The relations between US and Pakistan are at their worst at the moment and have been greatly influenced by the attack on US embassy and NATO head quarters in Kabul Afghanistan, which the US claimed was conducted by Haqqani network. Haqqani network, according to the most recent and relatively infuriated statement of Adm. Mike Mullen has the support of Pakistan's spy agency, ISI.
This accusation is not very new, but it was not made so open and vehement. Through this statement it becomes very much clear that US wants Pakistan to take a very comprehensive and immediate action against the Haqqani network in Pakistan's tribal areas.
Pakistan on the other hand has been insisting that they have been taking considerable measures against the terrorist networks that they believe are on their part of the land. Further, they have been claiming that Haqqani network's strong hold lies in Afghanistan.
At the moment, to counter the US accusation of the link of their spy agency with Haqqanis, Pakistan's foreign minister and prime minister have clearly indicated in their statements that such attitude from US side would definitely make them lose an important ally, as they would not be able to win the war without Pakistan on their side of equilibrium.
US has mentioned that they can go for the option of military action against the terrorist networks in Pakistani's tribal areas if Pakistan itself fails to do so. Pakistan, in quick response, has made it clear that any sort of unilateral decision in this regard can be detrimental for their relation which is already deteriorating.
The aftermath of such operation can be very lethal for the relations between the two countries, as the position that these two countries have reached in their deteriorating relations was set in after the unilateral US decision to hunt Osama on Pakistani land.
So, unilateral military operations from US will definitely create an atmosphere of uncertainty, which in the long run can not result in the establishment of peace and tranquility in the region. Further, such an action would make US more notorious in a war that they have been investing for, so earnestly.
Pakistan has been claiming that maintaining peace in Afghanistan has been one of the major objectives of Pakistan's foreign policy. In accordance to the Pakistan's policy that seeks "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, there have been three basic objectives: first, Peace and tranquility in Afghanistan, which can result in peace in Pakistan itself, as contrary to US and Afghanistan, Pakistan has been thinking that the terrorist networks in their part of the land have their roots in Afghanistan; second, A pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan that would rather seek strategic co-operation with Pakistan in all the fronts; third, less influence and interference of India in Afghanistan.
But this notion seems to be getting a bit obsolete. With the changing nature of the war and the US policies there are marked changes in the notion of the 'strategic depth' and the changes are largely introduced by the US unilateral decision to carry on operation against Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad.
From US point of view, the 'End Game in Afghanistan' must be concluded with a comprehensive defeat of terrorism, as they have to prove to the world their victory, and that is only possible if the terrorists' strong holds in the Af-Pak border regions must be uprooted completely, therefore, pressure must be kept on Pakistan to do more.
Even if US and Afghanistan get into strategic agreement and US decides for permanent bases, they can not keep the same number of troops intact. They have to withdraw considerable number and for that they need signs of improvement in Afghanistan. But, in the urgency to achieve the same they are entangled in the multiplicity of tasks and responsibilities, and the outcome is nothing except frustration.