The Pakistani president, one of those friends

Suddenly, as the summer is drawing to an end, Pakistan has returned to the top of the list of concerns for the American administration. A fascinating, and troubling, example of its limitations and the inherent contradictions in its policies. Pakistan offered assistance to the United States following 9/11, at a time when the CIA planned and carried out the impressive overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was the peak in ties between the two countries. President George W. Bush called Musharraf a "friend" on a number of occasions. The Pakistani president is one of those friends who has to be repeatedly reminded of his friendship, just in case someone might get a different impression. Like the Russian president, the Saudi king and even the Iraqi prime minister - leaders whose actions do not always reflect the will to assist the White House.

Musharraf bet on America - up to a point. He does not want to go beyond that point. In light of the political instability in Pakistan, he may very well be unable to exceed that point. In any case, on the edges of that large country, along the border with Afghanistan, he permitted the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaida to rebuild and entrench themselves. It will be from there, or so American intelligence believes, that the next major attack will originate. But the Bush administration has been unable to do anything about it. It is worried that pressure on Musharraf could topple his regime and lead Pakistan into chaos, which is infinitely more dangerous in the case of a country with a nuclear arsenal. In this case, nuclear deterrence - Pakistani-style - includes a different, bizarre dimension. In Musharraf's version, nuclear arms are the weapon of the weak. The fear is not that Musharraf will use it but that he will lose control over it.

On the other hand, there is growing frustration. Al-Qaida is getting stronger and no one is dealing with it. It has reached a point where one of the Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency, Barack Obama, has dared to warn in public that he will deploy troops inside Pakistan to attack the terrorists based there. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains," Obama said, "who murdered 3,000 Americans ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Obama's threats stirred up a major political storm, and his rivals in the Democratic Party accused him of behaving irresponsibly. There are things, they argue, that a serious candidate is not supposed to say out loud. Nonetheless, they do not dispute the issue at hand. Pakistan is a headache for Bush and anyone who succeeds him. Therefore, there are growing signs that an American operation against the terrorist camps in Waziristan, on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, is on the horizon. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, Al-Qaida has "regenerated key elements" that will enable it to initiate operations that will lead to "mass casualties" inside the United States.

Thus, Musharraf is a friend the U.S. can neither do with or without. Of course, America supports democracy everywhere - so long as the democratic regime will not be more extreme than its predecessor. The Americans are not interested in repeating the mistake they made with the Palestinian Authority. "Imagine a Hamas government in a country with nuclear weapons," is how an administration official responded to those calling for greater pressure for democratization in Pakistan. The problem with Pakistan, as far as the administration is concerned, is not the hypocrisy of supporting, financially and politically, a dictator who is refusing to allow a democratic process. This is something the Americans can live with, as they have with their friends in Cairo or Jordan. The problem is that the dictator is no longer useful the way he used to be, and there is no appropriate replacement. Musharraf may have exhausted his usefulness, but for now, he is still necessary.