NEW YORK - Pakistans political and military circles dont agree with the United States that the threat from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is a dire one as they view India as the enemy, The New York Times said Monday, while citing analysts. President (Barack) Obamas strategy of offering Pakistan a partnership to defeat the insurgency here calls for a virtual remaking of this nations institutions and even of the national psyche, an ambitious agenda that Pakistans politicians and people appear unprepared to take up, the newspaper said in a news analysis of the reaction and developments in Pakistan following the announcement of the new Afghan plan. Officially, the dispatch said, Pakistani government welcomed Obamas strategy, with its hefty infusions of American money, hailing it as a positive change. But as the Obama administration tries to bring Pakistanis to its side, large parts of the public, the political class and the military have brushed off the plan, rebuffing the idea that the threat from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which Washington calls a common enemy, is so urgent. Some, including the army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and President Asif Ali Zardari, may be coming around. But for the military, at least, India remains priority No 1, as it has for the 61 years of Pakistans existence it added. How to shift that focus in time for Pakistan to defeat a fast-expanding Islamic insurgency that threatens to devour the country is the challenge facing Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to the region, as they arrive in Pakistan for talks, the NYT emphasised. Strengthening Pakistans weak civilian institutions, updating political parties rooted in feudal loyalties and recasting a military fixated on yesterdays enemy and stuck in the traditions of conventional warfare are generational challenges, the paper said, warning that Pakistan might not have the luxury of the long term to meet them. Even before the insurgency has been fully engaged, however, many Pakistanis have concluded that reaching an accommodation with the militants is preferable to fighting them. Some, including mid-ranking soldiers, choose to see the militants not as the enemy, but as fellow Muslims deserving greater sympathy than are the American aims, the paper added. It is problematic whether the backing of Zardari, and the Obama administrations promise of US $1.5 billion in aid for each of the next five years, can change the mood in the country, former interior minister Aftab Ahmad Sherpao, who visited Washington last fall to meet some of the people who are now officials in the new administration, was cited as saying. He said fighting the insurgency is commonly seen in Pakistan as an American cause, not a Pakistani one. There are questions, too, of whether the Obamas offer of nearly US $3 billion in counterinsurgency aid can quickly convert the Pakistani military from a force trained to fight India on the plains of Punjab into an outfit that can conquer the mountains of the tribal areas, where the militants operate, the newspaper added. After such a long time of being with the Americans, the country has been through such stress and strain and nothing good has come of it, Sherpao told the paper. A cross-section of people is dead set against the Americans. Another section is not happy but not vocal. About 1 to 2 per cent would say this policy of America should continue. The distrust, the NYT points out, has been heightened by the charges from American officials, including General Petraeus and Holbrooke, that Pakistans spy agency ISI is still supporting the Islamic militants who pour over the border to fight US troops in Afghanistan. A former director general of Inter Services Intelligence, Lt Gen Javed Ashraf said the American opinions - long held but now publicly stated - did not augur well. And a spokesman for the Pakistani military called them baseless and part of a malicious campaign. You cant start a successful operation with a trust deficit, Gen Ashraf said. Pakistan is an ally. But then you say we are linked with the Taliban, the serving army people will say, To hell with them if this is what we are going to get after laying down more than 1,500 lives. That is the number of soldiers the Pakistani Army says have been killed fighting the militants in the tribal areas. The lack of trust was evident, military analysts said, in the American refusal to consider a request from the Pakistani military about the remotely piloted aircrafts the CIA has been using to hit the militants in the tribal areas. According to the dispatch, although those predator drones have been successful in killing top Qaeda operatives, a factor acknowledged privately by Pakistani officials, the attacks continued to be criticised even as the new Pakistani-American partnership was supposed to be taking root. Predator strikes are not a strategy - not even part of a strategy, correspondent Perlez quoted the words of a former army chief of staff and ambassador to Washington Gen Jehangir Karamat, from a front-page article in TheNation. They are tactical actions to ratchet up body counts. The Americans have been stingy on even the more basic tools for guerrilla warfare, like helicopter gunships and night-vision goggles, which Pakistan has requested for the past three years, the dispatch cited Pakistani military officials as saying. There are still doubts that Washington will deliver such equipment speedily, they say. Then there is India. Its growing presence in Afghanistan - the building of roads; the opening since 2001 of two consulates in two cities close to Pakistan - makes Pakistan believe it is being encircled, said Ishaq Khan Khakwani, a former senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Q. Pakistanis complain that even though Obama, during his European trip, called for dialogue between India and Pakistan, his plans failed to address the major strategic concern. The United States has to get India to back off in Afghanistan, said Khakwani, who is sympathetic to the American position, according to the dispatch. Then Pakistan will see Indian interference is diminished and that will give confidence to Pakistan. Correspondent Perlez wrote, The deep questioning about why the Pakistani Army should fight the Taliban reaches well down into the ranks of the soldiers and their families. Dissent on that goal has become increasingly prevalent among rank and file soldiers, and even in the officer corps, said Riffat Hussain, a professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad who also lectures to soldiers at the National Defence University. There have been at least a half dozen reported court-martials of soldiers who refused to fight, and the real number was probably larger, Prof Hussain said. In Jhelum, a town 100 miles south of Islamabad and a place with a proud military history, one village had shown in the boldest terms the anger about the military fighting Muslims on Pakistani soil, said Enver Baig, a former senator with the Pakistan Peoples Party, who according to the dispatch considers himself a pro-American politician. When the body of a soldier killed in the tribal areas was taken home to his family last year, the father refused to accept his sons coffin, Baig said.