Ever since the war in Afghanistan, the western media has been reporting the "progress" on the war in its own perspective, at time oblivious of the ground realities. Take the case of David Rohde and David E Sanger's piece for The New York Times titled How a 'Good War' in Afghanistan went bad, misleadingly claiming: "Like Osama bin Laden and his deputies, the Taliban had found refuge in Pakistan and regrouped as the American focus wavered. Taliban fighters seeped back over the border, driving up the suicide attacks and roadside bombings by as much as 25 percent this spring, and forcing NATO and American troops into battles to retake previously liberated villages in southern Afghanistan." Such sweeping statements caused damage to the confidence and trust enjoyed between the coalition forces and the "most Non-NATO ally" Pakistan. They further divulge: "When it came to reconstruction, big goals were announced, big projects identified. Yet in the year Mr Bush promised a 'Marshall Plan' for Afghanistan, the country received less assistance per capita than did post conflict Bosnia and Kosovo, or even desperately poor Haiti, according to a RAND Corporation study. Washington has spent an average of $3.4 billion a year reconstructing Afghanistan, less than half of what it has spent in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service." More recently, Ann Scott Tyson, in her article Border Complicates War in Afghanistan carried by Washington Post of April 4, 2008, while discussing March 12, 2008 missile strike by US forces, quoting a US military officer Captain Chris Hammond reveals: "The US military usually strikes across the border only when taking accurate fire from Pakistan, and standard practice calls for informing the Pakistan military about threats from its side. But Hammonds argued that the Pakistani military checkpoint was 'under siege' from the Taliban and that Pakistani officers fearful of retaliation could tip off the insurgents. The rare strike averted an imminent Taliban attack" Such an insinuation is malicious. The attack in question went awry as two innocent women and children were killed. The strike was fervently protested by the government of Pakistan but Ann Scott Tyson persists with her implications: "Collaboration is growing between Taliban commanders in Afghanistan such as Haqqani, who has tribal roots in Paktika province, and Pakistanis such as Baitullah Mehsud, a commander in South Waziristan who is reorganising the Taliban with help from agents in Pakistan's intelligence service, according to US military officials. Mehsud, the CIA has said, is responsible for the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December. Taliban fighters and facilitators plan and re-supply in Waziristan towns and then move across the border to launch attacks as far inside Afghanistan as Kabul." The border which Ms Tyson eludes to is The Durand Line, the term for the 2,640 kilometre arbitrary boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is a porous border, lined with one of the most treacherous and inhospitable terrain in the world. However, Ms Tyson claims that Captain Hammonds "and other US troops cannot trust their Pakistani counterparts. 'The Pakistan military is corrupt and lets people come through. Pakistani forces reportedly told insurgents the location of his observation post, and when US troops in a firefight call the Pakistani military for help, he said, 'they never answer the phone'. Pakistan's Frontier Corps (FC), which mans several border checkpoints, is viewed as nearly an enemy force. 'The FC might as well be Taliban They are active facilitators of infiltration,' said a US soldier who spoke on the condition of anonymity for security reasons." Ms Tyson needs her facts to be verified as she lacks veracity when she skeptically claims Pakistan military does not combat the Taliban because of lack of intent and proficiency. Comments like this for a force, which has deployed more than a hundred thousand troops to combat the insurgents, has lost nearly 500 of its men, apprehended 600 plus militants, is totally uncalled for and requires a reality check by the western media, which is bent on providing a slant.