Why was Pakistan forced to launch an offensive while Sri Lanka was being asked to abandon it?

International news in the past week has been dominated by two important developments in South Asia: Sri Lankan Government’s action against the LTTE and Pakistan’s compliance of the Taliban’s expansion. Political and popular opinion across the globe condemned both developments and early this week Pakistan and Sri Lanka showed signs of reversing/halting the official policy. Following the developments in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, I have been pondering over the ironic situation the national governments are facing vis-à-vis the forces of violent socio-political opposition. The Pakistani Government is being criticized for not acting against the Taliban while the Sri Lankan Government is being criticized for launching an all out offensive against the LTTE. In dealing with the forces of extremism, the national governments are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.

The Sri Lankan Government has claimed major successes in the offensive against the LTTE but reports of civilian causalities in the process have invited widespread condemnation. It has been alleged that the LTTE and Government forces alike are using civilians as human shields to gain strategic advantage. The lack of health facilities, food and drinking water for the Tamils displaced during the current offensive has been widely criticized. International observers, Red Cross, Official Missions from several countries are reporting on the high rate of civilian causalities and lack of appropriate redressal facilities. The Sri Lankan government has been requested to halt the military operations and allow safe passage for the civilians. The Government however feels that the LTTE would gain from any suspension of military action and would infiltrate to strategic positions by embedding themselves with the civilians. LTTE’s demand for a ceasefire has been out rightly rejected, though Government has recently announced that the use of heavy weapons and air power shall be discontinued. Military operations are expected to continue until LTTE Chief Prabharakan is captured.
Pakistan is a different story. After signing and implementing the Swat Peace Deal, the Government of Pakistan was accused of appeasing the Taliban militants. The expansion of Taliban forces in Buner last week raised alarm across the national Capitals causing apprehensions of Taliban’s entry into Islamabad. The Government of Pakistan has defended the peace deal and allegedly decided against a counter-insurgency operation with the objective of avoiding civilian causalities. The Taliban has openly challenged the authority of the national Parliament and Judiciary and criticized the un-Islamic nature of the Constitution. The international community, U.S. in particular, has been critical of the Pakistani Government’s approach and has demanded counter-operations. Pakistan has finally launched a ground and air offensive against the Taliban, killing several militants and virtually abandoning the Swat peace deal.�
Why did Sri Lanka’s action and Pakistan’s inaction invite criticism? I am not defending the strategy of either countries, but merely raising a concern: When is offensive justified? Displacement of civilians is not merely limited to Sri Lanka; there are reports that over a million people have been displaced in Northwestern Pakistan due to the anti-Taliban operations. The U.S. drone attacks have caused several civilian causalities. Then why was Pakistan being forced to launch offensive while Sri Lanka was being asked to abandon it? Is it because the LTTE threat is confined to Sri Lanka while the Taliban’s growing influence has global implications?�

There is a trend to encourage mediation and reconciliation in the Sri Lanka-LTTE conflict, but any talk of mediation or peace with the Taliban is received with much skepticism. The LTTE and Taliban threats are similar in terms of challenging the authority of the respective national governments. International attention in terms of Sri Lanka downplays the threat to collateral costs of civilian causalities; for Pakistan greater emphasis is placed on the threat while civilian causalities are under-emphasized. Why are lives of Sri Lankan civilians more valuable than their Pakistani counterparts?
Why should Pakistan be offensive and Sri Lanka conciliatory in dealing with the respective national threats? Is it just because one threat has global implications while the other is more localized?

UPDATE: There were reports that the Pakistani Army was facing stiff resistance in Ambela were militants were using people as human shields.