Musharaff Threatens "You'll be brought down to your knees" Without Pakistan

Pakistani dictator Musharaff talking to the BBC:

"The greatest danger today is if the Taleban movement gets converted into a people's movement," he warned.

Earlier this week Tony Blair assured Gen Musharraf a leaked paper condemning Pakistan's intelligence service did not reflect his government's view.

In the leaked report, a naval commander at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) claimed Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, had indirectly helped the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

In the BBC interview Mr Musharraf rejected these claims and said ISI's support was vital.

"You'll be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you. That is all that I would like to say. Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not with you, you won't manage anything," he said.

"Let that be clear. And if ISI is not with you, you will fail."

He also claims the US and Britain had a historic debt to pay as Pakistan had helped "win the Cold War" for the West.

He argued that the West's strategy in Afghanistan towards the end of the Cold War helped to create the conditions which led to al-Qaeda's rise.

But doesn't establishing a homeland for the Taliban right on the Pakistan/Afghan border qualify as turning it into a popular movement? Certainly, it has led to a threefold increase in attacks on occupation forces and called into further question the viability of restoring order in that nation. Musharaff also seems to have "forgotten" that the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, was also instrumental in assisting the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the first place. That forgetfulness is very convenient because his regime is reliant upon the support of a coalition of Islamist parties who all support the Taliban against the secular parties who would prefer the return of democracy.

So what's behind such bluster, which could be construed as a threat to the West? Well, partly it is the balancing act Musharaff must perform, mollifying Islamists at home to stay in power while ingratiating himself with the West in return for weaponry that he can buy rather than have drop on his head. The other is an attempt to head of a change of status whereby India becomes America's best new friend in the region.

Afghanistan has long been an arena of Indian-Pakistani competition. To counter the Pakistani-backed Taliban regime, India supported the warlords of the so-called Northern Alliance, which now forms part of the Karzai regime in Kabul. Not surprisingly, India has exploited the opportunity to strengthen its position in Afghanistan, providing significant economic aid. In April, Karzai made his fourth trip to New Delhi with a 110-strong delegation of ministers, MPs and businessmen. The warmth of relations with India, which promised another $US50 million in aid to bring the total to $650 million, is in marked contrast to the accusations traded with Pakistan.

The Pakistani regime is acutely sensitive to India’s involvement with Afghanistan, which poses the potential threat of a close Indian ally on its western flank. Pakistan has refused to allow the transport of Indian goods across its roads to Afghanistan. Moreover, the ISI has accused India of being involved in fomenting armed separatist opposition in the unstable Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Pakistan's attempt to preserve its status has been particularly damaged this week by India's latest claim that the ISI planned the Mumbai bombings. Although claims that the ISI are involved in Islamist terrorism in both India and Afghanistan are nothing new and are accepted by many expert observers, they have always been denied by the Mushaaff regime and generally played down or utterly ignored by American policymakers.

However, things are reaching a head. Even conservative pundits like the neocon Heritage Foundation's Ed Morrisey are asking "has Pakistan changed sides?" even while asserting - in desperately hopeful cheerleader mode - that Bush is doing the right thing and calling Musharaff to account.

Nothing could be further from the case. Bush, like just about every other luminary of U.S. politcs, has happily looked the other way on countless examples of Pakistan's double-game. Ed has been played by Bush just as effectively as his leader has been played by Musharaff. Meanwhile, Musharaff hasn't changed sides - he's still playing just for himself and playing everyone else as much as he can as he tries to maintain power. The wheels are now coming off - the precarious balancing act cannot last much longer. The threatening bluster is another attempt to head off the Pakistani dictator's own fall, nothing more.

But that fall and the embarassment of being forced to admit everyone looked the other way for as long as they could will have its own effect on American foreign policy.