But, as it is often with realpolitik, the unethical but pragamatic decision for today will turn the unethical and unpragmatic decision for tomorrow. (Chirac-led France also made that experience, repeatedly, in the last five years in Côte d'Ivoire - recognising Gbago's victory in Gueï's sham elections was the long forgotten first bad decision.)

any alternative would be worse, better a dictator than the islmaic fundamentalists,

I think Western support for Musharraf only strenghtens this worse alternative, and makes its eventual takeover more likely. (As happened in - well - Iran.)

their bombs are balanced out by India's

Or, enhanced by India's, should new insane Pakistani leaders start a nuclear war. (BTW, India has its mad nationalists too, so the situation is instable on the other side, too.)

and they have an incentive to maintain some stability there.

I don't understand this part. (Especially in light of the Khan network.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}