A. R. Jerral There are reports that cooperation between CIA and ISI is at the lowest ebb, if not altogether severed. This breakdown has occurred following the Raymond Davis operation, which was launched in Pakistan at the behest of CIA and without ISI's knowledge. According to an unnamed ISI official, the relations are "strained, but not broken", and "cooperation and operations together will continue at a lesser scale." This may be a diplomatic way to describe the lack or absence of mutual trust between the two spy agencies of the allies in the war on terror. Davis, whose identity still is at best a speculation, did not prove to be a seasoned intelligence operative and blew his cover in panic. He opened a Pandora's Box of CIA's clandestine activities in Pakistan, which caught our intelligence and security agencies completely off guard. Since then Pak-US diplomatic relations are passing through difficulties, despite being allies in the war on terror. And there is no amicable solution in sight till Pakistan lets Davis go free citing complete diplomatic immunity. General Zia plunged the ISI in CIA's ghost war in Afghanistan in early 1980s at America's behest. So ISI fully cooperated and assisted CIA to plan and conduct anti-Soviet operation in Afghanistan with command, control, logistic and training bases in Pakistan. This relationship continued for 10 long years till the interstate relations snapped. This was a long enough time for a world class spy agency of CIA's repute to build clandestine facilities in an 'allied' country for any possible future operations. Thus, Pakistan being a professed ideological Muslim country with open hostility towards Israel and a declared nuclear ambition was a good target for future CIA clandestine operations. This fact should not have been lost on those who are responsible for the country's national security. Security is not a one-time operation; it is a continuous process of evaluation and planning, and deployment of resources to thwart any hostile venture. So, the Mozang tragedy discloses that our intelligence agency faltered somewhere along the line. The ISI is a secret service agency. Nothing much is known about its organisation and its method of operations - one can only speculate and conjecture. It is fair to assume that it will or should have an internal security apparatus to counter hostile espionage activities within the borders of Pakistan. This apparatus should have been alerted when the local press splashed stories about the large-scale deployment of Blackwater or DynCorp in Pakistan. At that time it was reported that operatives of these contract security agencies were roaming in Pakistan in suspicious vehicles fully armed and dressed as Talibans. A number of hostile incidents took place between these agents and the police. Also, there were rumours that these guys were renting out accommodations in posh areas of Islamabad and other cities at exuberant prices. Then our Interior Minister had vehemently denied these stories, despite police encounters with these operatives. These stories also leaked that our Ambassador in Washington was issuing an undisclosed number of visas to US nationals on the authority given by the top political hierarchy in power. These stories were sufficient for the intelligence agency of any nation to be wary of security situation in domestic environment. One expected that the ISI would be alive to these stories with proper measures in place for any eventuality, but Davis' case indicates slackness in this direction. Why did the ISI remain aloof? One conjecture is that being allies in the so-called war on terror, the ISI had high degree of trust in US intentions and CIA operations. Even then someone in the agency should have voiced his doubts and asked questions. In an article on USA's strategic and military designs in Pakistan published in TheNation on June 29, 2010, I had voiced fears that Blackwater operatives were being deployed with two objectives: locate our nuclear storage facilities and cultivate links with the extremist and so-called anti-Pakistan elements for terrorist activities inside Pakistan. Supporting a separatist movement in Balochistan is a declared policy option of the US. Hence, disclosures surfacing in the wake of Davis' case confirmed my apprehensions. If an ordinary citizen could have such doubts, the ISI should have had more reservations about the large-scale deployment of secret operatives in Pakistan. Washington is wary of our nuclear capability. In its policy projections about Pakistan, the US has not hidden its intentions to take out our nuclear capability at all cost, including an all-out military operation. Therefore, to launch an attack, the US will need solid information about the location of our assets and facilities. And so the deployment of such a large number of secret agents point towards the efforts being made for the collection of this information. The Pakistani public does not know the details about the installations photographed by Davis. However, one can assume that they must be sensitive installations. An analysis of these installations by experts can determine what the targets of CIA in Pakistan are, and what the US intends to do once the data collection is complete. As reported by a private TV channel, the ISI has asked CIA to withdraw all its operatives from Pakistan, who had entered the country on various pretexts and for dubious reasons. The channel also reported that ISI also indicated that such operatives may be proceeded against legally, if found involved in espionage activities. If this is true then the stand off between the ISI and the CIA is serious. Already there are reports in the media that the American intelligence agency is contemplating to target Pakistani diplomats serving abroad. The sources report: "Easy prey to this revenge design of the Americans could be Pakistani intelligence staff serving abroad chiefly in USA, Europe and Afghanistan." The Pakistani Ambassador in USA is being wilfully isolated, and all the US administration departments are "under instruction to seek clearance from the White House before interacting with Mr Haqqani." This attitude should not surprise Pakistan, since it is not first time that Pakistan is being treated like this. Our mutual relationship, despite tall claims and promises of enduring friendship has always been erratic. Unfortunately, the Pakistani leadership has never been sure of itself, nor did it ever repose any trust in the masses. Lacking this strength, it always relied on foreign support for power play in Pakistan. It has failed to comprehend that in international relations friendships are based on interests, while the dominant partners have the initiative to keep or break the friendship. This has happened before and will happen in future. Already a section of the intelligentsia is advocating that "we should not let the Davis case affect our relations with the US." Pakistan's leadership for once should place its trust in its masses, and take a principled stand for conduct of all bilateral relations with America. To begin with, Pakistan should review the diplomatic conventions, so that diplomats do not get a free-for-all immunity for their conduct in the host country. The so-called diplomatic conventions should not provide any cover to a country to deploy its spies in any country under diplomatic immunity. The Raymond Davis case is a blessing in disguise for the ISI; it should be enough of a wake-up call for the premier security agency of Pakistan to see things in their proper perspective when dealing with other countries and keep the guard up always. The writer is a freelance columnist.