ANNOUNCER: FOR DECADES, SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR AND ESPECIALLY SINCE THE 9/11 ATTACKS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THE PENTAGON, THE UNITED STATES AND PAKISTAN HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ALLIES IN MANY RESPECTS, BUT IT MAY WELL BE THE WORLD'S MOST TROUBLED ALLIANCE, WITH DISPUTES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES EVEN RISING TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT SOME CALL ACTS OF WAR AGAINST EACH OTHER.

MEANWHILE, NUCLEAR-ARMED PAKISTAN REMAINS ON A HAIR TRIGGER IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH NUCLEAR-ARMED INDIA, WITH CONTINUING CONFLICT OVER THE DISPUTED TERRITORY OF KASHMIR.

WHAT SHOULD BE U.S. POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN, AND WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD IN SOUTHWESTERN ASIA?

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING] THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION, AMETEK, CNX RESOURCES, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

ON TODAY'S EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH," WE WILL EXPLORE THE FRAGILE, FRAUGHT, AND YET FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PAKISTAN.

FEW COUNTRIES OUTSIDE OF EUROPE HAVE RECEIVED AS MUCH AID AND DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES FOR SO LONG AS PAKISTAN, AND YET THE OFTEN-CITED STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR SEEMS IN PERMANENT CRISIS, JUST A NEXT EVENT AWAY FROM POTENTIAL COLLAPSE.

AND, AS IMPORTANT AS THE QUALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PAKISTAN BILATERALLY, THERE ALSO LOOMS THE EVER-PRESENT ISSUE OF POTENTIAL HOSTILITIES BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA.

HOW SHOULD THE UNITED STATES VIEW PAKISTAN?

WHAT SHOULD BE AMERICAN OBJECTIVES IN THIS RELATIONSHIP?

WHAT DO THE PAKISTANIS TRULY WANT FROM THE UNITED STATES?

HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE AMBASSADOR ROBIN RAPHEL, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOUTH ASIA AND AMBASSADOR TO TUNISIA; RAZA BOKHARI, INTERNATIONAL SPOKESMAN AND NORTH AMERICAN POINT OF CONTACT FOR FORMER PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN PERVEZ MUSHARRAF; AND JOINING US BY SKYPE, AMBASSADOR RICHARD OLSON, FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO PAKISTAN AND FORMER SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN.

I CAN REMEMBER NOT SO LONG AGO THAT PAKISTAN AND THE UNITED STATES BECAME ALLIES IN A WAR ON TERROR.

I HAVE A LENGTHY, LONG-AGO MEMORY OF A GREAT ERA IN AMERICAN PAKISTANI RELATIONS, THE AYUB KHAN, THE YAHYA KHAN ERA, AND PAKISTAN SERVING AS A BRIDGE TO CHINA.

WE HAVE A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP OF SORTS WITH PAKISTAN, AND YET WE HAVE BEEN IN A KIND OF STATE OF LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT WITH PAKISTAN AS WELL, CONDUCTING UNAUTHORIZED MILITARY INCURSIONS INTO SOVEREIGN PAKISTANI TERRITORY, RESULTING IN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.

PAKISTAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE, NECESSARILY, IN AFGHANISTAN AND SO ON.

HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THIS RELATIONSHIP?

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE "FRENEMIES" IDEA IS ACCURATE IN MANY WAYS, BUT I ALSO THINK PART OF THE ISSUE HAS BEEN WITH OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PAKISTAN.

AND I'M QUOTING HERE A FORMER PAKISTANI FOREIGN SECRETARY SAYING THAT THE U.S.--EXPERTS ON PAKISTAN IN THE U.S.-- TEND TO VIEW PAKISTAN AS A MEDIUM-SIZED COUNTRY-- YOU KNOW, SHORT ON RESOURCES AND IN NEED OF FRIENDS-- AND WE GET VERY FRUSTRATED WHEN PAKISTAN DOESN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT WHEN WE WANT.

