In early August 2004, the Department of Homeland Security raised the terror alert to 'Orange', the second highest level, for financial landmarks in New York and Washington. This was subsequent to intelligence reports on al Qaeda's plans to strike important sites, including the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). This kind of warning merits scrutiny. Despite Washington attacking Iraq for its alleged links with the al Qaeda, the terror spate continues to loom large in North America. Is Washington failing in its mission to fight terrorism? Is there any other country Washington should have included in its 'axis of evil' State of the Union Speech of February 2002?

The recent capture of Mohammad Sohail by the Afghan authorities vindicates Pakistan's involvement with jehadis till date. The captive seems to have been trained by Jamiat-ul-Ansar, the new name for the Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen (HuM), which has been designated a terrorist group by the US State Department and banned by Pakistan in January 2002. The Jamiat-ul-Ansar is of special significance not just because it is the new 'avataar' of HuM, but because it was active in Afghanistan, made its presence felt in India and its link with Pakistan. The capture is not a case in isolation. Another arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, the Pakistani computer engineer described as an al Qaeda operative, a middle class well-educated Pakistani also underlines deep-rooted connections between Pakistani civil society and terrorism.

The 9/11 Commission appointed by President Bush on 27 November 2002, which undertook a detailed study of the '9/11 Plot' has clearly indicted Islamabad for its assistance to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda. Besides, Pakistan also emerged as a major proliferator of nuclear weapons to countries like North Korea. Nonetheless, Washington prefers to be ambivalent, given Pakistan's geo-strategic significance in South Asia.

This duplicity of the US policy is quite similar to its strategy of the Cold War years. Despite Pakistan being a key ally of the US in its global fight against terrorism, it is also central to several American concerns. These include nuclear proliferation, long-term relations with the Islamic world, and pace of global democratization, apart from terrorism.

While the September 11 attacks on the US validated India's position that terrorism, rather than nuclear proliferation or Kashmir, was the major strategic concern for South Asia, an identical cognizance by the US was accompanied by elevation of Pakistan from a 'failing' state to a 'frontline' state. Pakistan's re-emergence as an important country was evident from President Bush's invitation, extended to Pervez Musharraf in June 2003, for spending a day at Camp David. While the 9/11 Report incriminates Islamabad on one hand, on the other it calls for "sustaining the current scale of aid to Pakistan in its struggle against extremists with a comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for better education, so long as Pakistan's leaders remain willing to make difficult choices of their own."

The Bush administration has gone ahead and granted Pakistan major non-NATO ally (MNNA) status in league with countries like Argentina, South Korea, Israel, Australia, and Japan. This egregious policy failing on part of the US has significant implications for the Indo-US-Pakistan triangular relationship. India is likely to be unhappy over Pakistan being granted the status of a more 'privileged' ally (in terms of greater security and military relations), notwithstanding the latter's undisputed support to al Qaeda, as pointed out by the Report. Moreover, Washington has also signed a five-year US $ 115.7 million agreement with Pakistan for strengthening the country's health sector, in addition to US $ 3 billion assistance over five years as a "measure of Pakistan's importance to our own national objectives."

Given Washington's current posture towards Pakistan and the nature of policies pursued by the US in South Asia in the past, it is unlikely that the American attitude towards Pakistan will harden in the coming months. This is despite discovery of fresh evidence underscoring Pakistan's support to terrorism. The United States will continue 'engaging' Pakistan since not only does it have its forces in the country, but also because of the clever gambit employed by President Musharraf. While the Pakistani army has assassinated Naik Mohammad, the renegade tribal militant and former Taliban commander, on the other Pakistan is disapproving of the US-backed resolution in Sudan in tandem with countries like Russia and China, thereby sending a clear signal to the fundamentalists that Pakistan has not succumbed to US pressures.

As long as Washington follows a cursory approach in dealing with terrorism and keeps on 'engaging' Pakistan, there is little possibility of terror threats receding in US and South Asia and the global fight against terrorism will remain a mere passive exercise.