Is Pakistan next?

It's official. Pakistan is a failed state. Also, President Bush has signed an executive order authorizing US forces to carry out ground based anti-terrorism operations in Pakistani territory without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. One sensible reaction might well be: "What took him so long?"

In some ways, Pakistan was always going to be an obvious target. The country has distinguished itself as the nerve centre of Islamic Jihad. The country has been masquerading as an American ally ever since the war on terror began. This enabled Pakistan to obtain weapons and money from Washington under false pretences. The utter helplessness of the Pakistani army in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, the shady deals struck with Al-Qaeda, the covert support to anti-India terrorist activities were all covered up by a loud barrage of lies from Islamabad. In this open ended battle between America and Islamic Jihad, Pakistan was the ultimate double agent. Its bluff has been called.

But there are other considerations. First, this new development represents a substantial change in the approach of President Bush. All these years, he has maintained that the US Army needs to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan. In his last few months in office, Bush has a sense of urgency. No sooner had Iraq shown signs of improvement, than a resurgent Taliban queered the pitch for him in Afghanistan. A desperate President is looking for desperate measures to score a victory. Even so, the current stance represents an irreversible turn in US policy. Looking beyond Bush, one sees easily that Obama has repeatedly expressed his mistrust of Pakistani policies. And there are those who say that McCain's election would tantamount to a third term for Bush. It appears that the change of attitude in Washington towards Pakistan is systemic, rather than about the caprices of President Bush. Seven years of being lied to should justify that. Also, the Americans had invested so much diplomatic capital in propping up President Musharraf that it was always difficult for them to back out later. With Musharraf gone, the US can deal more harshly with the new rulers in Pakistan.

The admission that direct US intervention in Pakistan is a military necessity makes a horrifying reality even more apparent. As the war on terror becomes more and more global, it begins to look more and more like a "thousand year war". That America would talk about one sided military action in the territory of a professed ally is a tacit admission that the enemy is stronger than previously imagined. On the one hand, the democratic world can never fight terror until it realizes that Islamic Jihad is a truly global force, a superpower in the shadows. On the other, the thought of major conflict across the world rattles many of America's solid allies in Europe. India, a recently pro-American country in which terrorism has reached spectacular proportions, also faces a uniquely tricky situation with its 130 million strong Muslim community. No one wants to commit to a worldwide war. And there are always the detractors like China and Russia, who still think that the worldwide Muslim mobilization against America can be used to cut America down to size. Since America, until recently, thought it could win this very same game of playing this Muslim dictator against the other, who can blame China and Russia for thinking in the same way?

Even so, an invasion of Pakistan at the present moment seems to be a very remote possibility. For one, America has to figure what it has to do with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. And it also has to factor in the Chinese reaction to US military action so close to China. China and Pakistan have warmed up to each other in recent years. The Chinese believe they can use Pakistan to balance India's growing clout; a mistake, considering that Pakistan already hangs in the balance between America and Islamic Jihad. A third stress could tear the country apart, effectively ending all that India could have had to fear from Pakistan. Finally the US military and economy is already overstretched by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A war in Pakistan could sink the US in debt.

So, what does the US' new tough line on Pakistan mean? It betrays the growing frustration of the Americans with their war on terror. The more it draws blood, the bigger and more determined the enemy becomes. And terrorists do not understand the language of peace. America's allies, who are otherwise sympathetic to the war on terror, cannot help taking perverse pleasure in the predicament of the world's most powerful nation. Some US allies, such as the ones in Western Europe, have been outsourcing their national security needs to the US for far too long. Israel, which involved the US in this tangle in the first place, is far too obsessed with the Middle East to see Jihad as a global phenomenon. India, a recent entrant to the club of US allies; is in a highly unenviable position. Prognosis: negative.