bringing you the latest in science and technology from around. the future coverage. download the official publication and show i phone the i pod touch from the i choose our story. life on the go live. video on demand cheese minefield comes an r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your. question. if. the first for. the safety first. you see a story. so you think you understand it and then. you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything is. welcome to the big picture.

the emission free accreditation the free lunch for chargers free the arrangements free. three stooges i free. the old free blog morning video for your media projects a free media. dot com. if . me is eve. to. see.

wealthy british. writers. market. find out what's really happening to the global economy with much stronger raw no holds barred look at the global financial headlines. is a report on. the egypt a story. following a welcoming hostile computor little 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 and would only play into the hands of militant groups how long can this get really embrace continue. to keep. it crossed oculus 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 foreign burger 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 cross talk rules and i think 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 ed and this key strategic relationship the 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 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 asked our 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 kani insurgent groups the u.s. has long been aware of the fact that pakistan may be assisting insurgents but more 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 they were being and consequent. it was on the intelligence and security agencies that a large number of those go though for the us losing pakistan as an ally would undermine its strategic goals in the region pakistan provides key military transit routes to ghana stan and houses a base for unmanned u.s. drones but all this doesn't stop 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 the bomb administration has repeatedly pressure pakistan to attack a common that work and groups the us seems a threat 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 smallest region and that's where the relationship stands today thank you

very much for that much of a shift and is one that i should 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 do you think that's the primary goal of the united states in its relationship with pakistan because when we look at the relationship afghanistan is very much front and center. course that is the. 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 fischel claim here is that the united states may want him and writes 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 of what do you think about are 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 u.s. empire is position is let's get some regimes that are going to be loyal to the empire and do is they're told and 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 kaine 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

quote 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 they want to what to make sure there's a role for pakistan you know down a stone and they 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 i mean there's no one cruel goal there at one point in the bush administration they considered having a position in central asia including afghanistan where there 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 more or less stable afghanistan cover but the goal of democratising got it's not as long as it's been given up and it is a corrupt government there are more corrupt governments in the world that it's

a corrupt government on our side and the good truthful trying to overthrow the taliban are even more corrupt even more vicious and brutal so i think that i disagree with with with that statement if i can if i don't go back to jacob said a little bit later in the program but i said in islamabad i mean the new 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 and 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

get mental 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 direct a 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 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 jake here it looks like i mean from an outsider looking in the u.s. with its drone attacks and its criticism of the pakistani government is just deal right or do you generalize it in the eyes of its own people it's certainly not

making it unstable that the same time he gets criticised 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 funneling money into the haqqani 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 with the economy and those people in pakistan and afghanistan that are trying to rid this country of foreign occupation are operating entirely consistently it's a u.s. empire that saying hey now that we're in the occupiers instead of the suv union we want you to start killing your own people we want you to start the stabilizing 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 being killed by american drones as america goes over the sovereign border of pakistan on a daily basis go ahead. now in 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 with regard to support for these terrorist groups we could see a move of american policy from alliance with pakistan which is a nominal line so it's an alliance in 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 containing pakistan but i don't think that's going to happen i think it's most pakistanis understand they need american bad relationship economically culturally politically and of course america needs more stable pakistan one of the reasons congress passed the 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 university illinois there is no imperial ambition in fact we're trying to get out we try to punish the people who attacked 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 and the republicans want to get out about that and 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 can years of this no constraints drone attacks assassinations bombing and killing of wedding parties at some point isn't it time to say nothing nuff look at the price you're willing to pay for this occupation now jeopardizing the relationships with a longtime ally of the ninety days you know leading and we're going to present

president announce a major troop withdrawal and congress agrees with you in the right wing americans or the republican party want to get out of afghanistan and the facts are quite different than what you're saying jacob there's no accurate 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 a never know their 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 afghans fear that it's worse than the american occupation most afghans welcomed the american presence they don't like it but they certainly don't want to tell anyone presents and they don't want to other civil war so i think that's the dilemma we're in all politics is tragic because in bad things wind up in politics there's no good choices there's only bad and worse stories are some of these gems and here we break even after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pakistan state party.

