By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a cross-border attack from Afghanistan, Pakistan launched airstrikes on military installations, declaring an “open war” with its neighbor. Afghanistan claimed retaliation for earlier Pakistani strikes and targeted Pakistani army posts, while Pakistan accused Afghanistan of “exporting terrorism” and harboring militant groups allied with its rival, India. Both nations presented conflicting casualty figures, and international bodies have urged for diplomatic resolution. This escalation follows months of high tensions and previous border clashes.
Read the original article here
The current situation between Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the Pakistani Defence Minister declaring an “open war,” marks a dramatic and frankly, quite bewildering turn of events. It’s a stark reminder that geopolitical strategies, even those seemingly built on shared ideology, can spectacularly unravel. What makes this particularly jarring is the journey Pakistan has taken from being a significant enabler of the Taliban to finding itself in direct military conflict with them. This is not just a minor border skirmish; it’s being framed as a full-blown war, and it’s a messy, complicated situation with no clear winners, especially for the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of both nations.
One can’t help but wonder about the original calculations that led Pakistan down this path. The thinking, it seems, was that a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan would be a convenient buffer against India, a force that could suppress internal Pashtun movements within Pakistan, and a unifying element through shared Islamic nationalism. However, this entire strategic gamble appears to be backfiring spectacularly. It’s a classic case of unintended consequences, where actions taken with specific goals in mind have produced outcomes that are precisely the opposite of what was desired. If only there had been a more pragmatic approach, perhaps a collaborative effort with the international coalition back when the Taliban were still in their nascent stages, hiding in caves. Sabotaging those efforts, as it appears Pakistan may have done, has ultimately led to this deeply unfortunate present.
The irony is almost palpable. After decades of providing shelter and support to groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Pakistan finds itself engaged in a conflict it likely never envisioned in such direct terms. This move, which may have seemed like a strategic advantage in the short term, now appears to be a significant long-term blunder. Meanwhile, one can almost picture India observing the unfolding drama from the sidelines, perhaps with a sense of vindication, as the intricate web of regional politics continues to ensnare its neighbours.
The public pronouncements emanating from Pakistan in the wake of these exchanges are, to put it mildly, a spectacle. We see chest-thumping on television, the circulation of questionable AI-generated videos and video game footage on social media, and rather disturbing claims of capturing imaginary enemy pilots, coupled with fabricated reports of annihilating entire enemy airforces. All of this culminates in the declaration of victory and the establishment of annual victory holidays. Yet, this grand narrative is often followed by a rather stark reality: pleas to the IMF and appeals for US funding, highlighting the immense economic strain this conflict is imposing. The nation seems poised on the brink of bankruptcy, fueled by a war it appears ill-equipped to sustain.
The economic realities are truly staggering. Pakistan’s external debt is already well over $134 billion, with interest payments soaring by a staggering 84% in recent years, now standing at a hefty $3.5 billion. The power sector alone is burdened by a colossal 2.6 trillion PKR in circular debt. Modern air operations, which Pakistan has evidently employed, are incredibly expensive, with each flight hour costing an estimated $25,000 to $30,000, not to mention the cost of munitions. Compare this to the humble cost of rebuilding mud-brick compounds, estimated at around $500. Ground operations would be even more ruinous, involving the immense logistical and financial burdens of armored columns, supply convoys, and helicopters, all while enduring the harsh wear and tear of the rugged terrain.
Furthermore, the human cost translates directly into financial strain. Every soldier lost incurs significant “shahada packages” for their families, often ranging from 10 to 20 million PKR, plus lifelong benefits. These expenditures create multibillion-rupee holes in the national budget. The ongoing retaliation from groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) continues to bleed the military, while the prevailing instability drives away much-needed foreign investment. Domestically, resources seem to be funneled into mass surveillance and online censorship rather than essential services, leaving citizens to bear the brunt of increased taxes, such as the activation tax on iPhones exceeding 200,000 PKR.
History offers stark warnings that seem to be going unheeded. The Soviet Union was bled dry by the Afghan conflict, with an estimated annual cost of 15 billion rubles leading to economic collapse. Similarly, the United States and NATO spent an astronomical $8 trillion for what ultimately amounted to little tangible gain. The Taliban, on the other hand, possess significant advantages: the deeply ingrained Pashtunwali code, a porous 2,640 km border that facilitates movement and support, ideological common ground with the TTP, and an inherent resilience developed through years of guerrilla warfare. Unlike the superpowers that could eventually withdraw, Pakistan is deeply embedded and cannot simply disengage.
