But I can only counter your central proposition, which is that the suffering of females in those regions (which would include "tribal" Pakistan) is so great that the use of force is justified, by saying that I don't believe it will work. Change has to come from within.
I was obliquely pointing out that there was in fact a constituency for positive change a long time ago. Not sure of the potential now, because most of the reformers and supporters of modernization have been killed off, but thirty years ago this wasn't the case.
If you picture the way Nepal looked until not too long ago, Western tourists of an alternative type, locals vey tolerant of those...shall we say...alternative tourists traipsing around smoking alternative forms of cigarettes...a doddering, not particularly engaged in affairs of governance king...that's what Afghanistan was in the '60's and early '70's. It wasn't an Islamic fundamentalist koran thumping paradise fit for misogynists, though of course the "old ways" weren't unimportant for a large segment of the country. It's just that this large old-fashined segment was a mite bit more tolerant than it is now.
Then there was not one, but three coups from the 1970's, ending with Najibullah. These coups were not reactions to progress, but catalysts for it, including the first one which was pretty much a palace coup, with one of the kings relatives explicitly taking over and turning the country into a republic, and he was not unpopular in the country by any means. As elsewhere in this part of the world (including Iran) there was also a strong and vibrant communist party, which of course the Americans didn't like...
The orientation of Afghanistan towards the Soviet Union began well before the coup which brought the Communists to power in Afghanistan. Before the communists took over, you can think of Afghanistan's relationship with the SU as something like that of India's - arms length, but definitely very friendly. Washington saw Afghanistan as in their informal orbit then before the communist coup much the same way they saw india.
Keep in mind in all this two things - US ally in the region Pakistan surrounded by at best aggresively neutral nations on all sides save a small border over the silk route to the PRC, and what's more, a large portion of historical Afghanistan (the one the Brits actually held on to in the "great game" you describe, eg the NWFP) under nominal (and in the case of the tribals, very nominal) Islamabad control.
The dynamic here is very simalar in my view to the dynamic happening at the same time in enighboring Iran s well described by Tariq Ali in his book Clash of the Fundamentalism, which the exception that unlike Iran, Afghanistan at the time didn't have a pro-Washington tyrant in place.
Long and short? Without Saudi and US, with decisiven support from PK, propping up an Islamist "resistance" to the Soviet "occupation" (and I do mean those quotation marks sarcastically) I'm relatively confident that today, we would in fact be seeing the positive effects of modernization in Afghanistan. It wouldn't be perfect, perhaps far from it, but I would note that the status of women in neighboring Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tadjistan and Kirgizstan is quite different than in Afghanistan. To name but one measure of progress.
It's far too late for that now. The Americans, Pakistanis and Saudis succeeded. And today, only the Americans are having any second thoughts, and those only partially thought through...
Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
