Speaking to a hall full of cadets at the US Military Academy of West Point, President Barack Obama almost seemed like he might be declaring war on Pakistan. Every time he mentioned Afghanistan, Pakistan preceded mention.

Sitting at the back benches of the hall at one point I almost jumped out of my chair when he said: “the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.”  I was shocked because a succession of American officials recently confirmed that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. Through leaks that are whispered in our ears, however, we were told that Americans commissioned studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads. Talk like this only serves to embolden those terrorist elements that seek to destabilize the entire region.

I didn’t get a clear sense as to what President Obama might do in Pakistan – and that makes me more nervous. What we hear is that the US will not do anything overt in Pakistan to deflect criticism and mitigate risk. A report in New York Times suggest (again based on leaks) that there will be a two pronged approach- CIA  led covert operations and, to mitigate risks ,the US will sub-contract the overt war within Pakistani borders to the nation’s army.

So basically President Obama confirmed the narrative that was being constructed through leaks to the media for the past 8 years.

Report also claim that President Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan and the Pakistan army is onboard. Many Pakistanis fear that more U.S. troops mean more of the nightmare that we have been living with for the past several years including  more drones, additional CIA and private boots on the ground operating co-overtly, more money for the ISI, and moral support for the army.  Don’t be surprised by drone attacks in Baluchistan as well.

President Obama defined his strategy with three core elements: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. 

In the corridors of West Point we met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I asked her what will happen if Pakistan’s democratic government was destabilized. She said “we hope it won’t come to that”. We know people of Pakistan want democracy. We hope whatever the political problems are internally they will be worked out in a lawful and constitutional manner.”  When asked if her government will engage with a dictator should martial law be implemented in Pakistan, she responded, “ in my dealings with the military leadership I have no indication that they are looking to do anything except supporting the democratically elected government.”

Here is the transcript because YouTube audio is not that good:  

{Obama administration has been very supportive of democratic process in Pakistan but the democratic government seems instable. What will be the impact if current government is destabilized?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that because the people of Pakistan want democracy and we hope whatever internal political problems there might be can be worked out in lawful and constitutional manner. What’s important is for us to partner with Pakistani people. So of course when I came to visit I met with democratically elected government officials – president and prime minister and foreign minister and other ministers as well as members  of parliament. We also met with the military, head of ISI. We believe the future for Pakistan is so positive but of course there has to be stability. There has to be kind of security that military is fighting for in South Waziristan. And, there has to be kind of political stability that comes with a solid democracy. We hope that can be worked out.

Will you engage with Pakistani military if there was a martial law?

Well we hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t want to speculate. I think that — in my talking to the military I didn’t get any indication that they have any intention of doing anything except supporting democratically elected government. Now, I know there are all kinds of challenges to the current government that is for the people of Pakistan- your political process to work out. But of course we want to see a strong, vibrant democracy. And, that is what we are going to continue to support.}

Off the record conversations with US officials indicated that they have diversified contacts in Pakistan: Mr. Hollbrooke called Mr. Nawaz Sharif prior to Obama’s Afghanistan strategy speech. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is talked about with more respect than ever before.

It is pretty evident from Ms. Clinton’s response above as well that democratic process should not be confused with President Zardari’s rule. I believe Americans realize that President Zardari may have only symbolic position going forward and they are prepared to deal with anyone and everyone who represents Pakistan.

I really hope New York Times report is incorrect that there is no expansion of the war. I, absolutely support eradicating terrorists where ever they maybe: but in the process let’s not create more terrorists.

The trust deficit has surged after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s three day tour of Pakistan, the response to which was lukewarm at best. Interviews with diplomatic sources in Washington, D.C. and media coverage of Clinton’s visit demonstrate growing frustration with the Obama administration, which may result in a reassessment of its Pakistani interlocutor.

Although American officials publicly praise military operation in South Waziristan, in private they sing a different tune; their assessment of ”alignment” is rather pessimistic. Stories leaked to media consistently allege that al-Qaeda leadership is still enjoying safe haven in Pakistan.

