Pakistan's colonial mode since its inception is also reflected in the recent AfPak policy formulated by the American-British (AM-Britt) governments. The policy recognises the interests of sovereign nations like the US and India. Pakistan is assumed not to have its own interests but, if any, they are supposed to be in accordance with US interests. Several US leaders have tried to dictate us who our enemies and friends are or should be. We have been told that as of now India is not our enemy, the real enemy are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Since the AfPak policy has been formulated without taking into cognisance Pakistan's interests, rejection of this policy amounts to rejection of the colonial mode imposed on Pakistan 62 years ago when we supposedly became independent. The policy is based on three 'Ds': Deterrence, Development and Dialogue. An analysis of the three 'Ds' shows that they are in conflict with each other. Deterrence is in conflict both with Development and Dialogue. If brute force is being used to settle issues, then Development is not an option as new infrastructure cannot be created when the existing infrastructure is being destroyed. In the Three Trillion Dollar War Stiglitz and Bilmes state that $18 billion earmarked for development in Iraq could not be utilised due to the ongoing war in that country. And this money was eventually transferred to Deterrence. AM-Britt state that the policy has been formulated to ensure that 9/11 type of catastrophes do not take place in the West again. Many in Pakistan think that the hidden agenda behind AfPak is the acceleration of Pakistan's disintegration. It is a fact that since this policy was announced suicide attacks and bomb explosions have increased manifold in Pakistan. CIA Report 2000 had stated: "Pakistan's control over Balochistan and Sarhad will cease by 2015." Some reports suggest that the US is now trying to achieve this objective in the next four years, may be to coincide with Obama's term of office. Whether AM-Britt's objectives are to make the Western world safer or outright disintegration of Pakistan, we must reject the policy. AfPak aims at expanding the war theatre by getting all the regional powers involved in the conflict as stated by Obama in his policy announcement. The suggestion to expand the war theatre is in-line with the Rand Corporation's recommendation that in order to get out of the financial crisis the US should start a war with a large country. AM-Britt's are therefore planning to expand the Afghan war by involving Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, China, etc. This way millions of deaths and massive destruction in South Asia will increase output and employment and thus increase the wealth and prosperity of western countries. Pakistan should formulate its Afghan policy aimed at ensuring the protection of lives and property of the people of Pakistan. By now we are able to gauge what the AM-Britt plus Indian strategy is. Therefore using a Game theoretic approach, we should formulate our own strategy to outmanoeuvre the AM-Britt strategy. Furthermore repeated warnings by Pakistan to stop the drone attacks are falling on deaf ears. Pakistan should therefore withdraw its support for the so-called War On Terror and also deny the use of Pakistani territory and air space to the US/NATO forces and also India to cut the Indo-Afghan communication network. In my article, Where is Bush Taking the World To published in 2001, I had predicted that US invasion of Afghanistan will not stop. It will be followed by the invasion of other Muslim countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan while in the next phase non-Muslim countries like North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe will face the music. In spite of their tremendous might NATO countries are tackling one country at a time. These countries will therefore be better off by getting together to form their own nexus. Current overtures of the Obama' Administration towards Iran are attempts to deal with it only after settling with Pakistan. Pakistan and Iran would therefore be better off by nurturing a coalition rather than waiting for their respective turns. Furthermore Pakistan-China-Iran-Sri Lanka will be better off if they formed their nexus to deal with the AM-Britt-India-Afghan nexus. It will no doubt bring stability to the region and save it from death and destruction. Our message that the presence of NATO in Afghanistan is not part of the solution, but part of the problem needs to be conveyed loud and clear. We must work towards getting US/NATO forces out of Afghanistan, so that the foreigners living in FATA can also return to their respective countries. The writer is a professor at the Applied Economics Research Centre, University of Karachi E-mail: