Those perennially resigned to the subservience of their imperial masters believe that the only way to infuriate Washington was to allow those it terms as 'terrorists to freely operate from their safe havens established within the Pakistani borders and strike at the Afghan and occupation forces, and provide an excuse to the US/NATO to hit back in Pakistan. This 'war philosophy, they say, is beyond their comprehension, but so is this postulation to me. Taking the Pakistani government and its army to be a bunch of morons, who would senselessly invite obvious trouble, is an oversimplified presumption. The analysts, who seem to have first-hand knowledge of such terrorist havens besides the Americans, do not understand such a bizarre strategy of facilitating few groups to attack the self-styled superpower. However, it is perfectly understandable and justified to them that the superpower from thousands of miles away should attack a sovereign though poor nation (Afghanistan) for a crime it did not commit, and that the Pakistan government readily provide it the desired bases and logistic support to ransack that country for a whole decade. For these 'imperial sympathisers, there is nothing wrong in flying out assault missions from the Pakistani soil, carry out drone strikes and massacre countless innocent civilians because, according to them, the superpower, like the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, wields more strength and command than the Almighty (Naouz-o-billah). These cronies are either nave in assuming that Pakistan has similar control over these regions as it ought to have over its settled areas, which, unfortunately, it does not have. Or they are ruefully ignorant of the fact that these tribal territories, commonly known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), are with the State of Pakistan through an instrument that entitles them to their own laws, governance and social system, and in which no one can interfere. One must not forget that these people were instrumental in facilitating liberation from the Indian yoke of what is now known as Azad Kashmir, and have ever since served as a buffer between Pakistan and Afghanistan safeguarding our borders without a single Pakistani foot-soldier ever required, until this allied incursion 10 years ago. These terrains and people were host to the mujahideen against the Soviet invasion, but were callously deserted by the Americans after the job was done, and now those forced out of Afghanistan following their ruthless assault and who are fighting back. It is downright stupid for anyone to expect that these people can be herded out; a feat that neither the Pakistani forces now deployed in tens of thousands, nor the allied might put together with all its sophisticated armoury and technology has been able to achieve in over a decade - a job that the Americans now desperately and mindlessly expect Pakistan to do before their departure. What our friends need to recognise is the stark reality that while the Pakistan Army in deploying over 150,000 troops took a dangerous plunge, the so-called superpower after putting $3 trillion of the taxpayers money down the drain in the futile war is forced to negotiate with the same people (the Taliban) it terms as terrorists to seek an exit after stamping a self-assumed victory. Who is trying to fool whom? Never heard of an army in combat spending $20 billion per annum for its cooling comfort. Also, some freedom fighters declared resolve to fight alongside Pakistan in the event of any misadventure by its eastern neighbour, has not gone down well with our friend, who terms it an instigation. One is aghast at the diseased mindset of such gentlemen, who conveniently forget that it was India that threatened to invade Pakistan on the pretext that the Mumbai attacks were backed by it, which turned out to be the handiwork of David Headley, a CIA agent, as were its stage managed escapades of the Ganga plane hijacking, attack on the Indian Parliament and setting alight Samjhota Express burning alive dozens of Pakistani and Indian Muslims. Here are excerpts from the writings of some foreign scribes to describe the causes of American retreat from Afghanistan. Stephen L Carter in his article, entitled Lost in Afghanistan, published in the Newsweek, while commenting on Americas withdrawal has queried: Are they coming home because they did the job? Or has the enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure been for naught....Obama would rather not talk about victory. But theres no other way to assess a war. Writing in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman states: When Obama announced to surge more troops into Afghanistan in 2009, I argued that it could succeed ifPakistan became a different country, Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan a different man and we succeeded in.nation building in Afghanistan. None of that has happened, which is why I believe that our options in Afghanistan are: Lose early, lose late, lose big or lose small. I vote for early and small. He added: We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because Saudi Arabia had oil, Pakistan had nukes and Iran was too big. We had hoped this war-by-bank-shot would lead to changes in all three countries. So far, it has not. M.K. Bhadrakumar, while writing for Asia Times, termed the participation of the Pakistani and Afghan Presidents in the International Conference on Terrorism, in Tehran, a major diplomatic victory for Iran. He said: The US has been using International terrorism as the pretext to intervene in Afghanistan and the Middle Eastand that Irans Supreme leader Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei highlighted the calculations of satanic world powers to achieve their illegitimate goals, and expressed his appreciation that aware of ominous intentions, the Pakistani people were resisting the US hegemonic plot. Bhadrakumar considers the visits of Zardari and Karzai to Tehran at this juncture as signifying an act of strategic defiance of the US, as they knew that Washington would get the message. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in his article entitled Obamas Afghanistan withdrawal: Another sign of American decline?, states: Mr Obamas message to General David Petraeus was clear: Time is up. Ten years, a trillion dollars, and 1,600 American casualties, the White House is essentially abandoning the attempt to build law and order in Afghanistan.Many in the US and around the world wonder if Obamas speech - and the broad bipartisan support for it - is yet another sign of Americas decline. Therefore, this is not what we - or several retired generals of consequence, or leading analysts - in the country say, but the world at large. May God allow the skeletons in our own cupboard to grasp reality n The writer is political analyst.