AND IN REALITY, PAKISTAN'S A VERY BIG COUNTRY-- SIXTH-LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, WITH A BIG MILITARY, LOTS OF RESOURCES, SOME STATURE IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD AND SO ON-- AND WE'VE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, WHICH HAS CAUSED SOME FRICTIONS IN HOW WE UNDERSTAND ONE ANOTHER, SO I THINK THAT'S A KEY POINT.

I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WE ACTUALLY SHARE A LOT OF STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN THE REGION.

WE BOTH WANT A STABLE AFGHANISTAN.

WE BOTH NOW, AT THIS POINT, WANT GOOD RELATIONS BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA.

YOU KNOW, WE BOTH WANT PAKISTAN'S ECONOMY TO BE STABLE AND GROWING.

WE WANT PAKISTAN TO FIND EMPLOYMENT FOR ITS YOUTH BULGE AND SO ON, SO WE DO HAVE MANY COMMON INTERESTS, BUT THEY AREN'T PERFECTLY ALIGNED AND, OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOMETIMES TENSIONS.

BUT YOU MENTIONED YOUTH BULGE.

HOW BIG IS THAT YOUTH BULGE?

RAPHEL: UM...

I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW MANY PAKISTANIS ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 25 OR UNDER THE AGE OF 30, BUT IT'S A LOT.

RAZA, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

I THINK RELATIONS BETWEEN COUNTRIES GO THROUGH PEAKS AND VALLEYS, AND RELATIONS BETWEEN SOVEREIGN NATIONS ARE BASED ON SOVEREIGN EQUALITY, AND THEY ARE BASED ON SELF-SERVING INTERESTS.

AND PAKISTAN, RIGHT FROM ITS OUTSET, HAS LIVED IN AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, SURROUNDED BY A HOSTILE ENEMY.

AND PAKISTAN BUILDS ITS RELATIONSHIPS AND HAS BEEN, RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET, HAS BEEN INDEED IN A BIPOLAR WORLD, WAS ALWAYS IN THE WESTERN BLOC WITH ITS ASSOCIATION AND ALLIANCE WITH SEATO, CENTO, AND THROUGHOUT EVERY DECADE, THAT--SINCE ITS CREATION, HAS ALWAYS FOUND WAYS TO ALLY ITSELF WITH THE WESTERN WAYS BECAUSE PAKISTAN GENERALLY ALWAYS-- THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN ARE FREE-SPIRITED; THE MAJORITY OF PAKISTANIS BELONG TO THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB.

THEY ARE KNOWN FOR THEIR HOSPITALITY, THEIR OPENNESS, AND THAT'S JUST-- IS HOW PEOPLE OPERATE, SO, TO SAY THAT PAKISTAN, SOMEHOW, AND U.S. RELATIONS ARE BASED ON SOME ILLUSIONS AND SOMEHOW ARE REALLY CONSPIRATORIAL IS, I THINK SO, IS IN ERROR.

PRESENTLY, I THINK RELATIONS ARE AT SOME LEVEL OF-- IN A VALLEY, BUT THEY CAN IMPROVE.

EISENHOWER: THEY'RE IN A VALLEY?

WELL, AMBASSADOR OLSON, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S.-PAKISTAN RELATIONSHIP AT THIS STAGE?

YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE GROUND, REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES IN COUNCILS WITH THE PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT.

YOU'VE REPRESENTED OUR INTERESTS THERE.

IS IT A SATISFACTORY RELATIONSHIP, IN YOUR OPINION OR... OLSON: WELL, I THINK THAT THE USUAL CLICHÉ FOR THE U.S.-PAKISTAN RELATIONSHIP IS THAT IT'S A ROLLERCOASTER.

IT SEEMS TO BE EITHER GOING UP OR GOING DOWN, AND WE SEEM TO BE GOING THROUGH THE CYCLE OF UP AND DOWN, YOU KNOW, MORE-- WITH GREATER OSCILLATION MORE FREQUENTLY.

