Pakistan was one of few countries discussed at length during the final presidential debate about foreign policy. Clearly, one candidate's argument was stronger than the others in regards to the way we should deal with our weakening relations with Pakistan.
Romney was very insistent about how the United States needs to focus on building a new relationship and including Pakistan in their future plans. He insisted how Pakistan needs to be a key ally if they want to pull out their troops from Afghanistan.
Obama was insistent that the United States has worked hard to always include Pakistan since he has stepped into office. Wait, what?
Obama's argument in respect to Pakistan was unconvincing. The Obama admnistration, if anything, has worked hard not to include Pakistan in their plans.
The United States managed to slip into the country and kill the most wanted terrorist right under their noses without including Pakistan or the ISI in their game plan. How does that constitute maintaining good relations with a nation when they never wanted to include them in the first place?
Obama's argument fell flat even more when he forcefully included a reference to teaching the nation about empowering their women. It was blatantly obvious that comment was included to appeal to the women voters and just briefly touch upon an area that might ensure him some more votes.
Romney has a good plan for rebuilding relations with Pakistan but that may not be enough to get him in to office. Obama on the other hand, made it very apparent that Pakistan might be the thorn stuck in America's toe that we continue to ignore.
For real-time analysis of the debate and coverage, see here.