Considering the past behaviour of the US it is hard to give credence to its commitment of taking joint action with Pakistan in hunting down 'high-value targets and violent extremists. This conclusion is reinforced by the set of expectations Secretary Clinton brought with her to Islamabad on Friday that might not be possible for us to meet in view of our paramount national interests, especially, as she herself acknowledged, that there were differences of approach in pursuit of common objectives. Both Ms Clinton and the Pakistani leadership, whom she met with CJCSC Admiral Mullen, agreed to jointly operate in such cases. However, President Obama is on record having declared that the US would launch other unilateral raids, if a high-value target was found to be living in Pakistan. This was even after a loud cry of protest had gone up from the whole of Pakistan, public as well as leaders, against the covert Abbottabad operation. Nevertheless, General Kayani rightly conveyed to Admiral Mullen Pakistans reservations about the raid, informing him that the ISI would cooperate in intelligence sharing purely on a reciprocal basis. It is a pity that at the government level utter confusion prevails, or at least our leaders want to keep the public in the dark. On the one hand, they commit themselves to taking some very specific action, which would, undoubtedly, go against national interest, while on the other they try to mislead the public by saying that they have another strategy to stop drone attacks. Did they not hear Secretary Clinton say, We have to disrupt, dismantle, defeat and destroy Al-Qaeda from Pakistan and the region. We will do our part and look to Pakistan for decisive steps in the days ahead? And the Americans do not believe it is possible without destroying the so-called sanctuaries of terrorists with the help of drones and Pakistan army to launch a military campaign in North Waziristan. Apparently, the Secretary of State was on a mission to mend ties that had been strained by two serious incidents, Raymond Davis and bin Laden. Both have caused an overwhelming sense of public outrage and carry the germs of revolutionary thinking that would not leave the American interests unhurt. Rather than being contrite at compelling an ally to release a murderer of its citizens and violating its sovereignty, the US leaders have been seen strutting about with a show of haughtiness. Tying aid to taking specific action and to do(ing) more both these expressions translated into action would mean jeopardising our long-term national interests would prove counterproductive. That the US wants a strong, democratic and stable Pakistan has little meaning. And trying to re-initiate strategic partnership in this climate would be a lost cause. These should serve as clear warnings to our ruling leadership to understand that the long-standing friendship the superpower promises will last till it needs our help in advancing its cause. The sooner we get away from this trap the better for us and the region.