I understand what you mean but I am sticking to my position that the US intervention in Vietnam actually sped up the Sino-Soviet split and detente (this is not to say that this was the direct result of American policy but rather a right place at the right time situation- the Vietnam war was a horrible act of policy). While the animus between the PRC and the USSR did exist it did not reach a substantial policy level until after the Gulf of Tonkin event after which Khrushchev began to push the for a regional de-escalation which in turn led the Chinese to begin intervening in Warsaw Pact affairs (see Ilya Gaiduk's Confronting Vietnam book I believe). This intensified in the post-Pleiku period with China being driven out contact with other Warsaw Pact states due to splits over ties between arms control negotiations and Vietnam, the role of the NLF ext. If you read the biographies of Soviet diplomats it was actually Soviet attempts to improve relations with China in the early period of the Vietnam war that increased the split. While I will concede that the USSR did attempt to lessen the split, the result was actually the opposite. If you can read Russian there is a great account of this in Bovin and Kaptisa's memoirs, specifically on the rebuffing of Kosygin's outreach efforts. Luthi actually found evidence that the USSR and China almost broke of diplomatic relations in late 1965 (or 1966 I don’t remember the exact date) over accusations that China was stealing Soviet supplies bound for Vietnam.

One point I should make is that I think the American narrative of the China, USSR, Vietnam triangle in the creation of detente is remarkably flawed and informed by a mythology generated by Nixon administration PR campaigns. I believe linkage politics with the USSR over arms control and Vietnam begin with the resolution of articles one and two of the NPT, in fall of 1966. In my opinion this marks the United States’ concession on arms control in exchange for Soviet attempts to mediate an end to the Vietnam conflict. What the United States explicitly banked on was the Soviet Union would have incentive to do this in order to weaken the Chinese position on emerging national liberation movement.
What I have seen in Russian archives actually confirms that by the Americans were right. By 1966, disagreements with China over the Vietnam War may have actually strengthened pro-détente, anti-China forces in the politburo by making abstract disagreements over ideology into concrete problems.

While China and the USSR did both assist the North Vietnamese that does not mean there was any coordination in the effort. Rather they were acting as competing sponsors which in turn accelerated the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations. My basic point is just because someone is trying to do the same thing, it does not mean that they are actually cooperating or that this leads to an alliance of some sort, it actually means the opposite. Divisions did not re-emerge as the US withdrew rather they were in part created by the American presence.

I think there is a point where too small a force is like underpaying a debt, the obligations increase. So, if we were to be engaged there at all, that should come with a minimal commitment--that Bush wasn't meeting. I would argue that that should mean we should withdraw, as we still haven't committed the forces necessary to create stability. Of course, our support of Karsai is troubled as well.

I think your argument is a bit petty, as we are offered not the best of all possible positions only the example Bush had provided and what Kerry was claiming. Along those lines, many thought they were getting some reduction in the military from Obama but that was truly wishful thinking and hearing what one wanted to hear.

What makes you think the US is being duped? The US picked up Britain's meddling hand in Indo/Pak and across the globe through WW2 and more decidedly after the 50's. Pakistan is a client state of the US. Pakistan has been prevented from uniting with Afghanistan for years. (this prevents the Pashtun people from being politically represented, much more on this in another comment to follow) This keeps us involved in the political machinations.

Every war is a choice, especially those abroad. We are in Afghanistan because we want to be. We have global commands as a chosen policy. You can't dismiss the possibility that we, or some small faction had a hand in 9/11. But, what terrorism incontrovertibly is, is a kind of radical democratization of militancy. There is nothing unique about Pakistan and terrorism. We should always keep in mind the great thesis of the Declaration of Independence. Namely, that governments owe their allegiance to the people. When we effect the decisions of foreign governments we are asking them to commit treason against their own people. When we demand treason it is the right and duty of their subjects to alter or abolish their reign. When these countries either don't have democracies, or their democracies are rigged, their response will likely be branded terrorism. Goodness, even Julian Assange is a terrorist and hasn't hurt a fly.

Pakistan does our bidding. It also will run other policies that are generally popular among it's constituents. However, a substantial population of Pakistan (the Pashtun) is at once marginalized and exploited. They are used to execute Paki policy in Kashmir and Afghanistan and India with some deniability. But, all these sorts of semi-autonomous tools work both ways. They've done our bidding as well, not only in Pakistan. Another terrorist group who Turkey watches closely, the MEK is doing our bidding in Iran. I don't know if they have any operational interaction with the Taliban--but if they do I bet the CIA had a hand in establishing that connection. Remember, Hamas was, if not created by the Mossad, it was the midwife.

Pakistan isn't to blame, it's just under American influence, and American interests aren't too well aligned with Pakistan's. Look at Egypt which is another country that has democratic yearnings that we fear, hence, we help Egypt remain undemocratic. Iran suffers the same conflict and whatever you think of Ahmedenijhad, he isn't any less popular among Iranians than most American politicians are here. Their nuclear program is supported by the people. Their people don't like our foreign policy, but they would like to trade with us, just as their gov't wishes. They are likely the most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East. Only Lebanon and ignorance of some of the smaller lower profile countries keeps me from calling them the most democratic. Israel is just as democratic as the American South was in the 1930's, if not worse, maybe 1930's OK if the Indians still had no vote while most Blacks and better integrated Indians faced Jim Crow style disenfranchisement.

So, we see terrorism in Pakistan because we've used the dangerous method of developing terror cells to fight the Soviet friendly regime in Afghanistan. These very cells have persisted and metastasized. Further, we never cut them out/off, as the ISI used them to create problems in Kashmir, and in operations more directly against India. The cells glorify folklore from their past, much as our "patriot movement" and "minuteman militias" do today. The Tea Party flys our own "Don't Tread on Me" flag. I imagine these stories are nearly ubiquitous across country and culture; and a natural symbol to glom to.

No one's duped, it just that this isn't the story we tell in high school or college. I doubt many history professors would dare broach these nasty truths in any forceful way in the basic history courses that essentially every student must take. They may include some mention, but I bet few would teach post Civil War American History by requiring Smedley Butler's, "War Is A Racket" and then hammering home those same nasty anecdotes through out. You sure couldn't do it at a state school or a conservative private school.