pakistan and the u.s. strategic allies on the collision course both say they're committed to fighting terror though each in its own way and both have divergent ideas about geo political interests pakistani american relations have rarely been described as good but i can hear us navy seal raid that killed osama bin laden on may second the shaky alliance is finally in question the fact that the world's most wanted was discovered in the camp owned near islamabad has deepened american distrust of pakistan even some of pakistan's biggest supporters in the us have had to put on a brave face coming to terms with the fact that pakistan may have been harboring bin laden for years it is fair to say that some about colleagues in the oceans. have deep reservations about whether it. is the same goals were prepared to be a full partner in pursuing those schools and there are calls in some quarters in progress for a shift in. april. less there is an improvement in the current situation while american lawmakers may be losi

is operating inside pakistan is not helping any of the stakeholders in pakistan that's one thing if i you know i don't know if i'm going to tucson here well what do you think about that because congress is grading it to take money away from the very huge aged package that was given last year i mean again i mean is this just treating pakistanis or truant child because the sentiment in pakistan is very anti-american as was pointed out. you know i think it's a very it's a very tricky game to play i think. salut correct to say that to the extent that the united states is perceived to be is acting unilaterally gloating taking a heavy hand one of the risks that is run is a alienating the palace of the populace and entrenching support within the military intelligence establishment i think this is not the goal i think the endgame in fact of the obama administration is to try and preserve some of the larger structure of the alliance while again shifting some of the internal support a way from the most unpredictable and erratic elements of the military intelligence structure. towards other elem

approved by pakistan. so that was a cnce that was being taken with it but he had good well-placed faith in the ability of the people carrying it out. the intelligence convied him it was a good call and that's a hard piece, if you can recall, the chemical factory in sudan turned out not to be a chemical factor you have the people doing the raid and then you go andou get on your hands and watch them do it. i give him credit for doing it. >> charlie: is this the forerunner when you have the military cia combination special ops troops. >> i hope so. back when i was director of national intelligence, i talked about the need for a thing called title 60. now title 10 is what military operations are authorized under title 50 is what intelligence operations are authorized under. there's a ve sharp distinction, what you can do, whether it's deniable. i think that's irrelevant where we are now with these groups like al-qaeda and ungoverned parts of the world where host governments cannot enforce law and in order. we

pakistan.nd i think that will be true of any western european country, true of america itself. >> do you think anybody at high level in pakistan would have known that osama bin laden was there? >> well, the question in pakistan is you've got the army, you've got the security services, you've got the politicians, the business class, a very divided political system. until there is unity in pakistan, until people come together, then the attack on terrorism, the fight against terrorism, will be ineffective. and this is the real problem that we face. afghanistan is soluble if we had stability in pakistan. terrorism in pakistan needs the local government, the local people, to come together with these -- almost with nonsec tarrian politics and with the army and political services to work with them to deal with this threat. there is too much division in pakistan for the fight against terrorism to be effective. >> finally, what do you miss most about being prime minister? >> i can tell you what i don't

taliban is in pakistan. anyway. the second thing, more surprising, actually, and this indicates -- the success of the military campaign -- that unlike the growing impression of a few year back up to the spring of 2009 the pakistani army is capable of defeating insurgency in some areas, containing it and at least to some extent rolling it back. in other words, the idea that pakistan is going to be overthrown by a spreading insurgency is wrong. that's not going to happen. the second -- and, actually, i always expected that as soon as the army pulled itself together, motivateed its troops, got sufficient political backing. perhaps more striking is the reconstruction in swat has proceeded very well. admittedly, this is only one district, but it is a district which after having been badly damaged by the fighting in the 2009 was then even more damaged, of course, by the floods of last year. and the reconstruction after both of these episodes has been impressive. in terms of the restoration of infrastructure, the a

hugh burrows just returned from pakistan. welcome hugh. >> thank you good to see you. >> you couldn't have timed it any better. >> thanks for the opportunity to talk about that. it is timely not always in a good happy way but gail and i were over there on a private trip to see friends, visit hospitals and schools and college that belong to the presbyterian church that we hat gooden back it is -- had gotten back it is a point inapt experience to be in pakistan. >> you have done this before. >> for 15 years we hasn't been back for 3 or iv years i think -- or four years i think we had helped some pakistani pastors to come to the states we hasn't gone back we didn't think it would be helpful to our pakistani brothers and sisters to ferry us around. we thought e with had a nice window in which to go and we were there during the raymond davis events, which i can go into and sequenced into the tsunami in japan and is thank you for the opportunity to come on because with the events of this last week with osama bin laden we thought it

