Thank you, it is sad to think that the Afghan people were willing to put up with the Taliban's tyranny because they brought some semblance of stability after almost half a century of non-stop fighting, but now fighting has come to their doorstep yet again.
Pakistan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
While there is a huge cost involved in occupation, I think Pakistan cannot solve the Afghan problem without a definitive action that will firmly put Afghanistan as a Pakistan vassal. An independent Afghanistan dominated by Pashtuns will always be hostile to Pakistan and reject the Durand line and keep trying to ally with India to attack Pakistan.
They really tried to solve the Afghan problem by propping up the Taliban, and thought religious conservative Taliban will not ally with India. But ultimately they were very wrong and even the most firmly islamist Taliban has allied with India.
They have chosen Pashtun nationalism over Islamic brotherhood with Pakistan.
The only permanent solution to the terrorism problem in Pakistan is to firmly take control of Afghanistan through a very strong pro-pakistan proxy. Kinda like Pakistan's own version of Ramzan Kadyrov. Someone who will rule Afghanistan with an iron fist, destroy all Terrorist hideouts and perform a deep re-education of the population.
First, the idea that a Pashtun-dominated Afghanistan will always be hostile to Pakistan doesn't really hold up historically. Afghanistan's politics have never been that simple—it's a multi-ethnic country, and relations with Pakistan have gone through plenty of ups and downs. Some Afghan governments were cool with Pakistan, others weren't. It's never been this permanent state of war.
Also, framing this as "Pakistan's Afghan problem" kinda assumes Afghanistan exists to be solved by Pakistan. Afghans themselves might have something to say about that.
On the Taliban—yeah, Pakistan backed them, but saying they "chose Pashtun nationalism over Islamic brotherhood" feels too neat. The Taliban make decisions based on survival, power, and local pressures. They're not sitting around picking ideologies from a menu. They'll work with whoever benefits them at the moment.
But the part about installing a Kadyrov-style strongman in Afghanistan? That's where I really can't agree. Even if that were possible (huge if), it would mean:
- Forcing Afghans to accept a puppet ruler (historically never ends well)
- Massive resistance and likely civil war
- Some really dark stuff like "re-education" campaigns
- Pretty clear violation of international law
At the end of the day, working with Afghan sovereignty (messy as it is) and addressing root causes on both sides seems more realistic than trying to control a neighbor that's never been controllable.
20 years of NATO bombing couldn't settle Taliban. There is no military solution to this.
A key event missed by most is that while Taliban during the war negotiated with US through Pakistan, in the last meetings involving the final peace treaty, Pakistan was sidelined by both US and Taliban. The meetings were secret and nobody really knows what the US and Taliban agreed on. For all we know, US may have left their equipment there on purpose and promised support for destabilizing Pakistan.
Pashtun is not a problem. There are twice as many Pashtun living in Pakistan, deeply integrated into society and institutions, and living all over the country.
This just a very restive country who've been fighting neighbors for over a hundred years. Pakistan was not wrong in supporting Taliban. A US-occupied Afghanistan is far more dangerous.
Pakistani nukes have been in US crosshairs for a long time, and more interestingly, in Israeli crosshairs. In 2011, US tried very hard with the "terrorists might get hands on nukes" propaganda but it failed. Israel also tried to bomb Pakistani reactors in the 80's but that plan was foiled quickly.
There is evidence of Afghan-Israeli cooperation from the previous skirmish with Iran (Afghan refugees in Iran providing HUMINT), and then there is this,
Occupation is impossible but maybe they can take Wakhan corridor/route to tajikistan-central asia.
It's how Pakistan came to Taliban in the first place. There are 3 main groups in Afghanistan which you may support.
But all of them equally don't recognise Durand line, nor does general national sentiment. I.e. the moment any of them will get succesful, it's repeat again.
Take region with average elevation of >4km?
I mean thats not as high as Siachin glacier which is 5,400 to 6,300 meters and is just about as much as the Karakoram Highway route to china which about 4000 meters.
Built a land route to central asia, get a gas-oil pipeline etc., not like taliban are gonna do anything with it.
Also also taliban isnt 1 mono faction, there are mutiple sub-factions in taliban, the current ones Kabul arent the same faction that fought the soviets etc.
Existence of higher places doesn't add much point to Wakhan - it's useless for anything other than small scale arms smuggling from China. It's mountainous terrain, which you won't have more than a nominal control with.
Cutting China away from Afghanistan is certainly a useful goal, but Beijing will be surprised at such a display of iron brotherhood.
Highway is possible indeed when it comes to China, which is rich and can afford projects for better connections. Pakistan on its own - can't.
Mountain regions of nothing are certainly some of the easiest regions to control. Pakistan can't really control its existing border with Afghanistan, why add an even harder point to that. Wakhan corridor was born out of need to keep South Asia away from Russian influence, and it also is the link for China to the region. It's better for everyone, and especially Pakistan, for it to remain this way.
No I mean they have the experience n capability in operating in high attitude areas so they could?
And I know Pakistan is poor and all but you should like see documentary on youtube on how they initially built karakoram highway (from both sides) even back then with not much machinery, Right now they can build a highway and required infrastructure for a landroute
They built Pakistan's side of infrastructure of it too,
One thing they are good at is building roads n bridges etc, esp the current admin.
Exactly cutting off afghanistan with China or more correctly with Xinjiang would be good too.
Well if not pakistan than maybe tajiks can do a lil takeover from the other side, China will still have access to that region either way,
High altitude areas are different in their topography. Wakhan corridor is mostly inaccessible, i.e. worthless and very difficult to control. But as a symbolic measure it will be rather damaging...and of all things, small insurgencies can operate in high mountains well enough.
Karakorum highway is highway connecting China(world's 1st manufacturer and 2nd largest USD economy) with Pakistan itself, you pay for it even if you need to sell your underwear.
States of central Asia aren't that valuable.
I'd expect China to treat such idea as hostile.
It's same - Afghanistan is more or less direct access, with relatively limited risks. I am not anti-Pakistani here, replacement of side doesn't change the nature.