Med, pretty good analysis bro, but a few comments:
- Instead of "using" a group to rule Afghanistan, why can't we try to go for broad based support from the population? India, like it or not has made infrastructural investments in Afghanistan, while the Paks. have (arguably) been a more crucial conduit to the survival of the state yet we gone unrecognized.
Pakhtun uprising: I hope you realize that there are Pakhtuns in Pakistan than Afghanistan and if there was an uprising, the Pakistani would not be able to contain, I assure you. I think even the pro-Pakistan Pakhtun will agree that the links with Afghanistan should stregenthened (ideally through coordinated trade and development).
- that being said, I do believe that the Taliban in Afghanistan did swept up in the anti-American furor and their weakest link to 9-11. If they had given up Osama, they probbly would still be in power. Talibs were quite successful in consolidating over a fracturous country like Afghanistan and there is no doubt that the government was comparatively less corrupt than the presently American sponsored regime.
We do need a friendly Afghanistan. Instead of seeking a client state, we should be working with them as our junior partners. It's topo bad that successiv Pakistani governments have been all talk and little action when it comes a long term Afghanistan policy.
Broad base in Afghaniastan is all but non existant. The Afghans are infamous in their lack of unity. The best time in their hsitory seems to be when they were ruled by a single power holder or group. I mean compare Afghanistan under Zahir Shah to the one after Zahir Shah.
The Soviet Occupation was an attempt to change the a status quo and create a more egaliterian society, but look where that got them.
Unless Afghans mature on their own, and come together to rule their country peacefully, nothing will come of it. And Pakistan will have to bear the brunt of Afghanistans problems. So, if I have to choose, I choose PAKISTAN at the expense of Afghanistan. If they cant fix their problems, then we shouldnt bear the cost.
Yes, I dont doubt the loyalty of the Pashtuns, barring the few ultra nationalists among them. But Pak meddling in Afghan affairs had more complex reason behind it.
Besides the Afghans instigating insurgents within Pakistan, we also had to contend with the Afghans facilitating Indians in the region. India has always been a genuine security threat to the state of Paksitan. A hostile Afghanistan meant that India would surround Pak on both sides.
And no doubt, that is why India is so intrested in helping the Afghans today. It has nothing to do with some benign Indian love for Afghan people, and everything to do with Indians trying to gain strategic depth at the expense of Pakistan.
Also, the fallout of the Soviet invasion, and the subsequent civil war and unrest, meant that Pakistan had to take in millions of Afghan refugees... Not an easy task for country struggling on its own.
So thus another reason for wanting to impose a stable regime in Afghanistan.
Links with Afghanistan should be strengthened, but Pak must be careful not to allow Indians to much influence over them. How that can be done is a moot point.
But all things asside, I seriously doubt the Afghans are going to get the stable deomcracy everyone is craving. They simply arent ready, and in the process of getting ready, Pakistan will have to bear the brunt of it. The sad irony is that while Indians get the credit and and the profit out of Afghanistan, Pakistan is the one that gets spat on simply due to our geographical location.
We can work with a stable govt, not the mess that it is today.
The govt is filled with former warlords who have a lot of hate for Paksitan. On top of that, you have the Taliban, which now hate both them and us.
The Taliban arent going to allow the Afghan democracy to grow. The Amricans are floundering.
Its a complete mess and it seems PAKISTAN IS DAMNED EITHER WAY.
Our best intrest at this point is for the Afghan govt and the Taliban to come to some agreement.