but you know so toby and churchill you're going to be killed you're a pretty traditional under law toast. in serbia lottie's available in most good hearted regency players in the. courtyard so you live from moscow word seven thirty pm the headlines the dead these riots since the egyptian revolution flare up in cairo as religious tensions lead to dozens of deaths in clashes between the country's christians and security forces the violence erupted at a peaceful rally against the attacks on christian churches by muslim extremists. poland's prime minister donald to school upset to get a second term in office with his party leading in sunday's parliamentary election to some first term was characterized by warming relations with russia. and russia

sides along with other brics countries that it's ready to help the debt ridden e.u. find a way out of financial turmoil as has growing poverty in european countries spirals out of control due to cuts in social spending. crosstalk is next year an artsy where peter the bell and his guests explore the future of the war on terror given the breakdown in trust between america and pakistan. take a. listen to. low in welcoming hostile computer a little destined to be friendly means 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 get lee embrace continue. to. stir. 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 thornburgh oh 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 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 ebb in this key strategic relationship where 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 of 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 am sorry 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 mall and accused pakistan's intelligence agency i sigh of colluding with the commie insurgent group the us has long been aware of the fact that pakistan may be assisting insurgents but my own 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 warming and consequent dispersal of it with pakistan's intelligence and security agencies that interdicted a large number of boko though operatives for the us losing pakistan as an ally would undermine its strategic goals in the region pakistan provides key military transit routes to ban a stamp 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 kind of network that 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 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 diverge and the region and that's where the relationship stands today thank you very much

for that matter. i figure you first i'd 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. of course that is the king but that is not how it is from islamabad. i mean i may not necessary 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 but is there a 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 that doing so 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 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 yet 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 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 you just heard. i think i

created an accurate picture of how pakistanis feel clearly there's a division in pakistan between the army and some of the strategist who see it want to help want to make sure there's a role for pakistan you know going to stone and they using such groups as well as tele bone and counties and others to make sure that they have are all mostly to keep the indians out that's a primary strategic goal by the most part is that he's a little upset with this kind of extension of pakistan into afghanistan given the fact that pakistanis are feeling 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 the 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 moralist 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 it's

a corrupt government on our side and they get treated trying to overthrow the taliban or even more corrupt even more vicious and brutal so i think that i would disagree with with with that if i could if i don't go back to jacob said a little bit later in the program but i see him in islamabad i mean. 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 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 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 was the end of pakistani u.s. alignment i mean the pattern has always been that there is a crises going to 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 back to. 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 bode very well for going to jail here it looks like i mean from an outsider looking in the u.s. with its drone attacks in the in its criticism of the pakistani government it just didn't try to do you didn't mind that in the eyes of its own people and certainly not 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 they had colony 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 and say us 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 its own

people be killed by american drones as america goes over the the sovereign border of pakistan on a daily basis go ahead. in the long run i am sure is correct because what could happen it's one of several possible futures as because american and pakistani interests are so different you know 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 alliance and wanted some which both sides like to each other it's like a very bad marriage with both sides around faithful to the other two containment we could see america moving towards a containing getting rockets there but i don't think that's going to happen i think it's most pakistanis understand they need a good relationship with we culturally politically and of course america needs a stable pakistan and in fact one of the reasons congress passed the bill was to provide a huge amount of conventional assistance and economic assistance as was the charge

of imperial ambitions it's fantasy i mean i haven't heard that since i was teaching undergraduates in the seventy's and your recent illinois there is no imperial ambrosia there fact we try 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 you know the republicans want to get out about that it's not very quickly 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 enough's enough look at the price you're willing to pay for this occupation now jeopardizing the relationships with a longtime ally of the united. i mean this is getting the 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 the facts are quite different that what you're saying pick up the 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 another nother civil war the uk and so sign 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 often welcome the american presence there they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell anyone presents and they don't want another civil war so i think that's the dilemma we're in all politics is tragic because it's 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 of pakistan state party.

the longest became hard to history. he was trying to still play to. what sprung the traps they laid for him from up on the radio we have the search walks around the area. from the always missing. one shot turns to. the global drug industries called father became the most want to trophy of the world that's hunters. and parties. wealthy british style.

market finance scandals find out what's really happening to the global economy with meit's concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into khan's report on r g. q. welcome back to cross talk peter about remind you we're talking about u.s. pakistani relations. to take a. nation find go to you considering the conversation we heard between jacob and stephen before we went to the break it sounds like in the end it 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 it back. superficially looks like that no no just to not only destroy it maybe even invaded it one point ok because we changed it seems to be a popular flavor of this year go ahead i don't think that there is the day that they should have my view at all why do i in the way i said it we did it for exact even used a word for exaggeration exaggeration for conversation think it's go ahead i use again islam goes on to exaggeration and misrepresented 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 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 actionable intelligence and have the dog 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 has been primed to go that way which does not kind of permit for you know boots american boots on the ground and in case that happens that is going to be very destabilizing and extremely annoying 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 of us will have to think carefully stephen ryan go you really i was asked even here both of you because it's really about the 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 will interact with the neighborhood and it's pakistan and it's very interesting if i go to 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 packaged should be packed pack of parkas that is far more important and for more critical country to american interest than afghanistan afghanistan is a weak fragment a tribal society which everybody contributed in destroying both the americans the russians. and the other part of the pakistanis and others and 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 knew but we had one attack like that in new york the times square bombing that didn't go up there have been other objects organized from pakistan against you that it's what would you do to respond to that would you 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 degree because you're hedging against us which are the good 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 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 and we've seen a change under most of the incident airplane flew out of 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 to even because the empire is over there killing them the best thing to do to stop this nonsense is dismantle this imperial machine i mean you look or you want to just 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 dark sound 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 of 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 one nine hundred eighty s. interesting really 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. . and that is where the problem has begun and add 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 long that's a very good point i like our second jacob 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 it out it's their neighborhood pakistan isn't going anywhere so it sees it 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 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 one i want to stay there on the ground will as opposed to staying in afghanistan i agree with that it's not a war we can win it's not a war we was a war we should have fought better to begin with we wouldn't one 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 notable base there is a facility there to protect the united states it's a limited go the real goal should be and i think it is in fact suspect is now 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 with especially with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's the street if you go for us and south asia we think about that because again i repeat my point in 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 you know we believe that jacob jacob is going to. look there's an accused terrorist here in the united states luis fourth of the country 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 drone 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 it'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 are they not acting rationally to beak. certainly you would support you would support pakistani terrorist attack against the united states because it would be one shit retaliation you would have support of the time it was a war that you know the i would support 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 steven don't don't kill one more wedding party no 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 on changing honestly and has been good to papa. i know right now and talk to does that make a difference about this well i think that making a difference does make a difference in the polls that will support but already i want to do what i want to change years a little bit here steve i want to ask you shadow 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 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 prepared 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 parks and want 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 sun establishment even military establishment which needs telling the american military establishment we think that the problem is that you will gum costs and leave the us with this problem. now that is not translated and

crawled 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 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 would 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 are the only pressure on the taliban is from drone attacks so what reality ever i suppose to be sure to jump in here almost out of time here stephen i'd like to give you the last hour 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 there's going to be nothing new that i think what would trigger a real break would be a serious american attack on a pakistani facility would there was an atrocity unlike most of those which was actually supported or a pakistani launched attack on the united states but for trying that i think we're going to bump along in a very unhappy marriage which needs to be read reconciled and i'm a major way i hope of salvation policy will have time to look 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 scenic time remember us talking.