that is certainly a feudal aspect of pakistan. in pakistan, you need protection. you need protection against your neighbors. you need protection against the police. you need protection against the courts who may be used by your neighbors against you. you need powerful protection. even when there is not genuine kinship, you have artificial kinship groups or faction for the sake of protection against all the predatory forces in which you're surrounded. quickly, this is quite a gallop being left out, but there is a balance, and, of course, it is dominant in pakistan, and they have 60% of the population, 75% or so of industry and so forth, but it is a very ambiguous province and when they talk about the establishment, it's something which is only quite a small chunk of even the wealthy, by even in pakistan, there is more similarity perhaps to india than immediately meets the eye in the term the establishment cannot dictate. there is often element of compromise. the classic example of this is the dam held out by pashtuns. the dam was talked about 60 years ago. three de

>> with regard to pakistan? , anything that weighs in on the reconciliation, peace process, so we take advantage of this political space that has been created by the military success. >> mr. chairman, i am of the the you that in all of these of engagements in the 21st century, there are essentially teenager comes -- three major components, and the first is the security component. as time has shown, this is not enough. but security obviously has to be restored to a certain level before he can do anything else, but very quickly, in addition to security, as people transition to a different type of government and want more transparency in their lives, and a credit system, there has to be something else. there has to be reforms to meet the people plus expectations, for instance, governmental policies, role all, where corruption exists, as the attack, you need a judicial sources -- system that is functional, i need an economic tiller that shows the people there is an alternative to the way they were living before. our

pakistan relationship. we must make this relationship work. despite the killing of at osama bin laden, the fact is the threat from al qaeda and affiliate groups remains as dangerous as it did last friday. in fact, cia director panetta warned yesterday that terrorists almost certainly will attempt to avenge him, and we must remain vigilant and resolute. if anything, the threat is even more dangerous in the days and weeks ahead after his demise. this was most obvious last may when a pakistani born u.s. citizen trove and suv into times square and attempted to killed hundreds of people. he traveled to pakistan and received training from ttp. his attack was retribution for u.s. crowns in pakistan. retribution has been a driver of attacks in the past, and we must be on guard. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on the myriad of terrorist groups operating in pakistan and their intent and capability to strike the homeland for. these a wharf is in a continually evolving groups present huge challenges to

pakistan, pakistan, pakistan, pakistan, pakistan. it has been pakistan from the beginning. it's still pakistan. how long is it going to keep being pakistan? today on the occasion of osama bin laden's death, "the new york times" ran a big 5,000-word obituary of bin laden. it describes bin laden bragging about his american made weapons and his trainers who supported him against the soviets in the 1980 ez. the u.s. was being careful to avoid getting drawn into a hot war in afghanistan with the soviets so even though we gave that training and those weapons to bin laden in afghanistan in the 80's, we never really got it to him all that directly. instead we used a middle man. who do you think we used as a middle man? we used the pakistani intelligence service as the middle man when we wanted to arm bin laden. the whole post 9/11 idea of waging a war on terrorism was to go after terrorists themselves, right? but also go after their sponsors. you go after the countries that sponsor terrorist groups and fund them. iraq never did that. that was a red herring. that was a distraction f

rule of law in pakistan. and it was not u.s. pressure that returns the justice to his chair. it was a movement, a popular mood in pakistan that led to the justice's reinstatement. we heard recently that more than 70% of the 20 billion u.s. dollars that have been given to pakistan since september 11 have gone to the military, and we've heard this morning that it's unclear what the military has done with that. it's also unclear what has happened to the other 30%. that $6 billion over the last 10 years. and i also like to put that figure to perspective, it sounds like you a lot of money but it should be noted that the pakistani american community contributes an estimated $1 billion annually in cash, another 4 billion annually in labor to philanthropic activities. the second point, the people of pakistan should not be punished for the failings of their government. the military and intelligence agencies in pakistan has repeatedly undermined and overthrown civilian governments in pakistan. and the people of pakista

osama bin laden's presence in pakistan was not to pakistan's advantage. now, you know pakistan well, christiane. you were there immediately after 9/11. we still have many jihadi has beens from the 1980s who are still alive and well and kicking and some of them could have been helping them, but they are not in the state or government of pakistan today. >> right, but let's call a spade a spade. osama bin laden, number one terrorist in the world, including against pakistan, was hiding in your west point town. there are barriers, there are checks, foreigners just can't go there just willy-nilly. i know that for a fact and so do others. khalid shaikh mohammed, ksm, was found in a similar town in rawalpindi a few years ago. how can this happen without the tacit knowledge or without some kind of involvement? >> let me proffer another explanation. >> that's the question. >> it's a state, a country with lots of people, it's a very difficult country in the sense of its capacity to deal with the problems. as the national security adviser said, a lot more people have

