Pakistan’s attacks on Afghanistan
I don’t think I need to explain what I am referring to. In recent times, there have been ongoing bombardments of Afghanistan by our neighbor, Pakistan. This has included attacks such as the bombing of a hospital in Kabul, where more than 500 innocent civilians reportedly lost their lives. More recently, another attack killed more than 35 civilians, including women and children, across several provinces and injured more than 100 others.
The purpose of this post is not to inform you about these events. They are already well known and widely discussed among people who follow politics. Instead, I want to propose what I believe is the most effective way for the current de facto Afghan government to address this issue.
Many people argue that Afghanistan should purchase anti-aircraft systems, saying, in their own words, “even if we have to eat grass.”
Here is the problem. Modern air defense systems can cost anywhere from several hundred million to several billion dollars per battery. In addition, each interceptor missile costs millions of dollars. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border stretches approximately 2,640 kilometers. Now do the math and ask yourself how feasible such a strategy really is. To put this into perspective, Afghanistan’s entire gross domestic product is only around $19 billion. You won’t be eating grass, you’ll be digging mass graves for the millions who would die because the country sacrificed its economy to afford those anti-aircraft systems.
Now let’s assume that, somehow, the money was found, as if all 40 million Afghans sold a kidney. An anti-aircraft system is not an impenetrable wall. It can still be destroyed, especially when the Afghan military has limited experience operating advanced conventional military systems and lacks the technological infrastructure required to support them. On top of that, every interceptor missile costs millions of dollars, meaning you would need a continuous and extremely expensive supply chain.
Let’s take it one step further and examine the logistical challenge of acquiring such systems. As much as people would like to believe that international arms sales work like walking into a store and making a purchase, they do not. Military technology is sold based on strategic relationships and political interests.
Who is realistically going to sell advanced air defense systems to a Taliban-led government? The United States, Europe, and their allies are effectively out of the question. That leaves only Russia and China as potential suppliers. Russia is heavily engaged in its war against Ukraine and is unlikely to prioritize Afghanistan. That leaves China.
Now ask yourself: is China willing to damage its international reputation by selling advanced military systems to a Taliban-led Afghanistan while also risking its strategic relationship with Pakistan? Whether we like it or not, Pakistan has a larger economy, stronger diplomatic ties, and greater strategic value to China. Furthermore, despite Pakistan’s many political and human rights problems, it still allows girls to attend school and provides women with significantly more rights than Afghanistan currently does.
Those issues may seem irrelevant to you, but they matter greatly to other governments. States generally act based on pragmatism. A stronger economy means greater trade opportunities. Better diplomatic relations make cooperation easier. And women’s rights are not only viewed as a human rights issue but also as a matter of international reputation. Few countries are willing to risk their global image by appearing to support policies that severely restrict women’s rights.
There are many more reasons, but I believe the overall point is clear. Acquiring advanced anti-aircraft systems is, at best, an extremely poor investment and, at worst, practically impossible.
So what is the alternative?
The solution is surprisingly straightforward. It has been in front of us the entire time.
Reopen education for women and girls. Many people see this as merely an internal issue, but internationally it is one of the biggest obstacles preventing Afghanistan from improving its diplomatic relations. The world doesn’t necessarily act out of concern for Afghan women, but governments do care deeply about their own international reputation. Few countries are willing to deepen political relations with a government that is widely criticized for denying girls access to education because doing so could damage their own standing and credibility.
Greater international engagement. If girls’ education were restored, many countries would likely become more willing to engage in dialogue with the de facto government. While recognition would still depend on many political factors, it would remove one of the largest barriers to improved relations.
Economic improvement. Better diplomatic relations would likely increase humanitarian assistance, investment opportunities, and trade, leading to stronger economic growth over time.
Build a sustainable defense capability. A stronger economy would allow Afghanistan to invest more resources in national defense. In today’s battlefield, one of the most cost-effective military investments is drone technology. Drones alone would not defeat Pakistan in a conventional war, but warfare is not always about defeating your opponent outright. Deterrence is often more important than victory. A country only needs enough capability to impose meaningful costs on an aggressor so that attacking is no longer seen as a low-risk option. At present, Pakistan faces relatively little military cost when conducting cross-border strikes, which reduces the incentive for restraint. Increasing Afghanistan’s ability to impose costs could strengthen deterrence over the long term.