From the advantage of Hindsight it is always easier to criticize what happened earlier. Afghan-USSR war, well the people who fought on ground and faced the wrath of Russian gunships in Afghan gorges tell a v different tale which vindicate American's stance about Stingers turning the tide of the war. Till 1984, progress against Soviets were v slow and Spitnez along with gunships were hunting "Mujahideen" (actually the foot soldiers of CIA's Op Cyclone) ... Had Zia that wise and strategic, he should have flown to Moscow somewhere between 85 and 88 to bargain with Russians about Indians over Kashmir (or at least in Siachen). What Soviets were about to lose at that time (which was evident to many in Moscow) they would have listened to Zia and on the otherhand, Washington had to offer Pakistan something more than F-16s to woo Pakistan in their camp (May be local production on license which would put PAC on a whole different level). But what happened, India took Zia's advantage and captured/snatched Siachen in 84 and he remained very comfortable with it. Zia failed in upping the ante at right time. We lost control over Nibra velley and Shyok river (a major tributary to Indus) along with 1000 SQ KM of land. What Zia did, removed the balance of power from the world and rest is history. Till Soviet empire was there, US remained hesitant to intervene.