Because USA pretends to be a messiah of democratic world and it needs valid reasons to wage wars, invade countries and have military presence in purposefully "destablized" regions(funds rouge regims, elements through CIA) to spread its influence on future power centers in Asia, Middle East and every corner of world.
ISI/Pakistan Army is an american/british foreign policy tool to restrain India and destabilize the region.
I'm not sure whether I agree or not with this.
Do you think India mattered to US / UK that much, say, 20, 30, 60 years back? It means that, US/UK envisioned India's success/"superpower status" in 21st century long time back, and hence created ISI monster against India.
Are we not (wrongly) assuming then that India is centre of the world, and all superpowers are conspiring against us so as to "check" our growth. I do not have slightest doubt in my mind about India's position in world until 18th century (since dating back 3000 years), but do we have to assume that we are still at same position even now ?
Why would US create ISI monster (1) to check India - a poor country during 1950, a peaceful country with no ambition of conquering other nations or establishing supremacy, (2) to help China - which is now considered indirect threat to US supremacy. So at one time we are assuming that US/UK strategist are very very cleaver who envisioned India's growth and power way back in 1950s/1960s and hence created ISI to restrain it, and at same time they are so stupid to allow this ISI / PA being greatest ally of China, which is now greatest threat to US.
And even if this is indeed the case, then why are we spending so much of our energy on pakis, if real brain behind them is CIA. As Zaid Hamid says - Fitne (?)pe hamla karo, to makkaa apne aap haseeel ho jayegee (paki logic : hit the Israel, and US will come to its knees)
(sorry, couldn’t resist giving his reference). I don’t mean confronting US, but then playing our foreign policy in right way so as to prevent US doing this again and again. Else, even if we manage or remove ISI/PA, still CIA will create another one "to check our growth" - may be in SL, BD, or even in TSP.
Secondly, pakis also consider that US is trying to destabilise their nation. We are thinking that US is aiding pakis to check our growth, then why not mend our ways ourselves. I know paki mentality is very difficult (or impossible?) to change, but from long term strategy, won't it be better to take pakis into confidence, and explain to them living in peaceful co-existance is better for both countries. This will be complete 180 degree shift in thinking for pakis, but if above is true then there is no point for us in just competing with PA/ISI in arms race, covert activities as they will always have the backing and funding of CIA. It just doesnt make sense.
However, if we just assume things as they stand - that CIA funded ISI to check Russian presence in Afgan. US didn’t provide support directly to Afgan army becasue it was not full fledged direct war as it is now, rather it was covert, cold war, hence the need of muhahideens - volunteer fighters against "invasion of kufr Russia". ISI used those resources and money against India, and US did not give much attention to it, because (1) it did not bother to them much (2) India was unofficially in Russian camp.
Am I missing anything..?