Would not want to play poker against or argue with you Authur Kent .

It's a fine balancing act in the region. Pakistan playing both ends against the middle to keep Afghanistan unstable and thus an exterior target for Taliban and Al Qaeda incursions, helps to keep the current regime in Pakistan in power and US money flowing in. Iran is learning how to play the game by moderating its' public pronouncements in hopes of securing foreign cash while encouraging further instability in the region as well.

Rahmani is correct in saying that Pakistan and Iran must be dragged to the table and encouraged to negotiate. They need incentives.

Part of the problem is that these regions were never countries to begin with until they were artificially imposed by western powers during their empire building years in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were tribal societies with little concept of, or use for, borders and nationhood. This is still new to them and the mindset is slow in shifting, especially in outlying regions. ( I know, the same could be said of North America in the nineteenth century).

Let's start by getting all parties to publicly agree that peace would be a good thing, even if only on their own terms. Then find some commonality among those terms and work from there. Somehow it has to be demonstrated that peace is more profitable than war and that maintaining power is easier if you don't have to watch your friends, enemies and your own back 24/7.

Well, hang on to your helmets for tomorrow's story. Five and a half years after the Taliban's expulsion from Kabul, there are still more armed private militiamen under control of shadowy Karzai regime figures than trained soldiers in the Western-backed Afghan National Army. And the private guns don't battle the Taliban and al Qaeda. They do, however, come in handy controlling turf and facilitating "business enterprises."

Amazing peace

John, I really don't know where you got this information from. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is true that it was artificially created as a result of British colonialism and the subsequent partition. But to generalize the whole region or region(s) as tribal societies with little concept of, or use for nationhood, is totally wrong.

Perhaps, you should learn more about the history of that region or regions(s).

And to blame the problem squarely on tribalism is what I have always attributed to racism. It is the old game of othering non-white Third World as "tribal", and thus "backward" and continually at war with one another. At least, amidst all this, you admit one thing, and that is, the impact of Western empire building or years of western colonialism or attempts at colonialism on those regions.

The same is true now when it comes to neo-colonialist attempts at the hands of Western powers in those regions and their military expansion for power.

Peace in Afghanistan on Western countries' terms is as much of a mirage as on Pakistan and Iran's terms and those of their puppets within Afghanistan.

Aziz HEY MAN NICE SHOT
It is a tiresome rant to hear the white man drone about inventing everything. It's so new, yet so old already

Perhaps I should have said 'Eurocentric' instead of white man view, when in fact the Caucasian sphere of race extends far into India, so excuse my ignorance, nevertheless, I was immediately struck by Aziz' sensibility because the comments of tribalism resound of 'put down'. I dialogue about First Nations in Canada a lot, and hear the same weird displacement of nationhood by the ruling class over those who were in Canada first