this ties into pakistan.aller asked him about the motivation for 9/11 with the pakistan the leader -- pakistani leader and a host did not let the general answer the question. we got a tacked on 9/11 by the pakistanis because of the u.s. relations with israel. you can google it. we don't discuss that. it is all about israel. host: you brought up. you can respond if you want. guest: as we get into the question of 9/11, there were numerous motivations for that. of course, one of which was u.s. foreign policy. i do not think there is a secret to that. that has been well acknowledged. it was al qaeda's game to try to unify all of these jihadist group is. one could argue that they have resoundingly failed. al qaeda is by no means dead, but it has weakened. to my mind, the u.s. is a strong enough nation that it does not need to be changing its foreign policy because mohamad would like it too. host: mitt romney will be travelling to israel. president obama has not been there in the first three and a half years of his

-pakistan relation and s. despite many jaundice, we have continued to engage the pakistanis at the highest levels. the reopening of the nato supply lines -- today in islamabad, there is an understanding with the pakistanis ministry of defense in the opening of the grand alliance and communication. i hope to build on the opportunity to define our shared interest with pakistan in practical ways to work together to achieve them. we share an interest in combating the extremists that threaten our countryies. they have lost more troops and civilians to act of terror than any nation. we have captured or removed from the battlefield more terrorists on pakistan the soil than from anywhere else. we share an interest in supporting political stability in afghanistan. we want pakistan to be a full part in supporting afghan peace and stability. pakistan officials have told us that more than any of the nation they have a vested interest in seeking a secure afghanistan. promoting democratic and economic stability is also in o

and then mishandling of pakistan itself. it's not only made pakistan go down.domestic environment itself. the economy, the law and order. extremism. it is not because of pakistan. it's misgovernance within. al taliban, all these things. >> for america, it's a question of trust. when they discovered that osama bin laden had been hiding in pakistan, they're not going to believe that nobody in any position of authority didn't know. i mean, it defies belief that somebody has notorious as osama bin laden could be living in that compound so close to military installations that nobody knew. so there's a massive breakdown in trust between america and pakistan at high levels. what does pakistan do about that to try and rebuild that trust? >> yes. that -- i totally agree with you. it is not believable. but i personally am convinced that it is a case of negligence and not a case of pom passty. i believe that. i strongly believe that is the truth. but however, to prove it to -- >> but again, just -- are you not being generous? i mean, you say that there's negligence but no

and we think the number of civilians killed in pakistan as a minimum is just under five hundred and maybe as high as i wonder there are huge numbers of people we simply don't know their identity we don't know their status and for the us to continually claim that it's not killing civilians is simply untrue i think it's wrong and they need they do need to be held to account for this ok bill what do you think is this strategy working. yeah you know this is i absolutely agree the obama administration is making political hay out of these drone strikes and it allows it to project itself as being strong on terrorism but it's really a stopgap. it's it's a cheat to. in order for them not to make hard choices which is to actually get in the case of pakistan to control its own territory or do something about it itself and i believe me i don't advocate the u.s. invading pakistan's tribal areas however the reality is these are lawless areas where these strikes are occurring and the pakistani government easily their own willing or able to to it to go after the individuals that are being targeted

there's very little that secret apparently the covert war in pakistan and yemen it's a killer except the obama administration would like to keep aspects of it secret the difficult bit it is absolutely clear that these drones are killing alleged terrorists are not getting they're not getting trials they're not they're not being held simply being killed but we also know that the lowest number of civilians unfortunately have also been killed in pakistan and in yemen and in somalia and unfortunately american media in particular is very bad at reporting those deaths reports when the big guys are killed it's a little problematic for the american media when it comes to reporting civilian deaths and that's part of the problem now because obama's become more and more reliance on these drones as a tool of foreign policy built around this fiction the most precise weapon ever invented and not killing civilians what we simply know that's not true well chris if i can stay with you here i mean the administration defends that you know when these drones for used if any male adult male in the vicinity

being hatched against not just the united states or europe but against pakistan afghanistan and other other places india so you know the idea that we could just conduct a law fair and go in there and arrest these people you know that you know that they deserve a trial first you know that this is the real problem with this with the drone program or with the u.s. strategy curious is that it's not defining this war it's not the it's not going after the root causes radical ideology and state sponsorship of terrorism so the drone strikes are keeping al qaeda to answer your question they're keeping al qaeda off balance but what they're not doing is they're not allowing us to hit al qaeda where it hurts that state sponsorship of terrorism that's radical ideology and its ability to exploit the ungoverned spaces so all this is a stopgap it keeps them from well meaning. cause if i go to jamie this is what he does every. day jeanne if i go to you chris a lot of blowback doesn't it i mean if it doesn't work it's not effective but we continue to do it i do agree that it does create blowback. and t

