“i don’t agree at all with his views in so many ways....but I do agree with his last paragraph....”
It’s a nice sentiment in the last paragraph. Unfortunately, Pakistan stepping up and becoming a responsible state is even less likely, imo, than Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama becoming pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservatives. There are far too many terrorists and terrorist symps in Pakistan for it to become a stable, non-terrorist state for the forseeable future. The non-terrorists (such as they are) have been hanging onto power by their fingernails for the last 20 years. In that situation, they are no more able to act responsibly in the tribal regions than am I, even assuming they wanted to.
The only stable government Pakistan could reasonably expect to acquire is something like Iran’s. Terrorists could rule Pakistan stably for many years.
Some intellectuals think totalitarianism is humanity's stable state, and that the long-running Jeffersonian counterscript is winding down to a resolution in favor of the former. Of course, these intellectuals expect to live well in Orwell's Oceania. Relatively speaking, of course.
Even under the Bactrian Greek kings, Pakistan and Afghanistan have always lived under authoritarian governments or local khanates. They are aware of, but not about to replicate, parliamentary liberal (classical liberal) government and an open society.
I think the writer is trying to warn opinion leadership that if Pakistan doesn't stand up now -- especially after getting a dose of domestic Al-Q'aedism last year, when AQ tried to reach the capital and take down the government -- then America might turn to the Hindu card.