By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pakistan launched air strikes on major Afghan cities, including Kabul and Kandahar, on Friday, February 27, 2026, with its Defence Minister declaring the two nations to be in “open war.” This escalation followed a night of Afghan forces attacking Pakistani border troops in retaliation for earlier Pakistani air strikes. Months of tit-for-tat clashes have strained relations, with Pakistan accusing Afghanistan of harboring militants, a claim denied by the Taliban government. Despite mediation efforts, negotiations have failed to secure a lasting agreement, leading to an “all-out confrontation.”
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a significant development unfolding as Pakistan has reportedly carried out airstrikes on Kabul, directly targeting the Afghan Taliban government. This action marks a sharp escalation, with claims of an “open war” being waged. The core of this conflict appears to stem from the persistent issue of the Afghan Taliban providing sanctuary and support to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the group engaged in a long-standing insurgency against the Pakistani state. Naturally, this perceived backing of hostile elements has fueled considerable animosity from Pakistan’s side.
The situation is steeped in a bitter irony, given Pakistan’s historical role. It’s widely remembered that Pakistan offered safe haven to the very same Afghan Taliban during their fight against the United States and the previous Afghan government. This dual approach, often characterized as playing both sides, seems to have come back to haunt Pakistan now that the US presence has concluded. The narrative suggests a strategic miscalculation, where a group Pakistan allegedly helped cultivate has become a source of direct conflict.
This sudden turn of events paints a grim picture for regional stability, suggesting that certain areas are destined for prolonged periods of unrest. If this conflict transcends a mere border dispute, the implications could be dire. While Pakistan undeniably possesses superior military might, the Taliban’s historical resilience is a formidable factor. The struggles of both the US and the Soviet Union to contain the Taliban suggest that Pakistan may face a similar, if not greater, challenge in subduing them.
There’s a palpable sentiment that Pakistan’s intelligence services, the ISI, which are alleged to have nurtured the Taliban even during the War on Terror, should bear the consequences of their past actions. The notion of “playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes” resonates with many, though the focus remains firmly on the innocent civilians who are invariably caught in the crossfire of such geopolitical maneuvers, further contributing to the growing instability in an already volatile region.
The complex geopolitical maneuvering is further highlighted by the observation that Pakistan may have sought to control a protégé it helped shape, only to find that this entity has developed its own menacing capabilities. This “puppy” metaphor suggests a failure to anticipate the independent and aggressive nature of the group Pakistan allegedly empowered. The current military action might be an attempt to course-correct, perhaps influenced by external pressures or a shift in regional dynamics.
The sentiment that Pakistan “deserves” this predicament is not uncommon, reflecting a perception of self-inflicted wounds due to its past policies. The recurring nature of conflict in Afghanistan is acknowledged, with the grim certainty that war in the region is an enduring, almost predictable, constant. The hope expressed by some is that both sides will ultimately suffer significant losses, a rather bleak outlook given the stakes involved. The presence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan further amplifies concerns about the potential escalation and the far-reaching consequences of such a conflict.
The suffering of women and children in such conflicts is a recurring and tragic theme, underscoring the human cost of these escalations. The wisdom of confronting a group that has historically resisted and even defeated powerful global superpowers like the US and the USSR is questioned. The idea that the Taliban might be weakened after their recent resurgence is met with skepticism, suggesting a dangerous underestimation of their capabilities.
There’s speculation that this conflict could be linked to broader geopolitical strategies, potentially involving external actors and their agendas. The possibility of Pakistan acting under the influence of another power, perhaps in anticipation of future regional realignments or actions concerning neighboring countries like Iran, is raised. The ensuing chaos and potential for wider confrontations, especially if other regional players are drawn in, is a significant concern.
The sheer frequency of emerging conflicts is a point of lament, with a yearning for peace and a call for nations to de-escalate and focus on their internal affairs. The underlying challenge is identified as deeply rooted in persistent ideological and societal issues that hinder progress and foster conflict. The notion of a “cat fight” captures a sense of futility and predictable animosity between these entities.
The profound saying, “May God deliver us from the venom of the cobra, teeth of the tiger, and the vengeance of the Afghan,” encapsulates the historical apprehension surrounding Afghanistan’s capacity for resistance and retribution, particularly when provoked. This current situation pits a nation with a history of being an “empire graveyard” against a financially strained and politically fragile state.
The potential connection to grander economic initiatives like the “new silk road” is another intriguing aspect, suggesting that these conflicts might be intertwined with larger economic and strategic ambitions. The idea that Pakistan’s historical support for the Taliban has come full circle, with the protégé now turning on its perceived benefactor, is a prevalent theme.
The question of Iran’s stance in this developing conflict is raised, indicating the complex web of alliances and rivalries in the region. The Taliban are sometimes viewed as geopolitical “useful idiots,” implying that their utility to certain powers may be waning, leading to a shift in their relationships. The West’s past involvement and Pakistan’s alleged undermining of their efforts are also brought up, suggesting a karmic element to the current situation.
The potential for civilian casualties to be even higher under Pakistani airstrikes than under Western operations is a chilling prospect. Furthermore, Pakistan’s own precarious economic and security situation, including ongoing skirmishes with India, separatist movements, and a fragile economy, is highlighted as a critical backdrop to this decision to engage in conflict with the Taliban. The dire state of Pakistan’s finances and its potential descent into further instability are concerning.
The assertion that this is the seventh open war in recent years underscores the pervasive nature of conflict in the region. The idea of Pakistan inviting a conflict reminiscent of those that have consumed empires is seen as a perilous gamble. The notion of former President Trump’s involvement in brokering peace deals is revisited, with a cynical observation about his past efforts and the potential for his re-engagement in such situations.
The comparison of this conflict to historical failures, like those of the USSR and the USA, reinforces the skepticism about Pakistan’s ability to achieve a decisive outcome. The sentiment that 2026 has been a tumultuous year for global peace is also expressed. Finally, the description of the conflict as akin to a “fight between two raccoons” highlights the perceived lack of strategic depth or higher purpose, while the enduring Afghan proverb, “invading armies have watches, but Afghans have the time,” serves as a timeless reminder of their resilience and protracted resistance.