TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
Statement of the Problem
Objective of the Study
Significance of the Study
Organization of the Study
Afghanistan and Second World War
US Policy and the Cold War
US responses over Durand Line
Afghanistan moving towards USSR
Invasion of Red Army
US Covert Assistance during Soviet Invasion
Road to Geneva Accords
Emergence of Hardcore Taliban
Role of Neurons in War Quagmire
Major Character of War
Bush’s Major Faults and War Crimes
Bush’s Team and War Cabinet Role
Transformation of Ideas and Strategy
Change of Team and Democratic Policy
Transformation of Strategic Atmosphere
Revolution of Goals
Implications for Pakistan
The Disastrous and Undeniable Implications
a) Subjects’ anger at Government and Military
b) Human Losses
c) Economic Decline
d) Educational Debacle
e) The IDPs Catastrophe
Policy options for Pakistan
Restricting troublemakers and out comers by careful use of force
Commencement of talks with willing warring groups
Revival of Tribal System
Massive Financial Aid and Rehabilitation Programme
Rising Local Militias or Lashkars
The Support of Neighboring Countries
The Need of Advance Technology
Tough Stance against the Drone Attacks
United States of America’s Viewpoint
Psychological Impact of Drone Attacks
Drone Attacks Damage the US Interests
Indian vicinity in Afghanistan: Threat for Pakistan
Stability in Afghanistan
With humble words, I am immeasurably indebted to almighty omnipotent, the plenipotentiary and merciful, who endowed upon me the potential and ability to contribute a drop of material in the existing ocean of knowledge. I invoke peace for Holy Prophet Hazart Muhammad (PBUH), who is forever a light of knowledge, guidance and courage for the entire human race.
I am greatly indebted to my honorable research supervisor Dr. Mehmud-ul-Hassan Butt, for his enthusiastic guidance, sympathetic attitude, inexhaustible inspiration and enlightened supervision. His efforts towards the inclusion of spirit of hard work and maintenance of professional integrity besides other valuable suggestions will always serve as a beacon of light throughout the course of my life.
No words to express my heartfelt gratitude to my honored teacher, Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Director, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, who is gifted with all the traits of an excellent teacher and guide; his benevolent attention, keen and continued interest and inestimable inspiration, enabled me to attain my objectives without any difficulty.
I am able to present this dissertation only due to the untiring efforts, patience and countless prayers of my parents for their keen interest, useful advices and constant moral support during the course of my studies. I would especially like to say thanks to Azeem Khalid, Raja Qaiser, Noor ul Amin Kakar, Muhammad Amin Kakar, Muhammad Din Kakar, Karmaan Kakar and Daud Kakar who helped and supported me to achieve my goals and always raised their hands in prayers for me. I feel great pleasure to express my thanks to my friends whose care and prayers shaped my perception and helped me to success in every sphere of life progressively. I would like to thanks all those who helped me in the completion of my research work.
In the context of 9/11 and the ongoing war against terror, the US role in Afghanistan has transitioned from Bush‘s engagement to Obama‘s end game for Afghanistan. This transition has been put forth in the form of the US-Afghan exit strategy and the US Af-Pak policy. Both these policies cum strategies do not only affect the state of Afghanistan alone but also the other state regional stake holders in this region. One of the primary affected parties in this Afghan quagmire is Pakistan which has a major stake in the peace and stability of Afghanistan.
Pakistan is a neighboring state of Afghanistan, which played an active role in supporting the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet invasion inside Afghanistan. In the Post-Soviet era inside Afghanistan, Pakistan like the other regional powers tried to protect its national interests in the region through proxy involvement in Afghanistan. It was the support from Pakistan which played a crucial role in the ascendance of the Taliban movement inside Afghanistan.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 and the rise of militancy in the South Asia, Pakistan suffered a lot in terms of human and financial loss. Terrorism is not only a problem of US and the Afghanistan alone. Pakistan considers it as its biggest problem in the contemporary security environment. The enunciation of US Af-Pak policy and exit policy; safe havens of terrorists in the tribal regions of Pakistan; drone attacks inside FATA; the blame game against the Pakistani security agencies, the Indian role inside Afghanistan; Pakistan‘s bilateral and multilateral relations with its regional neighbors on the issue of militancy and extremism; breach of Pakistan‘s red lines by the US in the recent past and the dominance of anti-Americanism inside Pakistan are few of the key thematic issues which are going to define and describe diverse narratives on the US role in Afghanistan and its implications for Pakistan in particular.
The study of the dynamics of US role inside Afghanistan in lieu of the ongoing war against terror is of great significance with reference to understanding its impact and influence on the Pakistan‘s politics, security, economy and society in general. For the researchers of the strategic studies particularly concerning the dynamics of the Afghan quagmire and its implications for the region in general and for Pakistan in particular; this research study will provide an insight to the contemporary security scenario of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
PHYSICAL MAP OF GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNIC BOUNDRIES OF PAKSITAN AND AFGHANISTAN
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Map Source: http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/maps/afghanistan-and-pakistan-ethnic-groups/?ar_a=1
MY PERENTS AND BROTHERS
A glimpse at historical dynamics of the varying segments of world history hamper the conventional wisdom of world history while introducing the new domains in international political system. The contemporary trend of war on terror and its global implications, started in the post 9/11 world, resulted in the US invasions of Iraq (under the doctrine of preemptive strike) and Afghanistan (in order to combat Al – Qaeda and its intellectual mindsets). Presently, it is easy to imagine but difficult to practice the escape from the ongoing US – led war on terror.
The Bush doctrine of war on terror and its global promotion has fabricated a new strategic international environment in which the economic crisis, political disorders and social unrest have become the common attributes of world politics. In this way, the commencement of US global campaign under its war on terror has inaugurated a new race in world politics which has created an environment of ambiguous international security.
This war on terror in Afghanistan has changed the landscape almost all the near countries especially Pakistan. Pakistan, for many reasons, has been the prime victim of War on Terrorism. The war has also altered the regional security and political scenario as well as mutual relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. What this war changed for Pakistan? In response to this question, an endeavor has been made through this dissertation to have a brief appraisal of the implications for the region particularly in Pakistan’s context.
