Was the Afghan-Soviet war a neccessary evil for Pakistan, or were we stupidly dragged in?

[Erieye]

Yes.
Also, prior to 1979 when Afghanistan was relatively peaceful (except for the Parcham-Khalaq infightings), there was not much of a threat from them. King Zahir Shah and Sardar Daud made some noises here and there about 'Pashtunistan' but Pakistan was NOT signficantly threatened by or from Afghanistan. There is historic data to prove that! My father even took us kids into Afghanistan from Torkham (?) border crossing without visa or any papers in the 1970s and we had tea there! A few Afghan soldiers smiled and greeted us. It was that relaxed and peaceful then!!!

Stability, education, and peace tend to prevent nations from launching wars. The issue of Pashtunistan was/is basically a non-issue; if anything, Pashtuns would rather be part of Pakistan than Afghanistan! There are countries peacefully co-existing for decades or even centuries despite claims on neighbor countries' land.

To repeat what I have been saying in this forum: A total subjugation and uplift of Afghanistan by the Soviets would have eventually lead to better situation for Pakistan than what followed--and what followed is nightmare which is never ending!

But then---we have the benefit of hindsight...

You should read Ayub Khan's book regarding Afghanistan

He also had a sit down with them, enjoyed some tea and what not.

But they still ended up in the Bajaur invasion, and had history of funding militancy, so things were never good. They were constantly neogitating peace settlements.

Read what Faqir of IPI and Bacha Khan said.

 

[TheSolution]

To repeat what I have been saying in this forum: A total subjugation and uplift of Afghanistan by the Soviets would have eventually lead to better situation for Pakistan than what followed--and what followed is nightmare which is never ending!

We had similar views yesterday about Musharraf but I'll have to disagree here, even the Soviets would have had to settle the Afghan desire for the KP/Balochistan territories and they were pushing them to help.

There is some evidence for the above, and it was the primary driving force which made Afghans turn to the Soviets for help, because America refused as they wanted to use the weapons against Pakistan.

 

[CivilianSupremacy]

I've been thinking. Was our involvement in the Afghan-Soviet war and supporting the mujahideen infrastructure a neccessary evil for us and beneficial?

Some questions:

Were we inclined to support the war due to our immense reliance on American support and weaponry? Were we left otherwise open to Indian aggression?

Since the border was incredibly porous with no fencing, and both sides have the same ethnic group - Pashtuns - was it reletivaly impossible to stay out of it, especially with the border/tribal regions wanting to get involved to assist their co-ethnics?

Would the situation have been different if Soviets took over Afghanistan - would Soviet Afghanistan pose a risk to us considering Soviet allied India on the other side?

Opinions below please.

My personal opinion was that it was overall a neccessary evil due to all of the above pointing to us getting involved. Soviet Afghanistan still would be hellbent on retreiving their claimed Balochistan and KP territories, and they instantly began supporting militant activity inside Pakistan. A strong Afghanistan would have been a nightmare for us paired with India on the other side.

@Meengla @Bleek @PakFactor @Great Janjua @Maula Jatt @villageidiot @Mirzali Khan @Sayfullah @PanzerKiel @Signalian @Ali_14 @Olympus81 @chinasun

The Way Zia'ul Haq dealt with was totally flawed. He never planned it through Or an exit strategy.

Creating tens of thousands of Madrassas and bringing so many Afghans was shooting in one's own foot. He wanted to create a huge jihadi factories but perhaps never realized how we'll deal with them once soviets and americans are gone. Zia was ultra conservative, and kind of a fanatic person, he wanted his own desires in his own thinking. Jihad was his main purpose. He solely believed that all those jihadis will always be in his control and will always be noble warriors. He was completely wrong in his assumptions.

We definitely could have pushed soviets back without making our society as ultra conservative, sympathetic to extreme groups and without increasing militancy in our lands.

The number of madrassahs before Zia was under ¬1500 After Zia the number was 32000. There were no checks for militancy in those even after Soviet withdrawal.

