OVER the past decades there have been no shortage of meddlers in Afghanistan’s numerous wars. Almost invariably, though, the default position taken by those of a politically progressive disposition in the West, has been to point the finger at the US and UK, or in some instances Russia.
“Imperialist intervention” is the often-favoured phrase and in itself is not necessarily inaccurate. Few among such critics though single out Pakistan, which by far has had a disproportionately large and malign influence on the violence that has gripped Afghanistan.
The latest round of bloodletting, which sees the Taliban gaining ground and threatening to overrun the entire country is no exception.
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: This is why we must help the Afghan people once we’ve gone
The physical evidence is there daily for those who wish to see and recognise Pakistan’s contribution. It comes in the shape right now of a stream of funerals in various parts of the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the southwestern Balochistan provinces of those Pakistanis that have fought and died over the border inside Afghanistan in support of the Taliban.
It comes too in the form of those Islamist clerics in many parts of Pakistan who act as recruiting officers and solicit support for the Afghan Taliban by calling for donations for its war chest. Let’s not forget that Pakistan also has its own version of the Afghan Islamists in the guise of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) which, although officially banned in the country, is inextricably connected to its Afghan counterpart.
Not that any senior Pakistani officials would recognise such a connection, of course. Most go out of their way to deny any links between their country and the Taliban in Afghanistan even though the Afghan Islamist group originally emerged from the madrassas that serve some of the hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
Even Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has described reports that Pakistani fighters have crossed into Afghanistan to aid the Taliban as “absolute nonsense”, and the Taliban as “normal civilians”.
But as regional intelligence analysts will almost unanimously confirm, the provision of safe havens on Pakistani territory and the military support to the Taliban that the group relies on is almost inconceivable without Pakistan state approval.
This is where it all gets rather shadowy and murky, given that for decades Pakistan, mainly through its all- powerful spy agency the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), has played a double game in Afghanistan.
On the one hand, Islamabad while proclaiming itself to be Washington’s ally in the so called “war on terror” was always at the same time disguising its real role in sheltering the Taliban and supporting it to enhance Pakistan’s influence in the region.
Let’s not forget that it was in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, where al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was found and killed after leaving his Taliban hosts in neighbouring Afghanistan. That he had been living there for at least five years hidden behind high walls near a renowned military academy still begs serious questions.
Bin Laden’s presence there and just who knew what about it both at Pakistan government levels and inside the ISI remains shrouded in controversy to this day.
So now, as the Taliban tightens its grip on Afghanistan, doubtless with logistical support from across the border, what might the outcome mean for Pakistan’s own future?
ISI has long obsessed about installing a friendly government in the Afghan capital Kabul. But currently, as fighting rages around the Afghan cities of Herat, near the western border with Iran and Lashkar Gah and Kandahar in the south, a political settlement seems as far removed as ever.
Unpalatable as it might be, the simple inescapable fact remains that as long as Pakistan’s military and intelligence community gives sanctuary to the Taliban, it’s hard to see what the Islamist group has to gain from committing to any further political negotiations.
READ MORE: David Pratt: Why the West will soon rue the day it abandoned Afghanistan
At this precise moment it is pressing home its military momentum and is not in the mood for talking. What the longer-term implications of this are for Pakistan itself remain to be seen, but it’s a dangerous line for Islamabad to walk in trying to stay in Washington’s favour while at the same time accommodating the Taliban.
Just lately a certain boasting by certain senior Pakistani officials about the US failure to defeat the Taliban has also only further soured relations with the administration of US President Joe Biden.
The bottom line here is that should Afghanistan be sucked into a wider civil war involving other regional neighbours like Iran, Russia and China, as well as Pakistan, there’s no telling where things might end up.
Then there is the question of what happens if the Taliban succeed in taking over complete control in Afghanistan and again act as hosts for other jihadists from across the globe. Could ISI then be sure of continuing to manage their proxies?
Might it be that Pakistan’s own Islamists and extremists could feel emboldened? Here too on its own doorstep the Pakistan government might have miscalculated. As many observers have already pointed out, for some considerable time Islamabad has indulged in the risky strategy of putting up with or mainstreaming its own extremist groups because of the wider political and strategic contradictions going on next door in Afghanistan.
It’s going on 20 years now since the September 11 attacks in the aftermath of which Pakistan’s then leader General Pervez Musharraf spoke of his country being at a pivotal moment and subsequently defied many within his own military by choosing to back the West’s “war on terror”.
Since then, there have always been those in Pakistan’s military and intelligence community who have played along while at the same time quietly keeping the Taliban sweet.
Pakistan is once again facing a crucial decision, one that events could still take beyond its control. Those ISI cadres who played that incendiary double game for all these years might yet find themselves and Pakistan badly burned as a result of their ambitions in Afghanistan.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel