WASHINGTON - The American print and electronic media have highlighted the Pakistani Armys publicly expressed anger at the conditions impinging on Pakistans sovereignty incorporated in the $7.5 billion dollar Kerry-Lugar Bill package for the country, a key US ally in the war on terrorism. In a dispatch from Islamabad, The New York Times said the armys posture sets the military at loggerheads with the American-backed civilian government. The Washington Post, another major newspaper, said the Obama administrations strategy for bolstering Pakistan 's civilian government was shaken by the military leaders opposition as well as by the countrys politicians. Citing a senior military officer, The Times said, The chief of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, was so offended by stipulations in the American legislation that he complained to the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley A McChrystal, when the two men met in Islamabad on Tuesday. The section of the legislation that has outraged the army says the secretary of state must report to Congress every six months on whether the government is exercising effective civilian control over the military. The secretary must assess the extent to which the civilian government has oversight over the military chain of command, promotion of generals and the military budgets, provisions that even Pakistani politicians have taken strong exception to as meddling in Pakistan 's business. The legislation also says Pakistan must show progress in ending support for terrorist groups, and dismantle groups operating allegedly out of Quetta and Muridke. The generals were specifically infuriated by mention of Quetta , which the Obama administration says is a base for Taliban who fight American forces in Afghanistan, and of Muridke, which is a well known base for Lashkar-e-Taiba..., the Times said. This is a direct indictment, a senior military official told the Times in reference to Muridke. The Americans, he said, were threatening the Pakistanis, saying that if the Pakistani military did not behave according to American wishes, then the Americans would penalize them. Some may say this is typical American arrogance, said the official who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity. Anger over what is being interpreted as impudent American demands has been building, fanned by other recent frictions - plans for a bigger American Embassy, the use of an American private security firm to protect American diplomats - in what was supposed to be a new era between the United States and Pakistan under President Obama, the newspaper wrote. The fury reached a high on Wednesday, even exceeding longtime complaints about American drone attacks against militants in the tribal areas as being an infringement of sovereignty. In a dispatch from Washington, The Washington Post said, Their (military leaders) criticism threatens to complicate the administrations efforts in the region, where Pakistan 's assistance is seen as crucial to the war in Afghanistan. Obviously, it demonstrates weve still got work to do, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Pakistani criticism. As White House strategy sessions on the Afghan war began last week, the Post said administration officials contrasted what they described as a worsening situation there with a better-than-expected one in Pakistan, which has been rattled by one political crisis after another in recent years. Many in Washington were not prepared for this, an unnamed senior official said of Wednesdays outbursts in Islamabad. A senior US military official said that the relationship with Pakistan is still positive but that we need to understand the sensitivities better.