Pakistan remains prominent in the United States presidential debate and in its print as well as electronic media. The general impression is that reports about loose nukes and al Qaeda safe havens are some of the important factors, which are drawing the Americans attention towards Pakistan. The actual cause of this attraction is the failure of Washington’s strategic and foreign policies in West Asia. Simultaneously, the political turmoil within Pakistan also contributes in this maligning hype against Pakistan.    
The United Sates presidential candidates have been painting bleak scenarios regarding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and promising impractical solutions to their supporters. For instance, recently Senator Hillary Clinton a Democratic presidential candidate stated, “I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain, so that there is some fail-safe.” She failed to realise that Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons for its sovereign defense. Pakistanis had a bad experience of being a member of United States sponsored alliances in the past. Its Western allies had failed to protect it from dismemberment in 1971. Many in Pakistan believe that they were ditched by their Western partners during the 1971 crisis. The arms embargoes gradually deteriorate Pakistani forces performance in the 1971 war. Consequently, the country was dismembered. Nuclear weapons solidify Pakistani defensive fence against its adversary, which is a strategic partner of the United States. Therefore, it is impossible that Islamabad would share its nuclear secrets with the US-British delegation.
The discussion about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has become a regular feature in the United States media. Impractical contingency plans had been spelled out. These articles in the leading Western newspapers give impression that their writers missed the historical facts and practicable details about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. The Americans and their allies had failed to cap, rollback, and eliminate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme even in its formative phase. Despite the United States sanctions and threats, Islamabad matured its nuclear weapons programmes. It tested the nuclear devices in May 1998 and also successfully developed and tested the nuclear capable ballistic and cruise missiles. The nuclear programme matured in more than three decades and the concerned departments developed the relevant security and operative expertise during these years. One needs to understand that it is an indigenous programme. If a state manufactures a sophisticated weapon, certainly, it is capable to guard its nuclear arsenals.       
The previous midterm elections (November 2006) results revealed that common man in United States realised that the Operation Iraqi Freedom was a strategic miscalculation. Instead of weakening al Qaeda, it increased the support for the terrorist organisation in the Muslim world. The mishandling of Iraqi situation not only created opportunities for the terrorist organisation in the form of more recruits and sanctuaries, but also severely effected Operation Enduring Freedom. The US/ISAF/NATO forces have failed to arrest or eliminate al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri. It seems that the American leadership has been looking for a scapegoat for their strategic blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The protracted warfare in Afghanistan obviously frustrates the United States and its allies including Pakistan. The instability in Afghanistan is not in the national interest of Pakistan; therefore, the latter always support the conflict management leading to conflict resolution processes in Afghanistan.  Since the 9/11, Islamabad has been doing its best to combat terrorism within its own territory and also support Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration frequently acknowledges Pakistan’s role in the war on terrorism. At the same time Americans seemed convinced that the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area is a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri. Senator Barack Obama, another Democrat presidential candidate advocated hot pursuit to chase and kill al Qaeda militants inside Pakistan. The Americans forces strikes inside Pakistan are not acceptable to Islamabad. It has maintained that no other country will be allowed to carry out operations in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mohammad Sadiq categorically stated, “Pakistan’s position in the war on terror has been very clear -- that any action on Pakistani soil will be taken only by Pakistani forces and Pakistani security agencies.” 
The political situation in Pakistan is very critical. The constitutional instability always undermines state’s performance and provides its adversaries opportunity to blame it as a failed state. Since November 3, 2007 the anti-Pakistan forces have been predicting anarchical situation in Pakistan. This pessimistic outlook about Pakistan’s future undermines ruling elite’s credibility; exposes the weaknesses of the national institutions and augment socio-political divide within the society.  The increasing socio-political divide would generate political and economic instability and also weaken national unity. It is understandable that during the election campaign the political opponents criticise each other, but with decency. Unfortunately, the leading political parties’ campaigns have been generating hatred in the society. Instead of debating the merits of their election manifesto and highlighting the drawbacks in the opponents manifesto(s), the political leaders have been alleging and maligning their opponents. The blame game increased multitudinously in the aftermath of the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the twice-elected prime minister of Pakistan and chairperson of Pakistan People’s Party on December 27, 2007. This deplorable political situation necessitates a serious attention from both the government and opposition parties. The earnest need is the national reconciliation and improving the quality of political debate.
The Democrat presidential candidates have failed to learn lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically, they have been targeting an ally state with a wishful thinking that their special forces would have a walkover against the professionally trained security forces of Pakistan. It seems imperative that the American strategic pundits and sane thinkers critically examine the situation and recommend sensible workable strategies to both their presidential candidates and opinion makers not only for the international stability, but also for the sake of the United States own security and prosperity. Thus, campaigning against Pakistan is not in the interest of War on Terrorism.