I've only got a few things to add, mainly because I'm reading more to learn here than I am to opine for sure.

1. Why is it that US reactions to combat that's supported from Pakistan are treated as violations of Pakistan's sovereignty in the narrative, but AQ & the Taliban hiding out there & using sanctuary areas to take over parts of Pakistan, much less as a base for attacks in Afghanistan, is not spoken of in the same terms? What they're doing is clearly a greater violation, yet we don't counter with that truth in the narrative using the same language.

2. In terms of tightening the borders, well some of these mountain passes could rather easily be made impassable if we created some cliffs where they don't exist now. The US has all sorts of expertise in mining & moving huge quantities of rock around, why not use it? The effects won't be permanent, but in order for them to be countered sufficient peace must be present afterwards to bring the resources to bear to undo the engineering. Thus, peace becomes a determinant and provides motivation to achieve the goal of changing the terrain. Also, done right it's cheaper than a hell of a lot of the other alternatives.