Mixing judiciously both praise for Pakistan's efforts and admonition for its shortcomings, Obama demonstrated an impressive grasp of a complex situation, though he too had to join the chorus of allegations when he accused Pakistan of suffering from an 'obsession' with India. — File Photo

There is no doubt that the fallout from Pakistan's involvement in the US-led effort to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan has been disastrous for us, destroying as it has the country's economy and destabilising the state which is now considered the 'epicentre' of global terror. Even close friends view us with fear and suspicion.

The Faisal Shahzad case raises questions. For one, the perpetrator does not fit into the stereotype profile of the militant. His privileged upbringing and western education as well as his long stay in the US belie the image of the angry, illiterate, misguided, madressah-educated tribesman, or the exploited peasant from southern Punjab. In fact, his was a life that would be the envy of young Pakistanis.

This notwithstanding, the Obama administration's reaction too raises question — it was hasty, confused and ill-considered. While Janet Napolitano, secretary of the homeland department, and Centcom head Gen David Petraeus asserted that Faisal Shahzad was a 'lone wolf', Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the involvement of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose to deliver an apocalyptic warning of 'severe consequences' for Pakistan.

Had these statements come from the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the Pakistanis would have taken it in their stride, but Ms Clinton's public pronouncements did not gel with her own president's policy of a more constructive approach to Muslim states.

The fallout from the Faisal Shahzad case may not be confined to our bilateral ties. It is also being exploited to the hilt for scoring domestic political points, with people such as Senator Joe Lieberman calling on the administration to ratchet up pressure on Pakistan, while seeking to squeeze the Muslim community.

Instead of pausing to reflect on how the Bush administration's policies may have contributed to the radicalisation of Muslims within the US, Lieberman, along with Senator John McCain, has introduced a bill to amend sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would permit the US to rescind or withdraw US nationality from any native-born or naturalised citizen for an alleged act of treason, with the burden of proving innocence placed on the shoulders of the accused.

These actions may appeal to Americans, but go against the country's core values.

This reprehensible incident also came at a delicate time in Pakistan-US relations. After years of bickering, the two sides were finally collaborating on an agreed agenda and with a level of understanding and trust that could actually promote their interests. US leaders, both civil and military, had also publicly lauded the army's commitment and resolve, as well as its successes against the militants.

More importantly, it appeared that Washington was recognising Pakistan's concerns on two vital issues its concerns regarding India and its interests in a future Afghan dispensation. There were also reports to the effect that the two countries had agreed on the broad outlines of a new agreement to expand intelligence and military operations.

But all this may now be up in the air as the spotlight is back on the military and its alleged links with militant organisations. Even more disturbing are reports to the effect that Washington views this as a 'game changer' and may seek to demand expansion of military operations to North Waziristan, although the army fears that rushing into this theatre without consolidating earlier gains could cause a major upheaval in the tribal areas.

There could be other 'demands' as well, hints of which were contained in Secretary Clinton's accusation that Pakistani officials were aware of Mullah Omar's whereabouts.

There however appears to be some realisation that Secretary Clinton may have been too hasty in warning of 'severe consequences' and that this could have an impact opposite to what may have been intended. Her confidant, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, later claimed that Clinton's statement had not been understood fully. He added that US ties with Pakistan had “improved greatly in the last year” and US civilian aid had increased.

Even more important was President Obama's dexterous handling of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's press conference to douse the flames of this needless controversy. Mixing judiciously both praise for Pakistan's efforts and admonition for its shortcomings, Obama demonstrated an impressive grasp of a complex situation, though he too had to join the chorus of allegations when he accused Pakistan of suffering from an 'obsession' with India.

These assuring words notwithstanding, there is little doubt that bilateral understanding and cooperation were jolted badly by the Faisal Shahzad episode and made worse by the public threats. The US is in a nasty mood, as reflected in comments of Obama's trusted advisor, Bruce Riedel, who warned that if a successful terrorist attack is traced back to Pakistan, the two countries “could be on the road to a very difficult confrontation”.

Nevertheless, instead of reacting to US warnings in a knee-jerk fashion and suspecting conspiracies, we should engage in serious soul-searching. The army is performing excellently, but what are the other stakeholders doing to create a national consensus against terrorism?

While the international community's fears may be exaggerated, we cannot deny that over the last two decades, Pakistan has become a refuge for the world's scoundrels, especially for angry, disillusioned and misguided Muslim youth. In the process, we have ceded large tracks of the country to lawless elements, with the writ of the state disappearing.

Such a situation would not be permitted anywhere in the world, and certainly not here, where the ongoing militancy and a history of nuclear proliferation are viewed in near-cataclysmic terms.