No Taliban?

Ok, let's say that the 1993 WTC bombing is successfull and War on Terror starts 8 years earlier.

Is it enough to make Pakistan more cautious and not supporting the initial formation of the Taliban (considering that Taliban initially consisted out of sons of Afghan refugees radicalized in Pakistan)?

Would they continue to support Hekmatyar and how will he do with continued Pakistani support?
 
What would become the Taliban already existed by 1993. The Pakistani ISI would support them, not matter what the current Civilian Government made noises about.
 
What would become the Taliban already existed by 1993. The Pakistani ISI would support them, not matter what the current Civilian Government made noises about.
Actually I thought that the Taliban had been completely formed only by 1994. Although, the early history of Taliban is not a clear subject.
 
Actually I thought that the Taliban had been completely formed only by 1994. Although, the early history of Taliban is not a clear subject.
A way to monkeywrench things is to have Mullah Omar die fighting the Soviets when he was with the Mujahideen.
But there were other factions that would have filled the role he did, settling the Warlord issues in the chaos of the post Soviet withdrawl.
 
A way to monkeywrench things is to have Mullah Omar die fighting the Soviets when he was with the Mujahideen.
But there were other factions that would have filled the role he did, settling the Warlord issues in the chaos of the post Soviet withdrawl.
Yeah, and I think that Hekmatyar could have filled the position of Taliban.
 
Having just finished to read The Kite Runner, I wonder if the return of the monarchy so many of the characters in the novel hoped for would've actually resulted in a more stable Afghanistan - IRL, the history of the Afghan monarchy was rather... backstabby.
 
Having just finished to read The Kite Runner, I wonder if the return of the monarchy so many of the characters in the novel hoped for would've actually resulted in a more stable Afghanistan - IRL, the history of the Afghan monarchy was rather... backstabby.
Like, I don't see any of early 90s mujahedeen warlords being seriously keen on restoring the monarchy...
 
Maybe have the communist government stay afloat and the Taliban or it predecessors get defeated at some point and it never forms?
Nah, I wanted to discuss 90s Afghanistan after the collapse of the pro-Soviet secular governement but without Taliban. Basically it's all about mujahedeen warlords.
 
Having just finished to read The Kite Runner, I wonder if the return of the monarchy so many of the characters in the novel hoped for would've actually resulted in a more stable Afghanistan - IRL, the history of the Afghan monarchy was rather... backstabby.
I was in a peacekeeping role in Afghan though I claim to be no expert on the subject. But I don't understand why so many in the West seem to be enthralled by the idea of Afghan monarchy. It was the Afghan king who, after all, enjoyed stoking the fire across the border from time to time. If he had stuck to building his own country I very much doubt the southern neighbour would have much interest or need in interfering. Its a bit like som Mexican dictator constantly making irredendist claims against the USA and not expecting any blowback for his country.
 
Last edited:
But I don't understand why so many in the West seem to be enthralled by the idea of Afghan monarchy.
He was popular among the 2002 loya jirga until the US forced his withdraw
It was the Afghan king who, after all, enjoyed stoking the fire across the border from time to time. If he had stuck to building his own country I very much doubt the southern neighbour would have much interest or need in interfering.
A major part of why the King was overthrown was his refusal to more strongly push Pashtunistan
 
Last edited:
Top