These are troubled times. Understandably, raw and powerful emotions like hatred, grief, pain and the atavistic demand for vengeance have taken over the discussion of how to deal with last week's trauma in New York and Washington.

By nature, Americans are not a very introspective people, nor do they dwell too long or often on foreign affairs. During my brief sojourn and visits to the United States, I have found ordinary Americans to be open, warm and hospitable. Uncomplicated and straightforward, their eyes often glaze over in a discussion of international events. For them, their vast nation is world enough.

We, on the other hand, are obsessed with national and international politics. This difference in outlook explains why the average American cannot equate his government's policies overseas with the hatred many foreigners feel for his country. To him, they are envious of the prosperity and freedom he enjoys as a citizen of the richest and most powerful country in the world. Many American leaders from President Bush downwards have described last week's suicide bombings as "attacks on liberty and democracy", naively or deliberately missing the connection between cause and effect.

As the US-led juggernaut threatens to flatten Afghanistan together with the Taliban, there is a real danger that the lessons to be drawn from this tragedy will be overlooked in the rush of events. Although President Bush has vowed to "rid our children and our children's children of the scourge of terrorism", I fear that unless he and the international community are prepared to inquire into how and why this scourge is born and flourishes, future generations will continue to grapple with it.

Despite the temptation to focus on action alone as the Americans go into Afghanistan with guns blazing, it is important that we ask ourselves why 19 seemingly educated, perfectly ordinary young middle-class Arabs killed themselves and thousands of innocent people on September 11. According to reports, several of them drank alcohol, had girlfriends or families, and led outwardly normal lives. Hardly the profile of fanatical suicide bombers. So what made them all board passenger aircraft one morning and fly them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre?

Unless we are prepared to look at the motivation underlying their resolve, we cannot prevent similar horrors from visiting us in the future. Even if terrorist groups are broken up, their leaders killed and their banks accounts frozen, what is to stop individuals from driving a truck into a petrol station, or sinking a hijacked cruise ship? Not much training or resources are needed to carry out such random terror attacks. The truth is that it is virtually impossible to stop a person from committing mayhem if he is willing to die in the attempt.

Most Americans - even well travelled, sophisticated ones - are convinced that suicide bombers have been brainwashed since childhood into killing themselves for whatever cause their parents support. This racist view assumes that certain races like the Arabs or the Tamils somehow love their children less than Westerners, and therefore bring them up to sacrifice themselves when required. The uncomfortable truth is that people take such a desperate step only when they have no other choice. We need to remember that no matter how devastating its effects, terrorism remains a weapon of the weak.

Pakistan's leaders too, appear to have learned little from past experience as they walk a tightrope between becoming a pariah state and being wracked by internal dissension and strife. A decade ago, as the US sought to build a coalition against Iraq in the wake of Saddam Hussein's suicidal invasion of Kuwait, we grudgingly climbed on board. But instead of benefiting diplomatically and financially from being a partner of this coalition, we made our lack of enthusiasm clear, with Gen. Aslam Beg leading the way with his fatuous 'doctrine of strategic defiance.' Indeed, his total lack of appreciation and understanding of the situation made one doubt the efficacy of the army's promotion system: if somebody like him could head our defences, how safe were we? Fortunately, Gen. Musharraf seems to have a cooler and wiser head on his shoulders, and has never been more impressive than in this crisis as he strives to build a national consensus behind the entirely rational decision to help the Americans in their fight against terrorism.

We must be in no doubt that this war is our war too. Pakistan has been a victim of more terrorist activity over the years than almost any other country. But in our case, most of the perpetrators have been home grown: violent ethnic and sectarian groups came into being under Gen. Zia's baneful rule, and after we were rid of him, successive governments encouraged the emergence of jihadi militias to further their agendas in Afghanistan and Kashmir. To add to this rich mix of terror, other countries have financed the operations of some of these elements in a proxy war on our soil, or to pay us back for our covert cross-border activities.

Our leaders have tried vainly to distinguish between terrorism and jihad. Now, more than ever before, the world will accept no such distinction. Some commentators have suggested that support for the Americans implies a loss of sovereignty. This is nonsense: helping to root out terror and random violence is something we should all support.

The Taliban are our very own Frankenstein's monster, and like the creature out of the novel, is now ready to turn on its creator. For years now, we have supported them militarily, financially and diplomatically, and have been constantly embarrassed by their bizarre behaviour. It is entirely appropriate that we have been dragged back to the frontline to help clear up the mess we were instrumental in creating.

Given the licence we have granted extremist groups over the years, controlling the domestic backlash of anti-Taliban action will not be easy. Gen Musharraf will have to be very tough and not fall into the trap of trying to appease the fundamentalist lobby by half-hearted support for the Americans. If he does, we will end up in the same kind of situation we did in the Gulf War. If he can carry the army with him, there is no reason why we can't use this crisis to crush our domestic extremist groups, and rejoin the mainstream instead of being relegated to the periphery. I know this is asking a lot of a beleaguered government, but leadership calls for difficult and occasionally unpopular decisions and firm resolve.

The thing to remember is that the people demonstrating in the streets against our support for the anti-terrorism coalition represent a tiny fraction of the population. Most Pakistanis are horrified by the loss of innocent lives (including Pakistani ones) in Washington and New York. If the government takes tough action against any agitator breaking the law, it will send a clear message that a street movement will not be allowed to change its decision.

This is a military government after all, and now is the time it started acting like one.