As President Barack Obama's administration continues to expand the aid package for flood-struck Pakistan, which represents the largest humanitarian response from any country, officials acknowledge that they are seeking to use the efforts to burnish the United States' image there, reports STL Today.

White House senior officials are coordinating the aid efforts with other agencies as part of their strategy to improve long-term relations with Pakistan. Currently, resentment towards the US is quite strong among Pakistanis, who blame US drones for a devastating series of insurgent attacks in Pakistan.

According to a poll conducted last month by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 68 percent of Pakistanis had an unfavorable view of the United States. US officials hope that images of Navy and Marine Corps helicopters ferrying supplies and plucking people from rain-swollen rivers will at least begin to counteract the bad image of the United States, in part generated by American drone strikes against militants in Pakistan.

Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, stated on the PBS program The Charlie Rose Show that "the people of Pakistan will see that when the crisis hits, it's not the Chinese. It's not the Iranians. It's not other countries. It's not the EU. It's the US that always leads."

The flooding, which affected a fifth of the country and killed at least 1,500 people, according to the Pakistani government, has led to a sizable and rapid American response, including 76 million dollars in donations.

Some experts on the region recently warned that public resentment of the government, generated by the institution's slow and chaotic response to the floods, could wear away public support for the military campaign against militants, which are integral to American goals in the region. The concerns only deepened as hard-line Islamist charities rushed to fill the void in humanitarian aid. Similar efforts by Islamists after an earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 helped them lure new recruits through the charities, which act as fronts for the militants.

Some of the aid has been channeled through Pakistani and international groups because the government did not want to be associated with the unpopular Americans. American officials warned that without long-term development programs, the short-term effects of the earthquake assistance would fade quickly.

John K. Wood, a retired Army colonel who was senior director for Afghanistan on the National Security Council Under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama explains that while PR value of food assistance is indeed essential, “absent other high-profile public diplomacy efforts,” will only have an ephemeral impact.

According to Hindustan Times, the United Nations has declared that Pakistan's image, dented due to the utilization of international funds, may hinder the process of organizing funds to help people face the floods.

The UN has been struggling to obtain 460 million dollars to provide emergency aid to the flood's six million victims, and the donor countries fear that the aid being flown into Pakistan may end up in the hands of the Taliban.

"The UN must explain to donor states that the money is not going to go to the hands of the Taliban. The victims are the mothers, the farmers, children," said Melanie Brooks, spokeswoman of the humanitarian group, Care International.

In the meantime, while the Chinooks are carrying out their humanitarian mission, “the drones are also raining death on Pakistani civilians, a colossal problem to improve US image in the country,” reports Rupee News. These events discredit US aid to Pakistanis, according to the news site.

Mark Levine of Al-Jazeera recommends that in the current context, the Administration could do much more in Pakistan. He suggests that Obama should immediately declare “a ceasefire in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, offer a truce to the Taliban, and pledge to put the full weight of the tens of thousands of soldiers currently in theatre, and the huge supply of military aircraft and equipment at their disposal, to the relief efforts in Pakistan.”

Levine points out that Pakistanis and Afghans would be much more supportive of US efforts to combat Al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups if America could secure a stable economic environment rather than carry out military offensives that result in the deaths of civilians.

“Such a strategy has a chance of working where the current one of bombs and aid to the government has met with failure,” Levine adds, before concluding, “If we do not step up to fill the void, it is pretty clear who will, and what that will mean for Pakistan's future and for ours.”