show this to us pakistan relations are on the agenda. following a welcoming cross-talk computable destined to be friended me again pakistan u.s. relations face a breaking point the u.s. says pakistan is hedging its bets by maintaining ties to militant groups that are trying to undermine the government in neighboring afghanistan and pakistan replies that washington's rhetoric is counterproductive 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 ayesha siddiqa 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 here 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 in floor in his speech to the senate mullen accused pakistan's intelligence agency isiah of colluding with kani insurgent groups the u.s. 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 for doing that the bombing and consequent dispersal of it was back on the 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 a bomb i've been astray show 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 much 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. of 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 him and 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 that doing so that 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 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 strategists 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 they get treated trying to overthrow the taliban or even more corrupt even more vicious and brutal so i think that i disagree with with with that statement if i can if i don't go back to jacobson a little bit later in the program but ice and islam about 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 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 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 the pattern has always been that there is a crises which brings the two nations together there is a lot of music and dancing in the air and there is strategic convergence and tactical divergence and as we move on at the end of eight or nine years or at the end of a decade there is tactical you know convergence and there is strategic divergence

and that is where we are at the moment ok that is a value that is another very limited in the binnie that doesn't bode very well if i go to jack up here it looks like i mean from an outsider looking in it looks like the the u.s. with its drone attacks in the end its criticism of the pakistani government is just didn't try to do the gentle minds that in the eyes of its own people it's certainly 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 us empire that saying hey now that we're in the occupiers instead of the sunni 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 go 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 american back and relationship going on with we culturally politically and of course america needs a stable pakistan because one of the reasons the congress passed the bill was to provide a huge amount of conventional assistance economic assistance pakistan as for 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 universe of illinois there's no imperial ambition there in fact we're trying to get out we try to punish the people who attack the united states we've done some most of that and there's a lot of argument for getting out very quickly certainly obama and much of the right wing ministries 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 nuff 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 out pres the 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. pray that we when we do get out of afghanistan there's going to be never another civil war the afghans 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 off guns welcomed the american presence and they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell anyone presence and they don't want to another civil war so i think that's the dilemma we're in all politics is tragic because of bad things wind up in politics

there's no good choices there's only bad and worst choice all right so somebody shows and here we go to short break even after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pakistan state. and. the longest big game hunting history. he was trying to stall and. what sprung the traps they laid for. him up on the radio we have the surge blogs around the. always from the always miss. one shot trying to take. the global drug industry's godfather became the most want to trophy

the world that tops. the escobar. and taste. download the official allocation to your i phone oh i pod touch from the i.q. zaps to. one life on the go. video on demand. build costs and already says feeds now in the palm of your. question. dot com.

welcome back to cross talk i'm peter about to mind you we're talking about u.s. pakistan relations. and. if i can go to you considering the conversation we heard between jacob in steven 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 the rebels 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 and 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 unto 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 been 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 unnerved in 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 fry i'm going to be really i was asked even and jacob 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 we 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 but argue that it's really should be a package should be packed pack that pakistan is far more important than 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 the off guns the other 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 did not go up and have been other attacks organized from pakistan against you got 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 an attack on the united states launched from pakistan to it would lead to a great goalie because it's a hedge against the u.s. which are the good 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 one 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 goes back to iran the regime change under most of the incident airplane cuba. goes on and on but what he also fails to recognize is the more people they kill in afghanistan and now in pakistan people get angry over that and that's why you have this perpetual war on terrorism that's why they would be attacking because of the occupation because of the killing this is what ron paul has pointed out they come over here to kill us 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 that 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 add that is going to

continue the way pakistan handles it is going to you know determine barque stance future as well as i mean little long that's a very good point i'd like to take up in steve in this because you know if we get stepping back and pakistan is i think stream we 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 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 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 all cater does not develop a base there is a facility there to attack the united states that'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 for afghanistan for a whole range of though the whole region and i think especially with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's the street is your 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 standing to say for this go ahead you know absolutely i don't know what i would tell you i just got to 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 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 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 concern. so 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 you know 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 election to get now don't kill one more person steven 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 to change even to stay 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 in the polls that would support but already i want to do what you're going to be even 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 parks an 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 of 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 i suppose if you want to jump in here almost out of time here stephen i'd like to give you the last the last word on this program we received about 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 it's been in crisis for the best fifteen years so this could be nothing new 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 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 and i'm 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 to. be able to.

put twenty five dead on three hundred eight hundred agents military rulers order an investigation into the deadliest riots in cairo since the revolution in fierce clashes between christians and security forces also. very similar. that sold out. onto wall street it hard to increase the pressure as pressure has gathered pace the you asked and spread to other countries while demonstrators are keys police so pulling a bully boy tactics and making groundless to read and. also european leaders and work against the clock to try to save the e.u. from economic disaster russia says aid could help faltering the eurozone economy and. scientists from all over the world may well be getting five billion dollars in strong be homed over the biggest expedition you know the hope a century trying to track down big but.