ISLAMABAD: As the United States nears the completion of its military withdrawal from Afghanistan, its longest war, Prime Minister Imran Khan reiterated Tuesday that a political settlement to the conflict would have been a pragmatic choice but the American insistence on the use of force “really messed it up” in the war-battered country.
The conflict in Afghanistan, which dates back to the invasion that followed the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks on the US, is at an end. In April, President Joe Biden said foreign troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11 — exactly 20 years after the attacks — rejecting calls for them to stay to ensure a peaceful resolution to that nation’s grinding internal conflict.
The prime minister, in an interview with Judy Woodruff for PBS NewsHour, an American news programme that aired early Wednesday morning, repeated there was “no other outcome because the military solution has failed” in Afghanistan.
“So, the Taliban sit down with the other side and they form an inclusive government […] This is the best outcome,” he said
At the outset, Woodruff asked the prime minister about his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan as the US completes the withdrawal. “Well, Judy, I think the US has really messed it up in Afghanistan,” he responded.
The US for two decades was trying to force a military solution, he said, adding “the reason why we are in this position now is because the military solution failed.”
“Now, what choices have we got? The best choice is that somehow we have a political settlement in Afghanistan where it is, as I repeat, an inclusive government.”
After suffering huge human and material losses while participating in the US war against terrorism, the prime minister made it clear that “We want to be partners in peace, but not in conflict.”
Imran said when, in the initial years following the US invasion, he raised his voice against the military adventure, he was dubbed as “anti-American” and called “Taliban Khan”.
“So, when they finally decided that there is no military solution, unfortunately, the bargaining power of the Americans or the NATO forces had gone,” he said, adding: “When there were 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, that was the time to go for a political solution.”
“But once they had reduced the troops to barely 10,000, and then when they gave an exit date, the Taliban thought they had won. And so, therefore, it was very difficult for now to get them to compromise. It’s very difficult to force them into a political solution, because they think that they won.”
The only good outcome for Afghanistan, the prime minister said, was a political settlement that is inclusive, so they form some sort of a government that includes all sorts of different factions there.
“The worst situation in Afghanistan would be if there’s a civil war and a protracted civil war. And from Pakistan’s point of view, that is the worst-case scenario, because we then we face two scenarios, one, a refugee problem.”
With three million Afghan refugees already residing in Pakistan, Imran said a protracted civil war would bring in more refugees. “Our economic situation is not such that we can have another influx,” he cautioned.
Secondly, he said, the worry is that the civil war will flow into Pakistan because the Taliban are basically ethnic Pashtuns and those on “our side will be drawn into it — and that also is the last thing we want.”
Asked about the claims of Pakistan lending support to the Taliban by providing them with so-called safe havens and that 10,000 militants had crossed over into Afghanistan recently, the prime minister called these comments “extremely unfair”.
“For a start,” he said, “the claim about 10,00 jihadi fighters having crossed over was absolute nonsense.”
“Why don’t they give us evidence of this? Firstly, let me just go back. When they say that Pakistan gave safe havens, sanctuaries to the Taliban, where are these safe-havens?
Pakistan, he added, hosts three million refugees, but the Taliban are not some military outfit. “They are normal civilians. And if there are some [non-civilians] in these camps, how is Pakistan supposed to hunt these people down? How can you call them sanctuaries,” he questioned.
When asked about his refusal to host the US bases in Pakistan to support counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, Imran said: “When a country loses 70,000 people and is bankrupted by this war on terror, when we joined the US after 9/11, we do not have the capacity to have any more fighting within our border or any terrorism within our country, because, when we were in the height of that war on terror, which Pakistan joined, there were suicide bombs taking place all over the country.”
“The businesses collapsed. Tourism collapsed. So, what we do not want to be is part of any conflict. Now, if there’s a conflict going on in Afghanistan and there are bases in Pakistan, we then become targets. We will then become part of a conflict which we were in the last 15 years, and we do not want.”
In June, Imran ruled out the possibility of providing bases to the US military for counterterrorism strikes in Afghanistan. When asked by an American news website Axios if Pakistan would provide military bases for Washington to conduct strikes inside Afghanistan, he said: “Absolutely not”.
When asked about the kind of relations he wanted to have with the US, the prime minister said: “Well, Judy, the last relationship was transactional. Pakistan was more like a hired gun. The US says that we paid you, we gave you aid, and that’s why you were fighting this so-called war on terror.”
“Pakistan, on the other hand, felt that here was a country which had no need to be part of this war. It loses 70,000. I mean, where — which other country has lost 70,000 people fighting for someone else’s war?
“So, Pakistanis felt that here we were, fighting the US’ war, our economy devastated. It was minuscule compared to the amount of money we lost in the economy. And yet we were blamed for the failure in Afghanistan.”
“Now,” he added, “Pakistan’s position is very straightforward. We want to help and we have helped getting the Taliban to talk to the US, got them on the dialogue table. We have done our bit.”
“What we cannot afford now, if there is civil war — what the US wants is […] US bases in Pakistan if there’s a civil war in Afghanistan. But if there’s a civil war in Afghanistan, we will immediately get stuck into it. There will be terrorism within Pakistan. We do not want — apart from anything else, our country cannot afford it.
“We have just recovered from a desperate economic situation. And we do not want to go through it again.”
“I hear that message,” Woodruff remarked, but went on to ask: “Are you prepared to accept Taliban victory next door?
“Absolutely, there’s nothing more we can do, except push them as much as we can for a political settlement. That’s all,” was the prime minister’s response.
“But what happens in Afghanistan, we can only pray that the people of Afghanistan decide what government they want. And so we hope that that’s what will happen in the end; they will form some sort of an inclusive government.
“But that’s for people of Afghanistan. As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have done what we can,” Imran added.
It is not US that messed it up. It is Pakistan that instead of supporting Ahmad Shah Masoud back in the 90’s, opted for Taliban (A group of Saudi funded mercenary monsters) who call themselves “Muslims” for regional influential gains and that paid off. This major mistake made the northern alliance our enemies and to this days the northern faction of Afghanistan hates Pakistan to the core. If we had not played like a proxy of Saudis to create Taliban government in 1996 and worked with Ahmad Shah Masoud to build a nation after Soviets left, the Afghans would have been a great ally and they possibly could never have any animosity with us.
It is a fact that Afghans had a racist attitude towards Pakistanis in the past. Instead if we had not made that mistake in the 90’s, and given them a hand of friendship, maybe their attitudes could have change and there would have been no Taliban, no Fake 9/11s and no conspiracy theories. Instead this region would have flourished and we could have had more allies on our side in the region to counter the enemy that works days and nights to destroy our very existence: India.
Whatever we did in the past, now is the time we should tell these Afghans to leave Pakistan and fight for their own country.
” …. to counter the enemy that works days and nights to destroy our very existence: India.”
You could have avoided reference to India and understand MAJBOORI of Pakistan?
Anyway, a peaceful Afghanistan is never in the interest of Pakistan (or its Miltablishment) as Afghanistan claims entire Pushtoon land (upto the banks of River Sindh) as its territory. Read more about the issue of “REFERENDUM” in NWFP & Northern Areas u/sec. 2(2)(c) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and Afghanistan’s not recognizing Pakistan for long time as soverign nation in UN. 😏