The bottom line is a recipe for state bankruptcy: an endless, unaffordable attrition war against self-created enemies, compounded by pervasive corruption and rampant inflation. While Pakistan might possess superior military hardware, Afghanistan has a proven track record of outlasting powerful adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States. This resilience suggests the Taliban could emerge victorious, but at an unimaginable cost to the people. The timing of these attacks, particularly during Ramadan, is deeply concerning and will undoubtedly be exploited by various actors. The question then becomes, is Pakistan simply aiming to flatten major cities and occupy territory, or is there a more strategic, albeit misguided, objective? Given the historical precedents of the US and USSR, outright conquest seems unlikely, rendering guerrilla tactics a formidable challenge for Pakistan.
There’s also a cynical interpretation that this Afghan war is being used as an excuse for Pakistan to avoid deploying troops to Gaza, perhaps as part of some future “peace deal.” The narrative could be that they are too preoccupied with their own conflict to participate elsewhere. It’s a grim thought that in the 2020s, every year seems to bring a new invasion or a pandemic, a relentless cycle of global turmoil. One can almost imagine Donald Trump, upon hearing of this new conflict, offering his services to mediate, perhaps even saving Prime Minister Sharif’s life yet again. The idea of a GoFundMe for Pakistan, given its dire economic straits, is a darkly humorous, yet telling, reflection of its financial woes. The question of whether the defense pact with Saudi Arabia offers any tangible support in this conflict remains unanswered; it appears Pakistan might be fighting this war largely alone. The potential influx of asylum seekers and refugees into Western countries poses another significant geopolitical challenge, and the old adage “as you sow, so shall you reap” seems particularly relevant.
The recent actions of Pakistani authorities, including the relocation of Afghan refugees and the sweeping crackdown to expel undocumented migrants, starkly contrast with their historical role as hosts to millions of Afghans. This forced deportation, which has seen millions stream back into Afghanistan, including individuals born and raised in Pakistan, adds another layer of complexity and humanitarian concern to an already fraught situation. The global focus on these regional conflicts, while understandable, could also be a distraction from other pressing international issues, leading some to suggest that certain world leaders might be orchestrating these conflicts as diversions. The arms industry, as ever, stands to be a significant beneficiary in such volatile scenarios.
The involvement of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, with groups like Al-Qaeda, including its alleged role in harboring Osama bin Laden, casts a long shadow over current events. If Pakistan were to succeed in establishing Afghanistan as a client state, it would undoubtedly undermine its ability to sponsor attacks in India and diminish the clandestine operations that have historically been a key part of its foreign policy apparatus. This is not the first time a conflict of this nature has been “settled” by figures like Trump, yet the cycle of violence persists. The potential beneficiaries of such conflicts are often those who can exploit refugee flows for political leverage or cheap labor, with the Turkish government being a likely candidate.
The sheer efficiency of these conflicts, as some sarcastically note, stands in contrast to the self-destructive tendencies of other extremist groups. It’s less like a nation-state engagement and more akin to rival narco-cartels vying for dominance, a brutal competition for resources and power. The long-standing practice of fostering and training militant organizations, a strategy Pakistan has employed for decades, seems to be finally catching up with them. It’s a case of chickens coming home to roost, a consequence of a foreign policy that has prioritized short-term gains over long-term stability and security. The unsettling obsession with capturing female pilots, as mentioned, further highlights a disturbing and misogynistic undercurrent within the propaganda. Pakistan, with its precarious economic situation, corrupt leadership, and a future that appears uncertain, may not survive the next fifty years in its current form, with predictions of it potentially being divided between India and China. Afghanistan, with its deep well of combat experience and the considerable military hardware “donated” by the departing US forces, is a formidable opponent. The legacy of past interventions by powers like Britain, and the question of whether they contributed to the rise of groups like the Taliban, adds further historical depth to this ongoing saga of conflict in the region. Ultimately, the question of who is the “right-wing ultra nationalist fascist Islamophobic” entity committing atrocities against innocent Muslims will be a difficult narrative for any news outlet, including Al Jazeera, to untangle in this complex and tragic scenario.