Pakistan is not the central front in the so-called “global war on terror,” or GWOT. As I argued in yesterday’s post, there is no “central front” in meeting this diffuse and decentralized threat. And what’s required to achieve progress and make more people around the world safer is marshalling a broad range of policy instruments that go beyond the almost singular focus on traditional warfare that we have seen in the last six years. The coming months in Pakistan will be a vital test case for whether the United States and other global powers can make a clean break from the past and shift towards a more pragmatic and effective set of policies. Though I don’t offer up a popular catch phrase or slogan here and don’t have the space to write a treatise, here are four suggestions on what the United States should do to make this global course correction, employing events in Pakistan in making the case for why these shifts are necessary.

1. STOP: Blindly supporting dictators and autocrats. For all of President Bush’s talk about a freedom agenda in which the forces of democracy would defeat the forces of terrorism, his policies haven’t matched his rhetoric, and the world sees the hypocrisy. When President Bush said last month that President Musharraf “truly is somebody who believes in democracy” after Musharraf imposed emergency rule, shut down free media outlets, sacked judges, and jailed thousands of lawyers and civil society activists, some people here in Pakistan wondered if Bush was talking about their President Musharraf. In the span of eight years, Bush went from not even knowing Musharraf’s name to not knowing who he is as a leader.

The problem here is not just Pakistan – in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the United States backs repressive regimes – looking to individual leaders to seal the deal and advance our interests. Better the devil we know is the myopic and self-limiting argument for a policy that offers a narrow false choice between authoritarianism and chaos.

Beyond the moral problems with unquestioned support for repressive governments, there are two practical reasons why the United States should move beyond its addiction to dictators. First, as Princeton Professor Alan Krueger argues in his latest book, countries that suppress civil liberties and political rights are more likely to be countries that produce international terrorists. Repression – not poverty or illiteracy – is a key factor behind breeding terror. Second, supporting unpopular autocrats does the United States no favors in gaining cooperation and support from people in other countries who suffer from this repression. In a late afternoon discussion in Karachi with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, an Islamist political party that has participated in elections and the parliament in Pakistan, one top leader asked, “Why is the United States standing by silently while our judges are in jail and the police are being used to rig this election? This is turning more and more people against the United States.” This sentiment was echoed by secular human rights activists and lawyers during the past week – people fighting for fair elections and human rights thought we were with them now feel like we’re against them. That’s no way to win the allies necessary to squeeze the terror groups.

2. START: Helping people build credible and functioning institutions that make more people secure and prosperous. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the main point here is that holding elections is not nearly enough. Elections are just a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. To defend against the threats posed by non-state terror groups, states needs to have the resources and capacity to get the job done. In addition to holding elections and having a strong army, other ingredients are necessary – like effective police and intelligence agencies, as well as competent and clean judges and civil servants. All of these elements require sufficient public funding and resources to attract the skilled personnel to serve the public.

In thinking about the threats posed by terrorist groups in this crowded city of 18 million people, I’m reminded of a trip I took to the Middle East as part of a delegation to meet with counterterrorist officials in that part of the world. Part of the delegation included New Jersey state police officers. The police officers offered stories of how they graduated from dealing with gang warfare and organized crime earlier in their careers to defending against terrorist attacks – and how their previous experiences fighting gangs and organized crime were very much relevant in taking down terrorist cells and preventing attacks in their states. We need to have a full range of powers at our disposal – not just the military.

Yet much of the conservative narrative on terrorism is narrowly centered on conventional military action – perhaps typified by former Bush advisor Karl Rove’s statement that “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” and conservatives prepared for war. This bluster from Rove shows the emptiness of a conservative movement that has its head stuck up its empty talking points when it comes to terrorism.

The conservative line of argument that centers on conventional military action ignores two key fundamentals – first, non-state terror groups use asymmetrical warfare and media campaigns as a primary means to advance their agendas. The notion that the United States might launch conventional military strikes in this crowded city of 18 million to ferret out small groups of terrorist cells that operate here is preposterous. Yet, that’s what mainstream conservative rhetoric would have you believe is the most effective route. Second, some of the most important assets in the struggle against terrorist organizations are the intelligence operatives, police officers, judges and lawyers that help build a strong fabric to defend against terror groups. The latter two groups – judges and lawyers – are under siege from the Pakistani president, yet the U.S. president says little more than empty words about his counterpart being committed to democracy.

3. STOP: Ignoring the interests other countries have at stake and the leverage they can bring to bear. All too often, the debate in the United States focuses on our own actions and what assets the United States can bring to bear in meeting what is essentially a common global threat. In Pakistan, numerous other countries are playing a role in shaping internal dynamics here, particularly countries in the Middle East. As I argued in a piece for the Middle East Bulletin, several Middle East countries are working to assert their interests here in Pakistan, and this naturally has an impact on whether the environment is favorable or unfavorable to terrorist groups. To craft the most effective strategies for places like Pakistan experiencing internal turmoil and threats from terrorist groups, the United States needs to take stock of the actions other countries are undertaking to assert their interests. In other words, the U.S. debate over next steps in Pakistan and how it impacts efforts to address terrorism should not look at the situation in a vacuum or in isolation of what others are doing.

4. START: Investing resources to ensure that the United States has the capacity to implement a comprehensive and integrated counterterrorism strategy. Although the United States has done a better job at attracting the talent necessary to implement a robust strategy of engagement to meet the threat posed by terrorism, it has much work to do to rebalance resources and get qualified personnel in key positions – particularly intelligence agents, law enforcement personnel, economic development specialists, and diplomats who can speak foreign languages.

The United States must begin dedicating more resources to revive civilian agencies that can work with governments of other countries around the world to turn lawless zones of conflict into areas of stability and prosperity. This means a complete overhaul of agencies like the State Department to attract and retain the talent necessary to help other countries advance their self-interest in addressing the common threats posed by terror groups. It also means moving beyond personal relationships and building cooperative relationships between our government’s institutions and the institutions of other governments. Remaining locked in a short-term strategy of supporting individual leaders at the expense of strengthening institutions such as an independent judiciary will only come back to haunt us in places like Pakistan.