Operation Ghazab Lil Haq (Pakistan - Afghanistan War)
- Thread starter ghazi52
- Start date
Khanviletey
Registered Member
I respectfully disagree. I think we should take territory , hold it for two to three weeks and withdraw. Then destroy whoever comes to claim it , then repeat!
This will force the taliban regieme to crumble. We can then have a pro Pakistan goverment back in Kabul.
The afghan people have to rise with us and live alongside us.
Pakistan zindabad
kV
Psyko70
Trusted Member
Ofcourse there money wasted in creating anti pakistan narrative. They are shitting right now. But im afraid they dont have many toilets.Look at all the Indians in this topic.
PakShaheen_79
Trusted Member
Toxic
Trusted Member
Not really, shaheds carry a pretty small warhead, for something like targeting a logistic centre you need something bigger like jet dropped ordnance, also they aren't any cheaper.
Shahed 136 or a Geran 2 costs 30-50k per drone while a F-16 strike combining the cost per flight hour + cost of a guided bombs comes out to 30-35k per strike, considering a F-16 can carry up to 12 Gbu 12s and hit multiple targets in one sortie, they are actually cheaper to use then using shahed type drones.
Last edited:
hydrabadi_arab
SpeedLimited
That corridor is used for terrorists infiltration so doubt Pakistan will give it up anytime soon.
Pakistan can get wakhan corridor as Afghanistan Balkanization is now inevitable. Pakistan is done chasing friendly Kabul regime.
PakShaheen_79
Trusted Member
مینوں سمجھ نہیں آوندی کہ اس جیمز بانڈ دی پھوپھی نوں ایہہ سارا کج کون دسدا اے!
ARMalik
Trusted Member
I told you fellows that Pakistan Military would stike Bagram airbase if it had to. Pakistan is systematically destroying all Military airports, depots, and anything of significance. Pakistan will ensure that these israeli terrorists sitting in A-Stan are neutralized.
Not only will Pakistan create a buffer zone in A-Stan, it will also create a buffer zone in Iran if it has to. Let these Zionist monkeys come.
Not only will Pakistan create a buffer zone in A-Stan, it will also create a buffer zone in Iran if it has to. Let these Zionist monkeys come.
SD 10
Trusted Member
We listening to CIA now?
Falcon26
Trusted Member
MootPoint
Registered Member
Populist political slogans over the years have distorted historical facts, and the above post did good to remember the actual situation back in 2001.
I would like to add a few more notes to the respected member's post (apologies for lengthy post).
Unlike today in 2026 where the US is a declining power largely exposed as an enabler of genocide, Post 9/11 the situation was quite different. It was a unipolar world. US had weaponized its victimhood to gain the full sympathy of the world, and had a carte blanche to conduct a military invasion wherever it deemed fit.
Predictably, the Indians went into overdrive, frantically lobbying for their "Pak is the epicenter of terror" propaganda. I remember the Indian govt even sent an urn with the water of the Taj Mahal as a tribute to the victims of 9/11. They made huge efforts to make Pak a military & economic target. From Pak's perspective, it would have been incredibly stupid & in fact suicidal to play into this Indian design.
Therefore Musharraf made his decision logically, but also hedged his strategic bets knowing the history and track record of the US, ensuring the survival of the Afghan resistance. The US accused him of "double dealing".
Why did Mush hedge his bets? Because the fact is that the US was also double dealing with Pakistan since day 1.
There are many reasons but one of the big ones was that Musharraf did not compromise on deepening relations with China, despite becoming a major US ally.
In 2002, Chinese Vice Premier visited Pakistan at ground breaking ceremony of Gwadar port. This is when construction of the port actually started. Followed by a major bilateral roadmap signed with CCP in 2003. Sure it was not under label of "CPEC" (which was essentially a marketing term launched in 2015 and all politicians have claimed credit for it). But practically, 2003 is when CPEC started with the construction of Gwadar. Balochistan coast was not only going to be a major economic conduit for both China & Pak's underdeveloped western regions, but also provided a "Plan B" to China to safeguard against the then emerging US strategy in the Indo-Pacific and South China Sea.
Musharraf played the game, befriending Bush to gain his trust. Pakistan also had a strategic leverage over the US due to its logistical dependence on Pak supply lines. But in the background, the US intelligence establishment with support from the rabid Karzai (and later Ghani) govt, and the dozen or so Indian consulates that suddenly sprung up along the Af-Pak border, started their covert actions. The US objective was to (a) build regional leverage over Pak to enable a policy of coercion if and when required and (b) keep Pak off balance in the context of the long term goal of building up India as a counter weight to China.