WHEN I WAS AMBASSADOR THERE, I WAS SENT OUT IN 2012, AND IT WAS AFTER WHAT HAD BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT YEAR IN OUR RELATIONSHIP, 2011, WITH THE ABBOTTABAD RAID, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, AMERICANS CELEBRATE, BUT LOOKS RATHER DIFFERENT TO PAKISTANI EYES, AND THE INCIDENT ON THE BORDER, WHERE WE KILLED 24 PAKISTANI SOLDIERS.

WE IMPROVED THE RELATIONSHIP QUITE A BIT OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS COMMITTED TO THAT.

I WOULD SAY--I WOULD AGREE WITH ROBIN THAT THERE AREAS WHERE WE CAN COOPERATE.

WE'VE COOPERATED GREATLY ON COUNTERTERRORISM.

I MEAN, THE DECIMATION OF CORE AL-QAEDA IS LARGELY THE RESULT OF U.S.- PAKISTAN COOPERATION, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT GETS A LOT OF ATTENTION IN THIS COUNTRY.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER AREAS, YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY, AS YOU NOTED, WHERE WE HAD VERY PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH PAKISTAN AND HAD SOME DEGREE OF STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT, SO MY VIEW IS WE HAVE TO FIND THE AREAS WHERE WE CAN, IN FACT, WORK TOGETHER.

I THINK, RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WHATEVER THE HISTORY ON AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN IS, I THINK, COMMITTED TO A PEACE PROCESS IN AFGHANISTAN.

I THINK THAT'S AN AREA WHERE WE CAN AND SHOULD WORK TOGETHER.

RAZA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT?

I WOULD THINK SO.

IT WAS--NUMBER ONE, REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE ON ENGAGEMENT WITH TALIBAN, BUT I DON'T THINK SO ANYBODY HAS ANY DIFFERENT OPINION WHEN IT COMES TO AL-QAEDA OR ISIS, THAT THOSE ARE MONSTERS.

THEY--PAKISTAN RESHAPED ITS STRATEGY AND ACTUALLY TOOK THE SIDE OF THE WESTERN WORLD, AS DID THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD POST-SEPTEMBER 11th, AND PAKISTAN ALIGNED AND BECAME A FRONT-LINE ALLY OF UNITED STATES POST-SEPTEMBER 11th, WHEN GENERAL MUSHARRAF WAS LEADING THE CHARGE IN PAKISTAN.

SO OSAMA BIN LADEN BEING FOUND IN PAKISTAN IS AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR PAKISTAN, AND I DON'T THINK SO ANYBODY REALLY TAKES ANY BIG PRIDE ABOUT THAT.

IT WAS A FAILURE OF THE PAKISTAN'S INTELLIGENCE, BUT NONETHELESS, A RAID OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND ITS--WELL, AND THEN OSAMA BIN LADEN BEING FOUND THERE AND BEING KILLED CLEARLY CAUSED PROBLEMS FOR PAKISTAN, THE GOVERNMENT, AND ITS MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, BUT NONETHELESS, I THINK THAT-- AS WHAT PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF HAS SAID, THAT MILITARILY IT WAS A BOLD AND A COURAGEOUS OPERATION, AND IT IS GOOD THAT THE WORLD IS NOW CLEAN OF A MONSTER.

BUT NONETHELESS, BACK-- POST-SEPTEMBER 11th, 687 AL-QAEDA OPERATORS WERE CAPTURED AND KILLED THROUGH JOINT OPERATIONS BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND UNITED STATES, INCLUDING KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED, THE MASTERMIND OF SEPTEMBER 11th, SO I THINK IF UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE PROBABLY MADE AN ALLIANCE WITH PAKISTAN AND CAPTURED OSAMA BIN LADEN, SO POSSIBLY TODAY, WE WOULD HAVE MORE PEAKS AND BETTER COOPERATION FROM PAKISTAN IN THIS RELATIONSHIP.

YES, ARRIVING IN PAKISTAN SHORTLY AFTER THE OSAMA BIN LADEN RAID, WHAT DID IT TAKE TO PUT RELATIONS ON AN EVEN KEEL WITH THE-- PERSONALLY, WHAT DID IT TAKE TO PUT RELATIONS ON AN EVEN KEEL WITH PAKISTAN IN THAT INSTANCE?

