The same could be said for Russian policies regarding India. Allies look at their advantages, and Pakistan has always managed before Chinese help and with Chinese help.
You are quite conveniently forgetting the ceato sento and what not you signed to get f86 sabres, t37 tweets etc, when India was still buying it's hardware primarily from britain and france. Untill Indo-Chinese war, I don't think you had a single bullet coming from them. but then enemy of an enemy formula was used by both you remarkably well.
Oh your theory is interesting but then again Afghans are tribal people and read any anaylsiss on the country and you will see that is true. There are many tribes which will never desert Pakistan and that is where your analysis falters you expect the government of Afghanistan to be stable and representative of the wishes of the people.
But then again India's primary focus would be developing a limited industrial base in Afghanistan catering to the limited mass. The tribes allying with pakistan is not based on political ideology but in kinship which is mostly pashtun demographic, last time Pakistan pushed this advantage and propped up one of the most heinous and draconian regime in the history of mankind, so a repeat of the same would barely yield different results. Tribal outlook hasn't counted for national policies of afghanistan , look into Saur revolution.
America already accepts the role of the Taliban and the role of Pakistan, and though parts of Afghanistan will develop but in that department you will have to compete again with Chinese and Pakistanis combined which will be very difficult. You view asymmetric war fare as one sided but the fact that the number of attacks has decreased and a major clean up has started is all thanks to India, whose policies have helped us take steps which we have been reluctant to before. And with American think tanks acknowledging Indian involvement in asymmetric warfare, India will not be able to cry wolf when it returns to bite it.
America accepts role of Taliban after bombing Taliban out of kingdom kom, pursuing them in pakistan and going to extent of violating it's allies sovereignty to bomb them, it's called diplomacy... If mullah Omar props his head out of his tent tonight, there will be a hell-fire with his name on it, rest assured. That's what american policy is. when you are so attentive to american think tanks on India, then why the selective reading, please pay attention to state dept, US generals and ISAF generals on Pakistan's role too, why ignore that part of it?
I hope my answers to ur earlier questions were sufficient. Now for current:
1. Stability in Af-Pak region is mostly the security at western border, peace inside Pakistan, reduction of drugs flow, healthy and free trade between all neighbours
2. Pakistan was made on its own ideology and we will follow it. We don't need any taliban or US or anyone else to define our policies or rule of law.
3. I told u earlier, we do not care whoever comes into power in Afghanistan. All we "prefer" is politically stable rule in Afghanistan which should be safe for whole region. Even China, Russia and Iran want same from Afghans.
dear sir, the ones before weren't answers and neither are these.
1. Stability in you definition which brought peace inside pakistan came at cost of hazara and tajik genocide. It came at the cost of one of the worst draconian rules that the modern world has witnessed. - all this came with pakistani collusion. To me that is not stability. I won't wish such stability even upon my worst enemy.
2. That is great answer. Then please explain why would you unleash hordes of talib-e-ilm cannon fodder from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islami from Darul Uloom Haqqania on the afghans, I doubt they did anything to you to deserve that?
3. That is quite contrary to what your government and most prominent members here says.... they want a Pro- pakistan government, not a stable one, which even in the past by your own definition of stability meant a monstrous regime like that of taliban.
So to sum up, you say you want a stable afghanistan.... taliban according to you brought stability... you wish such stability onto afghans but god forbid not your own country... looks like stability for afghans and pakistan have distinctively different meaning and definitely different delivery modes.
I would also repeat my previous question again as I am a novice on the topic.
"Between the choices PDPA Parcham led by Burhanuddin Rabbani /Dr Najibullah's government and the Mullah omar's taliban, on what merit did pakistan make it's choice.?"
