The relationship between Pakistan and US has persistently been on the roller-coaster ride. In 1950s, they were found close allies and later Pakistan joined Cento and Seato. In 1960s they were what Denis Kux call "estranged allies". Later than 9/11, Pakistan was called non-Nato strategic partner and now yet again they are hostile to each other.
The malicious twist has come about in Pakistan and US relationship after Nato attack on Salala military checkpost on November 26, killing 26 soldiers. Pakistan has retaliated. It has clogged all kind of supplies to Nato in Afghanistan, vacating Shamsi airbase from US in Balochistan, boycotted the Bonn conference and reviewing foreign policy with regard to relationship with US on war on terror.
This has raised alarm bells in Pentagon. Leon Panetta, US Defence Secretary, has alleged this combat cannot be won without Pakistan's support. Obama administration is making frantic diplomatic and military overtures to Pakistan's civilian leadership to win back the Pakistan's support. If Pakistan continues its policy of non-co-operation with the US; there is a greater possibility that it could upset the drawdown plan, under which US forces will be pulled out of Afghanistan by the year 2014 as a part of Obama's election commitment with US citizens. Also there are serious implications for Pakistan. If it continues the policy of 'blockade'; it could face international isolation, economic sanctions and possibly military action. The cause of concern is that if the major powers come to conclusion that Pakistan is part of the problem, not solution and is the major source of terrorism in the region, then it can face the action similar to Germany and Japan had faced during the WW-II where the Allied Powers had reached on conclusion that without defeating Germany and Japan, there cannot be peace in the world.
Some analysts attribute Nato attack on Pakistan military base to the difference between civilian leadership and military establishment in US. As election is approaching near in US, Obama wants to pull out troops from Afghanistan due to the cost of war. It has put more financial pressure on the already war-crippled economy of US - it is facing around $15 trillion budget deficit. Mike Mullen, former Joint Chief of Staff, had to say that the biggest enemy of US is not China, nor Taliban or al Qaeda but mounting budget deficit. Pentagon wants more budgets to beef up its military operation in Afghanistan to weaken Taliban and bring them on the negotiation table. McChrystal, the former commander of US forces in Afghanistan had recommended increase in the US ground forces in Afghanistan. David Petraeus, chief of CIA, also shares the same opinion that Taliban need to be whacked first then negotiated.
Discrepancy between military and civilian leadership in Pakistan are also aggravating the situation. Civilian leadership wants to see the end of military or ISI supporting some of the Taliban groups and their affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have created more anarchy in the country in the shape of suicide bombing. It has contributed more to political instability and economic chaos. Pakistan has suffered around $68 billion economically and 35,000 people have died so far. No FDIs are coming and capital is flying out of the country due to uncertain socio-economic and political conditions.
Another driving force behind the revisiting foreign policy is deep-seated realisation on the part of civilian leadership that it is not party to the agreements - verbal or written - done by military dictators with the US. Dictators lent unflinching support to US in order to get Washington's support to legitimize their rule in pre- and post-cold war. Gen. Ayub Khan offered military base to US in Peshawar to be used for reconnaissance activity against former USSR. Zia offered same support to US to fight against USSR in Afghanistan and in return, demanded $3.2 billion military and economic assistance. Musharraf did the same when he received call from Collin Powel, former secretary of state "with us or against us," he surrendered completely and offered more than what US demanded. 2nd May incident, in which Osama was killed in air raid on his Abbottabad compound, also reveals the same nature of military having mysterious relationship with militants and ISI harbouring allegedly the world's notorious terrorist in the shadow of military academy, without any knowledge of civilian leadership. The issue of drone attacks is also shrouded in mystery as no one knows under what agreement US is violating Pakistan's territorial and aerial sovereignty. Such violations are turning the public opinion against US and interestingly 55 percent of Americans hold opinion that Pakistan is their enemy.
Basically, the dilemma that has been bedevilling Pak-US relations is the approach of Pentagon using Pakistan as mercenary fighting against its enemies, whether, the then Soviet Union or al Qaeda or Taliban, rather than strategic partner. What annoys Pakistan leadership is the tilt of US in favour of India which military leadership considers as sworn enemy. Ironically, US being hegemonic power distribute more power in the region in favour of India to create it as countervailing force in the region though Pakistan was the major contributor in war on terror. In this regard, the agreement of transfer of nuclear technology to India for civilian use is an important indicator of US tilt in favour of India.
From the perspective of realist school of thought, it is the right of every nation to define and redefine its foreign policy on the basis of its national interest. It is, therefore, right of Pakistan to redefine its foreign policy in the face of changing conditions and the US should show magnanimity to recognise this right of Pakistan as prudently said by Hina Rabbani Khar that relationship between Pakistan and US should be guided by rationality and mutual respect.