The decision by the armed forces of Pakistan to cap the geographical expanse of ongoing military operations against the extremist elements, for at least one year, is quite prudent and timely. This would create requisite strategic space to let mediation-biased consultations to begin, and allow essential gestation time for the political process to dig-in firm roots. A complementary step now sho-uld to be secure our airspace against drone attacks, for these raids have created more extremists than these could eliminate. Drones stand thoroughly discredited as a military tool against the extremists; foreign ownership of these vehicles carries a phenomenal negative political baggage. Nevertheless, the continuation of drone attacks would be instrumental in the disruption of all efforts aimed at carrying forth a political process through arbitration focused negotiations. Drones is a milder terminology used for the Unarmed Combat Aerial Vehicles (UC-AVs) being employed by the CIA and Blackwater category of clandestine troops on behalf of the American Department of Defence. One wonders whe-ther this class of undeclared combatants are covered by the UN mandate that authorised the use of military force in Afg-hanistan. Surely, there is no legitimacy of using these kinds of flying machines and dubious troops inside Pakistan. In this backdrop, the public opinion in Pakistan is vehemently hostile towards the usage of these so-called drones in our airspace. It is important to mention that Pakistan has never granted overt approval for the use of drones in its aerospace. The rumours of covert understanding being continually aired from the American side, have correspondingly invoked denials from the Pakistani side. From operational utility stan-dpoint, the usage of such aerial vehicles is proving counterproductive. The ratio of deaths of the militants and innocents is around 1:10. Such human tragedy cannot be pushed under the carpet in the garb of innocent looking terminologies like collateral damage. More than inaccuracy of onboard weapons, flawed intelligence information appears to be the underlying cause for these uncalled for losses. Drone attacks undoubtedly have intensified during this year, hence raising the human loss and destruction of infrastructure. It is surprising that no procedure has been evolved for compensating the losses of innocent lives and destroyed property. Some arrangements of the sort do exist in Iraq and Afghanistan where requisite compensations are paid, but not in Pakistan. As a result anti-America sentiment is heightening. The Americans are singing praises regarding the achievement of their military objectives through drones. Undeniably, a part of this seems to be a sponsored effort by the military-industrial lobbies vying for new orders for additional drones. It is in this context that droves of American visitors are landing in Islamabad to make us believe that drone attacks are indeed the best thing that this region has had in this millennium. There are indicators that these visitors are trying to push down our throat their nasty interpretation of an otherwise balanced framework of the strategy announced by President Barack Obama at West Point. It appears that these visitors, who predominantly belong to the Bush administration, are pursuing to carry forth the Afghan war with their previous mindset; they appear to be striving hard to subvert an otherwise prudent policy by Obama. It is the operational level interpretations and tactical level implementations where differences of opinion emerge. The gap between Pakistani and American perceptions is widening, phenomenally, at both these levels. Generally speaking, the Americans are applying all sorts of arm-twisting methods to have their way; pending the payment of arrears of Coalition Support Fund is just one such example. Another forthcoming event pertaining Afghanistan is the International Conference on Afghanistan slated for January 26 in UAE, and for January 28 in London. The agenda of this conference, inter alia, includes the formal coronation of India as heir apparent to American occupation. So far India has been covertly trying, albeit with Ame-rican blessing, for influence pad-dling in Afghanistan. As a spin off, India has already acquired the capability to carry out effective covert subversive operations in Pakistani areas adjoining Afghanistan. Regularisation of such status for India would have long-term repercussions for Pakistan in the form of a two-front nightmare. Hence, rumours are ripe regarding likelihood of Pakistan boycotting the conference if India is assigned a larger than life role in Afghanistan. British Foreign Secretary David Mili-bands recent visit to Pakistan was an attempt to narrow the differences on this issue. However, knowing the symbiotic nature of foreign policy level linkage between the UK and the US, it is not expected that Britain would view the matter independent of American perspective. Apart, Pakistans principled stance on FMCT during the ongoing Conference on Disarmament (CD) is another event that could very well be on the agenda of most of these visitors. De-linking of FMCT from previously enmeshed issues like the Prevention of an Arms Ra-ce in Outer space (PARO), issu-es regarding development of missile shield, prevention of technological and numerical superiority in conventional domains and small arms proliferation has put Pakistan in a hurtful position. FMCT that was to follow these issues is now being de-linked and pursued in isolation, as the first agenda item. Any treaty on fissile material sans verification mechanism and without taking into account the existing stockpiles of fissile material puts Pakistan at an inherent and perpetually unfavourable position vis--vis India on two counts. Firstly, being a relatively late starter of the nuclear programme, Pakistans stock of fissile material is much smaller than Indias. Secondly, as a result of the nuclear deal with USA, India has eight reactors outside IAEA safeguards, capable of producing sufficient fissile material to produce about 280 nuclear warheads per year. Hence, any arbitrary cut-off date to stop the production of fissile material without addressing these inadequacies would put Pakistan at a grave security risk in the context of its maintaining a minimum credible deterrence. So, apparently this drove of visitors is coming in with an unfavourable agenda, alongside a couple of lollipops. It is interesting that when America and, as a corollary, its allies like the UK should be vying for the goodwill of the Pakistani public, efforts of these visitors is directed in the opposite direction. If corrective action is not taken, anti-America sentiment would rise exponentially. Pakistan may decide to even walk-off from some portions of American strategy towards Afghanistan. Instead of arm-twisting, the Americans need to be responsive towards the sensitivities of Pakistan and carry it along as a trusted ally. Unnecessary pampering of India is bound to have negative fallout on the Pak-US relations. Sending droves of neither drones nor visitors would solve the problem. The Americans have to take into account the ground realities as the time for a military surge is over. Likewise, arm-twisting maybe counterproductive for coaxing Pakistan into any arrangement that is perceived by the people of Pakistan as incompatible with its national interests. America needs to measure its brinkmanship in keeping with the gathering storm of the anti-American sentiments in Pakistan. The Pak-US bilateral relations and associated multilateral interactions are beneficial to both. These must be preserved and sustained on a long-term basis. The onus surely rests on American statesmanship; it is time to make a departure from Bush era policies and follow an objective and constructive approach. The writer is a former assistant of the chief of air staff, PAF. Email: khalid3408@gmail.com