OLSON: WELL, SURE.

I THINK WHAT IT WAS, WAS, BY THE SUMMER-- I ARRIVED IN THE FALL OF 2012, OCTOBER OF 2012, AND BY THAT TIME, BOTH OF THE GOVERNMENTS WERE COMMITTED TO WORKING TO IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIP, AND SO PART OF IT WAS JUST KIND OF CLEARING THE UNDERBRUSH, I WOULD SAY.

WE HAD BOTH, TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER, SORT OF BEGUN TO SANCTION EACH OTHER, THE PAKISTANIS HAD BEGUN DENYING VISAS TO AMERICAN OFFICIALS.

THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR SORT OF HOSTILE STEPS ON THE U.S. SIDE.

THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TALKING ABOUT DURING THE 2011/2012 PERIOD, ABOUT RATCHETING UP THE PAIN ON PAKISTAN, WHICH I THINK WAS A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE APPROACH.

THAT SORT OF THING STOPPED, AND THERE WAS A COMMITMENT ON BOTH SIDES TO IMPROVING THE RELATIONSHIP, TRYING TO FIND SOME COMMON GROUND, AND GETTING THE RELATIONSHIP IN A GOOD PLACE.

SO I WOULD SAY IT WAS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF JUST, YOU KNOW, SMALL STEPS, SMALL DIPLOMATIC VICTORIES, QUIET, BEHIND-THE-SCENES WORK.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT PUBLIC DIPLOMACY PLAYED A LARGE ROLE.

I SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME OUT ON PAKISTANI TV AND TALKING TO PAKISTANI AUDIENCES.

I LEAVE IT TO OTHERS TO JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT I WAS ANY GOOD AT THAT OR SUCCESSFUL, BUT I THINK IT HELPED TO PUT A U.S. FACE ON POLICY AND TO ENGAGE PAKISTANIS ON QUESTIONS OF--IN A SERIOUS WAY, WITHOUT EITHER PATRONIZING OR MINIMIZING PAKISTANI CONCERNS.

WHAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT PAKISTAN IS THAT THERE ARE ENTITIES IN PAKISTAN THAT WE WORK WITH AND ENTITIES THAT WE DON'T WORK WITH, AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER THIS IS A REALITY.

I'VE HEARD THAT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS AN INDUSTRY APART FROM EVERYTHING.

I'VE HEARD THAT THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ARE PEOPLE WHO WE CAN WORK WITH, SO FORTH.

ARE THERE ELEMENTS-- HOW DOES PAKISTAN WORK, I GUESS I'M ASKING?

AM I ON THE RIGHT TRACK HERE, THAT WE HAVE A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP THAT IS CONCEIVABLY GOOD AT CERTAIN LEVELS AND BAD AT OTHERS?

RAPHEL: IT IS VERY COMPLICATED AND-- AS AMBASSADOR OLSON KNOWS EXTREMELY WELL, YES, IT'S COMPLICATED.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT, ACTUALLY, WE WORK WITH MOST ELEMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN.

NOW, YOU OFTEN HEAR THE QUESTION "WHO'S IN CHARGE?

IS IT THE MILITARY?

IS IT THE CIVILIANS?"

AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, I THINK THE MILITARY AND CIVILIANS ARE PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME PAGE, BUT THAT CERTAINLY WASN'T THE CASE WITH THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON IT WAS OUT OF OFFICE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE WORK WITH THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES SOMETIMES EXTREMELY CLOSELY, AND SOMETIMES WE GET VERY FRUSTRATED WITH THEM.

CLEARLY, WE WORK WITH THE CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT; YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY, AND IN A VERY FORMAL WAY, WE WORK WITH THEM.

WE WORK WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

ON THE NUCLEAR SIDE, IN FACT, WE DO COOPERATE, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE ISSUE THERE, AMBASSADOR OLSON BROUGHT IT UP AS AN AREA OF STRATEGIC DIVERGENCE.