pakistan. they are right there with iran as to whether they are our friend or enemy. if we are concerned about iran having nuclear weapons, we should be more concerned about pakistan. we need to get rid of their nuclear weapons, before we start a war with pakistan that is going to be more serious than what we have seen so far. host: philadelphia, pa., jake on our democrats line. caller: you cannot make pakistan an enemy. they are still letting us in their country to launch an assault against potential terrorist targets. it is a debacle on their part to allow osama bin laden to stay in their backyard. we need to move forward. what secretaryr of state hillary clinton had to say yes today. >> we are committed to support the people in government as they try to fight their democracy against violent extremists. bin laden has also declared war on pakistan. he ordered the killings of many innocent pakistani men, women and children. in recent years, the cooperation between our governments, military, and

what could pakistan -- what should pakistan have done?ll, i don't think that i would have looked at it from international law point of view or legalities or juris prudence points of view. it should have been pakistan forces. u.s. forces violated our sovereignty. and certainly it would have and my own people would have. therefore, any leader in pakistan allowing this is -- his own reputation is at stake. rightly so. therefore, i would have -- wouldn't have liked it. objected. but i would not have objected to the killing of osama bin laden, whether it was violation of any law or -- >> american administration to have informed you. >> yes. >> possibly included pakistani forces in the raid. is that what you are saying? >> no. i would have certainly insisted it be pakistan's special forces going to deal with it. >> here is the problem. you are president obama and know there has been a breakdown in trust between pakistan and america. high level. trust is not what it used to be. there are good reasons for that. you get intelligence of bin laden i

pakistan will be a more confident and secure pakistan and in my view is stable and secure pakistan canelp create a stable salvation and the safer united states. thank you. >> thank you, mr. nawaz. i want to thank each of the members of the distinguished panel for your testimony. are facing a very difficult circumstance and not with god some hearings that we've got a tan in a classified p.m., which is now untold going to be followed by a series of votes. and so in recognition of what that significant delay would mean an out of respect are your time as well, under the money going to limit the questioning to myself, the ranking member and for some looted questions now perhaps at some point in time we have the agreement of the committee and we can follow up again on this very, very important topic with you with panelists because i think there is some significant questioning that can be done. i thank you for your preparation and i hope we can do more to follow up on it. allow me for a moment to begin. at this point in time he made a comment about not dealing with the taliban. am i correct i

pakistan.a democratic timebomb is ticking with the median age of about 20 years, roughly 60 million use are a population of 180 million between 16 and 25 and are largely illiterate and unemployed. they live in a state that has spawned unbridled to craddick behavior among its leaders. while attention has been focused on the u.s.-pakistan relationship, the greatest influence on the rise of terrorism in pakistan is the lack of governance. the country faces an economic crisis due in part to global shots, but to a larger extent the ineptitude of reforms. the external shocks to the economy and policy hope create the perfect backdrop to the violent culture of terrorism in pakistan. countering the insurgency that inhabit pakistan today is the huge task for which pakistan has largely relied on military force. in the past, the army has changed his training regiment to focus on counterinsurgency, but still doesn't have relationship between counterinsurgency and counterterrorism in mind as the streaking co

if this becomes pakistan's war, i think pakistan will win the war.'s perceived that pakistan army is a mercenary army of the u.s., we have no chance of winning. >> i agree the scale of human tragedy is beyond words. we all share the concerns about that. something you just said i am troubled by. you said if it is the pakistani war against terror, you will win. at the same time the leader of your military is refusing to pursue the leaders of al qaeda and some of the most violent terrorist groups in pakistan. why should we in the united states have confidence that the pakistani military is going to do everything it can do to pursue terrorists? >> well, this is why i'm saying the fact u.s. thinks pakistan military is playing a double game can only be because they want the u.s. money and at the same time they are patronizing terrorists. i guess that's what the pakistan army is being accused of. if we don't take any aid, if we have a credible government, the interest is there should be no terrorism from pakistani soil. a credible government should say this

