U.S. election politicking puts Pakistan in spin

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Around a quarter century ago a Pakistani military dictator told a CIA director the pros and cons of hitching his wagon to a superpower governed by democracy.

"The soil is wonderfully fertile, but every four or eight years the river changes course and you may find yourself alone in a desert," President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq told William Casey, according to a biographer of Washington's 1980's spymaster.

Having received an estimated $10 billion of support since becoming a U.S. ally six years ago, an embattled President Pervez Musharraf must harbor similar fears as the United States builds up to next year's presidential election.

General Musharraf, who came to power in a 1999 coup, faces major problems securing a second term as president, with political allies wavering, approval ratings slumping, and a Supreme Court that might uphold constitutional challenges.

The extent of Musharraf's difficulties were displayed this week by leaks from within his government that the president was on the brink of invoking emergency powers.

That Musharraf let it be known that he wasn't going down the authoritarian route just hours after getting a phone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice fuelled speculation that U.S. disapproval and desire to see free and fair elections in Pakistan later this year had played a part in the flip-flop.

General Musharraf can ill-afford any loss of backing from Washington as he struggles through the weakest period in an eight-year rule over his nuclear-armed, turbulent Muslim nation.

Pakistan is smarting from a series of diplomatic slights, and calling Musharraf an "indispensable" ally, as Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns did last weekend, can't bail him out if deeds don't match words.

"The Americans have a proclivity for short memories and shifting alliances," remarked Senator Mushahid Hussain, chairman of the Senate's foreign affairs committee.

DEJA VU

A week ago, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill requiring him to confirm Pakistan's progress in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda before releasing future funding.

It disturbed the Pakistani establishment's psyche by evoking memories of the "Pressler Amendment", a law that blocked aid and arms sales to Pakistan in 1989, a year after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan and Zia's death in a mysterious air crash.

Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States, says many Pakistanis see the alliance as an endless saga of U.S. demands and criticism, and wonder whether it's worth it.

"There is growing skepticism in Pakistan regarding the long-term objectives of the war on terror, he told the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Thursday.

To add to Pakistan's chagrin, the United States is expected to sign a treaty this month to provide rival India with support for its civil nuclear program.

Senator Hussain said almost all Pakistanis perceived U.S. policies to be going against Pakistan's interests.

"It is being bashed up by the United States because of the failures of its own making in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and the Muslim world as a whole," Hussain said.

Now, Musharraf is again under pressure to strike at al Qaeda nests in hostile tribal lands on the Afghan border.

He has good reasons to comply. Al Qaeda wants him dead.

Over 200 Pakistanis, mostly members of the security forces,

have been killed in bomb attacks, including multiple suicide attacks, and clashes with militants since early July.

And at least 102 people were killed when commandos stormed Red Mosque in Islamabad to put down a Taliban-style movement.

The trouble is, the army's casualties are again rising, and it is once again being brought into conflict with its own people.

EASY TARGET

Pakistani impatience with American intrusiveness also surfaced during the confusion over whether Musharraf would declare an emergency, as Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan cited "internal and external threats".

The latter was a reference to comments from U.S. politicians that America could strike inside Pakistan if it had actionable intelligence on high value al Qaeda targets.

A White House official began the spat, but Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama stirred the issue, saying he would be willing to order attacks even without Pakistani consent.

Part of the reason why some U.S. politicians are picking on Pakistan, analysts say, is because that is where they believe the war on Islamic extremists should be fought, rather than in Iraq.

Critical Western media and Washington think-tanks have long sown doubts over Pakistan because of its failure to throttle the Taliban, capture Osama bin Laden, or close down mosques and religious schools that run armed militias.

But Pakistan has deployed 90,000 soldiers near the Afghan border, it has lost more than 800 troops, captured hundreds of al Qaeda fighters, and broken plots like one a year ago to blow up airliners over U.S. cities, using liquid explosives.

Needing an ally that has to cope with strong anti-American sentiment could undermine the war against terrorism in both countries.

"If Pakistan becomes an election issue in the U.S. election, they shouldn't forget that the U.S. can become an election issue in Pakistan," warned Senator Hussain.

(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert and Steve Holland in Washington)