It's been five years. Watch The Journalist and the Jihadi tonight at 8 PM at CNN.

Five years after coining the famous 'axis' phrase, David Frum reflects on its shortcomings in an interview with Der Spiegel:

If you are looking for states that sponsor terrorism, I think there is no state in the world that has a worse record than Pakistan. And if you are concerned about the spread of extremist ideology, there is no state in the world that has a worse record than Saudi Arabia.

And, tellingly:

I would say that the story of the Bush Administration is the story of an administration caught halfway across the bridge; they did not want to face up to the magnitude of the problems. Its policies are premised on the assumption that we have a firm alliance with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. If it had been possible in 2001 to address the problem of Saudi Arabia, maybe there never would have been an Iraq war.

So, from today's point of view, the Bush-record is hardly 'neo-conservative, argues Frum:

The story of the Bush Administration is a story of absorbing certain doctrines that are called "neo-conservative," but entrusting them to be executed by people who did not believe in those doctrines. And by always limiting the applications of those doctrines, so as not to touch on the really deep American commitments to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. If Bush were a neo-conservative, as everybody said, then his response to 9/11 would have been that this originated in an extremism that the government of Saudi Arabia has whipped up in order to protect itself from the consequences of its own corruption.

It's a fascinating interview and it reveals the gap between some foreign policy idealists and the pragmatists in the executive branch. As I have mentioned time and again, Bush never was a real visionary and the events of 9/11 forced him to assume the role of someone who could by the force of ideology materially change the Middle East. It was however never all that, and as Frum says, "he tried".

So Bush's lack of conviction - something manifest in Tony Blair when he compelled his skeptical Labour Party to go into Iraq - combined with the reluctance to lean more heavily on such players as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have created a questionable record. The net of that is, whatever the outcome of the Baghdad surge, the next occupant of the White House will have to somehow deal with an enlarged 'axis of evil'. And in that, even a Democrat would have to borrow far more from neo-conservative thought than Bush ever did.

It is probably a little too difficult to assess al-Qaeda's current operational strengths from listening to Ayman al-Zawahiri's video missives, the latest one of which emerged yesterday. So, it is better to let Peter Bergen put everything into perspective and his latest piece reveals that the group has recovered from the many setbacks it endured right after 9/11 and is now well positioned for more terror attacks in the West. All of that has been facilitated by favorable conditions on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan:

The tribal areas of Pakistan have proved to be a comfortable home for Al Qaeda--and that isn't going to change. The Pakistani government has already concluded peace agreements with local militants (but not, obviously, Al Qaeda) in two of the seven federally administered tribal areas along the Afghan border, and it is likely to reach additional peace deals this year. That means the Pakistani army will gradually pull out of these areas, which can only help Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Taliban has staged a comeback while virtually merging with Al Qaeda. The Taliban were a provincial bunch when they held power in Afghanistan, but, in the past couple of years, they have increasingly identified as part of the global jihadist movement, their rhetoric full of references to Iraq and Palestine in a manner that mirrors bin Laden's public statements.

This adds to the general sense of doom that is enveloping the poorly resourced NATO mission in Afghanistan. Any assessment of that effort by the British, Canadian and Dutch governments needs to take account of what Bergen is saying here, but I doubt it will.

NOTE: The Economist has a similar piece this week, Al-Qaeda, on the march.

AND: Carlotta Gall of the NYT has more on the duplicitous role of Pakistan's intelligence community (via Oxblog).

It’s been a while since partner Pervez featured on Peaktalk but his claim that he had shattered al-Qaeda in Pakistan needs to be discredited as a cheap political ploy. Even the Guardian doesn't buy it:

Critics say he is wrong. "It's just window dressing. He says al-Qaida's back is broken after every major operation. It always turns out to be wrong," said Afrasiab Khattak, a human rights activist and opposition politician in Peshawar. A western diplomat in Islamabad said Gen Musharraf had failed to deliver on similar promises after September 11. "Wait until you see, the same thing will happen this time," she said.

Maybe Pakistan's leader is, in the absence of any significant breakthroughs, trying to placate western observers. There's a word for that and unfortunately Pervez isn't very good at it. Still he's our partner and that's what counts for now.

The first news item of the year that really caught my attention was a report of the meetings that are taking place between India and Pakistan. Given the fact that the two were on the brink of war only five years ago these encounters are no doubt encouraging but from our perspective there is an undercurrent worth noting.