In this context the three isms, radicalism, terrorism and extremism have initiated great violence in the post 9/11 time. Pakistan, Afghanistan and the entire region is taken over with this threat. Pakistan joined with the US in the war when the US invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The US and its allies have terribly failed to triumph this War on Terrorism against Taliban in Afghanistan. This has recently affected the whole world the US and its allies have combated with colossal economic and military impediments. The allied forces have suffered the major loss more than 2000 soldiers in Afghanistan having spent billions of dollars. Till the date there seems no such substantial success received in Afghanistan. Major areas of Afghanistan‘s state are the US control where Taliban are getting powerful gradually and as narrated by a report Taliban lead on 72 per cent area of Afghanistan. Anti-American sentiments, cultivation of drugs, increased violence, massive corruption, and escalating attacks on the US and allied troops are a few determinants of today‘s Afghanistan. In addition drone attacks inflicting damage on the local population by the US have increased and evoked strong reaction. The US is losing in this war because of its bungled policies, and war on terrorism will not be triumphed by Obama administration without any peaceful adjustment of these issues, dialogues and conciliation efforts will serve as issues for peace and stability in the regions. Situation in tribal areas of Pakistan is becoming worst, where the use of force in these areas is leading to the collapse of security.
Pakistan became a vital U.S. partner and prominent regional player after the September 11 deadly attacks in the United States. Pakistan became a frontline ally of high strategic significance as the U.S war on terror has unfolded in neighboring Afghanistan. Firstly the US and its key allies have several reservations against Pakistan‘s contested role in War on Terror. In a way or other Pakistan‘s contribution has been seen with suspicions and downgraded. Secondly the reality that war in Afghanistan is unable to be won without Pakistan‘s help. It is worth mentioning that 75 per cent of the supplies to US pass through Pakistan. Moreover Pakistan installed almost 120,000 of troops alongside Durand line which is referred as Western border. Pakistan secured Western border at the cost of Eastern border with the arch-rival India. Furthermore Pakistan established1500 checkpoints on Af-Pak border. The problem lying on the other side of the border with US and its allies have failed miserably to control Taliban insurgency. This is indeed a losing position to control infiltration across the border. Including this Pakistan killed and seized more than 700 Al-Qaeda leaders. This is sufficient to establish Pakistan‘s assurance.
War on Terror and US presence in Afghanistan means a lot for Pakistan in more than one ways. Before War on Terror hit the region, Pakistan was a much better place to live in but this war and the presence of US troops have deteriorated situation in Pakistan. FATA, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and parts of KPK, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, once tripped away from the state writ and authority. Taliban fighters, gave tough time to Pak Army in FATA and KPK. Thus Pakistan observed extreme expansion in terrorism extremism, sectarianism. Although these problems, were there since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but the US interference, in this region, has intensified the complication of the overall circumstances.
These terrorist attacks sometime take a leap into sectarian dimensions and sometime they are meant to put an end to the peace. No doubt, that Pakistan‘s tribal areas have been constantly rumbling in the fire of turmoil since the US presence in Afghanistan since 9/11. Suicide bombings and killings in the rest of Pakistan have been on rise. During the course of history of Pakistan, tribal areas have remained trustworthy to the state of Pakistan and relatively calm as compared to the rest of Pakistan. However, the US presence in Afghanistan, Taliban insurgency and succeeding Army operations has put FATA into taters. It was smoothly run by Tribal Jirgas and code of Pukhtunwali but unnecessary military interventions in these areas have disrupted the traditional tribal system. There is full fledge insurgency going on with special evidences of involvement of foreign hand, and where the involved troubled region of Pakistan is Baluchistan which came into turmoil after the US interfered in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
South Asia was at peace before the 9/11 and US presence in Afghanistan but the War on Terror has troubled this peacefulness. Pakistan had good relations with India when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif positively invited Indian Prime Minister A.B Vajpai in 1998. This was the beginning but this peace process was dissatisfied by the Indian involvement in Afghanistan. The regional actors are now at loggerhead which were earlier approaching towards agreement even on many vital issues like Kashmir. Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan has further reduced the chances of a political solution of Kashmir. The US knew that increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan could lead to bitter Pak India ties but even then it went on doing it. Therefore US has exhilarated rather convinced India to escalate its influence in Afghanistan . Drone attacks are highly counter-productive as probability of killing one or two terrorist surely creates many more suicide bombers. Resultantly, US drone attacks have enormously deteriorated the security problems of Pakistan. Continuous Army operations in Pakistan have led to number of other problems. There are a greater number of transpositions inside Pakistan. This locomotion creates law and order and governance problem. Another problem which has simple consequences for Pakistan is that the US always maintains the use of hard force to deal with Taliban insurgency in Pakistan. These outcomes have undoubtedly demoralized Pakistan‘s efforts to curb extremism and terrorism.
No doubt, that the war on Terror has unambiguously made the world a hazardous place to live in. It has been more than 10 years since the War on Terror has started, but the world is clearly more insecure then it was before the commencement of war. Yet there seems neither end to this conflict, nor at least in the near future as the situation continues to deteriorate with every passing day. Explaining the major shift in the world former secretary general of the UN, Kofi Anan, once rightly quoted that 9/11 brought a seismic shift in international politics.
Statement of the Problem
In international relations, a state with a strategic geo-political situation often needs to form alliances to ensure protection and optimal tactical behavior. Pakistan is such a state due to its prominent location on the world map, as it borders with Iran, China, India and Afghanistan. Since its inception in 1947, its relations with the United States have been rooted in Pakistan’s regional insecurities and threats to its territorial integrity. Although the relationship has been tumultuous, recent terrorist attacks, including the attacks of 9/11 in 2001, have turned Pakistan into key ally of the United States in the fight against Islamic extremism; an ideological weapon perpetuated by the likes of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Role of Pakistan was frontline state after 9/11 in the War on Terror, the stability of Pakistan is vital to the success of the war being waged by the Americans and its NATO allies. Furthermore, Pakistan’s strategic importance has gained further notice due to the strong presence of the Pakistani faction of the Taliban, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). By looking back into Pakistan’s history, it can be suggested that the roots of extremism that are fracturing current Pak-US relations have been, in part, brought about due to previous American policies. By tracing the relations between Pakistan and the US, in terms of India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s nuclear program, it can be stated that the militaristic nature of American policies towards Pakistan have left a void in Pakistan’s civic institutions and consequent development. Furthermore, the current events unfolding in Pakistan due to the War on Terror in Afghanistan, as well as the struggle in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), reinforce this deficiency, and provide a compelling analysis of the short-comings of US foreign policy toward Pakistan
Objective of the Study
Objective of the study will be to attain a watchful investigation of this essential along with its consecutive and sequential foundation. This research would also emphasis on the suggestions for the security of Pakistan because of the augmented part of the US in Afghanistan's nature's domain. It will be taken after with the dissection of the choices accessible to Pakistan in the current unsafe circumstance. Inspecting out advanced outcomes would be considered deliberately and the weights and difficulties which Pakistan is confronting would additionally be illustrated.