So, how could we have done it. I'd say there were number of groups in Afghanistan doing a freedom struggle for Afghanistan. They were not doing it for Islam. Like many of those groups which later were part of Afghan govts in several times like Ahmad Shah Masood and many others. They always fought for Afghanistan. The moment Zia added the flavour of holy war & war for Islam that means War will never be over even after Soviet Withdrawal. Because Afghanistan was a common item for which all the groups could have fought together. But Shariat or Sharia law was NEVER a common item between all Afghan freedom warriors. We should have settled for Afghanistan as primary objective. The extremism that followed has devastated Afghanistan and as well as our country Pakistan.

Final mistake we made was not to re-send Afghan refugees after the war was over and Not to dismantle all the madrassahs that were created with sole purpose of jihad teachings. They all were not producing ideal muslims but producing militants.

 

[Erieye]

The Way Zia'ul Haq dealt with was totally flawed. He never planned it through Or an exit strategy.

Creating tens of thousands of Madrassas and bringing so many Afghans was shooting in one's own foot. He wanted to create a huge jihadi factories but perhaps never realized how we'll deal with them once soviets and americans are gone. Zia was ultra conservative, and kind of a fanatic person, he wanted his own desires in his own thinking. Jihad was his main purpose. He solely believed that all those jihadis will always be in his control and will always be noble warriors. He was completely wrong in his assumptions.

We definitely could have pushed soviets back without making our society as ultra conservative, sympathetic to extreme groups and without increasing militancy in our lands.

The number of madrassahs before Zia was under ¬1500 After Zia the number was 32000. There were no checks for militancy in those even after Soviet withdrawal.

So, how could we have done it. I'd say there were number of groups in Afghanistan doing a freedom struggle for Afghanistan. They were not doing it for Islam. Like many of those groups which later were part of Afghan govts in several times like Ahmad Shah Masood and many others. They always fought for Afghanistan. The moment Zia added the flavour of holy war & war for Islam that means War will never be over even after Soviet Withdrawal. Because Afghanistan was a common item for which all the groups could have fought together. But Shariat or Sharia law was NEVER a common item between all Afghan freedom warriors. We should have settled for Afghanistan as primary objective. The extremism that followed has devastated Afghanistan and as well as our country Pakistan.

Final mistake we made was not to re-send Afghan refugees after the war was over and Not to dismantle all the madrassahs that were created with sole purpose of jihad teachings. They all were not producing ideal muslims but producing militants.

yeah, the execution and the way we went about it, and dealt with the aftermath was a complete mess i agree with this

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

This is not possible with an enemy several times larger than yourself breathing down your neck.

Afghan leaders were encouraging them, that was part of the main driving factor, that you help us in taking Balochistan and KP.

There is documented evidence of the above. Afghanistan had been trying for a long while but failing until it turned to the Soviets.


It is precisely due to the military detterence (again supported by American weaponry) that prevented such a thing. So you're proving my point.

You think a militarily weak Pakistan without any credible defence would not have been attacked by India?

Secondly don't compare India to Afghanistan, you are fundamentally different societies and people. You clearly have no idea about their tribal lifestyle or code of honour. They don't care about things like economy, or international relations, or geopolitics, when it comes to something they view as their property. These are hotheaded tribal folks that would rather die in the thousands then give up their goal.

Afghan leaders were encouraging them, that was part of the main driving factor, that you help us in taking Balochistan and KP.

There is documented evidence of the above. Afghanistan had been trying for a long while but failing until it turned to the Soviets.

I apologize, but I can appreciate the lessons you may have learned as a child.

Most of my Pakistani friends will disagree with me, but as I have frequently stated, I am very pragmatic. I disregard my feelings most of the times.

I'll use the American invasion of Iran as an example. How they propagated before the attack on them. The same way, usually leaders create a such situation within their own public to get support.

Since we are usually emotional and bound the follow our leadership and military. We don't question to them.

= I would say, most leaders create such virtual scenarios before such tough decisions. And usually, the public accept and follow their words.

 

[Erieye]

Afghan leaders were encouraging them, that was part of the main driving factor, that you help us in taking Balochistan and KP.

