The frustration is mutual

The United Sates is an independent sovereign country, and so is Pakistan. In their own ways, they pursue their national interests, an effort that sometimes brings them closer to each other and sometimes they stand apart. No two countries can have one hundred percent unanimity of thought and action in their conduct of inter-state relations. Therefore, if CIA chief Leon Panetta has described the Pak-US relationship as "very complicated", there should be no surprise.
But it's his description of those 'complicating issues' that does not sit well with Pakistan's national interests and causes frustration here. The hard fact is that Pakistanis are far more disappointed with the American perception of the so-called Pak-US strategic alliance. Had the planned strategic review, slated for next week between Pakistan, United States and Afghanistan - and cancelled by hubris-driven Secretary Clinton in the wake of the Raymond Davis imbroglio - taken place, Islamabad would have surely brought up these complicating issues at the trilateral meeting. Now that the CIA chief has touched upon these issues in his testimony before the Senate Selection Committee on Intelligence, the issue needs to be placed in a factual perspective.
The most puzzling part of Leon Panetta's testimony is "they (Pakistan) are a nuclear power", and, most intriguingly, he adds "they have a number of nuclear sites throughout their country and they have proceeded to keep up development of their nuclear weapons". Isn't he keeping up with the propaganda in the West that Pakistan's nuclear stock has gone up, in line with the United States' manoeuvres to pull out the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) from the Conference of Disarmament - where every member-state enjoys veto power - and place it before the UN Security Council? Such a move wouldn't be acceptable to Pakistan, given the fact that America's emerging strategic partner in the region, India, has amassed huge stocks of fissile material and a freeze by Pakistan will maintain India's nuclear edge. Pakistan maintains minimum deterrence that is crucial for its security in face of Indian superiority in conventional weapons. Pakistan's nuclear assets are secure and the "many places" that CIA chief has talked about are as safe as in other nuclear states and there is no need for the United States to worry about it.
It's encouraging to note that Panetta conceded Pakistan's co-operation in the war on terror that has "helped keep al Qaeda at its weakest point since 9/11", for that is the truth. But his concession doesn't seem to be going beyond this as he underlines his 'frustration with Pakistani intelligence services'. At this point chimed in, the committee chairperson, Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting that the "ISI walks both sides of the street". Her grudge is that Pakistan is refusing to hand over a 'key suspect in the Mumbai terrorist attacks and is hesitating to send forces to fight the Taliban in North Waziristan'. Also, that it was the CIA's perception that Pakistani agencies have 'relations with LeT (Lashker-e-Taiba) - 'a vermin' in New Delhi's idiom. We have yet to hear any American official condemning the Samjhota Express carnage at the hands of Hindu extremists, even after the principal architect of this mayhem, in which 47 Pakistanis lost their lives, has confessed in court and identified the involvement of Indian intelligence agencies. We would have expected a senior American administration official like the CIA chief and his team to present facts before the Senate committee, instead of giving a clear pro-India nuance to their statements before the committee. The ongoing struggle in Kashmir is for freedom and is entirely indigenous, like the Tunisians and the Egyptians.
As for the military operation in North Waziristan, Pakistan has not given up the option, but the time for launch of such an operation, if necessary, will be determined by Pakistan, given the fact our forces are already stretched and over-committed in the tribal region. It is a sad irony that the United States' chant of 'do-more' refuses to relent, even though Pakistan has paid the heaviest price for its 'forced' alliance in the war on terrorism than by any other country, including America. And it is also frustrating that Pakistan's commitment is being trivialised, particularly at this point of time when the Pak-US relationship is under great strain in the wake of the double-murder by an American, whose status and job in Pakistan is currently at the centre of intense national debate. General Musharraf is no more at the helm that the US could have its way; it's next to impossible for the present elected government to concede the national interests of Pakistan by buying the CIA line. Leon Panetta and his team should have been more realistic and factual.