NEW YORK - A former CIA officer who authored the Obama administrations 2009 Pak-Afghan policy wants the US to declare a war of sorts on the 'aggressive instincts of Pakistan Army and ISI, proposing a policy of containment that holds the two institutions accountable. We must contain the Pakistani Armys ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy, Bruce Riedel, who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution a Washington-based think-tank wrote in The New York Times in the newspapers Saturday edition. He called for deep cuts in military assistance to Pakistan. At the same time, Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, urged the Obama administration Friday to freeze its aid to Pakistan until the country took actions against perpetrators of the US Embassy attack in Kabul and helped shut down the Haqqani network. Elaborating his concept of policy of containment for Pakistan, Riedel said it would mean a 'more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistans people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down, he said Putting sanctions on organisations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest, he added. For far too long, the US has banked on the Pakistan Army to protect American interests, said the author of: Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad. Now we need to contain that armys aggressive instincts, while helping those who want a progressive Pakistan and keeping up the fight against terrorism. At the outset of his op-ed piece, Riedel said, (We) must recognise that the two countries (US and Pakistans) strategic interests are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistans army controls Pakistans strategic policies. The generals who run Pakistan have not abandoned their obsession with challenging India, Riedel said, adding that they tolerate terrorists at home, seek a Taliban victory in Afghanistan and are building the worlds fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. They have sidelined and intimidated civilian leaders elected in 2008. They seem to think Pakistan is invulnerable, because they control NATOs supply line from Karachi to Kabul and have nuclear weapons, he added. The generals also think time is on their side - that NATO is doomed to give up in Afghanistan, leaving them free to act as they wish there, therefore they have concluded that the sooner America leaves, the better it will be for Pakistan. They want Americans and Europeans to believe the war is hopeless, so they encourage the Taliban and other militant groups to speed the withdrawal with spectacular attacks. Riedel said President Barack Obama Obama had tried to improve relations with Pakistan by increasing aid and dialogue; he also expanded drone operations to fight terrorist groups that Pakistan would not fight on its own. It was right to try engagement, but now the approach needs reshaping. We will have to persevere in Afghanistan in the face of opposition by Pakistan, he wrote. Offering Pakistan more trade while reducing aid makes sense. When we extend traditional aid, media outlets with ties to the ISI cite the aid to weave conspiracy theories that alienate Pakistanis from us Mr Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy; that would strengthen entrepreneurs and women, two groups who are outside the armys control and who are interested in peace. Riedel said, Military assistance to Pakistan should be cut deeply. Regular contacts between our officers and theirs can continue, but under no delusion that we are allies Osama bin Ladens death confirmed that we cant rely on Pakistan to take out prominent terrorists on its soil. We will still need bases in Afghanistan from which to act when we see a threat in Pakistan. But drones should be used judiciously, for very important targets. In Afghanistan, we should not have false hopes for a political solution. We can hope that top figures among the Quetta Shura Afghan Taliban leaders who are sheltered in Quetta, Pakistan will be delivered to the bargaining table, but that is unlikely, since the Quetta leadership assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistans High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, last month. The ISI will veto any Taliban peace efforts it opposes, which means any it doesnt control. Rather than hoping for ISI help, we need to continue to build an Afghan Army that can control the insurgency with long-term Nato assistance and minimal combat troops. Strategic dialogue with India about Pakistan is essential because it would focus the Pakistani Armys mind. India and Pakistan are trying to improve trade and transportation links severed after they became independent in 1947, and we should encourage that. We should also increase intelligence cooperation against terrorist targets in Pakistan. And we should encourage India to be more conciliatory on Kashmir, by easing border controls and releasing prisoners, Riedel maintained. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation, often used by former US president George W Bush to announce foreign policy decisions, also asked the administration to back Congress on conditioning all US aid to Pakistan on certain counter-terrorism benchmarks. But the report warned that while this would be 'a welcome tactic, it may be insufficient. The foundation demanded that the Obama administration designate the Haqqani network a foreign terrorist organisation. It argued that failing to do so after the Sept 13 attack on the US Embassy in Kabul would signal Americas weakness and invite additional attacks on its interests in Afghanistan. The report also proposed establishing a congressional commission to oversee US relations with Pakistan. Congress should investigate Pakistans role in fomenting the insurgency in Afghanistan and the extent to which its actions were preventing the US and Nato from achieving their security objectives in the region, the report added. The foundation also advised the Obama administration to step up drone attacks inside Pakistan. It pointed out that increased tempo in drone strikes in Pakistans tribal areas had severely downgraded the al-Qaeda leadership and disrupted its ability to attack the US. Washington should pursue the same kind of aggressive drone campaign against the Haqqani network, the report demanded. The foundation also issued a fact-sheet to back its claim that the Obama administration needed to have a plan 'B for dealing with Pakistan if it continued to 'defy Washington. The fact-sheet described Pakistan as 'the main obstacle to progress in Afghanistan because its 'proxies are conducting brazen attacks on US interests. The report claimed that the Haqqani network, which the former military chief Admiral Mike Mullen called a 'veritable arm of ISI, was based in Pakistan and was planning and carrying out attacks at US interests in Afghanistan. The foundation also urged the White House to change its Afghan strategy, noting that President Obamas aggressive withdrawal plan to remove 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next September only 'reinforces the Pakistani view that the US will turn its back on the region. We cannot afford to leave a v