The War That Never Was .

[Slav Defence]

@Secur,very well written,amazing write up mate!
Well, what my personal option is that Afghanistan has become a portal for invasion after sub-continent,that is why it has always become centre of proxy-wars,as foreign elements are influencing us directly/indirectly via Afghanistan,ie regional hegemoney players,that is why for Pakistan it was necessary to create pro-pakistan lobby to avoid it being used by Indians as a base against us,for Russians,it can be helpful to reach warm water reserviors.
Where as far as Americans are concerned,it was best place to checkmate Russians,which they did and used us as a plan,we were left with no other choice as we were seeing Russians as a threat for us at that time,and we also wanted to create our own lobby for the sake of our survival in this region.
But who have thought that same 'mujhahidins' which we have raised will turn against us and we will experience such catastrophe,the taliban,Al-qaida,USA demanding 'do more' and our broken economical backbone.
We are thus stuck in labyrinth of endless problems,we have although solution but not 'brave implementers' which is also a huge traged,sadly.

 

[Hyperion]

@Secur, Excellent work yara!

Dude, just one thing, try to compress it somehow. It's more of a book than an article......

 

[Secur]

Good one Slav D. My view on these issues are little different.

I think there was always war. And it'll stay as a solid part of our creature. The conventional&unconventional part we know is just the image we people see from the seats. The all you've mentioned, themselves are a war actually.

That applies for Afghanistan too. There was war before talibs and after the talibs. There was war in there before 78 and before 9/11.

Its Secur , mate Lets see .

The men oldest profession thing again ? That is not entirely true . My friend , the countries that should have been fighting this war for their interests were already fighting it , the Americans and the Arabs with petrodollars were aiding the rebellious population whilst sitting safe in their respective countries since they do not border Afghanistan . To a certain extent , even we were silently involved with Islamist before the Soviet arrival . What Islamabad did , back then , when Daoud Khan had power was done to bring the Afghans back to their senses and most importantly the negotiating table . But , we had nothing to gain from the war , we started with Soviet Union and the Afghan Govt afterwards . Simply nothing . Since when do third world countries actually gain anything by siding with a super power against other ? Just look at our country now , its a by product of what we did in the 80's . Hadn't we interfered then , Musharraf just wouldn't have to make the only left choice of involving the country again in Afghanistan - not to mention the extremism and terrorism you see now , wouldn't have existed . Kabul would soon have returned to its former state as we saw after 1992 after uneasy peace , regardless of Islamabad's participation or not , when the Mujahideen disintegrated and fought between each other and we had to side with Taliban . Contrary to popular belief , Islamabad really had a hard time dealing with the religious fighters once Kremlin withdrew because they weren't fighting for Islam , they just were fighting with the Soviets - the common enemy first before seeking the power and domination and most importantly the prized Kabul for themselves . What did we gain from it ? Zilch , Nada , nothing except having the last laugh seeing the dissolution of U.S.S.R .

If the whole war was fought by Islamabad on the pretext of " Soviet threat and coming to warm waters " and " installation of friendly Govt " , then the former was a myth and later just wasn't possible for a long time and not necessarily needed - there were just too many variables to control . The state of affairs in Afghanistan has always been , more or less the same . People shouldn't have expected any change then , they shouldn't expect it now . Do you see an improvement in condition as the U.S packs its bags and signals its boys to leave ? Nah , you see the repeat .

 

[Secur]

@Secur, Excellent work yara!

Dude, just one thing, try to compress it somehow. It's more of a book than an article......

Thanks , mate .

Bro , trust me , I am well aware that it isn't the usual size of an article , I tried my best there to make it compact , but the history since the 80's isn't really that short . I could have omitted certain things there sure , but then I wouldn't have effectively conveyed the message backed with historical facts , you see . Took quite sometime to write , edit , review , format and then post . Imagine the data on my hard drive , used to summarize the lengthy Afghan war in this article

 

[Secur]

@Secur a comprehensive account of Afghan war, indeed.
Pakistan has always been between the devil and deep blue sea. Likewise, Afghanistan has always been a land of conflict since centuries. Zia did what he deemed fit at that point in time, though the best would have been to influence it rather then to be active participants, but the worst was permitting Afghan refugees into the country. Today Pakistan would have been in much better shape, had they been restricted to the boarder and not allowed to infiltrate our cities and economy.