Most suitable theory applicable to the current study is the Theory of Neo Realism, which will most appropriate to understand the role of United State in Afghanistan and its impacts on the frontline state Pakistan.
The schematic recommendation or the focal line of analytical argument would be, the drawn out and complete part of the USA in Afghanistan has placed Pakistan in unsafe circumstances due to its geo-political and geo-monetary setting , as it was at no other time and in future, and it will result in further crumbling of the public opinion with the climb in violence as well as sectarian clash. It will hugely raise force to impact in regards to the relationship between the conventional rivals Pakistan and India in the case of Afghanistan.
Significance of the Study
In context with the current assessment the imperativeness of mulling over Afghanistan and the US can't be denied by anybody. The USA can't avoid being included in the war which is based on the long span of time, in this war America has utilized a considerable measure of its economy yet with little accomplishment. The United States, E.U and international community free to move around at will is more hazardous than prior to the US attack on Iraq. The study is basic even critical in perspective of the root of the circumstances, climbing terrorism and certified mindfulness to security of Pakistan, and additionally it has gotten additional up to the modest in the reevaluation of exit strategy.
Over and done with historical and descriptive methods, research would be accomplished. While variables with genuine approach on hand composing would be carefully done. The references from print and electronic media will be imparted. Researchers who are having command and their essential focus on Afghanistan would be related with and scholastic examination would be learned.
The process of Literature review is an extremely important piece of exploration theory in scholastic rounds. As an imperative part of research, the review of available literature helps the specialist in not just taking in from past explores completed on the related subject yet it additionally helps in sparing time, cash and manual exertion on part of the scholar. Thusly, writing survey is amazingly basic in going through and assessing all the accessible and applicable writing in libraries (in the manifestation of books, all journals and articles,) and all literature on web as well. Copying the same line of development, researcher has encountered all the noteworthy written work which has finally guide the research towards a honest to goodness and precise review on the subject. It is rightly said a better than average research study can't be completed without satisfying this critical venture of the research.. So review of literature should be broad and organized.
1. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, in his article “Addressing the Roots Causes of Terrorism”, Islamabad Policy Research Institute Fact file, February 2006 clears that, the incident of 9/11 prompted the development of a global coalition to battle terrorism under the authority of the USA. The war on terrorism has changed the idea of security. This worldwide coalition drew its ethical quality from the support of the U.N. The war against global terrorism accordingly delighted in the widespread backing. Notwithstanding, there were numerous onlookers and experts who imagined that the USA had translated this backing as the permit to act singularly and without any respect to the principles of international law and power of the United Nations.
2. Anthony H. Cordesman, in his article “The Afghan Strategy Checklist: How to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Credibility of a Defining Test of Obama's Leadership”, Center for Strategic and International Studies, NOV 23, 2009, states that the issue in forming and exhibiting a dependable technique for Pakistan is both not the same as that for Afghanistan and includes unique sensitivities. Promoting the new challenges and problems that impact the Afghan war, and to mitigate the issues regarding the war.
3. Dr. Rifaat, Hussain in his book “The Anatomy of a Conflict: Afghanistan and 9/11”, 2002 clarifies that, The regard of Pakistani government against landlocked Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, offer 'intelligence and information’', and offer 'logistical backing' to US military strengths including the utilization of two Pakistani landing strips for crisis and salvage operations.
4. Prof. Michael Haas, writes in his article “U.S. War in Afghanistan Haunted by Bush war Crimes”, published in Global Research, March 01, 2009, that it is not just the people groups of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan whose human rights have been compressed, throughout these days the world is constantly changed into an unrestricted decision of the superpower which rest of the world have to obey. Numerous years of human rights movement are in authentic danger as long as administrative war punks live joyfully in the discovering that their criminal demonstrations will not be charged at any time and at any court.
Muhammad Ishaque Fani in his article “US-Pakistan Relations after 9/11; Options and Compulsions”, Pakistan Vision, July 2004 states that, After 9/11,. at the point when the US finalized to fight a war on terrorism and named it "Operation Enduring Freedom", it was a harsh decision fo rest of the world: "You are either with us or with the terrorists". The US required support from Pakistan to launch operation against Usama Bin Laden and his organization Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Through an imposed decision of the U.S. President Bush methodology, Pakistan was forced to surrender its aid to Taliban organization in Afghanistan and its discretion of Al-Qaeda and give logistical and intelligence sharing about the militant organizations in Afghanistan. President of Pakistan decided to join the US headed association together against war on terror.
Bob Woodward in his book “Bush at War”, 21 Nov 2002, writes tells about behind the sights story of how President George W. Shrub and his top national security counselors, after the starting stagger of the September 11 ambushes, headed the nation to war. His book significantly clarifies the Extensive references from the riddle discussions of the National Security Council and firsthand exposures of the private contemplations, concerns and explanations behind caution of the president and his war department and conveys the amazing story of a present day presidency in time of grave crisis.
Ayesha R. Khan writes in her paper “Conceptualizing Af-Pak: The Prospects and Perils, Asia Program Paper”, 2010, that the Af-Pak method coordinates consolidates the revolt in Afghanistan and militancy in Pakistan into one geopolitical unit, consequently developing the theater of war. Regardless of the way that it is right to perceive the interrelated parts of the risk, it adulterates the method for the rebellion on both sides of the Durand Line, and fails to like the differences in security trajectories and skills of the two states. This method can't avoid being likely to make grinding between the two neighbors and implausible to cause the sort of cooperation indispensable to annihilation the Taliban rebellion.
Nik Hynek, in his policy paper “Continuity and Change in the US. Foreign and Security Policy with the Accession of President Obama”, August 2009, writes that disregarding the regular conviction that the USA Security and remote Policy Strategy Change; has been completely copied, the move from George W.bush to Barack Obama truly exemplified a high measure of congruity between them. Disregarding this, regardless, a dismemberment of the technique for the USA. Security and outside Policy indicated a broad mixture of movements, including the most urgent one: the change in the beginning of the character of the global framework and the handy governmental issues joined with it as 'the impromptu Coalition of Willing' another incredible force show as parallel and tantamount reciprocalities.