I THINK THE ISSUE THERE WAS THAT FOR A VERY LONG TIME, THE U.S. WAS UNABLE--WAS IN DENIAL ABOUT THE FACT THAT PAKISTAN WAS GOING TO HAVE A NUCLEAR PROGRAM, THAT THAT WAS IN THEIR STRATEGIC INTERESTS, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WERE UNALIGNED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE A PROGRAM AND WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO... EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

BUT IN TERMS OF OUR SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY GOING FORWARD ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND SO ON, I THINK WE ARE MORE ALIGNED THAN IS COMMONLY THOUGHT.

WOULD YOU SAY--BECAUSE YOU'VE DEALT WITH THIS-- WOULD YOU SAY THAT POSSESSION OF THE BOMB MAKES PAKISTANI MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC POLICY MORE OR LESS AGGRESSIVE, MORE OR LESS CAUTIOUS, SO TO SPEAK, NOW THAT THEY'RE IN POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON, WHICH A--SECURES THEM, BUT B--ALSO ACQUAINTS THEM, IT SEEMS TO ME, WITH THE EFFECT OF THESE WEAPONS?

YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION IS WE HAD AN OCEAN BETWEEN US, AND WE HAVE--THAT GAVE US AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DE-ESCALATE CRISES.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN ARE STARING AT EACH OTHER, LITERALLY DOWN THE GUN BARREL, ACROSS THE LINE OF CONTROL IN KASHMIR.

AND THERE'S NO TIME FOR DE-ESCALATION AND THERE'S VERY LITTLE TIME FOR-- FOR BREAKING AN ESCALATORY CYCLE, AND WE'VE SEEN ESCALATORY CYCLES WITHIN THE LAST YEAR THAT COULD VERY WELL HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF CONTROL, AND IT WAS ONLY REALLY BY CHANCE THAT THEY DECLINED, THAT THEY DIDN'T END IN SOMETHING LIKE A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE.

EISENHOWER: WELL, THIS INDO-PAK CONFRONTATION-- YOU'VE REFERRED TO ESCALATORY CYCLES, MR.

AMBASSADOR.

IT'S VERY CONCERNING.

HOW DO THESE TWO COUNTRIES VIEW ONE ANOTHER?

HOW DO THEY VIEW THEIR CONFLICT?

HOW DO THEY MANAGE THIS...THIS CONFRONTATION, WHICH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 60 OR 70 YEARS?

HOW DO THEY MANAGE THIS LONG-RANGE?

IS THERE A VISION ON EITHER SIDE THAT PERMITS SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION?

YOU KNOW, AT VARIOUS POINTS, INDIA HAS WANTED TO TALK TO PAKISTAN, PAKISTAN HASN'T BEEN READY; AT OTHER POINTS, PAKISTAN WANTS TO TALK TO INDIA, INDIA HASN'T BEEN READY.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

PAKISTAN RECOGNIZES, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, ECONOMIC PRESSURES.

AFGHANISTAN ON THE OTHER BORDER, AND SO ON.

THEY'VE KNOWN FOR THE LAST DECADE THAT THEY NEED TO REALLY FINALLY SORT THINGS OUT WITH INDIA, BUT INDIA HASN'T BEEN READY.

OLSON: THE FACT IS THAT PAKISTAN HAS, TO SOME EXTENT, ALLOWED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PROXY GROUPS FIGHTING AGAINST THE INDIANS IN-- IN KASHMIR AND ELSEWHERE ON ITS TERRITORY.

THESE ARE GROUPS LIKE LASHKAR-E-TAIBA, JAISH-E-MOHAMMED, SOME OTHER GROUPS.

AND I THINK YOU COULD SAY THAT, TO SOME EXTENT, PAKISTAN HAS ACCEPTED A POLICY OF ASYMMETRIC WARFARE WITH INDIA AT A LOW LEVEL OF INTENSITY, A LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT, AS YOU DESCRIBED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PIECE.

AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PAKISTAN IS TRULY PREPARED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT POLICY, BUT SO FAR, PAKISTAN HAS LIVED UP TO ITS STATED COMMITMENT TO ENDING SUPPORT FOR THESE PROXY GROUPS.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD STEP BECAUSE THAT IS ALMOST INEVITABLY HOW THESE ESCALATORY CYCLES BEGIN.

THEY BEGIN WITH SOME SORT OF OUTRAGE ON THE INDIAN SIDE OF THE LINE OF CONTROL, TO WHICH INDIA FEELS IT NEEDS TO RESPOND ACROSS THE BORDER, AND THEN IT GOES UP FROM THERE.

RAZA, WHAT SAY YOU?

TODAY, THERE ARE 10 MILLION KASHMIRIS AND THERE ARE 600,000-PLUS PARAMILITARY INDIANS THAT ARE KEEPING KASHMIR TOGETHER.

EISENHOWER: MM-HMM.

AN AVERAGE SIZE OF AN INDIAN HOUSEHOLD IS 14... EISENHOWER: MM-HMM.

WHICH, BY DEFINITION, SIMPLISTICALLY MEANS THAT THERE'S ONE SOLDIER WITH A GUN STANDING OUTSIDE EVERY HOUSEHOLD THAT IS KEEPING KASHMIR TOGETHER.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

INDIA HAS LOST THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO GOVERN KASHMIR.

MMM.

AND THAT RAISES THE QUESTION OF U.S. RELATIONS WITH INDIA.

HOW... INDIA APPEARS TO BE A NATURAL ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE SENSE THAT WE'RE INVOLVED IN A GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR.

OUR ADVERSARIES IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR TEND TO BE MUSLIM COUNTRIES, WHICH GIVES US A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WITH THE INDIANS.

IS THERE AN EXCESS OR A DEFICIENCY IN EVALUATING AMERICAN-INDIAN RELATIONS?

DOES THIS INVOLVE SOME SORT OF CHOICE?

SO THERE IS AN ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, AND THE UNITED STATES NEEDS PAKISTAN TO ENGAGE WITH TALIBAN.

EISENHOWER: MM-HMM.

HOWEVER, PAKISTAN NEEDS THE UNITED STATES TO FIND A JUST RESOLUTION ON THE ISSUES OF KASHMIR, AND KASHMIR IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.

THERE ARE 3 ISSUES.

THERE'S AN ISSUE OF A GLACIER, THERE'S AN ISSUE OF AN ISLAND, AND THEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OF KASHMIR AND THERE ALMOST CAME A POINT, IN 2006, WHERE ALL OF THESE 3 ISSUES WERE COMING TO A RESOLUTION BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH AND PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF, SO I THINK, EVEN TODAY, WHERE PRIME MINISTER IMRAN KHAN, WHO HAS A POPULAR SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF PAKISTAN, HAS THE POPULAR SUPPORT OF THE PAKISTAN MILITARY, HAS THE MANDATE THAT WHO CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT RAPPROCHEMENT BECAUSE HIS CABINET HAS A LOT OF FOLKS THAT ARE THERE FROM THE MUSHARRAF ERA.

SO I THINK THAT IF THE UNITED STATES WILL PLAY A LEADERSHIP ROLE AND WOULD ENCOURAGE THE INDIANS TO COME TO THE TABLE, I THINK WE CAN FIND SOME PEACE IN SOUTH ASIA.

EISENHOWER: CAN WE BE A KIND OF HONEST BROKER BETWEEN THE TWO?

WHAT--AND WHERE--WHAT DIRECTION SHOULD WE MOVE IN?

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO OVER THE YEARS IS TO DE-HYPHENATE THESE TWO RELATIONSHIPS.

WE HAVE INTERESTS IN BOTH, AND WE NEED TO PURSUE THOSE INTERESTS IN BOTH.