There is documented evidence of the above. Afghanistan had been trying for a long while but failing until it turned to the Soviets.

I apologize, but I can appreciate the lessons you may have learned as a child.

Most of my Pakistani friends will disagree with me, but as I have frequently stated, I am very pragmatic. I disregard my feelings most of the times.

I'll use the American invasion of Iran as an example. How they propagated before the attack on them. The same way, usually leaders create a such situation within their own public to get support.

Since we are usually emotional and bound the follow our leadership and military. We don't question to them.

= I would say, most leaders create such virtual scenarios before such tough decisions. And usually, the public accept and follow their words.

no offence but i just feel you are very ignorant of afghanistan, its society and its history with pakistan.

please just google the relationship between pakistan and afghanistan. it was the only country to reject its entry into UN, not even india did this. and it has openly claimed the territories formally.

these are not rumours spread by CIA lmfao, you can find official speeches long before the soviet invasion, you can search the bajaur incursion, statements by afhgan leaders, and the lead militant figures who regretted it and admitted afghanistans hand.

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

You think a militarily weak Pakistan without any credible defence would not have been attacked by India?

Again The same question - Even though the Siachin war happened in 1984, what Pakistan got by supporting USA against India?

India was too poor than Pakistan during the same time, if India can deal with China and Pakistan - why not Pakistan?

Everything is based on assumptions - Might Soviet wanted, Might Soviet could do, Might India wanted and want, might .......... Might and could only

 

[Erieye]

Again The same question - Even though the Siachin war happened in 1984, what Pakistan got by supporting USA against India?

Pakistan didn't support USA against India.

USA supported Pakistan against India. Tell me historically where most Pakistan's weapons are sources from pre 90s?

India was too poor than Pakistan during the same time, if India can deal with China and Pakistan - why not Pakistan?

India and Pakistan conflict is much more serious. Kashmir holds significant value. Can't compare this.

Everything is based on assumptions - Might Soviet wanted, Might Soviet could do, Might India wanted and want, might .......... Might and could only

This is how all policy and actions are taken. You make educated guesses using past actions, intel, and perception of your enemy.

No one can read minds or know the future.

Afghanistan–Pakistan relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bajaur Campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Faqir of Ipi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Raj-Hindustani Have a read through this

 

[TheSolution]

Afghanistan–Pakistan relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bajaur Campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Faqir of Ipi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Raj-Hindustani Have a read through this

Here's some more

https://twitter.com/x/status/1420101471224336386

@Raj-Hindustani These aren't fake CIA psyops or something, they are real things which took place. The relationship was built on zero trust, and back stabbing. Afghan governments going back on their words, etc.

This is nothing less than an explicit enemy above, there's no other way to put it.

 

[KingMamba]

The Way Zia'ul Haq dealt with was totally flawed. He never planned it through Or an exit strategy.

Creating tens of thousands of Madrassas and bringing so many Afghans was shooting in one's own foot. He wanted to create a huge jihadi factories but perhaps never realized how we'll deal with them once soviets and americans are gone. Zia was ultra conservative, and kind of a fanatic person, he wanted his own desires in his own thinking. Jihad was his main purpose. He solely believed that all those jihadis will always be in his control and will always be noble warriors. He was completely wrong in his assumptions.

We definitely could have pushed soviets back without making our society as ultra conservative, sympathetic to extreme groups and without increasing militancy in our lands.

The number of madrassahs before Zia was under ¬1500 After Zia the number was 32000. There were no checks for militancy in those even after Soviet withdrawal.

So, how could we have done it. I'd say there were number of groups in Afghanistan doing a freedom struggle for Afghanistan. They were not doing it for Islam. Like many of those groups which later were part of Afghan govts in several times like Ahmad Shah Masood and many others. They always fought for Afghanistan. The moment Zia added the flavour of holy war & war for Islam that means War will never be over even after Soviet Withdrawal. Because Afghanistan was a common item for which all the groups could have fought together. But Shariat or Sharia law was NEVER a common item between all Afghan freedom warriors. We should have settled for Afghanistan as primary objective. The extremism that followed has devastated Afghanistan and as well as our country Pakistan.