Thanks , my friend .

Even though it is quite true , but yet we had a choice back then of not setting the entire chain of events in motion . The enmity and menace created of the Afghans since the independence despite our friendliness is nothing unknown or to be denied , but all the problems and nuisance created from the other side of the Khyber Pass was easily and effectively dealt with , most of the time merely with pro Pakistan tribal . Why then , involve the whole country in the war and let it become , what it has today ? Why make the nation suffer ? There was no warm waters thing . It was exaggerated to disproportionate levels to rally the support for the war . Zia struggle for power and the quest for leadership of the Muslim countries is well known , he saw the " Soviet invasion " as a great opportunity to fulfill his ambitions and dreams and brought Pakistan in this condition , it is today . Mate , the Afghan refugees aren't the only problem we got after 80's , think of the extremism and radicalization and intolerance and the resultant terrorism from all that . Even if we were passively supporting them without getting our population and forces involved , it would have done the trick . Had we not participated at all and remained silent and neutral in the fight of the superpowers , that would have been the best . I would have then written on the wise and rational decision by Pakistani leadership and specially Zia-ul-Haq , the rest on the condition of Afghanistan would have remained the same . The same that you see now as the Americans withdraw .

 

[Panther 57]

Thanks , my friend .

Even though it is quite true , but yet we had a choice back then of not setting the entire chain of events in motion . The enmity and menace created of the Afghans since the independence despite our friendliness is nothing unknown or to be denied , but all the problems and nuisance created from the other side of the Khyber Pass was easily and effectively dealt with , most of the time merely with pro Pakistan tribal . Why then , involve the whole country in the war and let it become , what it has today ? Why make the nation suffer ? There was no warm waters thing . It was exaggerated to disproportionate levels to rally the support for the war . Zia struggle for power and the quest for leadership of the Muslim countries is well known , he saw the " Soviet invasion " as a great opportunity to fulfill his ambitions and dreams and brought Pakistan in this condition , it is today . Mate , the Afghan refugees aren't the only problem we got after 80's , think of the extremism and radicalization and intolerance and the resultant terrorism from all that . Even if we were passively supporting them without getting our population and forces involved , it would have done the trick . Had we not participated at all and remained silent and neutral in the fight of the superpowers , that would have been the best . I would have then written on the wise and rational decision by Pakistani leadership and specially Zia-ul-Haq , the rest on the condition of Afghanistan would have remained the same . The same that you see now as the Americans withdraw .

In my opinion Afghanistan has always and will always be a land of unrest, some countries are cursed and some acquire it from them like us. I agree that after Uncle Sam calls it off, they will still be fighting within themselves.

 

[Secur]

@Secur,very well written,amazing write up mate!
Well, what my personal option is that Afghanistan has become a portal for invasion after sub-continent,that is why it has always become centre of proxy-wars,as foreign elements are influencing us directly/indirectly via Afghanistan,ie regional hegemoney players,that is why for Pakistan it was necessary to create pro-pakistan lobby to avoid it being used by Indians as a base against us,for Russians,it can be helpful to reach warm water reserviors.
Where as far as Americans are concerned,it was best place to checkmate Russians,which they did and used us as a plan,we were left with no other choice as we were seeing Russians as a threat for us at that time,and we also wanted to create our own lobby for the sake of our survival in this region.
But who have thought that same 'mujhahidins' which we have raised will turn against us and we will experience such catastrophe,the taliban,Al-qaida,USA demanding 'do more' and our broken economical backbone.
We are thus stuck in labyrinth of endless problems,we have although solution but not 'brave implementers' which is also a huge traged,sadly.

Thanks , mate . The aim was to show the people , the blunder the leadership made in the 80's . It had been and considering its internal situation at that time and past history , it was better left alone rather than actively intervened in . It was never a serious threat for us . The pro Pakistan lobby - the Islamist we supported before the Soviet invasion were already present . The revolutionaries were slowly gathering power and would have fought the Soviets even without Islamabad's active support . The same goes for the Americans and the Arabs who wouldn't only have relied on Pakistan to protect their interests , they had other means . The result would have been the same . Afghanistan would still have ended in a civil war and some other ruler/warlord/tribal leader would have assumed power in Kabul . In such a case , where remaining passive could have done the trick . I cannot fathom the reason and wisdom behind our leader's decision Proved later by the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal and the fighting between the so called " liberators " . Why cant we have a national-interest first policy which is neutral in nature and free from delusional Ummah brotherhood thing ?

