Noises from Washington, which of late have been excessively raised, suggest that the Americans are highly displeased with how Islamabad has been dealing with the situation in the tribal areas. We have been told in clear terms that there was consensus among the American leadership that Pakistan was not doing enough to contain the militants in the tribal belt who pose a threat to Afghanistan’s security. There was an urgent need for a massive military action to stop the militants from pursuing their mission, Washington has conveyed to Islamabad. Ironically ambassador Haqqani told a TV channel that the Americans do not approve of Islamabad’s prescription for dealing with the Taliban. ‘We will do it in our own way’ --- what Islamabad has been telling the whole word --- is patently not acceptable to the Americans. But Haqqani did not share with his countrymen the thinking being projected by some American Think tanks ‘if we pay the piper we will call the tune’ and a ‘client state had business telling us that they would set the pace for war on terrorism. In a patron-client state relationship there is no refusal to dictation by the ‘godfather’.
In the wake of reports of a NATO build up along the Pak-Afghan border, even though later denied by NATO sources there were speculations that Americans were Fed up  with Islamabad’s refusal to comply with the American demand that it had to do more to fight the militants, they were planning to arrogate to themselves the right to do it themselves. What would be the shape of American action if the NATO forces were asked to intervene --- opinions differ. Those who believe that the NATO troops are quite capable of crossing over into the tribal areas to take military action against what the American have been saying are Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries hold a minority view. They would not do such a thing, critics say, because it would mean a point of-no-return in their hostility against the people of Pakistan who would see intrusion into Pakistan territory as declaration of open war against them. According to many observers the Americans would be under the circumstances be contend with letting the NATO troops be deployed along the Durand line and strike targets in the Tribal Areas --- mostly aerial attacks but occasional crossing into Pakistan territory also on the pretext of hot pursuit. However the gathering storm at the Pak-Afghan border is seen by political pundits as an attempt to build maximum pressure on Islamabad so as to force the new government to opt for a massive military crackdown in the tribal areas rather than vacillating between negotiations and action against the militants. Prime Minister Gilani would be told in Washington that he had no choice but to ‘do more’ if his government wanted to remain on the right side of the Americans.
Some critics have pointed out that in the wake of the American mission’s abject failure in Iraq and the possibility of the American troops return home it has become all the more necessary for Washington to turn its attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Small wonder Presidential nominee Obama who supports withdrawal of American forces from Iraq but says he reserves the right to bomb Al-Qaeda/Taliban hideouts in the tribal areas, was on a visit to Kabul last week. And President Bush says he would wish to mediate Pak-Afghan differences following Hamid Karzai’s tirade against Islamabad in which he openly accused Pakistan of involvement in suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. Levelling charges against Pakistan has been Karzai’s favourite pastime, or some would say his obsession but most of these charges related to echoing the American theme that Islamabad was not doing enough to fight the Taliban, or more exactly what he has been alleging was that Pakistan had allowed sanctuaries to the Taliban from where they operate to cross into Afghanistan for hostile actions. Karzai’s principal accusation against Islamabad was it was not doing enough to stop militants from crossing into Afghanistan. But Karzai has now come out with a charge which is radically different --- it is not vacillation, indecision or even collaboration --- but a calculated design to hurt Afghan interest. Ironically Karzai has fully endorsed the Indian charge that Pakistan was guilty of ‘sponsoring terrorism’ against a neighbouring country. Parliament’s Standing Committee has suggested that the government in Islamabad should take a former view of how to deal with Karzai, but what about dealing with the Americans who have installed Karzai in Kabul and vouch for his security.