Ondrejcsak Robert writes in his article “American Foreign and Security Policy under Barack Obama: change and continuity”, 2009 that a standout amongst the most noticeable shift in the USA remote strategy after President Obama's launch was the structuring of an alternate methodology towards Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Obama considered Afghanistan as a guideline security hazard and a fundamental theater of overall battle against terrorist and radical system all through the decision period and attested this evaluation after his initiation.
Thomas Carothers, in his report "Democracy Policy Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat?", January 11, 2012, states that. right from the earliest starting point, in the wake of taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama inherited a vote based system advancement strategy extremely hurt from its prior association with the war in Iraq and with coercive organization change all the more generally. The Bush years had similarly seen a diminishing in America's notoriety for being a worldwide image of majority rule government and human rights and climbing apprehensions of a more extensive fair retreat on the planet.
Organization of the Study
Present work is based on five chapters. The starting of the thesis is introduction, theoretical framework and conceptual framework, which sets a proper structure of entire work. The next chapter consists of historical background regarding the US-Afghanistan and Pakistan amalgamation. Third part of the thesis is about the geographical importance of Pakistan proximity with Afghanistan and the American war in Afghanistan during Bush era. Chapter fourth of the thesis is about the forwarding Bush’ policy to Obama’s tenure which elaborates the continuing impacts of US presence and acceleration of War on Terror in the region and Pakistan in specific. The fifth chapter concludes the ongoing war against terrorism outcomes and implications for the region, particularly in Pakistan’s context.
The attack of US in Afghanistan has let increased the enmity in the global village which have its own long side effects. Till to date more than 10year passed from the start of the war on terror, yet it creates the impression that the war has undermined the world instead of bringing about a significant improvement serene spot. The people of America and Europe are more in caution than whenever previously. The theory in this admiration, comprehend the dynamic of America's part in Afghanistan and its effect on the geo-vital and geo-political environment of Pakistan, here the hypothesis neorealism has been connected to give a hypothetical affiliation. What's more, the idea of terrorism has additionally been depicted as a wonder to comprehend the examination issue within reach.
Theoretical framework is an essential venture in the research process in light of the fact that it conveys the information, contentions and samples with theory for the results outcome. The vital reason for the hypothesis is to clear up the wonder and make it prepared to see in versatile quality. This range of the exploration is the structure that helps research work which presents, illuminates and delineates scholastically. In examination there develops structural issues and theoretical framework helps in handling these issues. In addition, it offers response to new issues that have not been had a tendency to at one time in viewpoint of the region of substitute perspectives. This, as well as it recognizes research solutions for research issues also. Theoretical framework gives a specialist with fitting research tools with which a scholar deciphers information and works it over and done with future viewpoint.
Theoretical framework is ordinarily occupied in one hypothesis yet it can in like manner breaker two or more speculations keeping in mind the character and scope of investigation study under observation. It likewise confirms the significance of the theory as far as particular issues and issues that are under the examination and yet exploration. It will be vital that a theory ought to have its essentialness with the issue under perception. Here it will be important to illustrate the ground circumstance with reference to the part of the USA and Pakistan in the Afghanistan quagmire, keeping in mind the end goal to discover the essentialness of the theory with the research theme, , US-AFGHAN Relations During Obama’s First Term and Its Implications for Pakistan.
The Afghanistan is unreasonably essential for Pakistan in three separate ways. In first case, Pakistan needs dependability in Afghanistan unequivocally. This is much imperative to crystallize in light of the way that with the United States as grants, this endeavor is achievable. After the withdrawal of NATO troops from the Afghanistan same would be the case as it was in the year of 1990s in this case Pakistan have to face the serious implications of the neighboring country. Second, Pakistan requires an all-wrapping government in Afghanistan which identifies with all parts of the Afghan community. Not a single miniorty group might be ignored. Third, Pakistan recognizes the part of India in Afghanistan as a developing risk for territorial strength, and Indian key relationship in Afghanistan does not run well with Pakistan, in light of the fact that Pakistan is perceiving about the future of Afghanistan that the United States would not need to ensure some long-standing security sign in Afghanistan.
In the post 2014 Afghanistan, Pakistan is anticipating that the US security region would be limited to counterterrorism mission. This circumstance will show a negative message to the local on-screen characters and to the nearby association in Afghanistan as well, as for as the US would bear an obliged part in Afghanistan nation and state constructing, this cautions very nearly all the stakeholders in the clash.
Neo-realism as developed from classical realism, focuses all the more on global and international system on satiates and role of non-state actors, instead of the way of man. They accept that states are affected with apprehension of security and basically forceful. As a result of anarchical and interest-based system,, neo-realists contend that all states don't believe one another and are at the present time expanding military abilities, through organizations together and economic development. A state should dependably be aware of exercises of the countries around it and must utilize a sensible and rational approach to handle the issues that emerge in managing with international political system
In Neo-realists' point of view, states fundamentally strive to check about their specific survival it is a previous essential for the looking for after of changed objectives. For the survival of a state and prompts progression of antagonistic defense mechanism, to maintain the deterrence of the state. As a result of the state of flimsiness and nonattendance of trust on exchange states is suggested as thought of security issue. There is a nonappearance of trust between states, as they can't be guaranteed of future desires of distinctive states.
The states in global framework will be represented by the important nature of world legislative issues that is political agitation in nature. In this setting it is apropos to quote Kenneth Waltz who has composed in his book “Hypothesis of International Politics” "The states in global framework will be regulated by the critical character of world administrative issues that is turmoil in nature. In this connection it is appropriate to quote Kenneth Waltz who has composed in his book theory of international politics, “Neorealists contend that there are essentially three possible systems according to changes in the distribution of capabilities, defined by the number of great powers within the international system. A unipolar system contains only one great power, a bipolar system contains two great powers, and a multipolar system contains more than two great powers. Neorealists conclude that a bipolar system is more stable (less prone to great power war and systemic change) than a multipolar system because balancing can only occur through internal balancing as there are no extra great powers with which to form alliances.”
Sovereignty of all state are the same, they speak to security of their own diversions inciting different forces. That is the reason as shown by Neo-realists, the spread of the abilities; control inside the international system is formulized by the standard of Anarchy. Consequently a few states get more capable than others as states can't give up their requirements for the purpose of others, however just interest- based relations that matter.
In understanding of Neo-realists, states shave two sets of scales in dealing power: (1) Internal Balancing and (2) External Balancing. Through internal balancing states assemble their capacities through increasing financial advancement and defense using, most fundamental to more investment and military strength and making reasonably skilled. Tool of external balancing, states create conspiracies with diverse states, normalizing and holding a look out for all the more capable states and force of different partnerships, in somehow.
