After the war there were many options .. there was Masood .. Neutral , nationalistic and a balanced personality .. but Pakistan choose or rather created Taliban.. made them strong .. provide them legal accpetence ( Pakistan and Saudi Arabia was the only two countries who accpted and supported Taliban inspite of there medivial policies ..)
just to play its own game .. and now the same mad dogs are biting its old master back ..
Masod was by no means 'neutral' or 'clean' or balanced. His presence in Kabul also coincided with the massacre of Heratis, along with other atrocities later on. He was also distrusted by many of the Pashtun leaders, and by many of the Mujahideen. While he fought the Soviets, he also cut a lot of deals with them when he perceived himself at a disadvantage. Dostum was even worse when it came to his relationship with the Soviets, and his relationship with Masood further compromised him.
I realize that the Indian narrative (and now the West's as well, since he fought against their current enemy, the Taliban) has presented Masood as some sort of 'infallible hero', but he was anything but.
Since Massoud had no support from the powerful Pashtun figures, and the Pashtun were 40 percent of the country, plus the strong ethnic ties with Pakistan (in addition to the distrust over his Soviet 'deals' and connections to Dostum), it was but natural that a Pashtun party would have been pushed forward.
It was unfortunate that religious zeal played a part in which Pashtun party was chosen, but no one could have predicted then what would happen - as I said, the final results were due to a confluence of events, not just Pakistan's decision to support the Taliban's rise, or solely the religiosity of the entities involved.
Pakistan's goal was stability in Afghanistan, the taliban provided that in the majority of the country. Moderating their policies was always something Pakistan had pushed for, and it might have been possible had a decisive victory or compromise (between the NA and taliban) in Afghanistan been possible, and AQ not ingratiated itself with their leadership.
Getting the Taliban to work out an agreement with the NA was something the ISI strongly pushed for (as it did during the Jihad as well, between the Pashtun groups and Massoud), however, the Taliban refused, or put forward conditions that were unacceptable
The ideology of extremism is always path of suicide ..
but may be you have few words to counter them .. after all who will accpet mistake ?
Domestic and regional constraint ... in ability to accpet its mistake and rectify it .. you want mad dog till it barks and bites as per your command ..
but you forget .. mad dog are mad dog ..
inspite of so much mess .. you will still have words for so call rebuttal ..
Perhaps extremism does lead to suicide - but we all tolerate extremism to varying degrees - extremist nationalism for example, displayed by so many here, and used by Indians to justify an immoral and illegal occupation for example.
However, the question then wasn't one of supporting 'extremism that leads to suicide' it was of supporting a party that was highly religious, had shown itself of being able to bring about peace and stability in areas under its control, and had been welcomed by the people in those areas as well as powerful Pashtun Tribal leaders. At the time it was the correct decision to make.
