A. R. Jerral The Washington Post in a recent story has accused the Pakistan army of hampering the US Embassy operation; the story is based on the leaked US embassy cables sent to the State Department in 2009. This accusation is levelled against Pakistan after almost a decade of our military cooperation in Americas so-called war on terror. Irony is that in this war Pakistan has suffered more casualties - dead and wounded - than the Americans and its western allies. Why does this trust deficit linger on, no one is able to explain. Pakistan went over to the American side in early 1950s and became active in Americas anti-communist bloc. Our declared anti-Soviet political stance cost us dearly in the UNO over the Kashmir issue, yet Pakistan steadfastly remained in the American camp. But the US never came out clearly in support of Pakistan in all its political problems in the region; Kashmir is a glaring example. During General Zias rule Pakistan was the frontline state in Americas war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The perils that befell Pakistan are no secret. The populace suffered drug menace, rise of gun culture resulting into the rise of terrorism and economic depression. Since 2001, we are headlong into the war on terror fighting for and on behalf of the US. These so-called terrorists are undoubtedly Americas creation. They were collected from all over the world against the Soviet troops and hailed as mujahideen and freedom fighters, and were paid by the CIA. They were abandoned after the Russian defeat and having lost their paymaster became available to anyone who had use for them and could pay for their services; they became terrorists. General (retd) Pervez Musharraf stood by President George Bush whole-heartedly in his attack on Afghanistan. Since the fateful night when Pakistan was confronted with the either with us or against us ultimatum, it is deeply involved in USAs war on terror. Even after nine years of active involvement in this alliance against terrorism, Pakistan remains suspect of double cross. Presently, we have leaders, who have given an open-ended permission to the American troops to launch drone attacks inside the Pakistani territory. President Asif Zardari, as described by Bob Woodward in his book titled Obamas Wars told the CIA to aggressively attack Al-Qaeda leaders in his country. Zardari, reportedly, said: Collateral damage worries you Americans. It does not worry me. Thus, Pakistans leaders in loyalty to the Americans have accepted the killing of their own people willingly. What more can be offered in proof of our 'loyalty? It seems that what Pakistan has done so far and is doing is not enough in the American perception. The US President has again asked the Pakistan army to do more. What it implies is that the army should attack its own people in North Waziristan to flush out the suspected terrorists in that area. For the last eight years, the Pakistani army has launched military operations in South Waziristan, Swat and other FATA areas, causing immense hardships and miseries to the people there. Whatever Pakistan is doing or may do in future, the trust level will remain at a low ebb. Despite eight years of alliance with the US, Pakistans intentions remained doubtful in the American assessment. In November 2008, when Obama was elected President, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the head of CIAs Analysis Division under the Bush administration briefed the President-elect on matters of national security. What they told Obama, and as portrayed by Bob Woodward in his book, describes the American perception; the immediate threat to the United States came not from these war zones (Iraq and Afghanistan), but from Pakistan, an unstable country with a population of about 170 million, a 1,500-mile border with southern Afghanistan and an arsenal of 'some 100 nuclear weapons. The DNI also told President Obama that Pakistan is living a lie and is a dishonest partner. Isnt this evidence enough to prove that despite eight years of close cooperation in the war on terror, the US has serious doubts about Pakistans honesty? Then two years later, Frank Gaffney, the Director of Centre for Security Policy, accuses Pakistan of undercutting USAs war on terror and playing double gameits reliability in defeating 'our enemy is suspect; even its partnership is suspect. This is how Pakistan stands in the US estimation. However, Washington must realise that this state has not sprung up suddenly. We, in Pakistan, have watched the US behaviour for over almost five decades. It has used the Islamic state for its interests time and again. After its interests were fulfilled Pakistan was left to fend for itself in its regional problems. The USA denied diplomatic and material support when Pakistan needed it the most. Despite calling Pakistan a friend, it was subjected to sanctions and embargos. Even now, despite being the ally in the war on terror, the US Embassy continuously accuses Pakistan in its secret cables of harassing its Embassy operations. America certainly needs to understand that Pakistan has its own security parameters and compulsions in the regional scenario. It can help and assist the US in meeting its global security concerns; however, it cannot relegate its own security perceptions. Bob Woodward states in his book that COAS Pakistan, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has other priorities and that he is India-centric. General Kayani is responsible for the defence of Pakistan, and understands the compulsions and parameters he is operating in. More so, Pakistan fully understands the designs of India. It has emerged from the partition of the Indian subcontinent, but India does not accept this fact. Sixty-three years later, a former Foreign Minister of India calls this partition vivisection of mother India. Pakistan and India have fought three wars; India played a decisive and militarily active role in the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971; it is engaged in damming and diverting the river waters that irrigate Pakistan; its secret agencies are actively engaged in training and funding subversive elements against Pakistan as it is an ongoing process. So with such security threats emanating from India, our COAS cannot lower the guard; if he declares that he is India-centric he is right. He cannot denude our eastern borders and move full-force to the West to satisfy the US desires. The Indian administration will never refrain from seizing any opportunity to reverse the vivisection of India. Immediately after the fall of Dacca in 1971, Mrs Indira Gandhi had dubbed the occasion as an opportunity of a 1,000-years to defeat Pakistan once and for all, and had moved her forces to the West. The rumours floating in Islamabad at that time were that it was the Soviet Union that forced India to abandon its designs. The common Pakistani citizen has not forgotten that our friend - the USA remained silent and indifferent throughout this conflict, and denied us even diplomatic and moral support when Pakistan needed it the most, and subjected us to embargos. Perhaps, the US may repose trust in us if Pakistan submits to its demands without any reservations, pulls its forces from the eastern sectors and goes on the offensive in North Warziristan. Pakistan is already doing that, up to its capacity. It cannot relegate its own security. Trust runs both ways. America must understand that it cannot build trust by ignoring Pakistan security compulsions. The US may gain confidence of Pakistans leadership, but it cannot buy this trust; if it thinks that $18 billion assistance since 2002 will make any positive change in the peoples perception, then America is mistaken. This assistance, nevertheless, has not benefited the masses in Pakistan. The writer is a freelance columnist.