The US administration cannot always hopes to bask in the sunshine of the present government's policy of outright capitulation before the US. Unrest is already building up among the people against the unchallenged US missile strikes on Pakistan. The one reason why Musharraf had to go was his policy of capitulation towards the US. If the incumbent president did not learn from his predecessor's mistakes he too will have to meet the same fate, may be even worse. The unanimous resolution passed by the Parliament in October 2008 calling upon the government for making a clear departure from Musharraf's foreign policy particularly his support to the US in its War On Terror and further calling upon the government to deal effectively with the missile attacks will further hamstring the president in toeing the line taken by America. According to a poll carried out by the Pew and the International Republican Institute 89 percent of the people in Pakistan do not approve of the ongoing War. No doubt, the incumbent president like Musharraf presides over the destiny of our nation all by himself and has owned up the War On Terror as Pakistan's own War and admitted in his interview published in the Wall Street Journal that all the US missile strikes on Pakistan during his regime had been carried out with his approval. However, the FO office spokesman on November 13 had been perhaps for the first time, after Zardari's election to the office of the president, strongly condemning the missile attacks terming them as "a violation of international law and all understating." General Kiyani also said that the army stood with the people of Pakistan in the hour of trial and tribulation. He further declared that the Pakistan army would retaliate within minutes in case of an attack by the Indian army. What is more eye-opening is that some of the members of the Parliament who were invited by the American ambassador for a briefing by General David D Mckeirnan, as reported by a private TV channel, told him that the missile attacks were only fuelling the fire of terrorism. They tried to impress on him the desirability to engage the militants through negotiations instead of confronting them militarily. The US is sadly mistaken if it is think that as Pakistan is going through an economic crises it would not be able to stand up to its military challenge. Pakistan's finance minister has already managed a rescue package of US$4 to 5 billion and also the Friend of Pakistan - Saudi Arabia, UAE and China - are on their way with their rescue packages. If the rag tag Taliban can stand up to the most powerful militaries of the world and the Hamas despite being completely isolated and besieged is not only surviving but also giving such a tough time to their infinitely more powerful enemies. The Islamic militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan can not only withstand the US military assaults but also can give them a bloody nose. Now coming to the prevailing dire economic situation in the US we find that despite the injection of US$700 billion into the financial system the crises is still escalating as more banks have collapsed and closed down. Unemployment has reached an alarming level. The most prestigious American automobile company is on the verge of bankruptcy. The US war budget for Iraq and Afghanistan has been cut down by 40 percent thereby adversary affecting the pay, allowances and pensions of the serving and the laid off military personnel. Under these dire military political and economic realities prevailing in America, President Barack Obama cannot afford to escalate the ongoing military campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US is thus faced with a catch 22 situation and the way out of it lies in rethinking and deconstructing the War On Terror as advised by Robert Fisk. It is remarkable to note that not only Fisk but many eminent think tanks in the US too are of the same view. New Partnership for Safe America, a bipartisan group consisting of former veteran lawmakers and top national security advisors, has asserted that terrorism is a political act and requires a political response which should include addressing the grievances of the Muslim world. The New American Foundation fellow Nir Rosen declared: "The Muslims do not hate us for what we are but for what we do... the motive of the Muslims were no secret and has been time an again spelt out in so many words namely the atrocities in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Guntanamo and the American support to the dictatorial and corrupt regimes." He therefore strongly suggested that "American withdrawal from Iraq and Israeli withdrawal from Palestine would be a more effective way to fight terrorism." The Rand Corporation in its study has also urged upon the US to have "a very light military footprint or none at all in Afghanistan" (published in a local English daily July 30, 2008). Karzai too seems to have become too tired and sick of US presence in Afghanistan. While talking to a delegation from the UN he expressed utter disappointment over the performance of the Western troops and bitterly blamed them for harassing the Afghan villagers. He also demanded a deadline for the withdrawal of the US/NATO forces from Afghanistan and insisted on a political settlement with the Taliban. In the backdrop of such a drastically changed situation in Afghanistan it would be a strategic and tactical disaster for the US to further step up the military campaign in Afghanistan. The writer is a freelance columnist