 

[Slav Defence]

Thanks , mate . The aim was to show the people , the blunder the leadership made in the 80's . It had been and considering its internal situation at that time and past history , it was better left alone rather than actively intervened in . It was never a serious threat for us . The pro Pakistan lobby - the Islamist we supported before the Soviet invasion were already present . The revolutionaries were slowly gathering power and would have fought the Soviets even without Islamabad's active support . The same goes for the Americans and the Arabs who wouldn't only have relied on Pakistan to protect their interests , they had other means . The result would have been the same . Afghanistan would still have ended in a civil war and some other ruler/warlord/tribal leader would have assumed power in Kabul . In such a case , where remaining passive could have done the trick . I cannot fathom the reason and wisdom behind our leader's decision Proved later by the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal and the fighting between the so called " liberators " . Why cant we have a national-interest first policy which is neutral in nature and free from delusional Ummah brotherhood thing ?

Agreed mate,
The greatest reason of our failure today is that we are failed to engeenier such policy which is neutral and beneficial for Pakistani interest,I have expressed same concerns in my write-ups as well.
Why?Let us discuss factors with respect to country:

1)USA:

Our civil regime was in pressure and hype of Americans,that they cannot counter-response them in any way,I remember that when Mr.Musharraf delayed over 'operation enduring freedom'an American minister boldly warned him to 'throw back Pakistan to storage'...and after that a press conference took place b/w media persons and Mr.Bush and Mr.Musharraf,where a media person asked about such 'warning'
I remember that how Mr.Bush stared at Mr.Musharraf and how he was silent.

1)India:
Indians have always shown hostile attitude and are masters to play 'victim card'
A single minor case and you will see that how their media will built pressure on their ministers and how then they react,where as compare Pakistan's response for yourself that she has not recorded a strong response/ protest or warned Indian regime to take matter on international level for strict action.I am talking recently of Pakistani civil regime's silence on 'operation deep strike'
it was best chance for us to create hype and to built pressure on Indians.

3)Saudi Arabia:
A place where our holy prophet was born,a place where Khana e kaaba lies,thus a religious centre for all Muslims around the world,so Pakistan have this psychological influence is that Arab is our religious centre,therefore our mindset can't imagine to think of any conflict with them.

So,in short....our policy makers are influenced by our friends and foe in such a manner that,we are psychologically influenced of their hype and brotherly love due to religion.
Secur,mate...if our policy makers succeed to get out of such psychological influence once,that is hype,pressure and religious concerns,then we will be able to engeenier proper neutral policy.
For this we need to identify our position and ourselves and look for those such countries who can built pressure on them such as Russia and Iran can built pressure On US,while we already have China to keep India under pressure.

 

[Secur]

@Oscar So where did we go wrong back there , commander ?
@Aeronaut You too !

Agreed mate,
The greatest reason of our failure today is that we are failed to engeenier such policy which is neutral and beneficial for Pakistani interest,I have expressed same concerns in my write-ups as well.

Indeed , true . Running the country's foreign policy on emotions rather than national interests . What was the greatest trick the Mullah ever pulled ?

 

[Alpha1]

@Secur How much and why are you sure that Russia was not after the warm waters because for what I have heard Almost every Russian ruler has tried to conquer the ports in warm waters.
E.g. Peter I fought the Ottoman Empire over the Crimea.
Gaining access to the Crimea would have given Russia access
to the Black Sea and the Dardanelles.

 

[Secur]

@Alpha1

Quite sure . To put it simply , their economy wasn't doing well amongst other internal factors at that time and the changing geopolitics didn't and wouldn't have permitted it to . The Soviet Union was after warm water ports , there's no denying that . It wanted to advance in the Middle East and other areas but not Pakistan . Because of a good reason , Pakistan already got separated into two in '71 and further balkanization of the country wasn't in U.S.S.R.'s interest - it would have meant " instability " and " militancy " in Central Asian Republic and unlike Islamabad , other countries do keep their national interest over emotions . Furthermore , the Reds never even remotely spoke of coming to warm waters in Pakistan or indicated it by their actions . They were reluctant to act in Afghanistan and they knew they couldn't win . Ironically , the Kremlin many a times softened the PDPA's policy on Pashtunistan issue since they weren't interested . Why expect them of coming to our land and conquer it then ? When Pakistan was no military pushover and a staunch American ally , you think that the Washington would have tolerated easily an attack on its ally ?