One of the main obstacles in the relationship between the two South Asian powers is the issue of sovereignty over Kashmir. The long and deep conflict over this mountainous area is a cause celebre for many Muslim fundamentalist groups associated with and supported by the Taliban. This has put the pro-Western and likeable Pervez Musharraf in an uncomfortable spot, for in spite of all his co-operation with the war on terror by delivering al-Qaeda operatives to the US on a recurring basis, he has barely taken any action against the Taliban or other local fundamentalist groups. On the contrary, it appears that the Taliban have regrouped and are able to re-launch their activities on a regional basis. Not only have they assisted in leveraging Pakistan’s position vis-à-vis India with regards to Kashmir, the Taliban have (as opposed to al-Qaeda) a very strong following in Pakistan and are no doubt enjoying the free reign the Pakistani leadership has granted them. An emboldened Taliban could come to haunt the fragile arrangements by which Afghanistan is currently governed and also prepare another, potentially successful, lethal challenge to Musharraf. While I have often dubbed him Partner Pervez we should be under no illusion that the terms of the partnership are both limited and flexible. Yet, Pervez himself should be aware that at some point he may have to adopt his flexibility to save his own skin.

While everyone was celebrating the capture of one of our key enemies in the fight against terrorism, we almost lost one of our most important partners: Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s President survived an attack on his motorcade yesterday. The circumstances of this not entirely unexpected event however point to the fact that Musharraf’s enemies may be a lot closer than we all like to think. Stability in Pakistan is not only a pre-requisite to successfully conduct the war against terrorism, it is crucial given the uncertainty over the succession of Musharraf should he perish as his successor will have the keys to a readily deployable nuclear arsenal.

The latest riots in Pakistan following the killing of a radical Sunni leader highlight that whatever the focus on Iran, Iraq, Syria and - Peaktalk being no exception – Saudi Arabia, we are painfully ignoring the real powder keg in the Muslim world, Pakistan. There’s a good reason for that, Pakistan is an ally of West, and is now personified by the likeable whiskey-drinking Pervez Musharraf who came to power after a military coup a few years ago. Pervez is our partner and so far he has, it appears, delivered in siding with the West in its war against terror. While many lamented the collapse of democracy I felt comfortable that a pro-Western military man had taken the reigns as the country was slowly sliding towards chaos. That threat has not dissipated, far from it, but at least for the time being, Musharraf has steered his country in the direction of being committed to defeat terror, despite the phenomenal domestic challenges he faces in doing that. Taking recent history into account, being Pakistan’s political leader is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Ali Bhutto life’s ended on the execution block, Zia ul-Haq lost his life when his jet was hit by a well-directed missile, and recent leaders such as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had to pack their bags before the formal end of their mandates, Mrs. Bhutto now living in exile. These drastic departures all took place well before September 11, so in a way it is mystifying to see how Musharraf is defying the odds on a daily basis while at the same time closely working with the US in fighting terror.

The grave danger in Pakistan is its nuclear arsenal. Long passed the development phase it is capable of launching missiles with a nuclear warhead and the sub-continent has already experienced a number of serious nuclear crises. If anything will escalate on the nuclear front under whatever Pakistani leadership, it will be India that will have to bear the initial brunt of it. At the same time rabid Muslim fundamentalists have a huge following in the country and for all we know Osama bin Laden is hiding out somewhere in the impenetrable northern mountainous areas of the country. These groups have different agendas, but none of them is too friendly toward the West and given the fact that terror is exported from Pakistan on a daily basis and nuclear secrets have freely flowed in a number of directions originating in Pakistan, one has to wonder what will happen to the country and regional stability if the pro-Westerners loose their grip and Pervez suffers the same fate as his recent predecessors.

Saturday's arrest of one of Al Qaeda's top leaders is great news in itself but I think it is even better news that we are getting solid co-operation on the ground from Pakistani authorities. That co-operation has been consistent for this is not the first arrest made with local help.

It reveals the commitment that President Pervez Musharraf has made to supporting the U.S. and its allies in their war against terror and that is one brave stand for his position in Pakistan is far from secure. He may extend the scope of his co-operation even further by throwing his Security Council ballot in favour of the upcoming U.S./British resolution. If he does that he has real guts.