There were both good and bad Afghans fighting the Soviets. At the time, the Soviets needed to be defeated. We provided the necessary means. Probably we should also have been more helpful to the good Afghans after the Russkies were pushed out.
The defeat of the Russians left a power vacuum in Afghanistan that the Taliban filled. Bin Laden got his start and his credentials as a mujahadeen. What happened was due to the law of unintended consequences. By uncritically aiding the mujahadeen, "good" and "bad", we set up the dominoes that ended in the 9/11 attacks.
Now, you are proposing the same uncritical strategy for Nepal, as long as the Chicoms are the enemy. Even if the result is a well armed, well trained absolute dictatorship supported by radicals.
Why would the result be an "absolute dictatorship"?
Why would it be "supported by radicals"?
Are there Muslim extremists in Nepal?
I think the communists would be more likely to ally with Muslim extremists than a traditional Buddhist monarchy would. I am proposing that we help the monarchy fight the communists.
Yes, Afghanistan should have been done better, and if there are elements on the side of the Nepalese government who might side with Muslim radicals, please let me know.
Until you can do that, your post is unpersuasive at best
and presents no parallel whatsoever between the Afghan situation and the Nepalese situation.