invading pakistan's tribal areas however the reality is these are lawless areas where the strikes are occurring and the pakistani government easy their own willing or unable to to it to go after the individuals that are being targeted in these strikes and these these are areas where plots are being. being hatched against not just the united states or europe but against pakistan afghanistan and other other places india so you know the idea that we could just conduct lawfare and go in there and arrest these people you know that you know that they deserve a trial first you know that this is the real problem with this with the drone program or with the u.s. strategy syria is that it's not defining this war it's not the fight it's not going after the root causes radical ideology and state sponsorship of terrorism so the drone strikes are keeping al qaeda to answer your question they're keeping al-qaeda off balance but what they're not doing is they're not allowing us to hit al qaeda where it hurts that state sponsorship of terrorism that's radical ideology and its ability to exploit the un

the united states had been giving giving to pakistan they did a good early is about six hundred million dollars under the coalition support funds and this is the money that the united states basically is obliged to pay to any country that it a request for deployment or helping out on military missions so it's roughly six hundred to seven hundred million dollars and the united states has been withholding that money since march last year and now as it is a lot of that is the nato u.s. supplies but what pakistan is expecting to get is about one point one billion dollars and these payments basically relate to the pakistani military operation of the tribal areas bordering afghanistan i understand only part of two thousand and eleven and you're saying the ok at the end of the day you know there's less money coming into pakistan from washington although whether it's six hundred million or as you're saying one point one billion is still a lot of money what does the average pakistani thing about the relationship with america the relationship with nato and continue drone strikes along the pakista

still needs pakistan washington has been able to continue drone strikes in pakistan likely because of its military leaders tacit agreement the us also needs the short route through pakistan to supply the troops in afghanistan islam watch shutting down last year in response to the killing of two dozen pakistani soldiers but with elections approaching their end with people furious at the us there is little chance pakistani policy makers will want to be seen as being more accommodating to the united states the mockery and condescending remarks from washington make those chances even slimmer during the last decade of war and have got is that pakistan is have dealt with an unprecedented insurgency in their own country terror which has killed an awful lot of people much more than the losses carried by the u.s. in afghanistan and that to a large extent was the price pakistan paid for its alliance with the us but these days in washington it seems hardly anyone keeps that in mind when handing out another portion of factorizations and humiliation to the nation they once convinced to become thei

defense secretary has laughed at pakistan for being in the dark on the bin laden raid. literally in washington's rhetoric now suggest that during the decade of war in afghanistan pakistan had been there myself instrumental ally in the region the united states could not have had secured afghanistan in three weeks with minimum cost in terms of. money and in terms of in terms of the lives of its soldiers that would not have been possible without fox and the assistance and help free sentiment towards the alliance with the us has domestic insurgency in pakistan some has lost about somewhere between five thousand to six thousand soldiers and paramilitary soldiers but more than that we've lost more than thirty five thousand civilians and these people died because of these bait of bombings in a crude comparison the us has lost two thousand troops in afghanistan they want the pakistanis to do our dirty work for us and the pakistanis have simply said we've supported you forward eleven years we can't do it anymore you're killing our stability they have to stop the civil war in the

pakistan you talk a lot about the involvement of pakistan agreement between the u.s. and the nato alliance with the pakistan over their supply route to afghanistan. how do you see that in fact the operations in afghanistan global a military point of view of course the supply lines are very important it's cheaper to go through pakistan in many cases it's safer and so having pakistan on our side is critically important but at the same time we have to look at why pakistan and you know closed down those operations pakistani government felt that our kind of violating its sovereignty and any number of occasions not as violating sovereignty but actually killing pakistani soldiers mistakenly but whatever they were unhappy with that and they continue not to be happy with that so if we're going to have pakistan as an ally we have to seriously address their concerns about sovereignty issues i think we have a larger scotian a regional discussion that involves pakistan as a autonomous actor goes somewhat toward their goal of being taken seriously as a sovereign state it is a sover

