live from moscow this is. around the world the. deadliest ride since the egyptian revolution flare up in cairo as religious tensions. clashes between the country's christians and security forces. multiple arrests and claims of a heavy handed response from police people across the u.s. . government protection of. russia. is that it's ready to try to help find

a way out of the financial turmoil the growing poverty in european countries spirals out of control due to cuts in social spending. this is. just fifteen seconds away. from. take a. listen to the. following welcome to cross talk computor labelle destined to be front 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 would only play into the hands of militant groups how long can this deadly embrace continue. live can. live. up 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 cross to 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 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. 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 am sorry 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 isiah of colluding with the kani insurgent group the u.s. has long been aware of the fact that pakistan may be assisting insurgents but no one 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 folding the warming and consequent disposal with 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 get a stand in houses a base for unmanned u.s. drones you know 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 my being a straight shooter has repeatedly pressured pakistan to attack a common that work and groups the us teams of present to its presence in afghanistan and will in statements reflect washington's uneasiness over how the two countries geopolitical interests continue to diverge and the saltire region and that's where the relationship stance debate thank you very much for that much of a shift in islam that i 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 in 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 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 how doing so stability means

one thing to one government and stability means something else to another government bring of washington and islamabad oh absolutely i mean the u.s. 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 passably and now they're upset because the pakistani government and people within the pakistani nation are not willing to support their superiority 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 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 procreated 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 want to

help want to make sure there's a role for pakistan you know 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 a 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 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 with the goal of democratizing i've got a stand it's 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 treat will try to overthrow the taliban or even more corrupt even more vicious and brutal so i think that i disagree with with that if i can if i don't go back to jacobson

a little bit later in the program but i see 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. you know there are two pinions in that i mean my personal opinion is that it. 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 us 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 very 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 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 tactical you know convergence and there is strategic divergence and that is where we are at the moment ok that is it that is it is now a very limited in the premier that doesn't bode very well i'm going to jacob 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's just deal trying to do you gentlemen is it 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 and jeremy cannot have it both ways. well though there's obviously some some severe hypocrisy here i mean let's keep in mind that

the had konnie are been entirely consistent when 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 and 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 a us empire that's 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 every pakistani government 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 i think what could happen it's one of several possible futures is it because american and pakistani interests are so different you know if going to stand 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 it's an alliance in which both sides lie to each other it's like a very bad marriage were both sides were unfaithful to the other two containment we could see america moving towards a containing continue but i don't think that's going to happen i think it's most pakistanis understand they need america back and released you look at it we culturally politically and of course america needs a stable pakistan one of the reasons the congress passed the kerry lugar bill was to provide a huge amount of conventional assistance economic assistance pakistan that's what 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 ambition there that we're trying to get out we're trying to punish the

people who attacked 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 we're going to stick you know the republicans want to get out of optimism very quickly jake if you want to jump in there to space 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. look at the price you're willing to pay for this occupation and now jeopardizing the relationships with a longtime ally of the united. i mean this is 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 than what you're saying jacob the picture is that we do want to get out

of afghanistan but we're. afraid that we will we do get out of afghanistan this could be no no the civil war the off gone 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 often fear that is worse than the american occupation most often welcome the american presence or they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell anyone presents and they don't want other civil war so i think that's a dilemma where it all politics is tragic because of bad things wind up in politics there's no good choice and certainly bad and worst choice all right so somebody shows up here we go in for a break we're going after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pakistan state party. and.

wealthy british scientists some time. markets. find out what's really happening to the global economy for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines to name two kinds of reports on our chief.

can. welcome back to class talking about command you were talking about us pakistan relations. can. you should i go to you considering the conversation we heard between jacob and 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 no not 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 there is out there so

they should have my view that although i don't like the way i said i would defer exact even use the word for exaggeration exaggeration for a conversation think go ahead are you saying you islam both are exaggerated or misrepresented by misrepresentation i should go right ahead. 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 they tried to do you know another may second kind of an operation unto it has actionable intelligence with a mate second we have to be very clear that they had actual actionable intelligence and have the 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 been primed to go that way which does not kind of commit for you know 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 is not going to be. for the peace project in of grandstand and pakistan i think ok us will have to think carefully stephen ryan going to be really i was it was asked even if you're both of you because it's really a part of the future of afghanistan what kind of state it was people kind of alliances will have a kind of friends who will help 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 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 for argue that it's really and should be

packin should be. a part of this that is far more important than for more critical country to american interest than afghanistan afghanistan as a week for a tribal society which everybody contributed in destroying both the americans the russians the off guns and you know the talk of the pakistanis and others it's been a victim more than anything else but 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 did not go up and there been other attacks organized from pakistan against you got 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 the united states launch for problems to get lead to a great guy you know if you had just as much as they were would be you know 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've got it you've got an empire here with seven hundred to a 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 flew out a model goes on and on 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 you dismantle this imperial machine he said 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 that pakistan one part son 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 you know bart after all 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 thought which is the war of the 1980's. 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 park stands future as well as and we need a law that's a very good point i'd like to conceive in this because you know if we get stepping back to pakistan is i think stream we rational in a very pragmatic because of eventually the americans will revive can understand 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 it's the pakistanis are waiting it out it's their neighborhood pakistan isn't going anywhere so it sees that it has a chip a security challenge on its border to 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 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 call is supposed to stay you know is going to agree with it 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 would've 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 to go with grace there is a facility there to protect the united states it's a limited what the real goal should be and i think it is in fact this has now become a stable country because a fragmented caucus now would be a catastrophe for india for china for afghanistan for a whole range of for the whole region and i think especially with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's a strategic goal for us and so we think about that because again i'll 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. absolutely i don't know that i would just go take a plane it's going to take a. look there's an accused terrorist here in the united states luis both 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 us doesn't start standing drones bombers assassins and started taking out americans that happen to be nearby 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 concerned. so you don't support you would support pakistani terrorist attack against the united states because it would be ruined retaliation you would have supported the times it was

a war that you know the i would support the no 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 poll 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 aging honestly and has been good to pakistan. you know 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 would support but already i want to do what i want to change here is leaving here steve i want to just show and islam about how much of this is a game of bluffing on both sides when you hear comments coming out of islamabad you had only 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 is well preferred we 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 part sound 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 you know common man on the street once the u.s. leaves now it's the pakistani establishment even military establishment which he 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 called

a look there is a game and there is not just one game there 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 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 drawing attacks so what reality i suppose you want to jump in here on the side of time here stephen i'd like to give you the last the last word on this program we receive 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 why it's been in crisis for the past 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 with there was an atrocity unlike most of those which was

actually supported or a pakistani launched 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 wrecked reconciled and i'm a major what i hope salvation policy lies how do not 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 in our scenics time remember last time.

in the united kingdom all she's available in thirty house the land from the one hotel on the old waverly hotel they can also turn the mill stone hotel.