As per Neo-realists there are three conceivable frameworks relying upon the progressions in portion of capacities, inside the international system on a very basic level regulated by the amount of overwhelming powers in the unipolar arrangement of the world there is one and only incredible power in international system, a bipolar system has two mind blowing forces, and a multipolar system has more than two uncommon poweres. Neo-realists school of thought feel that, construe that bipolar framework is less inclined to incredible force war and systemic change, accordingly, more steady than a multipolar system on the grounds that adjusting can just happen through interior adjusting as there are no additional extraordinary powers in the international system to structure organizations together with. As there is simply internal balancing in a bipolar schema, rather than external balancing and internal balancing, there is less open entryway for errors and likewise less danger of incredible force war.
Neo-realists argue that strength may be laid in the association of the international system. Influence of the state holds size domain and populace, possession advancement, investment proficiencies, political dependability, military quality, and fitness, in point of view of neo-realists. The worldwide revolutionary framework unquestionably prompts the justification of self improvement and force governmental issues.
Neo-realism is the starting point of international politics analysis and the basis of construction for the variant posterior theories. However, nowadays the emergence of new challenges against the neorealist thought lead to the partial marginalization of the theory. This attempt to demonstrate that neo-realism’s wisdom is diachronic and its main arguments can be proved over the time, considering the past and contemporary international system. To prove my argument, here main focus will be on the theoretical analysis given by the two most significant representatives of neo-realism, Waltz and Mearsheimer. Firstly, examining neorealism’s fundamental assumptions regarding its interpretation of structure, power and alternations of war and peace, with a parallel evaluation of them. Throughout this process mentioning relevant examples taken from the past and recent history. Secondly, arguing that instead of the recent decline, neo-realism’s depictions continue to be and always will remain a timeless wisdom for evaluating the International Relations.
Neo-realist theory comes to the front of politics debates before the beginning of Second Cold War, as a reaction to the new challenges of globalization, as a resurrection of state’s role over the system and to restate the significance of bipolarity and systemic constraints in international politics. To begin with, we should consider the neo-realist main theoretical arguments to form a clear view about the continuity of the theory until the present.
Kenneth Waltz was the first who dedicated the ‘autonomy of international politics’, as a separate field, apart from domestic politics, in his attempt to introduce the “scientific rigour” to the study of politics. Waltz suggests that the system is formed by “structural and unit levels”. Therefore, he makes a distinction between external and internal factors that affect the international system and he proposed the so-called “systemic theory” as a key that describe the actions of the states in the international system.
Waltz’s theory can be valuable for predictions. According to him, there is a defined “structural continuity” over the time situated in the anarchical condition of the international system. The variety of the unit’s structures, secures a disproportion in their policy outcomes. Hence, similarities in political structures between states sound similarities in their political effects.
Internationally, the “anarchy” is a greater rule that create balance between the states due to survival. Though states are characterized by variety domestically, their foreign policy has an exceptional analogy: “international political systems stand in relations of coordination. No one is entitled to command and none is required to obey”. States concede an existence of some “systemic constraints” commanded by the situation of anarchy between them, which determinatively affect the relations and impose the game of diplomacy and survival. States reconcile their interests and goals looking to their neighbours. As a result, international system of state is characterized and defined by the position every state possesses in the whole world ordering. Waltz analyzes his ambitious political structure concept reliant on three necessary calculations, in his attempt to distinguish the domestic politics from the international.
The assumption of neo-realists shows an skeptical point of view of International Relations. This in like manner disproves the theories of democratic peace and liberalism. The theory of neorealist is near US's War on Terrorism because neo-realist battles that there is turmoil in worldwide framework. This disorder is inclined to move ahead later on as well. This can't avoid being moreover a neorealist suspicion that disorder and warfare existed even at the time of Thucydides. This is without a doubt an unimaginable test to neo-realists in light of the way that if there is turmoil and war then what the response for this issue of war is. Neo-realists accept that democratic system and other related terms are subjective and effective states have a tendency to change the implications of the terms for their profit, whenever there comes the doctrine of necessity.
At time when Al-Qaeda crashed into the twin towers, due to the systemic impulses, the USA attacked Afghanistan as in global politics it is accepted that power must be spared at whatever the expense is. There ought to be no bargain on the affectability of the power of a state, because state is the prime player. Such an incident like September 11, could aggravate against such a state for retaliatory development with the heavy force that U.S. has. In this respect, being even minded, U.S. reaction of ambushing Afghanistan was correct in the world political system’s commitment that are naturally anarchic.
Structural realism or neo realism is a standard and it joins a couple of battles fought in the previous time and it pushes upon the framework within that wars have been happened. It refutes the ardors and conduct of entertainers that swayed to coincidental wars. It acknowledges and accept possession anarchic characteristics of the system which blankets the route for states and performing specialists to broadcast war against diverse states. Afghanistan may be deciphered and elucidated with the assistance of neo-realism theory, in dealing with the contemporary nonstop war in Afghanistan and the going with inclusion of America and different constrains in the memorial park of domain.
America apparently attacked Afghanistan to accomplish its aims however so far it has miscalculated desolately. America has not quite recently lost prospect of its points however it has made more issues for itself. Today America can't avoid being on the same route of UK and USSR paying little heed to its immense military power it could not attain a impressive aggregate triumph whatsoever, as verifiable proofs demonstrates that in the past numerous superpowers attempted to attack and conquer over Afghanistan however they fizzled totally.
Terrorism as a Conceptual Framework
Terrorism is as deep-rooted old concept in history as power greed rooted in human being since time immemorial. This phenomenon alone has spoiled the human history in a much unlimited magnitude. Even though terrorism is old and ingrained in human history that is why the complexity and dynamics of this phenomenon is very difficult to define and understand. In today‘s world it has taken so many relative shapes that it is indeed difficult to crystalize and analyze the differentiation between terrorism and a common act of violence. In previous times, it was believed that terrorism is because of the injustices in society, and could be economic, social or political injustice but it leads to the acts of violence and terrorism. One country’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, is a relative concept. However, there is an attention grabbing consideration about the validity context of the violence and terrorism. On one side, if aggression is used to bring down a dictator or to liberate a confiscated area, terrorism is justified in this situation and comes under the tag of freedom fighting. This indicates that fighting has moral perpendicular in the dominion of society and politics. While on the other, the same freedom fighters in International Politics under Neo-realist’s umbrella, is considered non-state actor or terrorist as threat to that state sovereignty.
