By Qamar Bashir
‘Do not put your hand in the wolf’s den. This famous saying emphasizes that those who heed its wisdom avoid deadly attacks and live longer, while those who ignore it often suffer. Unfortunately, our leadership seems to have disregarded the essence of this adage and has dared to reach into the wolf’s den of Afghanistan, hoping to emerge unscathed.
Earlier this year, Pakistan carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan, which generated a
strong reaction from the Taliban leadership. Their narrative was straightforward:
Pakistan’s security agencies should focus on safeguarding their own frontiers, managing
their internal law and order, improving intelligence capabilities, preventing their citizens
from illegally crossing international borders, and refraining from blaming neighbors for
their own shortcomings and weaknesses.
Their narrative carries a lot of weight, as millions of dollars from a poor nation, where
40% of the population lives below the poverty line, were spent to build a barbed-wire
wall along the Afghanistan border to prevent cross-border movement. Unfortunately, this
wall has proven to be ineffective, as if it does not exist. Smuggling across the border
continues unabated, cross-border movement remains unstoppable, and terrorist activities
have intensified more than ever before.
Perhaps we have only partially learned from cross-border attacks carried out by the USA
in various countries and by India, particularly in Pakistan. These countries, while
successfully eliminating cross-border threats, also strengthened and fortified their internal
security. They did so by implementing foolproof border controls, creating effective
surveillance systems, identifying internal threats before they could cause harm, and
addressing internal political discontent. These measures ensured comprehensive
reinforcement of both internal and external security.
One example is the USA after the 9/11 attacks. The country drastically revamped border
control protocols worldwide. Security measures for air, rail, land, and sea travel were
fortified on a global scale. Within the United States, the Department of Homeland
Security was established to evaluate and strengthen the nation’s security apparatus. This
department assessed civil and military installations, identified gaps, and implemented
comprehensive security protocols to eliminate potential threats effectively.
Another example is India, which implemented drastic constitutional changes by bringing
Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir under federal control. Since then, a foolproof
security protocol has been established across the region. Since 2019, there have been no
significant cross-border incursions into the Jammu and Kashmir valley, nor any major
freedom movements. Under high-security measures, the Indian government has
successfully implemented mechanisms to suppress any substantial freedom movements
permanently.
Turning back to the situation in Afghanistan, we seem to have forgotten the well-known
adage that Afghanistan is the "graveyard of civilizations." This has been proven true in
both the distant and recent past, with no evidence suggesting this will change in the
foreseeable future.
I vividly recall an interview with an American general who was in charge of operations in
Afghanistan after 9/11. He stated that while the adage might have been true for other
nations in the past, it would not apply to the United States, given its superior technology
and top-notch training. However, the world witnessed the humiliating withdrawal of
Allied forces in 2021, leaving behind billions of dollars' worth of military hardware,
abandoning Afghan allies to the mercy of the Taliban, and fleeing on C-130 aircraft. The
harrowing images of Afghan civilians clinging to the aircraft's wings and falling to their
deaths were etched into global memory.
Perhaps the Pakistani armed forces believe themselves to be better equipped and trained
than the Allied forces, with superior strategies and tactics. This conviction might have led
them to carry out airstrikes inside Afghanistan, aiming to eliminate cross-border threats.
However, they have failed to stop the infiltration of the Pakistani Taliban—citizens
labeled as Khawarij to foster further hatred against them—while disregarding Pakistan's
constitution, which forbids discrimination based on color, creed, or religion.
The first airstrike was unexpectedly absorbed by the Afghans, which was uncharacteristic
given their history of never letting any humiliation go unavenged. However, the second
airstrike appeared to exceed their tolerance.
This time around, their patience wore thin, and they retaliated in kind. However, unlike
Pakistan, they added an interesting and calculated twist. Rather than claiming they
attacked inside Pakistan, they stated their actions were directed across the hypothetical
line, targeting elements they held responsible for planning attacks within Afghanistan.
This subtle reframing allowed them to justify their actions without formally
acknowledging the border they do not recognize.
With the perception of the Pakistan Army at an all-time low, the Afghan government’s
commitment to establishing a direct trade link with China through the Wakhan border to
reduce its reliance on transit trade through Pakistan, the separatist movement in
Balochistan, and the alienation of the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) from the
central government—combined with the prevailing popular narrative against the Pakistan
Army—Pakistan finds itself in a precarious position. The ethnic linkage of the Pashtun
population in KP and Balochistan with Afghanistan further complicates matters,
alongside the country’s ongoing economic and financial meltdown.
Pakistan’s lack of sovereignty, exacerbated by its dependence on Saudi Arabia, the UAE,
and China for maintaining critical reserves to avoid default, highlights its vulnerability.
Given these challenges, it is in Pakistan’s best interest to improve relations with its
neighbors, as its ties with Iran, India, and Afghanistan are perhaps at their lowest point.
Instead of taking actions that further deteriorate peace and exacerbate belligerent
behavior, Pakistan should focus on fostering better diplomatic and economic
relationships to stabilize the region and ensure long-term security and prosperity.
If both sides fail to pursue a negotiated settlement, the consequences could be
catastrophic. Continued airstrikes and retaliatory attacks risk escalating into open
conflict, destabilizing the region and worsening humanitarian crises. For Pakistan, further
escalation could strain its already fragile internal security, undermine its international
standing, and deplete critical resources. For Afghanistan, emboldened by its ability to
strike back, the conflict could cement its role as a destabilizing force in the region. A
peaceful resolution through dialogue is urgently needed to prevent these dire outcomes.