and pakistan. i see some signs, some glimmer of hope in my conversations in pakistan with the civil and with the military that perhap the enemy is now within the country, that there needs to be some kind of normalization on the eastern border with india and maybe that will remove the role of the intelligence agencies in fomenting insurgencies or terrorist attacks or militancy across each other's borders. host: this headline from the "new york daily news," first pakistan will pay, then the u.s., the chilling message delivered by the pakistani taliban which vowed to avenge the attack on osama bin laden with strikes against america. the next call is from massachusetts on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to point out is that every time all of our media people and u.s. congressmen, everybody's blaming pakistan and that pakistan cannot be trusted, and that pakistan has betrayed u.s.a. and that pakistan has got so much aid like $26 billion so far, but the point w

if this becomes pakistan's war, i think pakistan will win the war. if it's perceived that pakistan army is a mercenary army of the u.s., we have no chance of winning. >> i agree the scale of human tragedy is beyond words. we all share the concerns about that. something you just said i am troubled by. you said if it is the pakistani war against terror, you will win. at the same time the leader of your military is refusing to pursue the leaders of al qaeda and some of the most violent terrorist groups in pakistan. why should we in the united states have confidence that the pakistani military is going to do everything it can do to pursue terrorists? >> well, this is why i'm saying the fact u.s. thinks pakistan military is playing a double game can only be because they want the u.s. money and at the same time they are patronizing terrorists. i guess that's what the pakistan army is being accused of. if we don't take any aid, if we have a credible government, the interest is there should be no terrorism from pakistani soil. a credible government should sa

a support system in pakistan. congress gave president obama is standing ovation. and he was watching from the situation room. we take a tour of osama bin laden to hideout. also coming up in the program, sony says hackers may have stolen the details of 25 million on-line games. and mental deterioration in old age. ♪ the united states says it is closing its embassy in islamabad had done with three other cities until further notice. that is following the killing of u.s. forces of osama bin laden at his complex, a few hours' drive from his love of god. -- islamabad. the president of pakistani confirmed that the operation was not a joint one. we will bring you the latest from pakistan and the u.s. throughout the course of the day. here is this report from our washington correspondent. >> anxious moments at the white house as president obama and his pfizer's watched the operation in real time to catch osama bin laden -- >> we were concerned about pakistan. we were watching and making sure that our aircraft was able to g

pakistan and east pakistan. the country suffered from an identity crisis from its inception. pack pakistan's location brought the country under the folds of the u.s. cold war umbrella, but rather than putting them at an advantage, we had the embrace of freezing afghanistan and pakistan into a special military relationship that discouraged the nation's demockization and development while at the same time encouraging a radical pan islamic movement threatening to tear afghanistan and pakistan apart. the current afghanistan-pakistan crisis is traced back to the 19th century when the british led army forced the petition of afghanistan into north and south. the drawing of the line by england's foreign secretary for india in 1893 was intended to guarantee british control of the territory east of the hindu kush, but proved to be political prison until the creation of the state of pakistan in 1947. pakistan's humiliating defeat in its 1971 war against east pakistan continues to hant the predominantly panjabis development

between india and pakistan. u.s. pakistan relations. in many ways this is the preeminent dialogue that determines everything else in that region in many ways. it is also the dialogue that has an impact on civil military relations and pakistan. my fear is that just as there was once. there may be another. then what will happen? will it be the road again? and what if who we irresponsible remarks of the indian side as we saw recently by the indian army chief and, if the americans can do it so can we. but, of course the americans can. but then of course you can't. the a proper response was given not to the americans but pakistan military but to the indians which has created another problem. intelligence told parliament that if india were to undertake any such venture regardless of whether we knew that there were doing it all we found a later we had already earmarked targets and time rehearsals and exercises in the way in which we will kickback. of course parliament caravan. so those are the issues right now. could news and bad news. thank y

the aid that goes to pakistan. if you are convinced or persuaded that they have not been full partners, is this money that you can imagine pulling out? >> i think we should condition the money going forward. i would want to add, gwen, that the civilian government i think is well intentioned. i take president za cary's commence at their face value and with the deeply felt way in which he shares them with us. this is really about the pakistani military and the infamous i.s.i., their intelligence service. they have to work with us in a true alliance. we've had scratchy moments over these last months with them. this is probably the ultimate scratchy moment but if they're not going to come clean and work with us in ways that we both can be successful in this important alliance then that money ought to be more conditioned than it is today. >> ifill: senator chambliss on the money question. well, we have to remember that we went in to a relationship with pakistan knowing it's a very corrupt government, knowing that it's s

