With Us or Against Us

THE UNITED STATES LAUNCHED ITS ANTI-TERRORIST war in Afghanistan in the name of 'Enduring Freedom'. The overthrow of the Taliban regime in November 2001 was followed by ambitious international efforts to consolidate security, build democratic government and develop the country economically - all at the same time. Hamid Karzai's election as president last October suggested that democracy would win, but a recent rise in political violence has raised fears that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are regaining strength.

To some extent this is because Pakistan, America's second frontline ally, plays host to the extremist groups who have attacked neighbouring Afghanistan and India. Osama bin Laden, who masterminded 11 September, is probably in hiding somewhere in Pakistan. But the US conferred the status of'major non-NATO ally' on Islamabad in June last year and President George Bush regards General Pervez Musharraf as a loyal and steadfast friend.

ISLAM AND POLITICS

Islam defines both Afghanistan and Pakistan but is used by their respective leaders in different ways. In Afghanistan the constitutional ban on religious parties suggests the drafters of its 2004 constitution did not want ethnic and religious sentiment to be exploited for political mobilisation.

In Pakistan, however, there is every sign that the military, which has taken the lead politically since the 1950s, will continue to use religion for 'political purposes' against home-grown foes, India or Afghanistan. Zalmay Khalilzad, the former American ambassador in Kabul, and Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN secretaryGeneral's former Special Representative for Afghanistan, have blamed Pakistan for shoring up the extremists who have launched attacks in different parts of the country since the fall of the Taliban.

Musharraf answered their criticism in September last year by linking the disputes over Kashmir and Palestine to the causes of terrorism. This amounted to condoning extremism. By analogy, would Britain's messy handling of Northern Ireland justify a campaign of Catholic terrorism around the world?

Washington claims that Musharraf is trying to promote 'moderate' versions of Islam. Possibly this is because the alternative to Musharraf could be a general more sympathetic to extremists. The point is that the US is unwilling or unable either to grasp Pakistan's religious nettle, or to discard it.

No political party can challenge the military's ascendancy and its alliance with the clergy. The fragmentation of parties makes the army appear invincible to Pakistanis, despite its political illegitimacy. Extremist ideology has been institutionalised in the country's military, intelligence and civil services and in its domestic, foreign and defence policies.

This could seriously diminish America's ability to combat militant Islam not only in Afghanistan but also in the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington's talk of democratic reform in Pakistan could end up being counterproductive if the Bush administration continues to gloss over Islamabad's complicity in promoting extremism. By refusing to govern without benefit of clergy, Musharraf and Pakistan's military and intelligence services could spike America's guns against terrorism.

FIGHTING FOR 'FREEDOM'

America's alignment with Pakistan - and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - raises questions about what this freedom means. Can the US really combat terrorism in South Asia - or anywhere else - if its ally Pakistan trains and sustains extremists to fight a global jihad?

While it is necessary to use force, if only because it is impossible to talk to 'crusaders' pointing guns, attacks by Al Qaeda or its associates in a dozen states on four continents since 2001 show that religious extremists, with international reach, cannot be quelled through conventional wars.

Democracy is the only antidote to terrorism and its take-off in Afghanistan has great international significance. The country cannot choose between guns and butter. Whether the US and its allies will bestow the military and economic largesse necessary to build democratic institutions, promote liberal education and economic development for at least a generation, is uncertain.

More generally, reports of human rights' abuses by American troops in Afghanistan - and by American and British forces in Iraq - will not convince many people of the west's humanitarian intentions. How the US fights terrorism in Afghanistan - and the Middle East - will establish whether it is the world's principal spoiler, or a superpower bolstering the capacity and legitimacy of international society to trounce terrorism.

Meanwhile is the US giving precedence to the short term benefits of a military compact with Pakistan over its longer term interest in containing terrorism? Can it cut the ground from under the feet of extremists if it is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds? The war on terror could yet be won - or lost - in south Asia.