You say we have facilitated instability in Pakistan. The Pak Army/ISI are playing a double game by sponsoring and supporting the Afghan Taliban & Co.. From what I read they are pretty careful not to upset the Pak Army/ISI because they could not succeed without that support. They don't make trouble in Pakistan. The Pak Army/ISI supports them to insure "strategic depth" for its own odd purposes. So how does all that translate into our actions facilitating instability in Pakistan?
Also how does something that advantages India, disadvantage us? India has its problems but if you are looking for allies, India is vastly superior; and they don't take our money and kill Americans with it.
And I don't understand how India can "envelop" Pakistan in Afghanistan. They surely aren't going to base an armored corps there to make a "cold start" easier. The use of the word "envelop" in that context is as strange as "strategic depth".
If India did "envelop" Pakistan in Afghanistan, how does that alter the balance of nuclear deterrence? Pakistan's nukes aren't based in Jalalbad. I don't see how it would change a thing.
Last question, aren't the Pak Army/ISI's actions in Afghanistan being taken because it "has determined that it must exercise control over the political out come of Afghanistan to make itself safe"?
Bookmarks