we want a stable pakistan.ultimately we have to work despite the inherent character of the pakistani state that general keane laid out, we have to find a strategy to be able to get our goals with what we have to deal with. >> brown: general keane, what do you want to happen next? >> i do agree that the pakistanis want a stable afghanistan but they want it significantly influence it in terms of their own national security objectives. in my judgment when we pulled most out of our troops by 2014 and we leave a relatively small force, 20,000-25,000 possibly as a residual force and the afghan national security forces, i believe the future security of afghanistan is still largely at risk because of those sanctuaries. we have got to get the pakistanis to stop supporting those sanctuaries. then i think that is the elephant in the room here. >> brown: all right. general jack keane, vali nasr, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: finally tonight, the death of a beloved actor. andy griffith passed away tod

the united states needs the cooperation of pakistan. pakistan needs the united states as well.ned with the relations framed the way they were that u.s. aid to pakistan which is valued in the billions of dollars might be at risk. why did the state department use that leverage to say you know, we want the supply line open? if you want that money, open the supply line? >> because the leverage wasn't working. we need the supply line. in absence of the pakistan supply line we are entirely reliant for russians for our troops in afghanistan. that is not a pleasant situation. putin is no piece of cake. we apiece him on one side to keep the lifeline open. i'm not atll upset about what we said. we are sorry for the losses, that's fine. we said the same for several months. this is an apology with a purpose. it's not even a an apology. it says we're sorry for the loss of life and work together to make sure it doesn't happen again, et cetera. on the scale of apologies, fairly low one and it had a purpose. to reopen supply we need the supply line. our troops are withering out there without i

pakistan dismantling i.e.d. networks and interdicting precursor chemicals usually used in making i.e.d.'s. preventing the proliferation -- there are four or five and i won't take the time. i don't want to have an adverse effect on our coalition partners that we rely on so much and i would yield. . mr. poe: the report language, to specify a certain country would not be used in in order. that's why i used the 1.3 with the floor statement that applies only to pakistan and none of our coalition countries that you have mentioned. so i am open to an amendment that would be ruled in order and i'd be glad to work with the chairman on that amendment. mr. young: we would probably have to take a few minutes to do that. which i would be really happy to do because wyou want to do, i want to do the same thing. so if we could get -- let me inquiry, where are we in this bill so, that we can have an opportunity to -- bill, so that we can have an opportunity to amend this amendment and still not get beyond the point of reading? t

what have the people of pakistan that? well, we know from the wikileaks documents that originally the government of pakistan, the prime minister said, okay, you do the drone strikes, and we will say -- we will express our outrage to the public about them. that went on for a while until the government realize that so many innocent people were being killed. and this drone strike program was counterproductive, it was driving people into the arms of the taliban. it was turning them against the pakistani government itself and turning them against the american people. so, the government of pakistan went to the u.s. and ask them to stop the drone program. the u.s. government said no. then it went to the national assembly where they voted once, twice, three times unanimously not to ask, but to demand that the united states stop the drone attacks. the u.s. government refused to do that. and so the pakistan people have been going out in huge numbers, by the hundreds of thousands, protesting the drone strikes. most of the pakistan pe

pakistan the extent think of how pakistan -- think of even talking about the political leadership go to pakistan and talk to the junior officers not just the senior officers in the pakistani security service and we don't debate in the united states. even they realize how bad the situation is in afghanistan and pakistan now we are waging people think if we are waging the war and afghanistan and pakistan and in somalia we're talking about dozens where the war on terror measures are applied, and now with american forces out even in iraq fleeing drones in iraq and the government complains. so even though american forces might come home from afghanistan in the next year or two come counterterrorism measures will go on and there's a fascination that these killers basic we're doing their job we don't have to send troops, and no account as a human dimension. >> none of the costs, the blood back costs. we are hearing now about the possibility that the negotiations under way against the u.s. and pakistan involving how much money pakistan will get from each truckload of goods that come into afg

was sorry for pakistan's losses. with us, fox news contributor judith miller, at the manhattan institute. good to see you. was it about money and only getting more expensive as troops began to withdrawal? >> exactly. it was a lot, a lot of money, even when people say it's not about the money, it is about the money. >> we said we're sorry, we apologize becaused we wanted to save money. >> we didn't offer a formal apology. hillary clinton was sorry about the losses and extended condolences to the families of those soldiers killed but the u.s. says our investigation shows both sides were responsible so it fell short of the formal a word, the apology pakistan was seeking. >> pakistan -- this is outrageous, they were trying to extort $5,000 per vehicle to go across their roads, which is absurd. we said we're not going to do that but in the end, we gave them $1.2 billion ostensibly for the cost of pakistan's counterinsurgency. >> that's the quid pro quo. the $250 per vehicle remains the same but there's an offput. there's