carved from british india in 1947 with two wings, west pakistan and east pakistan. they suffered from identity crisis from inception. the location brought the new country under the folds of the u.s. cold war umbrella. instead of being at an advantage, it had the effect of freezing afghanistan and pakistan into a special military relationship that discouraged the nation's democracy and development while at the same time encouraging a radical movement that threatens to tear both afghanistan and pakistan apart. the current afghanistan-pakistan crisis is traced back to the 19th empleg ri when the brettish led army led them to the pass and forced the petition of afghanistan into the north and south. the drawing of the duran line in 1893 was intended to guarantee british control east of the hindu kush and proved to be a political jail and source of constant conflict until the creation of pakistan in 1947. pakistan's humiliating defeat in the 1971 war against east pakistan continues to hant pan stack's predominantly panjabis establishment. the conflict transformed into a w

but in pakistan. the third image is of young arabs in tunisia, e -- egypt, libya, and taking bullets to speak freely, and participate in deciding how they will be governed and hold their government accountable for the provisions of basic services and the possibility of a better life. the determination of those protesters in their millions to demand far more, even in desperately poor and hidden countries is exactly the attitude of responsibility and self-reliance that we hope to see among the people of afghanistan, but too often do not. indeed, many reports from the field describe a culture of dependence, corruption, and inflated expectations. as we rephrase, it's worth bearing those three images in mind, the things that connect them and the disjunctures between them. we seek a secure, stable, and self-reliant afghanistan that does not provide sanctuary for al qaeda, and that is a crossroads for increasingly prosperous and secure region. i disagree that afghanistan is a strategic distraction. it's a st

and pakistan.e committed to renewing this relationship and trying to do more, but there is a private side as well. and with so much pressure from the public here who point to their own government and say why are we doing the bidding of the united states when it only causes more problems for us here, when we are the ones who actually suffer from these attacks, and you often find both the military and the government here playing to those anti-american fears. so once again, saying one thing on one hand to america but another thing to a domestic audience. >> okay, stan grant, thank you very much, stan. >>> here's your chance to "talk back." today we are asking, is it okay for a presidential candidate to avoid the media? carol costello here to explain if it's even possible. >> here's the premise. let me lay this by you. are we getting to the point where democratic candidates talk mostly to msnbc and republicans talk mostly to fox news? former republican vice presidential candidate sarah palin told fox t

well, the big story today, pakistan. the u.s. now investigating what their government knew about america's most wanted terrorist. good afternoon to you. i am dylan ratigan. and as we have been saying with friends like pakistan, who needs saudi arabia? the obvious questions now being asked, what did the pakistani officials know about osama bin laden's location, and who was protecting him in that mansion compound just six miles from islamabad and half a mile from that country's version of west point? >> this is really a cross roads, i believe, in our relationship with pakistan. we've had good days and bad days with pakistan. the most notorious terrorist, mass murderer in the world, was literally living right under the nose of top pakistani government officials. >> it is urgent that the pakistani government get answers to the questions about what its military and intelligence agency and local officials knew and to share the answers to those questions with the world and with their own people. >> lawmakers sounding off on capitol hill

jeanette, pakistan could do much more than it has to root out terrorist in pakistan. this includes the haqqani network in northwest pakistan which launches attacks against americans in afghanistan, and the taliban which we can be virtually unmolested in those parts of afghanistan -- pakistan along afghanistan southern border. the obama administration should make clear to the pakistan met military take going after some terrorist while calling others will not be tolerated. -- hobbling others will not be tolerated. -- coddling others will not be tolerated. the revelation of bin laden's whereabouts and pakistan was a setback to u.s.-pakistani ties. but it lays the foundation for a more genuine alliance if it forces both sides to confront honest with the contradictions that have plagued the relationship for many years. an independent, credible investigation into who in pakistan help support bin laden would be a good place to start. i look forward very much to viewsng general jones' on how we can strengthen is vital partnership and i look forward to our discussion. thank yo

in pakistan. for that, we go to newshour special correspondent saima mohsin in abbottabad, pakistan. jeffrey brown spoke with her a short time ago. >> brown: welcome. tell us a little bit more about the situation there at the compound right now and also a bit more about the town itself. >> well, the compound has tonight been sealed and cordoned off. this is as close as we can get to it. it's about a thousand meters down this road. i don't know if you can see the police officers behind me who are patrolling up and down making sure that no media can get through. we are hoping to get closer to it tomorrow. but as it stands tonight it's been sealed off. we understand the body has been taken away. just to give you a sense of exactly where we are in the city, abbottabad is actually a holiday resort. a lot of people retire here. people have summer houses here. it's in a hilly area in pakistan in the north of pakistan. it's very picturesque. it's quite a sleepy town really. a lot of amazement. but amongst