In 2002/2003, the defunct organization known as BLA resurged and started launching attacks with increasing frequency. I use the word "defunct" because BLA was originally a Soviet creation back in the Zia era. Back then, it was effectively neutralized through a combo of military action and tribal agreements. How come BLA suddenly got revived in 2002/2003? And why when Balochistan was finally getting a massive development project?
Then in 2004, the AQ Khan scandal emerged. I remember Time Magazine (was the biggest current affairs mag in those days, this was pre social media era) published a huge propaganda issue titled "Merchant of Death" in which the first time the boogeyman of Pakistan's "Islamic" bomb was brought into the Western public and policy discourse. A great deal of pressure was brought on Pak. We can argue about how Mush handled it, but whatever he did was in interest of protecting the nukes (and I believe AQK was not entirely innocent either, but that's a different topic). Later I also came to learn that US put immense pressure on Pak to abandon its tactical nuclear development program, but establishment strongly resisted it. This program was initially our main deterrent against India's emerging cold start doctrine - up until PAF modernization efforts started bearing fruit and Pak gained a qualitative edge in multi-domain ops.
Around this time, US had started putting the pieces in place to conduct actual military strikes within Pakistan. This is around the time UAV tech had really matured, giving intelligence agencies direct capability to conduct missions in what were deemed "frenemy" countries (by avoiding the potential embarrassment of having pilots shot down in an allied country). Musharraf had strongly resisted ISAF boots on the ground in Pak, stating that any counter terror ops required within Pak territory would be conducted by Pak army itself. Musharraf was largely successful in this aspect. However, India/Afg support to anti Pakistan terror groups grew exponentially with the blessing of the US. The intent was to bog down the Pak army & create a pretext for direct US actions on Pak soil. They started succeeding post 2006 (in my opinion thanks largely to political instability which weakened Musharraf's internal position, but that's debatable). A massive information warfare program was simultaneously launched to lionize elements like Akbar Bugti or the fanatics of Lal Masjid, creating a huge counter cost, and deterring a "hard" response by the state.
India was also encouraged by the US to utilize Iranian border areas to boost anti-Pak terror launchpads. While the covert support was always known, it was formalized in a brazen public agreement in 2015, allowing India to officially run Chabahaar. The US also granted sanctions waivers to provide a legal cover to it. I wonder why AIPAC & US establishment didn't oppose it, despite knowing it would directly fund Iran's military?
Net-net, the US was double dealing with Pak throughout its presence in Afghanistan.
It's easy to criticize Pak policy of that time and it certainly deserves its due share. But hindsight is always 20/20. The reality is that since 1947 Pak never had any good options in Afghanistan, only hard choices. Just imagine what the situation would be today had establishment not played its "double game". Afghanistan would still have a rabidly anti Pak govt, that much is certain. Not only that, but with the added headache of having an internationally recognized hostile govt controlling it, and that too directly protected by the US military. And there would still be terror attacks from Afghan soil on Pakistan. This would have been the real two front disaster for Pak. At least today Pakistan has the strategic autonomy to conduct military strikes across the border in response to the terror attacks. Today you have forces conducting ops deep inside Afg, would you have been able to do that with a US backed, internationally recognized govt sitting in Afg? And had the US not ended up in a quagmire in Afghanistan, it would have gained full strategic autonomy to shape the region as per its whims particularly vis a vis setting up India as the regional hegemon. We would be hard pressed to conduct Bunyan-ul-Marsoos style ops, and India would not have suffered the geopolitical reversals it has experienced since that point. To be clear, I'm not saying establishment policy post 9/11 was 100% correct, I'm just theorizing that the alternatives would have been just as unpredictable and almost certainly even more disastrous.
Who knew the idiotic Taliban would end up in the Indian camp post the US withdrawal. I suppose Pak underestimated the resurgence of that deep ethnonationalist malaise which has afflicted the Afghan national psyche since 1947. And overestimated its ability to control them. But what we have today is at least the strategic space to counter this threat at the source, and the current long overdue ops are a proof of that.
Last edited:
hasssanali8998
Elite Member
she hates taliban just as much as the rest of us and her reports are accurate , so she gets a pass
Meengla
Elite Member
The attacks against Afghanistan are strategic in nature with very likely a regime change operation in mind or at least make it extreme clear to the stupid Afghan Taliban regime that if they don't behave then more such strikes happening in future.
The main problem with regime change is that Afghans, being Afghans, would sell themselves to the next highest bidder.
Someone rightly said many pages before that even the Syrians, bearing the brunt of massive geopolitical moves, are still educated, civilized enough to start better than Afghanistan. The only 'nation' worse than Afghanistan on Earth is probably Haiti.
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
-
-
-
-
-
Breaking: First F-47 Sixth-Gen Fighter Already Being Built, Expected to Fly in 2028 (1 Viewer)- Latest: AZ_HighCountry
