THE Obama Administrations idea to debate the expansion of its secret mission that reportedly has over 200 American troops in Pakistan is a dangerous, knee-jerk reaction to the failed bombing attempt at Times Square, New York. It is equally strange for Secretary Clinton to act most undiplomatically and unwarrantedly in going overboard to threaten Islamabad with a severe reaction, in case a terrorist act does take place on US soil. Her words, Weve made it clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences, are too harsh and unacceptable. The government of Pakistan must lodge a strong protest, notwithstanding her acknowledgement of Islamabads increased cooperation in the war on terror, terming its present attitude a sea change from the previous one. Ms Clinton should be paying heed to the reported statement of Faisal Shahzad, the alleged culprit, before the investigators that the killing of people, including women and children, through drone attacks had outraged him. On more than one count, the American thinking of expanding the mission and threatening Pakistan with severe reaction is flawed and, if translated into action, would have a further destabilising effect on the already volatile country. The presence of US troops, whether for intelligence or training purposes, is deeply resented by the public. It would have been far better if they had been withdrawn in response to the Pakistan media and public outcry. It should be obvious that Pakistani sleuths, with their local contacts and better understanding of habits and customs, could be expected to collect more reliable information about terrorist activity than their US counterparts. In the field of training, Pakistanis are second to none. The US should be meeting their demands for the sophisticated equipment needed to track down militants instead of finding an excuse to send more troops. Somehow, the US Administration and media are ignoring the Pakistani Talibans denial of having had any contact with Shahzad, We never imparted any training to him, nor had he ever come to us, they point out. This denial along with the New York Times report about his tutelage under a Yemeni teacher, make it highly questionable that he received terrorist training from the Taliban in South Waziristan and provides little justification, if ever there was one, for expanding the US military mission or the Secretary of States warning. Finding the climate favourable to criticism of Pakistan, the NYT has talked of Pakistan Talibans enhanced ambitions. Its view about the existence of training camps all over North and South Waziristan is hardly credible in view Pakistan Armys successes. Such reports do not speak well of US intentions.