American TV networks looped a statement by Secretary Clinton’s over and over, which almost accused Pakistan’s government of providing this protection to al-Qaeda leadership.”Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002….I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” Mrs. Clinton told a gathering of Pakistani newspaper editors. This statement reflects the best possible opinion of Pakistan available in Washington, D.C.; other government sources and media influencers confidently contend that the Pakistani establishment is protecting al-Qaeda.

Clinton’s statement may have been a justified expression of frustration with an ally that has not delivered adequate results. But Pakistanis are equally disappointed with the United States and for the first time in six decades are demanding accountability.

In a very condescending act of “tough love diplomacy,” the White House backed the Secretary Clinton’s blunt statement, questioning Pakistan’s willingness to hunt down al-Qaeda terrorists even as it moves against other extremist groups in its tribal areas.

When asked if Secretary Clinton’s remarks were ”appropriate,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today: “Obviously the United States has great concern about extremists in Pakistan. And we will continue to — continue to discuss with them what can be done. And those remarks were appropriate.”

A section of the American media is commending Secretary Clinton for taking the gloves off and delivering a no-holds-barred message to Pakistan that it must step up its efforts to apprehend al-Qaeda terrorists and demonstrate a real commitment to democracy. Those who support her directness argue that this gives Pakistan’s leaders a much-needed dose of reality.

Pakistan-U.S. relations have not been this tenuous before, and the Obama administration is frustrated with the outcome of the Kerry-Lugar bill. “No one had anticipated such negativity,” said an American official who did not want to be identified. “We thought Pakistanis [would] celebrate the passage of this bill. This is what we were told by representatives of Pakistani government.”

Pakistani government representatives from President Zardari to Foreign Minister Qureshi and Ambassador Hussain Haqqani further down the chain assured Americans that Pakistanis would be jubilant; KLB was suppose to heal all wounds, rectify all wrongs and erase memories of the past from the consciousness of the masses.

I remember when President Obama announced the Senate had passed Kerry-Lugar bill at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in September. Attendees cheered so loud we could hear the thunderous applause from outside.

Later that same day, Richard Holbrooke told Pakistani journalists at the Roosevelt Hotel’s media center that the House will approve the bill within a week. A Pakistani anchor who was visiting with President Zardari screamed “Insha Allah” so loudly it was embarrassing. She acted like a bagger waiting for alms.

But as we have subsequently learned, Pakistanis are inherently anti-imperialist and if the Pakistani army can find a leader like Chavez, everything could change overnight.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill’s failure has been the Obama administration’s biggest setback thus far; its development has been very similar to what happened in Iraq.

In 2003 Americans were expecting roses as they walked victoriously into Baghdad. They thought the Iraqis would welcome freedom from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. Bush’s administration did not anticipate the scale and speed of hostility so soon after the fall of Saddam’s regime.

During her trip, Secretary Clinton repeatedly said the U.S. wants to partner with Pakistan on more than just the military front, but qualified that statement by saying the government in Islamabad will have to be America’s partner in tracking down and capturing the terrorists who masterminded the September 11 attacks, among so many others throughout the world.

Clinton herself defended the bluntness of her remarks in an interview Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” saying, “Trust is a two-way street. There is trust deficit.”

She is absolutely right. Americans will not so easily believe Zaradari, Qureshi and Haqqani’s words in the future.

American analysts are asking President Obama to drop the “democracy” mantra and work directly with Pakistan’s army. Obama is also being asked to provide economic support and help strengthen Pakistan’s civil institutions simultaneously conveying an inflexible and clear message that there are no free lunches.

Pakistanis have options too: They can storm, form, norm and perform. After venting frustration over KLB and drone attacks they must normalize and start delivering what America wants.

Or they can find a left-leaning leader within Pakistan’s army and bring about peaceful and secular revolution without foreign aid.

The third and easiest option, to maintain the status-quo, letting Mullahs and extremists take over our lives, is NOT an option.