PaulL should get out more.
'moderate interests' in the middle east and asia? hello?
The West (and Israel) has always hated secular Arab nationalism (with its most dramatic blowback effect in Iran).
For Pakistan as 'failed state', look to the US as major progenitor, in its use of Pakistan as a Cold War satrap against the Soviet Union (vide Tariq Ali's The Clash of Fundamentalisms, ch.16. quote: "This peculiarly non-Punjabi form of religious overkill [fundamentalism] did not arrive in Pakistan from nowhere. It was approved by Washington, funded by Saudi petrodollars and carefully nourished by [US puppet] General Zia.")
The Taliban as an organised force is a creation of the West, acting directly and through Pakistan.
In general, one could consider Mark Curtis' 2010 book, Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam.
Saudi Arabia is a root source of Islamic fundamentalism.
And the West is currently palling up with a motley crew including fundamentalists in its attempted dismantling of the secular Libyan regime.

Evan, you seem to be a little confused.

Are you suggesting there are no moderates in the middle east and asia? If so, then surely the only thing to discuss is whose side you’re on? But you’re not really there are you? Not really. To pretend that there are no moderate forces in the Middle East is, of course, breathless hysteria.

Pakistan’s involvement in the Soviet war in Afghanistan was not against it will. AlHaq’s was already islamizing Pakistan before the Soviets invaded and he was a staunch anti communist. He also saw the potential for US aid money for Pakistan and the threat that the Soviets posed to Pakistan, if they were to successfully subjugate Afghanistan. He was open about his determination to oppose the Soviets. The US availed itself of an opportunity to undermine the Russians. AlHaq used the opportunity to strengthen his armed forces for their primary role of confrontation with India.

The Taleban is not a creation of the west. This is a ridiculous claim that is much bandied about and holds no water. The Taleban didn’t even come into existence until the mid 90’s, many years after the war in Afghanistan had ended (and the US had left). The Taleban is partly a creature of Pakistan’s ISI, which supported the group in order to extend its influence in the region, at the expense of the Indians. It is also the bastard child of the Saudis, from whose religious schools the Taliban has come. But to explain Pakistan as a failed state you need look no further than its inability to come to terms with India.

Finally, ‘secular Libyan regime’?? Is that the secular regime that is shelling its own towns and civilians with 122mm grad rockets and claiming its fighting Islamic fundamentalists? Are we talking about the same regime that for much of the last 30 years has been the ‘bank’ for terror organisations across the world? What a joke

There is no sentiment of democracy in the Koran and Hadith, so there is very little chance of any Islam-majority country genuinely becoming one. This does not mean that some, even many, people in Muslim countries, don't want a better life for themselves and their children, and because they see the West as having that better life, want the West's democracy, the vehicle which brings it. But their chances are very slim, because their religion and culture are opposed to it.
Looking at the evidence, it seems that Muslim countries may not be ready for nationhood, let alone democracy. The basic element of Islam is the tribe - Muhammad tried, successfully, to convince the tribes of the Arabian peninsula to join him rather than stay separate. But none of his successors have been able to replicate the job.
Present-day Somalia is the Muslim norm - all the others are now heading in the same direction.