In near past, state used force and violence to eradicate the society of the bourgeois class in France. The systematized use of violence was first hired in the French Revolution during 1789. As Sue Mahan has suggested, that this time period was notably called the reign of terror. As Terrorism has been intertwined with politics, there for the phenomenon of terrorism is no more a psychological issue. Now almost every act of terror has political implications and significances. Bruce Hoffman writes that terrorism is fundamentally and inherently political in nature. The ideas and concept related with Terrorism quite often change with changing environment. It is also all about expending power; the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and the use of power to achieve political aim and motives realistically.
As compare to the past, the phenomenon of terrorism is completely different in the modern day sense. It has been converted to gain many features in the global community. Now a days it is more lethal, dangerous and explicit in perpetrating terror to the modern world. Terrorist have also assimilated refined and up to date measures to complete their task. Earlier terrorist groups used to dispersed and chaotic, and were not organized and sometime used to act impulsively on their actions. Regarding the causes, one of the causes was that communication was not durable and strong in previous days. With the advancement of communication and transportation, terrorists have adopted these means with the passage of time. The attacks on Twin towers and Pentagon showed the unescapable velocity of these terrorist groups, and clarified that they have the ability to go beyond their limits and can impose substantial destruction upon their adversary.
In dissertations of security and strategic studies and International Relations, terrorism was taken as an act of violence against a state by non-state actors under the umbrella of ‘realpolitik’. However, there is also state-sponsoring terrorism types in this type states are involved in the acts of terrorism against its own citizens. These acts can be of two types; against a minority or a group of people, or rather against a state. States resort to this type of terrorism because many times, a full fledge war is not reasonably priced at a time. In this regard we can put example of Kashmir in which India‘s role can be considered as an example. India is using all means of force and harassment to crush Kashmiri people.
Religion as a political tools, has acquired excessive significance and having a vital role day to day life of a common man and thus it carries huge influence in their emotions and feelings. Terrorists have seldom religious ambitions but they smartly use this as a tool to justify their actions. There are two narratives regarding the religious terrorism. On one hand, for freedom fighters in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya, it has become holy duty to free Muslims from the controls of authoritarians and Imperialist non-Muslim states. On the other hand, West is certain about that this is a plain acts of terrorism rather than freedom fighting. But men who are fighting for their freedom may be Muslims but it does not mean that they are involved in religious terrorism, where West seems likely to lose touch with objectivity in this surveillance.
There was more compulsion rather than negotiation on the magnitudes of the war. America would be able to conquer Afghanistan and rule it, but there are very less chances. At regional and extra-regional level, situation is very precarious in Afghanistan because this country is highly important for the NATO, US, Russia, India, China, Pakistan and Central Asian states. This puzzling situation will set NATO forces in a big embarrassment. As they have killed countless innocent people including thousands of their soldiers, but resultantly they have nothing significant in their outcomes.
The political history has witnessed that no country can win two-front war. Here in this context, the US administration made a serious mistake by launching war on two fronts at the same time, such as in 2001 it attacked Afghanistan, whereas two years later it attacked Iraq in 11th month of 2003. This move shifted the focus from Afghanistan to Middle East. In the result, the US has failed in Iraq and has been sent packing. This was a serious embarrassment because they don’t find any Weapon of Mass Destructions in Iraq for which the US and its allies attacked Iraq under Bush administration. Following the same mistake, now a days the America and NATO are once again in the unchanged situation. They attack here to weaken Al-Qaeda network but it‘s owing to retaliate more determinedly after the death of their leader Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Now, Pakistan‘s interests leis in the peaceful and friendly Afghanistan. So the stability between the two capitals intertwined with each other. on the other hand, it reflects that the disorder in Afghanistan have a large amount of prospect to leak out to Pakistan because of same culture and religion of both the communities of the state which is in the regional security complex dynamism.
It would be reasonable and suitable to conclude that Pakistan has very gloomy hope regarding the future of Afghanistan in a sense, that Pakistan has followed a different path then the US wished or asked for. As this was natural because Pakistan is a sovereign state and is capable of formulating its own policies according to its own national interest. It is as a result, extremely essential that the US and Pakistan as main players must be on a single page in order to formulate a transparent policy for friendly Afghanistan.
The theory of neo-realism here is relevant, with references to Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular and the region in general to explain US divided policies towards victim states. The Af-Pak doctrine and the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan are examples of neo-realist dissertation. US by using its power influence have tried to inspire the roles of Pakistan and Afghanistan in relation to the implementation of these two above mentioned policies along with strategies. US wants to maintain and contain a minimum presence in this embarrassing situation and in this regard, keeping in view of US strategic interests and the ongoing war on terror, the collaboration from Pakistani side is relatively important in order to produce better results and outcomes. As already expressed not only by Pakistan and Afghanistan alone but by the other regional powers as well, there are issues of convergence and divergence on the issue of current US policies in Afghanistan. Neo-realism theory helps in clarifying that, it can be realized what outcome the states at risk should be ready to face in the near future in view of the dynamics of ongoing war against terrorism in Afghanistan. The understanding of such complex relations would deliver a better understanding of things going on in this war industry.
Afghanistan and Second World War
Afghanistan is a land locked country, situated in the heart of Asia and having links with three different cultural and geographical regions. The links are in such a way like in South East Asia with Indian Subcontinent, in North with Central Asia and in West with Iranian Plateau. This unique geostrategic position of Afghanistan has always lured the super powers of the world to invade in Afghanistan. The main thing is the gate way to central Asia. Here we can mention the names of invaders like Chingaz Khan, Babar, Alexander the Great and some others.
Afghan economy which was in the weaker position further disturbed by the WWll. Afghanistan adopted an impartial policy in the Second World War. In spite of having cordial relations with Japan, Germany, and Italy, Afghanistan’s foreign exports were almost suspended to Western states, due to war the export was dry fruits. Around 1950, they started to export fruits and skins to the markets in US 1950s. At the end of WWll, US had shafted from old policy of isolation to the new one, and mad a huge intervention. On 6 of June, 1942 USA inaugurated her first office in Kabul. W.H.Van Engert was appointed ambassador in Afghanistan while on other hand Muhammad Naim as Afghan Ambassador in US. In December 1942, made a proposal that USA will construct a road passing through Subcontinent, Afghanistan, USSR and China but was rejected by Soviets. America carried on its financial assistance in several projects. They also urged Afghanistan to produce only that much opium that is only required in Medicine as Afghanistan was and is a big producer of Opium in the world. Majority of American drug dealers mostly contact Afghan dealers. Which finally American requested the Afghan authority to disband the Opium. So in short after the Second World War cordial and friendly relation was established between Afghanistan and USA. Afghanistan became very much inspired from US and UK democratic values, especially in bringing peace in the world. The message was conveyed by Afghan PM, Shah Mahmood Khan. Upon arrival, the State Department confessed “US had also an important place for Afghanistan in its policy regarding Middle East”.
