Pete,

You are being unduly harsh on Pakistan:
The country has been jacking us around for 30 or 40 years by saying if we don't support it financially dangerous radicals might take control of the country.
The religious radicals / extremists have been there throughout its short history and only recently have had significant influence, rarely power IMHO. We have debated the radicals empowerment by the state, notably by ISI, the Army and others before.

So what is the 'jacking about' since 1970-1980? When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, leaving in 1988, Pakistan quickly decided on opposition, yes with some US largesse; without Pakistani support the Mujahhedin anti-communist insurgency would have been far harder, if not impossible.

After the USSR exit an active US role in Afghanistan disappeared and shortly afterwards the Taliban era began. Only after 9/11 did the USA return to Afghanistan, when Pakistan's leader made a decision to back the USA and more funding commenced. Again without that support - however convoluted - the USA would then have struggled in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the USA has been "lead by the nose" by the Pakistani state, it is clear to me the US decision-makers were aware what Pakistan was doing, hard choices were made.

Today though I agree referring to a 'radical takeover' is well past it's use by date and in other threads SWC has debated Pakistan's failings.