Isn't it ironic?

It is ironic that the $7.5 billion non-military assistance promised to Pakistan as a dividend for democracy has led to cause a division between the civilian and military authorities, which does not bode well for the system.
That the army chose to express its 'serious concern' on certain clauses of the Kerry-Lugar bill publicly, instead of taking recourse to the official channels, would lead its critics to say that it was playing to the gallery. The statement by the ISPR led the presidential spokesman to observe that "the appropriate forum to express such views is the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) or the Ministry of Defence."
This clearly and unambiguously indicates that the statement was not taken favourably by the civilian administration. The statement has raised profound concerns even among some of the staunchest critics of the Kerry-Lugar bill. Chaudhry Nisar, for instance, has reiterated that his party would allow neither the government, nor the system to be undermined.
Another PML (N) leader, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, who has maintained that whatever reforms are needed in the ISI have to be effected by Parliament rather than introduced under directives from Washington, also categorically stated that the army must not exceed its constitutional limits if it is to command public esteem. There is a need for differences between the government and the military to be settled strictly in accordance with the rules instead of being projected in the media.
Vice President Joe Biden has said the assistance bill that he proposed in the Senate, did not contain the conditions which are now eliciting a strong reaction from the opposition and military. As attempts were initiated in the Congress for legislation to provide assistance to Pakistan, the Kerry-Lugar bill was accepted as a consensus-document as it commanded the widest bipartisan support.
When the bill came under discussion in the Senate and the House, various lobbies jumped into action to further their own agendas. The Indian lobby was particularly active to create hurdles in the bill. It tried to convince the legislators that the funds given to Pakistan are likely to be misappropriated, leading two Senators to publicly question the integrity of President Zardari.
The lobby targeted the Pakistan military and ISI by accusing them of being in collusion with terrorists. It portrayed Pakistan as an irresponsible state that protected Dr A.Q. Khan, who has been accused of large-scale nuclear proliferation. It maintained that military aid, given to Pakistan to fight terrorism, would in fact be used against India.
While the Indian lobby failed to get the Kerry-Lugar bill blocked, it succeeded in convincing many US legislators that strict conditions had to be introduced in the bill. The original wording of the bill was therefore quite harsh and had to be modified after objections from Islamabad and a number of US legislators.
Despite the changes that were eventually introduced, some of the Republicans had suggested further modifications to make the bill palatable to Pakistan. They were told that any further watering down would make the bill's passage in the House of Representatives difficult. As reported by a private television channel, Ambassador Patterson has also conceded that there are 'big mistakes' in the bill in its present form and it is poorly drafted.
The government has decided to put the bill to vote in the NA after a full debate. The adjournment motion, which would have allowed only a limited debate, has been converted into a motion under Rule 259 for a full-scale discussion. At the conclusion of the debate, a resolution could be passed indicating the reservations and concerns of the House on different clauses of the bill. It would not be easy for the Obama administration to ignore the sentiment of the House. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J.
Crowley has said there is no threat to the elected government in the wake of Pakistan army's public expression of concern over parts of the bill. The remarks that he made in answer to a question at a briefing have presumably been aimed at expressing solidarity to the government, and are likely to be damaging particularly for President Zardari as nobody in Pakistan wants the President to be dependent on US support.
President Obama has yet to sign the bill into law. This provides an opportunity for his administration to address the concerns that are being voiced in Pakistan's National Assembly. There is a need on his part to assuage Pakistan's concerns and devise a modus vivendi for its implementation in a manner that is acceptable or agreeable to the Pakistan Government and its people.