think of how pakistan, i mean even the political leadership, go to pakistan and talk to the junior officersnot just the senior officers. we don't debate it. even the u.s. military realizes how bad the situation is in afghanistan and pakistan now. people think that we are waging just wars in afghanistan and pakistan, yemen and somalia. we are talking about dozens. according to the u.s. military theaters, counterterrorism measures are applied and now with american forces out of even in iraq where we are flying drones in iraq, and even though american forces might come home from afghanistan in the next year or two, counterterrorism measures will go on and drone attacks. just this nation, these killers basically are doing the job. we don't have to send troops and no account of the legal and moral and the human dimension. >> host: none of the cost. the blowback costs. we are hearing now about the possibility that the negotiations that are underway between the u.s. and pakistan involving how much money pakistan will get for each truckload of goods that go into afghanistan or later they began to t

>> in the meantime, it focuses on the public opinion in pakistan. it has become very abrasive in terms of anti-americanism. they have reached the state between the countries where these things are being delayed, tit-for-tat that goes on when countries expressed displeasure. these are strong, healthy relationships that have to be built up. this is just the very important first step. >> what happened to this relationship? it seems that in the course of the past year, this got worse. something has gone wrong in that both sides say they need this in the relationship. >> exactly. that is why you needed this big, a symbolic thing. this is important enough to start building on. they are withdrawing troops in afghanistan's future. >> are you optimistic that they can build a functioning relationship? >> it will be tough, because public opinion here and in the united states has become so hostile to each other that a lot of work will have to be done. but at least the bubble has been pricked and that is important. >> thank you very much for coming. more than 30

at the same time pakistan agreed to reopen key border crossings in afghanistan. pakistan closed them in retaliation for the strike effectively cutting off supply routes for u.s. and international troops based in afghanistan. now an apparent break in the seven month impasse. johnathan hunt is live with more and really, it came out of left field because the administration for months said it would not apologize. >> some administration officials might argue they haven't actually apologized. secretary ofsecretary ofsecretay clinton used the word sorry, sorry for the losses suffered by the pakistani military and passed on regrets and condolences. if you want to define that as an apology, it's an apology but it's important to focus on what she said it for. sorry for the pakistani military losses. she did not apparent will i apologize for the u.s. carrying out an air strike on pakistani territory. these are important differences and allows the military to say they didn't apologize for the air strike but for the deaths it caused. the secretary of state spokeswoman danced

and pakistan goes beyond the drone attacks. there is nato of the air strike. 26 pakistani sold yerse were kill pakistan delosed the supply routes and the u.s. only recently apologized for the incident. but was that a mistake? ryan morrow joins us to talk about the escalating tensions with pakistan. thank you for being here today. >> thanks for having me. >> let's talk about the situation . do you think that it was necessary for the united states to apologize? >> well, we didn't accept blame. technically secretary of state hillary clinton said we are sorry that it hpened and discussed the error that is occurred with the pakistani counter part. it was not an acceptance of blame. and we are now saving 100 million because of the supply route opening. my problem is how it is perceived by the pakistanies. it is perceived as an acceptance of blame. and so validates the propaganda that the u.s. deliberately killed the pakistani soldiers or doesn't care about innocent life and we bomb them without caring at all. my issue is how it is fr

. >>> relations between pakistan and the u.s. soured after pakistan closed supply routes to nato forces in afghanistan in protest of u.s. cross-border attacks. tensions between the two countries may ease now that the roads are open again. but problems remain. patchari raksawong in our bureau in bangkok has the details. >> a vital artery for american troops in afghanistan is now reopened. pakistan lifted road blocks on supply routes used by nato forces on thursday, seven months after they were closed. expectations are high for improved bilateral ties between pakistan and the u.s., but public resentment towards the government in pakistan is on the rise. >> thousands of pakistanis took to the streets on thursday to protest the reopening of the route. angry demonstrators are denouncing the government's decision which was made without a promise from the u.s. to halt the deadly drone strikes. >> we don't accept the decision of the government to reopen supplies for nato troops in afghanistan. the people of pakistan feel this is an unjus