PTI Murad Saeed in Afghanistan, was 'controlling KP govt' from there: Rana Sanaullah

[Blain2]

If the sole purpose of those non-state actors was external influence - then it would be considered "kosher" in geo-politics. But that is not the case historically and therefore there is wrongdoing.

It is considered kosher in a pragmatic world. If we were looking at it from an idealistic PoV and the world was truly run as such, we would not have seen the slaughter of 30,000 innocent children in Gaza today. As I mentioned, every power of consequence has used non-state actors to push own interests so why fault ourselves for doing the same? Prior to Pakistan getting involved in Afghanistan, USSR had for decades played favorites there and placed its own people at the very top. Post-Jihad, NA was getting aided by the Russians, Indians etc. Pakistan did the same.

 

[Blain2]

Taliban politically very strong in Afghanistan, openly backed by China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey so Pakistan military has very limited scope to topple them, well, who brought them in power. Talk start from Bagram base end up on minerals .

View attachment 219965

Taliban are backed by no one. None of the above countries have gone beyond dealing with them as a reality in Afghanistan. No diplomatic relations etc.

Second, Taliban are not politically strong. They are disliked immensely in Afghanistan and their only trump card to unite the Afghans is through playing on the Pakistan bogey which only goes so far. Besides the Pashtun denomination, most other Afghans including Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks etc. dislike them immensely and they rule over them at the barrel of the gun.

Why we supported the supremacy of one denomination in Afghanistan has been explained by me in previous posts. A lot of our internal dynamics drove those decisions.