Final mistake we made was not to re-send Afghan refugees after the war was over and Not to dismantle all the madrassahs that were created with sole purpose of jihad teachings. They all were not producing ideal muslims but producing militants.

Zia wanted to expand the jihad to Central Asia kicking Russians back and create a super state. Needless to say a united super state with Islam as its banner was in nobodies interest hence mangogate and RIP zia.

 

[kingQamaR]

The sole factor of getting involved into war against the Soviet was to save our own country … had we not done that on time then next destination of that unbridled elephant was PAKISTAN…that was a wise and strategic decision to ditch Ussr right there in Afghanistan. Or the other alternative was to just sit and watch do nothing, and have a huge pro Indian Afghan / soviet army sitting on your entire western border.and the India on the east. Like king Harold of England in 1066 waiting for the invasion come, from Denmark or Normandy ?

 

[Erieye]

Zia wanted to expand the jihad to Central Asia kicking Russians back and create a super state. Needless to say a united super state with Islam as its banner was in nobodies interest hence mangogate and RIP zia.

only possible and vaible "super state" is Pakistan and Afghanistan merger considering how millions of their refugees are already in Pakistan and the border disputes.

But not this central asian pan islamist stuff. people are nationalistic and dont buy into this nonsense, theyd laugh at you

 

[Meengla]

We had similar views yesterday about Musharraf but I'll have to disagree here, even the Soviets would have had to settle the Afghan desire for the KP/Balochistan territories and they were pushing them to help.

There is some evidence for the above, and it was the primary driving force which made Afghans turn to the Soviets for help, because America refused as they wanted to use the weapons against Pakistan.

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on this. But then who can truly claim to know what could have happened starting 1979. I gave you a personal/anecdotal experience above from the 1970s plus there is data to support my assertion that prior to 1979, Afghanistan and events from Afghanistan didn't pose significant threat to Pakistan. ZAB had already put King Zahir / Sardar Daud in their places.
It is amazing how people think that Pashtunistan claim of Afghanistan carries a major threat. Afghans just have to claim that otherwise they won't be 'Afghans'. They are not very principled people who'd stand by their agreements (which they made many decades ago with with the British Empire). But for Pakistan, to repeat myself, a stable, educated, peaceful Afghanistan would be a far better option than what turned out to be.
As for the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan: It had it roots in the USA-USSR Cold War. Not much to do with Pakistan. I'd encourage people to read 'Afghantsy' book to understand that time better.
PS. Someone above has brilliantly explained how stupidly Zia ul Haq had executed the 'Jihad'. Thank you!

 

[fitpOsitive]

We wanted to get rid of Afghani ghundas. We did it. We also wanted to get rid of India, woh hamsy hoa nahi.

 

[TheSolution]

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on this. But then who can truly claim to know what could have happened starting 1979. I gave you a personal/anecdotal experience above from the 1970s plus there is data to support my assertion that prior to 1979, Afghanistan and events from Afghanistan didn't pose significant threat to Pakistan. ZAB had already put King Zahir / Sardar Daud in their places.
It is amazing how people think that Pashtunistan claim of Afghanistan carries a major threat. Afghans just have to claim that otherwise they won't be 'Afghans'. They are not very principled people who'd stand by their agreements (which they made many decades ago with with the British Empire). But for Pakistan, to repeat myself, a stable, educated, peaceful Afghanistan would be a far better option than what turned out to be.
As for the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan: It had it roots in the USA-USSR Cold War. Not much to do with Pakistan. I'd encourage people to read 'Afghantsy' book to understand that time better.
PS. Someone above has brilliantly explained how stupidly Zia ul Haq had executed the 'Jihad'. Thank you!

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

But as for the stable, and peaceful example.

When border disputes exist - it doesn't really matter - we can see this across the world and even in Kashmir. When both sides lay their eyes on something it becomes a conflict.

And their past actions before that pointed to possibly more frequent conflicts than what we even had with India, and them being more than ready to aid India and proxy wars.