Pakistan has become the latest microcosm containing all the contradictions bedeviling American policy. Our commitment to democracy and human rights is running afoul of our war against the Islamist terrorists, and not for the first time. Our commitment to stability is going head to head with our commitment to the rule of law. For a nation as powerful — and with as many diverse interests — as America, it would unreasonable to expect a field free of such agonizing dilemmas.

This is a time to keep our heads. We want a democratic Pakistan not only for its own sake but also because it would strengthen the democratic beachhead at a most critical time in the Islamic world But what focuses our mind is the threat that Pakistan will prove ungovernable and that the winner emerging from the resulting chaos will be the radical Islamists.

Radical Islamic sentiments have a long history in Pakistan, fueled by the struggles to rid Kashmir of Indian rule and Afghanistan of Soviet occupation. Pakistan was born as a homeland for south Asian Muslims, although it was not intended by its founders to be a religious state based on religious law. Over time, the army, which sees itself, on the model of Turkey as the guarantor of Pakistan’s existence as a state, has tilted toward Islam because it was a doctrine that could unify an otherwise unruly admixture of regions, tribes, and ethic identities.

Islam filled in the gaps around Pakistani nationalism. It was the Pakistani military intelligence services, ISI, which helped sponsor the Taliban both on Islamic principles and because it is an axiom of Pakistani strategic thinking that Afghanistan needs to have a government inclined toward Islamabad as a bulwark against Indian subvention

In the best of circumstances, then, Islam is a major issue in the life of Pakistan, intertwined with its politics in ways not always apparent to the Western eye. But we are not in the best of circumstances at all, but in dire ones. The Islamists threaten. The army had negotiated an arrangement with the secular political parties through the instrument of the deal between General Pervez Musharraf and a former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. But the deal is now on hold, if not dead and buried.

Mr. Musharraf’s growing chorus of critics in Washington face the problem that the political loosening they demand is not necessarily congruent with the wider war on the terrorists we demand. Chief among them are Rep. Gary Ackerman, a member of the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, who proposes halting delivery of F-16s warplanes to Pakistan and ending all American assistance “until the state of emergency is lifted.” That is also the position of Senator Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee and who wants to wound Mr. Musharraf where it hurts by severely cutting military aid. Senator Kerry is with him. But this is no more than grandstanding, although some might be suspect of pouncing on a new way to attack President Bush or being of service to India. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, told Mr. Musharraf in a telephone conversation on Wednesday that he must restore democracy. But he did not join the call for cutting aid.

I am in the camp of those, including Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte, who told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday that Mr. Musharraf was an “indispensable” ally and that American aid must continue unabated. “I believe that given the longterm nature of our relationship, it is important that our assistance programs continue to help the Pakistani people through this difficult current period and solidify our long-term relationship,” said Mr. Negroponte whose testimony is worth quoting at some length:

“Our challenge is to effectively support the Pakistani people and to help them strengthen the influence of the moderate, democratic center and fight violent extremism. With strong Congressional support of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship since 2001, we are helping the Pakistani people move down a difficult but necessary path of moderation, stability, democracy, and prosperity. We are asking for Congressional support in renewing our commitment to long-term partnership with the Pakistani people. There is not a mission in the world more deserving of our persistence and considered patience.”

My own view — and I have visited Pakistan and been involved in a small way with the Pakistan-American rapprochement — is that Mr. Negroponte’s view is not anti-democratic. It is the only option among a limited choice of options that raises the odds of preventing a catastrophic outcome in which Pakistan will have neither a democratic government nor a pro-American policy.

Mr. Twersky is a contributing editor of the New York Sun.