Unfriendly and Irresponsible US Behavior

I was just reading about the blunt US warnings to Pakistan if it does not act aggressively against US defined terrorists. Actually US has an impression that Pakistan is avoiding direct conflict with the 'terrorist' because of strategic and political reasons.

I was wondering if US should issue such warning without showing its own progress and success after 100s of drone attacks on Pakistani soil? I think USA and its non-Pakistani allies should also present a report about their progress in Afghanistan in the last few years. They should also compare their performances with Pakistani army during the same period, to decide who fought better with the militants in almost similar terrain. I was also wondering where did US army go when Pakistan army was carrying out operation Raah-e-Nijaat? I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that USA removed its check posts from Pak-Afghan border when Pakistani army was fighting TTP in South Waziristan. This was the best chance to sandwich TTP but the International armies missed it। Shouldn't we doubt their intent? They not only missed it, they wasted the efforts made by Pakistani army. Missing its own opportunity, US is now pressing Pakistan army for no reason. It makes me wonder, why does such events don't affect US image all over the world and US impression on Pakistan :s

US should be aware of the facts that Pakistani army does not have to see the western border only. It is already very stretched out:
1) On going war against militants all over Pakistan
2) Recent uprise in Indian occupied Kashmir requires Pakistani army to be ready for any situation
3) Recent floods in Pakistan

I'd question USA and the rest of the world if they would prefer saving and rehabilitating their citizens after a natural disaster or they would open a new war front against someone who is considered a 'bad guy' by some suspicious friend?

Rah-e-Nijaat... What Next?

Pakistani army is advancing at a fast pace in south waziristan. Resistance by the opponent group is far less than expected. Question arises that why is the resistance that low when it was considered a safe heaven for the armed militants residing there for so many years? Answer to this question becomes evident if we note that american checkposts in afghanistan along the south wazriristan border were removed within a few days after the start of the operation (Reported Here). So we can easily conclude that the militants have moved to afghanistan (obviously they'd have, they were provided the chance by the troops on eastern border of afghanistan).

Once the pakistani army successfully completes the operation and takes full control of south waziristan we might see any or both of the following:
1. America will force pakistan to start an operation in north waziristan
2. Pakistan will ask america to take the responsibility and fight the militants pushed by the pakistani army in afghanistan. And pakistan should obviously pressurize, america used to continuously asking pakistan to do more and do more. Now the militants attacking pakistan have fled in the territory controlled by america. America should now act :)

Keeping the pakistani diplomacy in mind, 1 is more probable :) and 2 is very very less probable. But still pakistan can (and might) ask america at agency level.

Btw the removal of posts from afghan side and the following excerpt (Full Story) make me believe that america did not want pakistan to attack the (pakistan's enemy) militants in south waziristan (text in blue is not part of the excerpt):

"The United States has long pressed for a military offensive in Waziristan, claiming that it has become an Al Qaeda safe haven. And as the Pakistani army launched the offensive, two top US officials, Centcom chief Gen David Petraeus and Senator John Kerry, visited Islamabad to consult military and civilian leaders.

The US media claim that the two leaders encouraged Pakistan to continue the offensive. But the reports also claim that key differences between the US and Pakistan on how to tackle the insurgency remain unresolved.

It seems that pakistan wanted to go all out (as it is going now) and america wanted somethings else.

The media note that during his meeting with the two US officials, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani emphasised the need to speed up delayed payments of more than $1 billion to support its military and called on the US and Nato to stop infiltration from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

Seems that america wanted to pressurize pakistan by delaying the payments

US critics, meanwhile, continue to accuse Pakistan of only targeting those insurgents that threaten its own security while ignoring those who threaten Afghanistan.

another indication that america did not want pakistan to fight the south waziristan militants with full force... it seems tht some american plan is being affected... may b they wanted the pakistani army to stretch out instead of succeeding in the battle ( i.e. going step by step). And obviously it is the duty of pakistani army to fight the insurgents tht threaten its security in its territory. If someone threatens americans in their controlled territory, americans should learn how to handle them within the america controlled territory... there is no use of cryin and blaming pakistan... 

American officials also disagree with Pakistan’s claim that the Haqqani network — termed by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, as the second-greatest threat to US forces there – is not in Fata. It mainly operates from Afghanistan.

The media, however, acknowledge that US generals understand why Pakistan is trying to befriend Waziristan militant leaders like Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir.

‘Gen Petraeus and Gen McChrystal understand that opening up on other fronts wouldn’t benefit the Pakistan Army,’ says one such report.

‘The American generals believe that Pakistan can afford to ignore the smaller guns — like Hafiz Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir — for the time being.’"