IN the kind of story that is more often told about Pakistan than the United States, a report in the international media has shown just how little control the US State Department has over at least one aspect of America's foreign policy. Decisions about the timing of drone strikes in Pakistan appear to be controlled entirely by the CIA, and have been particularly damaging in recent months. The worst of these was the decision to attack when CIA contractor Raymond Davis had barely left Pakistan after creating a diplomatic crisis by shooting dead two men in Lahore; Pakistani officials and tribesmen insist that the strike killed 38 innocent men assembled for a jirga and only a handful of militants, and the army chief issued a rare public statement against it. Less well-known is the news that America's ambassador to Pakistan must sign off on strikes and had lodged his opposition to the one following the release of Mr Davis. It was overruled by the CIA chief. Other strikes, the report notes, have hampered diplomatic efforts by closely following official visits between the countries that were aimed at smoothing ruffled feathers, especially after the US raid against Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

In a twist on the usual story, it is America, not just Pakistan, that is shown grappling with an intelligence apparatus that cannot be controlled by the country's foreign relations set-up. These revelations will only undermine the authority of American civilian interlocutors in the eyes of Pakistani officials. The picture that has emerged is one of the US spy agency riding roughshod over attempts at a diplomatic solution to the tensions that continue to characterise US-Pakistan relations, and it will only make it harder to use diplomacy as a tool. The CIA's primary concern is national security, and it is unlikely to understand diplomatic nuances on the ground in Pakistan or take a long-term view of the relationship.

The report will also ring alarm bells in Pakistan about insufficient oversight of the drone programme. It increases more than ever the need for the parameters of the programme, one that is publicly disavowed but tacitly acknowledged by both governments, to be spelt out in writing between the two countries. It also underscores the need for both administrations to come clean to their publics on the programme and how it is conducted. Shrouded in mystery and sometimes resulting in the loss of innocent lives, it is increasingly becoming a liability for the relationship, primarily due to its political costs here at home. This latest report will only increase that cost.