INDIA, OF COURSE, IS A MUCH LARGER COUNTRY, MUCH LARGER MARKET, HAS BEEN A VERY... GOOD CUSTOMER OF OURS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES AS THEIR ECONOMY HAS OPENED UP.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT: THE... MORE NATURAL ALLIANCE, THEIR DEMOCRACY IS... IS MORE SOPHISTICATED AND BETTER-GROUNDED, I THINK, THAN PAKISTAN'S IS.

THEY HAVEN'T HAD THESE LONG PERIODS OF MILITARY RULE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND AFTER THE END OF THE COLD WAR, THEY WERE A MORE NATURAL ALLY.

I THINK WE'RE RUNNING INTO SOME FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE INDIANS, MOSTLY ON THE ECONOMIC SIDE AND SO ON, BUT ALSO, I THINK THERE'S GROWING CONCERN OF THE... THAT INDIA IS MOVING AWAY FROM ITS SECULAR ROOTS TO BECOMING A MORE HINDU STATE.

EISENHOWER: SORT OF A-- AND THAT'S-- A GLOBAL TREND...

YES.

IN A STRANGE WAY.

AND INDIA'S VERY INSISTENT THAT IT DOESN'T WANT A MEDIATOR IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH PAKISTAN.

WHAT HAPPENS TO PAKISTAN IN 30, 40 YEARS, WHEN INDIA IS 1.6, 1.7 BILLION PEOPLE AND THE NUMBER-3 ECONOMY IN THE WORLD?

YOU REFERRED TO INDIA BEING LARGE, PAKISTAN BEING RELATIVELY SMALL.

IS THERE A FEAR IN PAKISTAN THAT THEY WILL BE MARGINALIZED, LEFT BEHIND IN SOUTH ASIA?

DOES THIS IN ANY WAY BEAR ON THE DYNAMIC?

YOU KNOW, THAT ALL DEPENDS ON PAKISTAN'S POLICIES.

YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE 200 MILLION PEOPLE, AND IN--YOU KNOW, AS I WAS SAYING EARLIER, THAT'S REALLY TOO MANY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THUS FAR OF THEIR ECONOMY AND, YOU KNOW, BROADER RESOURCES.

BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO-- IF THEY FOLLOW THE RIGHT POLICIES, ECONOMIC GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT FOR THEIR PEOPLE, THEIR ENTREPRENEURIAL... YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE PLENTY OF RESOURCES, THEY CAN DO FINE.

THEY DO NEED TO STEP AWAY FROM THE SENSE OF COMPETING WITH INDIA BECAUSE INDIA IS BIGGER.

WHETHER IT'S ON THE MILITARY SIDE, THE ECONOMIC SIDE, WHATEVER, INDIA IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE BIGGER.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT FROM YOUR BUSY SCHEDULES AND JOINING US IN THIS DISCUSSION ON PAKISTAN, A TRULY INTRIGUING NATION WHICH WILL HAVE, I THINK, A GREAT-- IT'LL BE A GREAT CONCERN FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR INSIGHTS AND YOUR EXPERTISE.

THANK YOU.

PAKISTAN IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX NATION, AT ONCE STILL A DEVELOPING COUNTRY, AND YET A NUCLEAR POWER.

SOME HAVE CALLED IT AN ARMY WITH A COUNTRY, RATHER THAN A COUNTRY WITH AN ARMY, AND YET, MEASURED ON A GLOBAL SCALE, IT IS A RELATIVELY FREE SOCIETY.

LIKEWISE, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PAKISTAN IS ENORMOUSLY COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT.

PERHAPS THE BEST DESCRIPTION OF THAT RELATIONSHIP IS THAT THE TWO COUNTRIES ARE THE WORLD'S BEST "FRENEMIES."

CLEARLY, HOWEVER, THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT NEITHER SIDE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THE RELATIONSHIP, AS A WEB OF AT LEAST OVERLAPPING INTERESTS AND COMMON THREATS PROPEL A PERMANENT NEED FOR EFFORTS TO SHAPE AND MAINTAIN A MODUS VIVENDI.

FOR "THE WHOLE TRUTH," I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING] ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION, AMETEK, CNX RESOURCES, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, AND BY...