If the result was to be same , whether we fought the war or not , why did we fight it and destroy the country ?

 

[Slav Defence]

@Alpha1

Quite sure . To put it simply , their economy wasn't doing well amongst other internal factors at that time and the changing geopolitics didn't and wouldn't have permitted it to . The Soviet Union was after warm water ports , there's no denying that . It wanted to advance in the Middle East and other areas but not Pakistan . Because of a good reason , Pakistan already got separated into two in '71 and further balkanization of the country wasn't in U.S.S.R.'s interest - it would have meant " instability " and " militancy " in Central Asian Republic and unlike Islamabad , other countries do keep their national interest over emotions . Furthermore , the Reds never even remotely spoke of coming to warm waters in Pakistan or indicated it by their actions . They were reluctant to act in Afghanistan and they knew they couldn't win . Ironically , the Kremlin many a times softened the PDPA's policy on Pashtunistan issue since they weren't interested . Why expect them of coming to our land and conquer it then ? When Pakistan was no military pushover and a staunch American ally , you think that the Washington would have tolerated easily an attack on its ally ?

If the result was to be same , whether we fought the war or not , why did we fight it and destroy the country ?

Very well said...
The actual gameplan was between Americans and Russians.
As there is only one country right now and before then who can give US 'tough time' and was only challenging super power.
Americans wanted to get rid of Russians mainly,so US will be the only left power,and no one will be there to challenge her,plus this will built 'psychological hype' of 'we are the strongest'
Pakistan had nothing to do with this war,we identified them as invaders which means that we naturally considered them as a threat for ourselves too.
We were also told that Russians are chasing our warm waters and religion card was used as well.Last but not least althrough interest of Pakistani policy makers were to make pro-pakistan lobby as I have already mentioned.
We were used as a 'pawn' at that time,we were left with no other choice.US thus checkmated Russians via Pakistan.
Thus due to above psychological,strategic,geo-political reasons...we initialed such a war which gave birth to this mess.

 

[Slav Defence]

@Oscar So where did we go wrong back there , commander ?
@Aeronaut You too !



Indeed , true . Running the country's foreign policy on emotions rather than national interests . What was the greatest trick the Mullah ever pulled ?

hahaha....
Very well added...
Indeed,this is the greatest trick ever picked by Mullahs,but we must also realize that these 'tricky mullahs' were themselves fooled by actual 'regional hegemony players'...

 

[Secur]

Very well said...
The actual gameplan was between Americans and Russians.
As there is only one country right now and before then who can give US 'tough time' and was only challenging super power.
Americans wanted to get rid of Russians mainly,so US will be the only left power,and no one will be there to challenge her,plus this will built 'psychological hype' of 'we are the strongest'
Pakistan had nothing to do with this war,we identified them as invaders which means that we naturally considered them as a threat for ourselves too.
We were also told that Russians are chasing our warm waters and religion card was used as well.Last but not least althrough interest of Pakistani policy makers were to make pro-pakistan lobby as I have already mentioned.
We were used as a 'pawn' at that time,we were left with no other choice.US thus checkmated Russians via Pakistan.
Thus due to above psychological,strategic,geo-political reasons...we initialed such a war which gave birth to this mess.

The world isn't bipolar anymore because of that . The Soviet Union was our enemy sure , but it wasn't the threat it was made out to be , to rally the support of the common man for the war that wasn't fought for his country but for the U.S. . Whatever Americans wanted to , without getting their hands dirty and sitting thousands of miles away , did and then slapped sanctions on Pakistan after their work was done . How many people today blame the Taliban and AQ and other militant factions all coming from a single source - Mujahideen on U.S ? Lets admit our mistake back then , neither was it the only choice nor was fighting the fight of two superpowers wise .

@Capt.Popeye @Anotherangle

Cant see your posts here , even though I see them in Mentions and Quotes back on my profile

 

[Dillinger]

@Secur A rather cogent and well researched piece. I have some professional analysis lying around on the subject matter, time permitting I shall PM them to you once I dig them out.

Keep up the good work.