> On lbo-talk we recently had a discussion (of sorts) of the US invasion
> of Afghanistan, which some see as a good thing (in retrospect). If
> there is any good thing that's come out of the War On Terror (WOT?),
> I'd say that it was instead with respect to Pakistan. In that
> case, it
> wasn't an invasion, a violation of national self-determination, as
> much as a change on the part of the US policy elite.
I am not an expert but I will attempt a partial answer.
> Before 911, the US stood and watched as Pakistan (especially its
> intelligence agency) subsidized jihadists in Afghanistan and
> elsewhere.
Russia, India and Iran were against Taliban regime and were supporting the Northern Alliance before 9/11. US joined this struggle after 9/11. Thus there has been no change in anti Taliban POV of Russia, India and Iran. It's US position that has changed after 9/11.
> It also
> sold nuclear technology to N. Korea, Libya, Iran, and perhaps
> elsewhere.
> These things seem bad for not just the US, but for the
> world. The US intelligence services knew about all this but let it
> happen, for whatever reason. (In many ways, Pakistan's behavior
> was an
> example of "blowback" from the US war against the USSR in
> Afghanistan.)
Yes. That's right.
> After 911, the US elite used carrot and stick (aid and blackmail) to
> push Pakistan away from these policies. P hasn't moved all the way
> (and seems pretty unstable), but it has moved in the right direction.
> I think that some, if not all, of the positive results that people
> point to as arising from the US invasion of Afghanistan arise from the
> US elite's changing strategy vis-a-vis Pakistan.
Yes. That's an important part of the picture.
Ulhas