No Taliban?

[Gillan1220]

The bombing of the World Trade Center 1993 successful means the invasion of Sudan

(Al-Qaeda is still in Sudan in 1993 and the Taliban came to power in 1996)

If you want to avoid the Taliban, you need to make the reforms of the Soviet Union and the success of the new union treaty, so the Soviets will support the Northern Alliance and defeat the Taliban

Without pressure from the United States and to spite Pakistan, the Afghan monarchy was restored

That's the situation of the scenario New Union. POD is the NUT is signed and the USSR does not collapse but reforms into the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics, adapting a semi-constitutional republic. The Hammer and Sickle still flies, albeit symbolic in nature.

New Union

With all the recent tensions caused over Russia's reemergence as a global and regional player, it's rather hard to imagine (especially for recent generations) what the world was once like before the collapse of communism in the late 1980s. Though it may come as a shock to learn that the end of...

althistory.fandom.com

Here's a differences page from OTL:

Differences (New Union)

The following article contains sections which are to help explain specific events and scenarios within the New Union timeline. All sections are to be written from OTL's perspective in order to help understand minor changes which wouldn't be mentioned within the timeline itself. Please do not add...

althistory.fandom.com

Regarding Afghanistan, quoting the article:

Mikhail Gorbachev and Nikolai Ryzhkov would continue to give economic and military aid to the pro-Soviet government of Mohammad Najibullah in Afghanistan throughout the early 1990s. Najibullah was able to hold onto power prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union (OTL), so it would be safe to assume he'd continue to do so (ATL). Remaining in power, Najibullah would continue to work with the Mujahideen and others to bring an end to decades of war.

After years of negotiations, a peace plan is finalized around 1994 (brokered by Mikhail Gorbachev). Under the plan, the monarchy was to be re-established in Afghanistan. The former King of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah, agreed to return to Afghanistan provided the people wished for him to do so (which they unanimously agreed upon in a referendum). The monarchy was to mostly become a figurehead for Afghanistan, with most of the decisions to be done under a parliamentary democracy (headed by a Prime Minister). Najibullah agreed to step down as leader of Afghanistan, with the monarchy taking affect in 1995.

Despite the unanimous support by the Mujahideen (including military leader Ahmad Shah Massoud), the more Islamist factions (headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Hezbi Islami) would continue the Civil War. This new conflict would only last a few years, as the re-established Kingdom of Afghanistan now had the backing of the citizens, much of the former Mujahideen, and even backing from the Soviet Union. Despite the end of American backing, Pakistan would continue to aid the Islamists during this time. Fighting comes to a standstill as the pro-Pakistani forces are able to hold onto the mountainous regions in southern Afghanistan. A UN-backed ceasefire take place around 1998, at which time southern Afghanistan gains de facto independence as the Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan (which is only recognized by Pakistan).

The Kingdom of Afghanistan has begun to rebuild itself since the 2000s (with international backing) and has emerged as a working democracy. Afghanistan continues to have close relations with the Soviet Union. The Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan is primarily backed by Pakistan and has been regarded as a buffer state between them and the pro-Soviet government in Kabul. Fighting within the region is centered around the de facto border between Afghanistan and Pashtunistan, with the rest of the region remaining peaceful.

The Taliban (as we know it) was never established, with elements of which likely being absorbed into Hezbi Islami. Al-Qaeda would not see the region as a potential safe haven, instead choosing to remain in Sudan.

So it appears indeed that the best course of action for Afghanistan was restoring the monarchy. Like the scenario I quoted, without the Taliban, AQ would either step foot in Sudan or Yemen.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

As I understand it, the main driver for the Taliban emerging as the anti-warlord faction was CIA funding of anti-communist activities, so unless the perceived communist threat is reduced, they or someone like them should exist, though perhaps another faction would end up as one of many warlords rather than a national government.
To reduce CIA support probably needs much less overt soviet involvement, and definitely no invasion, although a major purge and overhaul of the CIA might also work.
If Afghanistan is reduced to a load of battling warlords and tribal factions without major cold war factions, and with no obvious terror links, then more than likely it will be sidelined and ignored internationally.
That would create an opening for an AQ offshoot or a wannabe AQ faction, who would likely be able to establish a secure foothold in a disunited country.
A successful terror attack that could be linked to Afghanistan may well trigger international involvement, or the USA might look at it as a second Somalia, fire a few cruise missiles, offer bounties and quickly change the subject.
While it's hard to see it being worse for the locals than OTL, it's also difficilt to see it being much better.