reconsider aid to pakistan and just ahead, pakistan's ambassador to the u.s. joining us on the hot seat. and send me your thoughts on twitter at mitcher repo eell re. t that i needed to quit, and i went online to find a way. ♪ chantix -- it's a non-nicotine pill. i didn't want nicotine to give up nicotine. while you're taking the medication, for the first week, you can go ahead and smoke. [ male announcer ] prescription chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. [ mike ] when i was taking the chantix, it reduced the urge to smoke. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these symptoms or behaviors, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop serious allergic or skin reacti

official said pakistan... to grant access to osama bin laden's wives, something the white house had requested. the three women were in the compound when bin laden was shot. two views now on how the united states should deal with pakistan. wendy chamberlin was the u.s. ambassador there in 2001 and 2002. she is now president of the middle east institute. lawrence wright is the author of "the looming tower," on the origins of al qaeda. his article, "the double game," on the u.s. and pakistan, appears in this week's "new yorker." ambassador, leaders in both countries today talked about how important it was to maintain this relationship. is that a sign that however flawed it is, they're kind of stuck with each other. >> we're stuck with each other. we need each other. it's very important to both of our national objectives that we maintain a good relationship. look, this has been a tough week. a lot of loose talk, a lot of dangerous talk on both sides. on our part people threatening to cut off aid. i think it's a mi

aid into pakistan and. we have come up with some givens that they're pretty who obvious, and you have alluded to some of them, namely that we have got to do a better job of explaining the mechanics of a. what is the difference between obligated money and all of that so you do not have the spectacle of the finance minister saying we've done $345 million worth of aid, and the american say that is wrong. we have given you $900 million. we ought to be on the same sheet of music, and that is something we ought to do to clarify and explain what it is and when it is going to come out, and when it is not going to come out. it seems to me and we need a sharper focus. even though there are five priority areas -- energy, education, health -- i forget the others. it seems to me when i look at this thing is all over the place, and it would be better if we did in one or two things where we could make a difference, and which could be just education, health, something like that. that is not my question. it turns out that o

we try to sign with pakistan a treaty on deportation we can do poor people back to pakistan who may threaten this country and that is something i discussed with those when i was there recently but also trying to reform in we had a very productive sort of meetings with council members and widespread support so it took more attention from the nationalists. >> the conclusions said and those who are completely rejecting those and my honorable friends and i think that is true so the prime minister of the house but to foster democracy also respect human rights in north africa i think there are bilateral actions we could take as the old and successful democracy that we should make of updating the foundation as we have discussed before. the biggest up is for the upn union to radically overhaul the program with assistance to the middle eastern neighbors and countries and frankly the program has been quite extensive but not successful to put into place the building blocks of democracy >> would it my friend agree although to build up democracy and long term but also improve security in the short term w

we care about pakistan because of pakistan.r too long we have been having the discussion about pakistan for how they should -- how they can help us in afghanistan. that is not how we should be approaching this. they have 180 million people, they have nuclear weapons, they have the highest population of the islamists in the world. it is a dangerous country, it is a poor country, and it has potential. it has been under military control for a long time. those are the facts that matter in pakistan. american policy has to address those fundamental flaws in the islamic state and the problems that the region poses right now. there are three things that happened to -- have to happen in pakistan for anything to change. the last one is that the pakistani ruling elite will have to come to a consensus on the need to accept a very long, and pleasant, and bloody struggle to eliminate the islamist organizations that have permeated is lock -- pakistani society. in order to get there, the rule lingelite will have to come to a consensus that all

certainly, this was an embarrassment in pakistan and the pakistan government, but the pakistan government had always pledged to supportrt.s. intervention into pakistan to capture bin laden or kill him if possible, so, basically, i think they knew nothing about it until the joint intelligence of pakistan and the united states tracked down bin laden. >> can they get back on track with islamabad? it stated elsewhere in the world is slipping. >> we have to bear in mind that barack obama's principal objection -- target is to get reelected, and he feels he has to withdraw all from there by the end of this year, so this is the opportunity to say mission accomplished, which is essentially what he has said, that it is served, to declare a victory and go home. i think that washington is absolutely not concerned about improving relations with pakistan at this stage, which is a very short-sighted approach to the situation because pakistan remains the only real avenue for the united states to have good access into central asia for the future, and that is now disappearing. >> briefly, if you could, wha