Taliban Racing Towards Kabul From Multiple Sides

[Jungibaaz]

so you want there to be a constant state of conflict?

No, government by consensus. Negotiated settlement. The taliban cannot take the entire country, we are already on the path of constant conflict.

 

[aziqbal]

begs the question what on earth did the Coalition do there for 20 years ?

 

[Jungibaaz]

Well in 2001 USA still required Pakistans permission and support for access. Yes threats were made, but how much of it would actually have manifested no one knows, but the environment and rage of 9/11 cannot be overlooked. The situation is not 2001 or there is no catastrophe, like 9/11 that needs to be avenged. And plus this is not a unipolar world like 2001. No international laws or norms were broken even for 2001 invasion, if USA breaks it for Afghanistan then what will stop China breaking it for Hong Kong and Taiwan, and Russia in Europe as well? We could have even refused participation in 2001 if we had a democratic govt. As long as Pakistan keeps itself reasonably clear of conflict, there is no issues in maintaining neutrality.

You can also take a look at how many countries refused to support Iraq invasion as well. So again for Afghanistan you are making it sound like Pakistan will instantly face an invasion from NATO if Taliban come to power. And why only Pakistan will face an attack for its refusal, why cant they go through Iran? why not just attack Iran and kill two birds with one stone? An attack and invasion through Iran will actually be supported by regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Israel etc. So lets not get more scared than what we are supposed to.

The problems that Pakistan may face will be related to economic and military sanctions - that is where Pakistan will need good diplomatic maneuvering to avoid them. If we pass a resolution in parliament that we cannot support a foreign conflict or war, that will mitigate most of the threats and pressure from western bloc, unless Pakistan gets implicated directly which is different.

I get what you're saying, and I think the point you raised in the last paragraph is the crux of the matter. Legally, we are not obliged to help them, morally, or in the matter of int'l public perception we aren't either. However, they have leverage over us. And as for your suggestion about a resolution, it's a good idea, but it will not be allowed to enter, let alone pass in parliament for now, that may change in the future if a consensus is pre-built. It's hard to explain this point further, but just remember who they reached out to in 1998 to inform us of the strikes, they spoke directly to then COAS Jahangir Karamat, not to the elected government.

begs the question what on earth did the Coalition do there for 20 years ?

They tried and failed to engineer an Afghan state in an image of their preference. Ignoring the history, the politics, the factionality etc. 20 year delusion was always going to end this way.

 

[CIA Mole]

No, government by consensus. Negotiated settlement. The taliban cannot take the entire country, we are already on the path of constant conflict.

Taliban will want nothing short of the seat of power.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

I get what you're saying, and I think the point you raised in the last paragraph is the crux of the matter. Legally, we are not obliged to help them, morally, or in the matter of int'l public perception we aren't either. However, they have leverage over us. And as for your suggestion about a resolution, it's a good idea, but it will not be allowed to enter, let alone pass in parliament for now, that may change in the future if a consensus is pre-built. It's hard to explain this point further, but just remember who they reached out to in 1998 to inform us of the strikes, they spoke directly to then COAS Jahangir Karamat, not to the elected government.

Of course a resolution of this nature would require an understanding with Military as well - and there is nothing wrong in considering their institutional input. But just like Yemen war, if along with Military we want to duck a threat of ‘with us or against us’, then a resolution in Parliament will be a very appropriate response - for the west that will mean a lot more as democracy is their religion which they like preaching the entire world. Further I would say, even Pakistan as whole and that includes Military and our parties, are not in 90s anymore. If IK starts to take the same line vs military for their unconstitutional support of a foreign military adventure NOW vs what he did in 2001, it will be a huge mess for anyone to contain. PTI and IK is not a one seat party, it is very deeply entrenched in KPK and tribal belts and a good chunk of Punjab. Superseding PM will be a treason of their oaths - and before you bring Martial Law as a counter argument, it is not - The oath actually gives a moral cover for Martial law and the legal cover is then provided by SC using ‘nazriye zaroorat’. Working behind the govt and allowing access contrary to stated policy will be a breach of oath, which Military will not be able to justify and handle in public - at least in this day and age. So they may as well just overthrow the govt, which PA will not now as the alliance is not that deep with US establishment due to China and the scars of Musharraf era are still there.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Taliban will want nothing short of the seat of power.

Define seat of power, Kabul and the majority of Afghanistan, with some nascent civil war in certain parts historically controlled by the NA (likely scenario, and pre-2001 status quo), or a clean sweep (highly unlikely)?

Of course the resolution of this nature would require an understanding with Military as well - and there is nothing wrong in considering their institutional input. But just like Yemen war, if along with Military we decide to duck a threat of ‘with us or against us’ a resolution in Parliament will be a very appropriate response- for west that will mean a lot more as democracy is the religion they like preaching the entire world. Further I would say, even Pakistan as whole - that includes Military and our parties are not in 90s anymore. If IK starts to take the same line vs military for their support NOW vs what he did in 2001, it will be a huge mess for anyone to contain. PTI and IK is not a one seat party, it is very deeply entrenched in KPK and tribal belts and a good chunk of Punjab. Superseding PM will be a treason of their oaths - and before you bring Martial Law as a counter argument, its not - The oath actually gives a moral cover for Martial law and the legal cover is then provided by SC using ‘nazriye zaroorat’. Working behind the govt and allowing access contrary to stated policy will be a breach of oath, which Military will not be able to justify and handle in public - at least in this day and age. So they may as well overthrow the govt, which PA will not now as the alliance is not that deep with US establishment due to China.

One thing I can agree with you on is the need for consensus, actually this is what is being worked to achieve behind the scenes from some time. It's been decided in the main halls of power that Pakistan's future route vis-a-vis Afghanistan, and balancing relations with the US, require broad and lasting consensus. That includes the military, the government, the opposition, etc.

 

[Blacklight]

begs the question what on earth did the Coalition do there for 20 years ?

"Eat, Drink, and be merry"?

 

[Mrc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1415054133237747713

 

[Thorough Pro]

Ghani will be swinging from the lower end of a rope pretty soon

Kabul is going to fall this easy. SF, commandos, ANDSF will fight gard for kabul. Talibs will come close to kabul but i know kabul won't be like taking badakshsn or anyother province. Whoever holds kabul holds the legitimacy over AFG and ghani ain't gonna give it so easily.

 

[ARMalik]

A lot of people are very ignorant. The speed and precision of What Taliban are doing right now is A MILITARY OPERATION BACKED BY SOME HIGHLY ORGANISED MILITARY EXPERTS with a lot of resources. Only idiots would think that Taliban can do all this without proper Military supply lines and military resources.

 

[Mentee]

begs the question what on earth did the Coalition do there for 20 years ?

Crusade , drug peddling , maintreaming paedophilia in the local national military, destabilising the whole region etc.