A certain negative pattern in now becoming evident in the Indo-US designs for this region, especially Pakistan. Despite Pakistan continuing going out of its way to aid the USs misguided war on terror and, in spite of the non-payment by the US of costs incurred in this process and under agreement relating to the Coalition Support Fund, US officials still remain dissatisfied with Pakistan. That is why General Petraeus has still refused to declare categorically that the US is satisfied with Pakistans efforts in aiding the US. Why? We have practically destroyed our own countrys stability, given in the lives of our soldiers, law enforcers and civilians, and in so many other incalculable ways simply to support the US in this region, but the US mantra of do more continues to haunt us. Even though Petraeus conceded that Pakistan with all its compulsions had been doing more and more, and that it was incumbent on the US to build up the trust with this country, yet in a niggardly fashion, he refused to state the US was satisfied with Pakistan. Worse still, the US seems adamant on providing India with strategic access in Afghanistan despite Pakistans protests over Indias use of Afghan territory for covert support to militants in Pakistan. This dubious US approach has emboldened India into declaring that it will not scale its operations in Afghanistan. So this factor will continue to aggravate Pakistans security environment. Meanwhile, India has been capitalising on its strategic partnership with the US to pressure Pakistan through the Americans. Already it is protesting to the US for giving what are basically tactical weapons to Pakistan in the context of the so-called war on terror. Even the F-16s that Pakistan has paid for do not match up to the weapons systems and nuclear technology India is being supplies by the US. Also, the statements relating to the Pakistan-India dialogue coming from the Americans have not been encouraging - in that they seemed to be supporting the Indian position on the composite dialogue and especially on leaving Kashmir out of the initial talks. Under these circumstances, the news in a Washington paper that President Obama might host talks between the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India should be treated with trepidation. After all, given how vulnerable our leadership seems in front of the Americans, one can envisage compromises from the Pakistani side that could endanger our long term interests. At the very least, a new agenda for talks could be hoisted on Pakistan. Certainly, one will see a coalescing of Indo-US interests. Perhaps it would be better if Pakistan struck to its principled position of restarting the composite dialogue which is an approved structured format with provision for institutional inputs. The sensitivity of the Pakistan-India relationship cannot be left simply to US-compelled summits between the political leaders.