A ridiculous and hysterical article. Since American newspaper readers (let alone legislators and army commenders) have known about this "duplicity" for years, nobody is making fools of them. You make an alliance and it can be a trade-off. Depending on how much you need your partner, you may have to trade off more than you'd like to, but if you don't get something from the deal, then there's no deal at all.
America's deal with Pakistan is probably something like this - - America's obligations to the Pakistanis are very simple: pay lots of money and don't overtly invade our lands and kill our people in a way that everyone can see Americans massacring Pakistanis.
Pakistan's obligations to America are probably more complex:
1. Don't let armed Pakistani troops fight alongside Taliban against Americans
2. No air-power support for the Taliban
3. Keep some kind of lid on the number of fighters crossing over from Pakistan to Afghanistan
4. No massive transfer of hi-tech weaponry like shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles
Ideally, the restrictions on Pakistan would be so tight that no U.S. soldier or mercenary would ever be hurt, let alone killed, directly or indirectly as a result of any Pakistani action, but the U.S. isn't in that great a bargaining position, so some leeway has to be given to the Pakistani military, who want to preserve whatever influence they may have in their Afghan neighbour. So as the price of the alliance, and for whatever good it brings to the American war aims in Afghanistan, some increase in the American casualty rate has to be tolerated. Pakistan and the restricted or limited amount of help it can provide, are obviously worth the lives and limbs of a few more dumb-ass hillbillies, especially in an all-volunteer army in which every single one of them is expendable cannon-fodder.