US Policy and the Cold War
Cold War was having an aim just to counter communism form further proliferation. It was a kind of proxy war between capitalist and communist bloc. In short the US policy of Cold War was basically to stop the progress of Soviet Union into Europe. The then USSR was expanding her ideology towards Asia and Europe. Afghanistan; which was having a long boarder with Soviet Union. So therefore Afghanistan occupied very important role in the US policy Desk against communist bloc. Morrison Knudson basically an American company sign contract with Afghanistan government which was of of $17 million worth. The aim of the contract was to repair the dams, canals power plants and power generating projects in Southern Afghanistan. The project failed due to economical factor. Ever Afghan Foreign Minster paied trips to Washington to request the US government for the loan of $118 million but the government rejected and stated that US is not in a position to grant such huge amount. Afghanistan was occupying pivotal role for the US as in the era of Cold war and in the Great Game Gamble. While on other and Afghanistan requested again and again the US administration in order to upgrade the Afghan army but paid no heel to their demands. The Afghans were also feeling their selves insecure from the communist bloc. Finally Afghanistan stated that if US in not willing to give us more assistance than we will move towards USSR. From here US suggested to assist Afghanistan in order to exclude USSR influence. While Afghanistan also demanded the solution or the settlement of Durand Line issue. USA at that time miscalculated the importance of Afghanistan; as they were of the opinion that Afghanistan was a small poor country with having less resource. So the initial American worries about Afghanistan move to Kremlin but the issue of Pashutunistan. The afghan government at that time demanded a separate homeland for the Pashtuns challenging the Durand line.
US responses over Durand Line
George McGhee was assistant Secretary of US for South Asia arrived at Kabul in the summer 3rld month of year 1951 and narrated the Pushtunistan issue with the war time minister Sardar Daud. Daud was well known Pashtun nationalist figure in the politics of Afghanistan even today Afghan consider Daud as one of the great leader of Afghanistan. McGhee stated that the issue of Durand line may pursue Kremlin to drag in the conflict and may involve her. McGhee also warned that the Afghanistan may not move towards Soviet for the settlement of Durand line issue. The US government requested both the countries to mutually come to the common terms accepted for both and resolve issue of demarcation. It is proposed that Islamabad and Kabul must cooperate among themselves in the solution of the issue. USA stated that Afghanistan’s attitude was unreasonable and unjustifiable on issue of Pushtunistan. The main reason why Afghanistan was unaccomplished of not getting American weapons was that one. Washington was agonized about constant resistance between Afghanistan and Pakistan on their disparity over the mentioned issue. It was in 1952 that US government made several attempts to arbitrate between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but the Pakistani claim made was not accepted by Afghan government. After doing a tiring job, US had removed both Pakistan and Afghanistan from its list of foreign policy, because she was failed to settle the Durand line issue. Afghan government than decided to construct the roads of Afghanistan for this help was demanded form US in shape of economic assistance but US again refused. Due to shortsightedness of US, they were of the opinion that Soviet will not move towards Afghanistan. While on other hand Soviet was keen to take the advantage of the situation and accepted Afghanistan demand of construction of roads. In the year 1953 had acquired the charge of Secretary of state of US. While on other hand Sardar Daud took the charge of PM of Afghanistan. During this period USA again helped Pakistan by granting economic and military assistance. Meanwhile Afghan Ambassador in Washington expressed their fears that US is disturbing the status quo in the region specially when there is territorial dispute between both countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan in shape of Durand line. Ambassador also stated that US should also assist Pakistan militarily. At the same time Pakistan became member of SEATO (South East Atlantic Treaty Organization), here once again Afghanistan was denied from becoming member of the regional security treaty.
Pakistan government took a decision to establish “One Unit”. This was strongly condemned by Afghanistan government. In reaction to this the agitated mob attacked Pakistan embassy and consulates in various provinces of Afghanistan. As a result the relation was badly deteriorated. So from over all the situation and behavior of US towards Afghanistan, finally Soviet got the benefit and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushev and Nikolai Buganin moved to Kabul in December in 1955, he announced aid of some 100$ billion to Afghanistan, beside this USSR also supported Afghanistan claim over the Durand line issue, so a result of this US stated that USSR had made Afghanistan its satellite state. During whole this episode Daud played a significant role in brings Afghanistan and Soviet nearer to one another. Daud stance on the Durand line or the Pushtunistan issue was very explicit, hence he was staunch follower of Pushtunistan movement as a result of it both countries fails to understands one another.
Afghanistan moving towards USSR
Afghanistan adopted it traditional role of buffer state between both the contrasting blocs during the cold war era rather than joining any specific military alliance. During the cold war era Afghanistan received as much as 1$ billion in the form of economic assistance from both blocs. Both of these countries tried their level best to invest and help the Afghan society by initiating small kinds of developmental projects. During this era the Soviet influence was very much rather than American one. Soviet got the soft corner form the Afghans society, means people were having greater sympathy with the Soviets, it was because by the provision of the military, economic and enhancing the infrastructure of the Afghanistan. Soviet during this period provided a massive supply to the Afghans army, beside these thousands of Afghan military attended the military colleges of USSR, while some attended US colleges. There this kind of assistance played very important role in the strengthening of the Afghan army. In the US policy a great shift occurred in 1950’s since than US adopted a more flexible approach towards Afghanistan, and hence the importance of Afghanistan was increased in the US foreign policy making process. The shift in the foreign policy was due to the Soviet nearness to Afghanistan in shape of the various kinds of aid. It must be highlighting that in June 1958 Sardar Daud went to American on an official tour; during tour he expressed his desire of having a cordial relation. Similarly in 1959 US President Eisenhower paid official visit to Afghanistan. The importance of the visit was that despite of the any military alliance, US president visited Afghanistan. The US president during her visit declared the some 10$ million aid to Afghanistan, the nature of the aid was financial, especially for the construction of Kabul Airport. During this period US was also providing their support to Pakistan, so a result fail to pressurize Pakistan on a Durand Line issue.
