The title of a recently released MSNBC article is "Pakistan's wavering worriesObamateam". The key word in this title is "wavering". The subtitle is: "US: Failure to take action against extremists endangers partnership". The key word in the subtitle is "failure". Both "wavering" and "failure" have negative connotations.

The first sentence of this article is "The Obama administration reaccted WITH INCREASINGLY ALARM to ongoing advances by the Taliban in Pakistan,warning the Pakistani government that failure to take action against extremists COULD ENDANGER ITS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES as well as American strategy in neighboring Afghanistan". Which is more important? US-Pakistan relations or military strategy in Afghanistan? Actually, both are equally important, because the US needs Pakistani help to track down bin Laden, whether bin Laden is hiding out in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The question is: are the Pakistanis WILLING to provide this help/support?

White House PresS Secretary Robert Gibbs said that "The news over the past several days is very disturbing" adding that the president "is extremely concerned" and that it was taking "a lot" of the president's time, time that could be used to fix the economy.

"Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates PUBLICLY EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION with reports that Taliban forces had moved eastward into two new districts of the country this week WITH NO APPARENT RESISTANCE FROM GOVERNMENT FORCES, bringing them within 60 miles of the Pakistani capital". This implies that the Pakistani military is unable to stop the Taliban or they are harboring/protecting them because perhaps some Taliban soldiers have infiltrated the Pakistani military/police force or perhaps the Pakistani military is just indifferent. The latter two options are more likely than the first one.

The other issue is whether Zardari is afraid of military coups should one occur when he is out of Pakistan, given the volatile political atmosphere in the Middle East. According to a senior administration official who was not identified, "We inquired twice" about whether Zardari was concerned about being out of Pakistan for extended periods and "Both times, we were told no". It seems like Zardari is completely ambivalent or indifferent to what is going on around him.

Finally, according to Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Hussain Haqqani, "I)n any counterinsurgency effort, there are changing ground realities. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE OVERALL PICTURE AND IN PAKISTAN AS A WHOLE, THE GOVERNMENT REMAINS FIRMLY IN CONTROL and Pakistan continues to have the military capability to deal with the threat". The government remains firmly in control? Hm. They claim that senior al-Qaeda leaders are hiding and they don't know where they are hiding, but are they telling the truth?

When Zardari meets President Obama, "he will share Pakistan's national counterterrorism strategy and will also list the areas where Pakistan looks forward to American support and cooperation in implementing that strategy". It sounds like Pakistan's Washington envoy is much more engaged, involved and concerned with what's going on than President Zardari himself. This is a complete reversal from the policies of Zardari's predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, who was always looking for more power (Musharraf was the president who took charge of the army as well when that was clearly outlawed in the Pakistani constitution).

Website:

http://hubpages.com/hub/usandpakistanirelations