Bombs Won’t Bring Pakistan Security

-


Peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan requires sacrifices that neither side shows any sign of making.
By Wahab Raofi

The October 11 exchange of airstrikes and border fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces which resulted in the death of at least 12 Afghan people and more than 100 wounded is more than a diplomatic spat; it is a symptom of a fatal flaw in regional strategy.

Pakistan bombs Afghan territory to target the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant Islamist group that seeks to overthrow the Pakistani government and impose strict Sharia law. Afghanistan retaliates against Pakistani posts. This cycle deepens distrust between the two countries, while the threat of militancy festers on both sides. History offers a stark lesson: insurgents find sanctuary across a porous border and cannot be defeated by missiles alone. The futility of force alone was definitively demonstrated in 2017 when the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in its arsenal on a Taliban tunnel complex in Afghanistan. The massive strike killed dozens of fighters but failed to cripple, let alone defeat, the insurgency.

It is a lesson Pakistan should have learned well during the two decades of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, when played a dangerous double game. Officially an ally, it allowed NATO to use its territory for supply lines. Simultaneously, its security establishment, trained, and sheltered the Afghan Taliban, viewing them as a proxy to counter Indian influence and ensure a friendly government in Kabul. The goal was to see the U.S.-backed administration of Ashraf Ghani fall and be replaced by a Taliban regime under Islamabad’s thumb.

As a translator for coalition forces from 2008 to 2020, I witnessed the devastating effectiveness of this strategy firsthand. Insurgents would strike and then vanish into sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan. These safe havens made it impossible for American firepower, although much superior, to secure a victory. The U.S. withdrawal in 2021 was less a decisive military defeat than a recognition of an unwinnable war — enabled by Pakistan’s tolerance for groups that could attack, flee, regroup, and return.

Now Pakistan is reaping what it sowed: The Taliban have outgrown their creator. Since taking power in 2021, they have courted regional rivals like Russia and Iran and even opened ties with Pakistan’s arch-foe, India—effectively sidelining Islamabad. More alarmingly, the Taliban now provide shelter and safe haven to the TTP, a group that routinely launches terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.

This support is not merely strategic; it is deeply rooted in culture and history. The TTP is primarily composed of Pashtuns from the Pakistani side of the Durand Line [DESCRIBE WHAT/WHERE IT IS]—a border Afghanistan has never recognized. For many Afghans, this line is an illegitimate colonial relic, an artificial Berlin Wall that divided the Pashtun community. Handing over fellow Pashtuns to outsiders is seen as a profound breach of honor. This principle played a big role in 2001 when Taliban founder Mullah Omar refused to surrender Osama bin Laden, citing the sacred Afghan tradition of hospitality. To betray a guest is an act of cowardice. THIS IS STILL NOT VERY CLEAR: IF IT’S A MATTER OF HOSPITALITY (AND NOT OF COMMON PASHTUN HERITAGE) THEN IT WOULDN’T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THE BORDER IS LEGITIMATE/WHERE THE PERSON BELONGS).

The fallout from this crisis hits hardest among ordinary people. When tensions flare, Pakistan closes its border, a move that strangles the Afghan economy: A one-month border closure can cause up to $500 million in losses, with perishable food and other goods left to spoil on trucks for days, according to the Afghan Chamber of Commerce and Investment. Further, Pakistan has repeatedly used the millions of Afghan refugees on its soil as political pawns, threatening mass deportations.

Inside Afghanistan, the Taliban regime exploits Pakistani aggression to stoke nationalist fervor, portraying itself as a defender of sovereignty against its former patron.

The current path leads only to deeper chaos. Bombing campaigns will not secure Pakistan’s borders any more than they did for the United States. A lasting solution requires a fundamental shift: Pakistan must move beyond a militarized foreign policy dominated by its generals, while the international community must press for an inclusive Afghan government that represents all its people and respects human rights.

Until then, both nations will remain trapped in the violent cycle they helped create. The bombs falling today are echoes of the past—and they will continue to ricochet until both sides choose dialogue over retaliation and confront the root causes of a conflict they can no longer control.

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Freedom of Speech Under Assault

-
    Arrest of Mohamoud Khalil is a Warning to Free Speech By Wahab Raofi The latest arrest of Mahmoud Khalil for political reasons silences critics, undermines justice and threatens our own freedom of speech. A Syrian-born Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent, Khalil had been a leader of pro-Palestine protests that consumed Columbia University’s campus life. His arrest by ICE for organizing protests and spreading hate speech against the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza — actions that resulted in civilian casualties — has ignited a heated debate on the issue of free speech as protected by the First Amendment. Many Americans believe expelling individuals for political speech sets a dangerous precedent, and outright political expulsions are rare. Instead, the U.S. government typically justifies such actions under legal violations, immigration laws or national security concerns. A statement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said that Khali...
Read more

Iran's war on Afghan Refugees

-
Image
    Iran’s War on Afghan Refugees: An Unfair Scapegoating Strategy By Wahab Raofi   Human beings are members of a whole In creation of one essence and soul If one member is afflicted with pain Other members uneasy will remain If you have no sympathy for human pain The name of human you cannot retain n   Saadi Shirazi, Iranian poet   In the aftermath of the 12-day Iran-Israel war, Iranian authorities have launched a quiet campaign of terror — not against an external enemy, but against their own people,” Karen Kramer wrote in The New York Times . What remains largely untold, however, is that the regime’s crackdown falls disproportionately on Afghans residing in Iran. Much like Nazi Germany, which scapegoated Jews to deflect blame for its own internal failures, the Iranian regime targets the most vulnerable — poor and defenseless Afghans — whether they live legally in Iran or seek refuge from turmoil. This form of collective punishment no...
Read more

Surprisingly, I Was Wrong Not to Vote for Trump

-
  A shorter version of this piece appeared in The Washington Post. This is the full version.     By Wahab Raofi I am a registered Republican. And like many others, I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. His tone and rhetoric alarmed me. He said things that sounded extreme — like letting Europe defend itself, raising tariffs, or threatening to deport immigrants en masse. I feared the worst. But in hindsight, much of what Trump actually did — particularly in his foreign policy — has turned out to be effective. As Bret Stephens of The New York Times wrote, Trump may go down as a “surprisingly successful president.” He achieved what others only talked about. NATO’s European members and Canada began spending more on defense — something past U.S. presidents asked for, but too politely. Rather than dismantling the transatlantic alliance, as his critics feared, Trump arguably reinvigorated it. Realizing my mistake set me to thinking. Much of my adult life has been consumed...
Read more