I didn't mean stabilize the country. I quotation marks around "stabilizing" because it would not be our real purpose to being there. We would be wise to go in, under the guise of attempting to help China and India stabilize the situation, but with the real intent of conducting stepped-up operations against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and supporters in western Pakistan, where we suspect Bin Laden of hiding. Ship a rapid deployment force into Afghanistan, get organized, then move into western Pakistan.
"If India could, they'd take over Pakistani Kashmir as well (again, same reason: elections in 2004) and that would only create an even bigger long-term mess."
In the chaos that ensued, I think that Pakistan would be more worried about survival than stopping India from getting Kashmir. It would, in my opinion, be a fine opportunity for India to move in and settle the dispute once and for all - occupy it by force. That, to me, seems an improvement over the current standoff.
But, to my mind, there is no question that we are better off with Pakistan on the back burner, set on "simmer", rather than find it on the front burner at "full boil".
As long as Azad Kashmir and the Northern Territories are overwhelmingly Muslim, the Indian occupation of those lands will be violent and costly. It would not settle the dispute once and for all.