THE protest lodged with US Ambassador Anne Patterson, who was summoned to the Foreign Office on Wednesday, indicates that the government is serious about implementing a new policy in the light of a consensus resolution passed on October 27, which, among other things, clearly stated that US drone attacks on Pakistani territory would no longer be tolerated. Hopefully, the envoy, who was handed over a copy of the resolution, would understand that there is now an elected government in power, which is bound to act upon the advice of Parliament. The Foreign Secretary was indeed right in terming these attacks, including the recent one that killed over 20, a violation of our sovereignty aimed at undermining the government's efforts to wipe out the scourge of militancy from the country. But the question remains, would the US stop these air strikes? Though many in the State Department might hold the resolution in little esteem, there is reason to believe that Islamabad's reservations over the missile attacks as expressed categorically by Parliament are becoming a cause of concern for the US. A somewhat nervous response came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino who, immediately after Ambassador Patterson was summoned to the FO, said that the US was ready to work out the problem with Pakistan. But she was vague as to whether there would be any end to the stepped-up attacks. This means that a firmer stand is called for. There is a need to tell the US in no uncertain terms that what it is doing is not acceptable. It bears repeating that Americans could not continue their military adventurism of attacking 'terrorist' hideouts in Syria, because the country took a much stronger stand. The attacks are a poor way of acknowledging the debt White House owes to Islamabad, that has been cooperating in the War On Terror for the past many years. Rather than worrying over pointless matters, the lame-duck Bush Administration should be concerned about Afghanistan that again seems to be slipping in the grip of militancy.