it what you should here is a little bit here steve i want to show and islam about how much of this is
3:55 am
a game of bluffing on both sides when you hear comments coming out of islam that you had a moment coming out with his you know and they're both they're both going to 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 you know common man on the street once the u.s. leaves now it's the facts on 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
3:56 am
called 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 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 they say that the only pressure on the taliban is from drone attacks so what reality i suppose to be sure to happen here are some of time here stephen and i to give you the last and last word on this program we receive our u.s.
3:57 am
pakistan relationship going got twenty seconds. rising because i think it's headed toward some kind of crisis but we it's 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 pakistani facility where there was an atrocity unlike most of those which was actually supported or pakistani launched an 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 in a major way i hope. diplomacy works kicking the can down the road many thanks and i guess again washington. thanks to our viewers for watching us here. remember. he.
31 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on