Following this dubious line of reasoning advanced by veteran Pakistani diplomat and Musharraf envoy Sahibzada Yakub Khan, the Clinton administration is now suggesting that the President is not averse to visiting perhaps stopping over in Islamabad if the military regime achieves certain "milestones" towards a return to civilian rule.

Khan, who met top US officials including National Security Adviser Samuel Berger and Secretary of State Madeliene Albright in the past couple of days, is arguing that President Clinton will fuel anti-Americanism and harm India-Pakistan peace moves if he visits India early next year but boycotts Pakistan.

"If the (Clinton) visit went one way only, there couldbe strong feelings of hurt in Pakistan, and certain anti-US elements would make much of it," Khan told editors and reporters of a Conservative Right-wing Washington paper. Khan's line has apparently struck a chord in the administration. After initially declaring that the President would not visit Pakistan under a military dictatorship, the administration appeared to be backsliding on that with officials suggesting Clinton may still go if the Musharraf regime met some "milestones" towards a return to civilian rule.

An unnamed official was quoted as saying the door remains open to a visit by President Clinton. "They're talking about a presidential visit in the first quarter of the year we'll have to see if the milestones could be achieved by then," the official said.

Likewise, the administration appears inclined to back IMF loans to Pakistan and resume military training to the Pakistani armed forces in line with the argument that if it does not, the economy will implode and the army will turnfundamentalist.

Critics of this line of reasoning, including many American lawmakers, say this is tantamount to succumbing to Pakistani blackmail and bluster. In fact, in a tough message, a Congressional panel on Tuesday passed by a 21-4 margin a resolution calling for suspension of international military education and training (IMET) until a civilian, democratic government is returned to power.

The resolution was a virtual revolt against the administration and the chairman of the panel who tried to dilute an earlier resolution by taking out references to IMET, by replacing a call for restoration of democracy with the establishment of a timetable for democracy and by taking out condemnation of the coup and replacing it with concern.

"General Musharraf has refused to give even a timetable for the restoration of democracy. He has invalidated the progress made last year at the Lahore talks. The military regime in Pakistan seems to think the United States will let this coup go by with a wink and a nod. Itis vitally important that the US send a clear signal that we do not condone this behavior," Congressman Sam Gedjenson, who re-inroduced the stronger language, said. But the military junta is already talking of taking up the US bait of introducing a veneer of democracy to facilitate the Presidential visit.

"What the western world may be looking for is a label of democracy Inshallah, I will put this label of democracy sometime in the near future," Gen. Musharraf said at a news conference in Turkey earlier this week.

The administration's weak-kneed response has outraged many US lawmakers who see this as yet another instance of the White House and the State Department capitulating to devious Pakistani pressure tactic founded on the principle of "save us or we will take everyone down with us."

"I believe the House must send a strong and unequivocal message that the United States is not in the business of supporting military dictatorships. We don't do it in Burma, we don't do it in North Korea, and weshouldn't do it in Pakistan," Congressman Sherrod Brown, one of the several who backed the resolution, said.

Lawmakers are also exposing the Clinton administration's duplicity in backing IMF aid for Pakistan while opposing developmental World Bank loans to India. Several Congressmen have written to the President opposing this anomaly.