wealthy british style. market dynamics come to find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cars are there are no holds barred look the global financial headlines tune in to a report on r.g.p. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture.

the first for. fixed. place you can say. welcome back to cross talk about mind you were talking about us pakistan relations . take anything. i should find go to you considering the conversation we heard between shakeup 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 that superficially looks like that like 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 view it all hyper lived to be i said i we did it for exact even used a word for exaggeration exaggeration for conversation think general yes go ahead i'll use it again if i'm going to exaggeration or mis representing our misrepresentation i should go right ahead. right i don't think that you know us can despite part of war and 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 they tried to do you know another may second kind of an

operation until it has actionable intelligence with made second we have to be very clear that they had actually actionable intelligence and have the daughter have the same there is definitely what is happening in pakistan is that there is a public opinion which is building up either generally 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 past any state in society which then in turn it's not going to be. for the peace project in of grandstand and protestant i think ok us we'll have to think carefully stephen ryan how do you really 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'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 for argued that it's really should be a pick and should be quick pick of pakistan is far more important and for more critical country to american interest in afghanistan afghanistan is a week for a bunch of tribal society which everybody contributed in destroying what the americans the russians the off guns they're talking the talk of studies and others you know 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 they're going to go up there been other incidents organized from pakistan against united states what would he do to respond to that would he simply accept the do nothing response i

think that's a danger that america might overreact to on the united states launched from pakistan to get lead to a great degree because you're hedging against the u.s. which i think 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. and period. foreign policy that he denies even know anything about you about it you've got an empire here with seven hundred thousand military bases all over the world it's primary goal is regime change we've seen that in libya a country that never attacked the united states we see it in iraq a country that never attacked the united states and goes back to iran and the regime change under most of that 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 this man told this imperial machine and he said you look like you want to jump and 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 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 1980's interesting really 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 add that is going to continue the way it parker son handles it is going to you know determine pakistan's future as well as i mean little or that's a very good point and i can see even this because you know if we get stepping back pakistan is i think stream we rational in a 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 achieved a security challenge on its border and want to see certain outcomes when you think about that stephen. i think that's correct the pakistanis are really worried about they don't want the americans to leave they want us to stay and the indians want us to stay also because we we represent the force keeping afghanistan from breaking apart into a civil war but we're going to pull out i don't think this administration even the republican right one i want to stay there the ground ball is supposed to stay going to be honest i agree with it it's not a war we can win it's not a war we're going to 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 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 located does not develop a base there is a facility there to attack the united states so it's a limited go the real goal should be and i think it is in fact to assist buckers on becoming a stable country and as a fragmented caucus that would be a catastrophe for india for china for afghanistan for

a whole range of for the whole region and i think with specially with one hundred plus nuclear weapons that's a strategic goal for us and south asia when you 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 state for this go ahead. absolutely i don't know you know you just got to take a. look there's an accused terrorist here in the united states luis posada 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 sending 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 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 be key. certainly you don't support and 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 that i would support the no i would support the immediate evacuation instead of this nonsense that your polling about some indefinite time in the future after the elections and get now don't kill one more person steven 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 on changing on a stage in his. room you know right now and talk to those that make a difference about this well i think you make it your it does make a difference in the polls you would support it already i want to do what i want to change here is 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 that you had a moment coming out with his you know and their vote they're both going to extremes how much is each side blessing because it's a dangerous embrace but it's an embrace nonetheless. you know there is there is you know quite of course the extent of that of bluffing as well britney 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 axon 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

enthralled to the man on the street in fact the reality is that after may second after there was some differing nosediving of the relations between the two establishments 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 where it 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 they say that the only pressure on the taliban is from drone attacks so what reality i suppose we should jump in here on the side of time here stephen i 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 heading toward some kind of crisis but with spin 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 where there was an atrocity unlike most of those which was actually supported or pakistani wants to 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 and i'm a major what i hope they should all feel how do not diplomacy works kicking the can down the road many thanks and i guess a day in washington and in islamabad and thanks to our viewers for watching us here are scenics time remember crossfire feels. it. can. still. be. wealthy british scientists. like.

markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with much stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into this report on r.g.p. . the so.