Sharad Joshi hits the nail on the head when he writes in 'Foreign Policy In Focus, a Think Tank Without Walls': Any AfPak policy has to be a permanent rollback of the Taliban's armed capabilities, especially on the Pakistan side. As past experience shows, short-term deals with militant groups do more harm than good.

"Eventually, there has to be a political solution in Pakistan's tribal areas and Afghanistan. But such a solution has to be negotiated from a position of strength, and only a comprehensive military response to the Taliban in the immediate present can set the stage for a meaningful political solution", says Joshi.

Obama struck a note of optimism: "I'm pleased that these two men -- elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face, and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it. And I'm pleased that we have advanced unprecedented cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan on a bilateral basis -- and among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States -- which will benefit all of our people."

"Less corruption and more efficient government"

In Afghanistan, Washington's emphasis has been on "less corruption and more efficient government". And it does not look like changing – with President Karzai likely to be around after Afghanistan's August 20 presidential elections with former defence minister Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a powerful Tajik warlord accused of rights abuses, as his vice-presidential running mate.

Defence Secretary Bob Gates in a recent interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN said U.S. has "real reservations about significant further commitments of American military, beyond what the president has already approved."

He compared the situation to the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, noting that the Soviets sent 120,000 troops into the mountainous country, pursued scorched earth tactics, and still lost. The Afghan resistance received massive help from the U.S., which sought successfully to create a "Soviet Vietnam".

California-based award-winning columnist and former political advisor William Bradley sees no reason for pessimism: ". . . it's not so much a matter of winning, or losing a war in the conventional sense. The mission is to disrupt and disable Al Qaeda from using the region as a safe haven from which to prepare and launch 9/11-type attacks. The Obama Administration may be closer to achieving that than it may suppose. So long as Pakistan doesn't descend into basket case status", writes Bradley in The Huffington Post.

But Brad Adams, Asia director of New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch, is concerned. "To see Fahim back in the heart of government would be a terrible step backwards for Afghanistan. He is one of the most notorious warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands from the civil war."

"Gravely concerned" over the Pakistan government's inability

Senior administration officials have left no doubt that Washington wants Karzai to make better use of the aid he receives and to do more to protect the rights of women and to expand the influence of his government.

There is deep concern about Pakistan too. A week before the arrival of Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, Obama said he was "gravely concerned" over the Pakistan government's inability to deliver essential services such as food, health services, education and justice to the Pakistani people.

U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a recent congressional hearing, that the situation posed "a mortal threat" to the world as the Pakistan government was "abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists".

Anonymous U. S. officials in background briefings told journalists they are worried about the growing possibility Islamist radicals "might try to seize one of Pakistan's nuclear weapons or insert sympathizers into a nuclear laboratory or fuel-production facility".

U.S. had already announced plans to send an additional 21,000 troops to bolster the 38,000 U.S. soldiers already in Afghanistan and commitment to give Pakistan US$7.5-billion in emergency economic, military and development aid over the next five years but what about "some requirements about what we expect from these governments", Clinton said.

Washington has little confidence in Pakistani government's ability to reassert control over its military. Pakistan is expected to meet a much more difficult set of expectations: to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda's safe havens inside Pakistan and dramatically improve the delivery of basic government services to undercut the growing appeal of Islamist radicals. The military, which originally fostered the Islamist movement, has been content to negotiate a series of ineffective internal truces with the Taliban and its allies.

According to Pakistan's Centre for Research and Security Studies, the Taliban currently control, are active in or hold influence over nearly 12 percent of Pakistan's territory.

"The attitude of the Pakistani military establishment, and the whole tenor of civil-military relations in Pakistan, needs to change, otherwise additional assistance will ultimately help the enemy," David Kilcullen, a top adviser to the Pentagon on counter-insurgency warned a recent congressional hearing in Washington. Since September 11, 2001 (9/11), the United States has "given the Pakistani military $10 billion to fight against extremism and terrorism" and they have very little to show for it, Kilcullen says.

Responding to the $10 billion given to Pakistan, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said on May 17 that U.S. should stop criticizing the Pakistan army and the ISI and help them instead. He was speaking on CNN's 'Fareed Zakaria GPS'.

As to why despite US$10 billion Pakistan had received from the U.S. things were worse in Pakistan than better, Musharraf shot back: "US$5 billion is ours; it's for services rendered to your country by Pakistan!" As for the rest, (which Musharraf had already called pittance, and repeated it), US$2.5 billion was allotted to the military, and an equal amount to the social sector.

"Pakistan is a victim of what is happening in Afghanistan," said Musharraf, stressing that more than 50 percent of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. "You succeed in Afghanistan, you succeed in Pakistan... We have suffered because of what is happening in Afghanistan."

According to Musharraf, the money is coming from Afghanistan's drug trade; the arms are coming from Afghanistan, and Mullah Omar is controlling the Taliban in that country.

Responding to concerns of U.S. officials, who have been talking openly about the Pakistan government's inability to rule, with Islamic insurgency within 60 miles of Islamabad, Musharraf said that the Taliban is not about to take over Islamabad.

That the real concern has to be with radical elements within Pakistani society who are hooking up with al-Qaeda because of acute anti-American sentiment, the former Pakistan president said. Raised the subject of civilian casualties resulting from random drone attacks, he said those attacks also created anti-Americanism among members of the Pakistani army.

Musharraf drew attention to Pakistan's support of the U.S., especially after 9/11 quantifying the number of suspects for the attacks having all been arrested by Pakistan. He also did not forget to mention that the U.S. had failed to capture even a single suspect.

However, Kilcullen is of the view that there is "overwhelming evidence" of a Pakistani civilian government that does not control its own national security establishment; security services that have been complicit in allowing the takeover of parts of the country by militants; direct or indirect sponsorship of international terrorism by elements of the Pakistani national security establishment; ongoing support by the same national security establishment for insurgents who are killing Americans in Afghanistan and a militant movement that is growing in reach and intensity week by week."

It is widely believed that the successive Pakistan governments, since the country's birth in 1947, have taken billions of dollars from U.S. to build up the military. At first, it was during the cold war to restrict Soviet Union's influence, then during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to support the Taliban. and since 9/11 when the former President Musharraf was given an ultimatum that, in [Pervez] Musharraf’s words, "we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age."

Pakistan is said to be playing a 'double game' over the years using the money for training and supporting the terrorist groups to create problems in India and Afghanistan. In view of this, Kilcullen says, Washington should also consider diverting aid away from the Pakistani military to build up the police as an institutional rival.

"Substantial parts of the Pakistani security establishment are complicit with the enemy, whether through incompetence, intimidation or ill intent." Washington must demand change and establish strict benchmarks for measuring progress.

This article was first published on IDN: IndepthNews on 20th May.