After all the commitment that Pakistan has shown in pursuing the US-sponsored war on terror and the heavy losses it has borne as a consequence, American Senator Gary Ackerman has come to the conclusion that Pakistan military is not our ally. They are not supporting the US. It is no secret that the war on terror has cost us dearly. We have lost as many as 40,000 lives, including 5,000 security personnel. Not a small number by any chance and far greater than the US and NATO. Suicide bombings have created a fearsome sense of insecurity in the entire country and has visibly altered the daily lives of all Pakistanis. As a result, investors shy away from putting in their capital, not to mention disturbed local businesses. The economy has suffered a massive loss of $70 billion. In this context, for an American senator to make the kind of remarks that he did, is unfortunate and unfair in the extreme. The US aid that Senator Ackerman ruefully mentions, did not change its (Pakistans) policies does not even cover the expenses Pakistan Army has incurred in the war, let alone compensate the loss to the economy. The Senator's views that Pakistans 'self-centred interest is in contradiction with the American interest, but is precisely what any country, when its own interest comes in clash with that of a foreign power, would do. Against this background, his call to the US administration to open its eyes sounds pretty odd. The pity is that Senator Ackerman is not alone in the US Congress to entertain such views; there are a number of other influential voices which talk of Pakistan's role in the war on terror in similar terms. The ruling political hierarchy, despite its description of Pakistan as a key ally in the war on terror, has been freely pointing a finger, at least for some time past, at the ISI for its perceived collusion with 'terrorists. The 2012 presidential election and the bleak prospects of winning the war appear to be the compulsions that have driven the US administration to pursue the current strategy of making Pakistan a target of blame. The urgency in making a sizeable withdrawal of its forces in response to public pressure at home and creating a favourable climate for President Obama in the presidential election have prompted the superpower to look for a suitable scapegoat, where Pakistan is meant to fulfil the role of Afghanistans neighbour spoiling the show. The only course open to the US is to give up the military option and woo the resistance to talks in order to work out a formula for its honourable exit. In this, it acknowledges the need for Pakistans role. Any attempt at contriving a post-withdrawal political order in Afghanistan that disregards the ethnic composition of its population is not likely to succeed. Rather, it would open the door to avoidable hostilities between different ethnic communities, a scenario that must be precluded to make for peace and harmony in the country and the region.