Q. In retrospect, how does the Republican Party view the support extended to General Pervez Musharraf by the current administration?

A. There are important Republican voices (who don't speak for the party officially) who have recently come out in criticism of Bush’s support of Musharraf, notably the conservative columnist Bob Novak, who is regarded as close to Vice President Dick Cheney. Several centrist Republican senators have long been critical of Musharraf for many reasons. However, it is important that Musharraf be treated with respect and that he not be disgraced. Doing so would be counter-productive, and return Pakistan to a cycle of revenge and counter revenge.

Q. Is there an effort on the part of the current administration to shift its focus away from Musharraf and develop a working relationship with the new government?

A. My guess is that the administration is divided. Certainly Bush had a place for Musharraf in his heart, (but) many professionals in the administration have long realised that while Musharraf talked a good game and was persuasive, actions did not follow, especially regarding looking the other way when it came to Taliban operations in Pakistan, and Taliban-Al Qaeda links.

Q. Is there any apparent difference between the way the Pentagon and the White House are viewing Pakistan in light of the fact that there is not just a new elected government in power but also a new Chief of Army Staff?

A. If there is a difference they have concealed it publicly, but there's no doubt that the US military is incensed with Pakistan. They have to face the Taliban daily in Afghanistan, and as many responsible journalists and foreign observers have written, the tracks back to Pakistan were evident years ago.

Q. Can significant changes be expected in the US-Pakistan relations after the presidential elections of 2008 with regard to ‘war on terrorism’, militancy in Waziristan and aid to Pakistan?

A. First, the term ‘war on terrorism’ is likely to disappear if Obama Barack is elected. It never was the appropriate phrase. McCain might continue it but the US generals who are planning and fighting the war in Afghanistan are far more subtle. There's a lot of impatience with Pakistan but even Obama has recently acknowledged that there may be limits to what Pakistan can actually do. I know of no one who would like to abandon Pakistan. This is a marriage, and we are going to have to learn to live with each other for the duration. What is new, and important, is the recognition that Pakistan itself could be an even greater problem in years to come because of economic stagnation, political incoherence, and a divide over whether the "main enemy" is India or radical Islam or Pakistan itself. There's great support for strengthening Pakistan civil society, the economy, and so forth.

Q. Considering that every year there is an increase in the militant activity in Afghanistan at the onset of summer, the US concern about the insurgency seems more acute this year…

A. It has been at an acute level for several years now. Certainly the European states fighting in Afghanistan share this concern—this has become the biggest NATO issue now, as well as a matter that affects our relationship with Pakistan.

Q. There is also a feeling that Washington's tone has become harsher because it does not have the sort of faith in the new dispensation as it did in Musharraf…

A. There's division here as to whether the new government is for some reason unwilling to move against the extremists, or, more likely, unable. The former view holds that Pakistan's military is pursuing one strategy, the civilians would like to pursue another, but can't. I reserve judgment, but all the explanations are troubling.

Q. How will Washington react to the increasing militancy in Pakistan's tribal region, when there is a new White House administration? Can an increase in air strikes be expected?

A. The US will have to continue to balance its calculations of alienating Pakistan versus doing something about groups that operate in Pakistan but hurt the effort in Afghanistan (and let me add that the problem in Afghanistan is not due entirely, or even largely, to what comes out of Pakistan). However, first, if there is a major terrorist incident that can be traced back to Pakistani-supported groups then there will be no restraint. Second, people may start thinking of very different strategies: if we have to stay in Afghanistan over the long term, then perhaps Iran might provide the means by which our forces can be supplied, rather than Pakistan. Right now the US is dependent on Karachi, but what if there were a limited US-Iran accommodation? Stranger things have happened.

Q. How have the administration and the foreign policy circles viewed the recent statements of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan and can they lead to additional pressure on Pakistan?

A. My view is that he was right when he said that the Pakistan bomb affected India's calculations in recent crises. However, he has done tremendous damage to Pakistan's reputation as a stable and reliable state, and it is in Pakistan's own interest to help the world find out exactly what was transferred to several states in the Middle East and perhaps North Korea. This stands in the way of Pakistan being treated like India in terms of a possible nuclear "deal".

Q. Is there any chance that the US may reduce the aid package to Pakistan in the near future? If so, what factors will be behind such a decision?

A. It certainly will be made conditional, and theoretically some kinds of assistance could increase. Senator Biden is introducing legislation to this effect which will provide a new, and more honest, basis for US-Pakistan relations. However, Pakistan does not want to be aid dependent forever. My fear is that it may have missed too many opportunities to catch up.

 Q. How realistic are the chances of the Biden proposed "democracy dividend" materialising?

A. right now it has received a lot of support in the Senate from both parties. No matter who wins the election I believe it will go through, and in the end will be good for the US and Pakistan. - Conducted Via email by Muhammad Badar Alam