"I don't recall ever reading anything to indicate that the U.S. is helping the government kill these communist vermin.
If not, why the hell not? "
Don't know why the US should really care. Nepal is not important. And supporting either side (communist vermin or a dictatorial monarch) overtly is problematic. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that we're supplying the government with aid, at least.
God, you people are stupid. Communism is always evil and always inimical (look up that word if you have to) to the United States. In one way or another, a communist regime ANYWHERE would be harmful to us. That is part of what commies do. Furthermore, the people of Nepal would suffer.
If we can prevent these outcomes with some military aid, or more military aid, we have an obligation to. I never said we should get into the war ourselves.
In addition, a communist victory in Nepal would encourage the communists elsewhere.
"dictatorial monarch"
I believe he became dictatorial because of the communist insurgency. At times, in the real world, such things do happen.
Dictatorial monarchs are always better than communist dictatorships.
Maybe you should look up the relative meanings of "authoritarian" and "totalitarian." Your ignorance is an embarrassment.
Half of India's water originates in Nepal in the Himilayas. India already has issues with water shortages. China also has water shortages. Very little water flows North into the Tibetan Plateau. I think it would be short sighted not to ensure a prosperous India. India's population, though reported lower for reasons of IMF and World Bank incentives, is roughly equivalent to China's. This could serve as a significant counterbalance to the power structure in that region.
Actually, Nepal might well be important, at least to some degree. It's next door to India, is it not? And India has it's own problems with issues related to the caste system, and Naxalite terrorism. A Maoist victory in Nepal would no doubt destablize India, and by extension South Asia in general.