Afghanistan during this period was demanding from the US to assist in the military equipment’s, but US from the time being again and again refused to provide military aid to Afghanistan because of the fair that it would alarm and will compel Soviets to enter in the dilemma. In 1960s, both the superpowers carried on their financial support to Afghanistan. Afghanistan looked to be glowing on the track of the development specially building up into a central Asian Finland. It means non-communist country significantly diverge to the sanctuary of the socialist USSR.
When Kennedy was in office the relation was once again badly deteriorated, not only with the US but also with Pakistan, which as a result ultimately closed the border. During Kennedy period Afghan Foreign Minister Mohammad Naim urged the US to grant the assistance or loan especially for the construction of overland route via going to Iran, it was just in order to avoid dependence upon Soviet. In response to this demand Kennedy rejected the offer, while also urged the Afghanistan to settle the border dispute with the Pakistan. Finally King Zahir Shah intervened in the affairs and relations along with trade were restored.
In 1964 new development was occurred in the power vacuum of Afghanistan. The new constitution of the 1964 prevented the royal Daud’s family form power. During this period once again Soviet increased her relation with the Afghanistan. Though from long period, Soviet was trying to establish good relation. This was the era specially when political freedom was aroused and as a result of the political freedom some small parties appeared over the scene of the country. In the small political parties of the country, there one can see the color of communism. The incarnation of the political ideology started for few years. During this period the relation was relaxed that were being hot for a long time between two blocs. Specially the US and USSR adopted a Détente. In the period of Détente the US adopted her pre 1955 policy, in which US adopted a neutral role regarding the Afghanistan, stopped her assistance to Afghanistan. In contrast to this USSR was still morally supporting the Afghans.
The lack of interest in the US policy was one of the major factor in the Afghanistan conundrum, which compelled the Soviet to move towards Afghanistan, as a result of which Soviet provided some 552$ million aid from 1955 up to 1965, while in contrast to this US total aid was roundabout 350$ million to Afghanistan. The USSR assistance to Afghanistan increased their influence and played very important role in incarnating the Communist manifesto. As earlier communist supporting parties were installed in the Afghanistan, those parties were favoring the Communist ideology. One of the most notable political plate forms was the Afghanistan People Democratic Party (PDPA). It was form during 1965 and lead by Noor Mohammad Tarakai. PDPA played very important role in bringing Sardar Daud in to power and in the ousting of Zahir Shah from power in 1973 through a military coup. In 1973 monarchy was abolished, Afghanistan was declared as a republic while Daud became in to power. While with the rise of Daud in the power, tussle started in the relation between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The main cause of Daud was that it initiated the Pushtunistan issue and also provided support to the Baloch insurgents. While on other hand Bhutto also provided huge and massive training and shelter to the anti Daud elements. The anti Daud elements were in shape of Islamic militants or movement, the movement that later fought war with Red army. American didn’t played very important role in the military coup as she was following the Détente policy. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of moved to Afghanistan during 1974 and hold negotiation with Daud. Secretary of State urged the Afghan counterpart to adopt a neutral policy and also to establish a friendly relation with America.
 Moeed Yusuf, “Pakistan, the United States and the End Game in Afghanistan: Perceptions of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Elite”, US institute of Peace (July 2011), http://www.usip.org/publications/pakistan-the-united-states-and-the-end-game-in-afghanistanperceptions-pakistan-s-foreign-elite (accessed August 6, 2012).
 Micheal Breacher and Frank P. Harvey, Realism and Institutionalism in International Studie (New York: University of Michigan, 2002), 21.
 John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), 28.
 David Baldwin, Neoliberalism and Neorealism and World Politics (New York: Columbia University, 1993), 45.
 Kenneth Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (Spring 1988): 615-628.
 Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18, no. 4 (1998): 615-628
 Robet D. Crews and Amin Tarzi, The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan (New York: Harvard University Press, 2008), 59.
 Walter Laqueur, The News Terrorism (London: Phoenix, 2007), 8.
 Sue Mahan, Terrorism in Perspective (London: Sage, 2008), 1.
 Bruce Hoffman, Defining Terrorism (New York, 2009), 4.
 Rafiduddin Ahmed et al, “Terrorism”, IPRI Journal 4, no.2 (2003): 88.
 Dr. Subhash Kapila, “Afghanistan: United States Multidimensional Strategic Challenge”, ‖ South Asia Analysis, Dec. 16, 2008. http://www.conflictmonitors.org/countries/afghanistan/daily briefing/briefing details/!k/2008/4/21/Afghanistan- uni (accessed November 12, 2012).
 Muhammad Khalid Maaroof, Afghanistan and Super Powers (New Delhi: Common Wealth Publishers, 1990), 140.
 William Hornibrook, “Opening Diplomatic Relations with Afghanistan,” Central Asia Journal, 1990 (47).
 Muhammad Khalid Maaroof, Afghanistan and Super Powers (New Delhi: Common Wealth Publishers, 1990), 139.
 Muhammad Khalid Maaroof, Afghanistan and Super Powers (New Delhi: Common Wealth Publishers, 1990), 144.
 Thomas Hammond T, Red Flag Over Afghanistan: The Communist Coup, the Soviet Invasion and the Consequences (Colo: Westview, I984), 26.
 Louis Dupree, Afghanistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 2.
 Muhammad Khalid Maaroof, Afghanistan and Super Powers (New Delhi: Common Wealth Publishers, 1990), 144.
 Ibid., 145.
 Bhabani GuptaSen, Afghanistan: Politics, Economics and Society (London: Frances Pinter Publisher, 1986), 9.
 Thomas Hammond T, Red Flag Over Afghanistan: The Communist Coup, the Soviet Invasion and the Consequences (Colo: Westview, I984), 26.
 Dennis Kux, “American Changing Outlook on Afghanistan”, Pakistan Journal of American Studies, 1996, 14.
 Barnett Rubin R, The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 71.
 Muhammad Khalid Maaroof, Afghanistan and Super Powers (New Delhi: Common Wealth Publishers, 1990), 190.
 Thomas Hammond T, Red Flag Over Afghanistan: The Communist Coup, the Soviet Invasion and the Consequences (Colo: Westview, I984), 40.
 Hafizullah Emadi, State, Revolution and Super Powers in Afghanistan (Karachi: Royal Book Company, 1997), 57.