 

[ZZZyemeniPRINCE]

That's the situation of the scenario New Union. POD is the NUT is signed and the USSR does not collapse but reforms into the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics, adapting a semi-constitutional republic. The Hammer and Sickle still flies, albeit symbolic in nature.

New Union

With all the recent tensions caused over Russia's reemergence as a global and regional player, it's rather hard to imagine (especially for recent generations) what the world was once like before the collapse of communism in the late 1980s. Though it may come as a shock to learn that the end of...

althistory.fandom.com

Here's a differences page from OTL:

Differences (New Union)

The following article contains sections which are to help explain specific events and scenarios within the New Union timeline. All sections are to be written from OTL's perspective in order to help understand minor changes which wouldn't be mentioned within the timeline itself. Please do not add...

althistory.fandom.com

Regarding Afghanistan, quoting the article:

So it appears indeed that the best course of action for Afghanistan was restoring the monarchy. Like the scenario I quoted, without the Taliban, AQ would either step foot in Sudan or Yemen.

That's why I like this scenario so much

Except that I do not agree to let the Baltic states, Georgia and Armenia go, but they will stay against their wishes because Gorbachev would find it impossible and undermine his legitimacy and the legitimacy of reform

In addition, Ethiopia may restore the monarchy like Afghanistan

That is why I said that the United States would invade Sudan if Omar al-Bashir refused to hand over al-Qaeda elements.

But the Sudanese army, with the support of the United States, will overthrow Bashir and the Sudanese military council will hand them over to the United States, so the invasion of Sudan will become unnecessary.

This is better because the Sudanese military council will return to the Addis Ababa agreements with the south and will not destroy Darfur. Sudan here is better off without al-Bashir.

Dole's invasion of Yemen might have happened had Clinton lost in 1996 because Republicans pressed for a stronger response (so Bob Dole might have invaded Yemen in 2000).

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

You have to remember, the Taliban are not AQ.

They two groups have very different world views and aims.

The Taliban had no interest outside of Afghanistan. They are a coalition of groups dedicated to controlling Afghanistan and imposing the same feudal tribal society that existed for hundreds of years beforehand.

AQ are the ones with the ideology of overthrowing the tyrannical rulers in the Middle East so that the "Caliphate" can be restored (not that it existed as a single unified entity in the first place)

AQ moved to Afghanistan after being forced out from Sudan. They took advantage of the Pastun hospitality code to find a safe haven to build themselves up and push their agenda.

If you want to avoid Sunni extremism, then you need to push UBL or Zawahiri on a different path in the 80s, or eliminate them before they are pushed out of Sudan. Without UBL's money and connections, AQ will wither.

No AQ in Afghanistan, then no one cares about the place being a backward tribal state and the Taliban have no interest in the outside world.

 

[yulzari1]

You have to remember, the Taliban are not AQ.

They two groups have very different world views and aims.

The Taliban had no interest outside of Afghanistan. They are a coalition of groups dedicated to controlling Afghanistan and imposing the same feudal tribal society that existed for hundreds of years beforehand.

AQ are the ones with the ideology of overthrowing the tyrannical rulers in the Middle East so that the "Caliphate" can be restored (not that it existed as a single unified entity in the first place)

AQ moved to Afghanistan after being forced out from Sudan. They took advantage of the Pastun hospitality code to find a safe haven to build themselves up and push their agenda.

If you want to avoid Sunni extremism, then you need to push UBL or Zawahiri on a different path in the 80s, or eliminate them before they are pushed out of Sudan. Without UBL's money and connections, AQ will wither.

No AQ in Afghanistan, then no one cares about the place being a backward tribal state and the Taliban have no interest in the outside world.

Sadly the last line is true.

 

[PolishSoldier]

A major part of why the King was overthrown was his refusal to more strongly push Pashtunistan

So, it was a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation?

Is this really accurate though? AFAIK the Pakistanis in 2001 didn't want him anywhere near power because they were worried about his anti-Pakistan stance.

To create a stable Afghanistan you need a group of Afghans with their heads screwed on who don't go chasing imaginary or illusionary dreams of some greater Afghanistan but help foster stable borders and don't give any excuse to neighbours to meddle internally.

Its in Afghanistan's best interest to have Pakistan on board. Its not Pakistan's job to ensure Afghanistan does.

The problems of Afghanistan lie in Afghanistan not in some external territory.

In many ways its like us Poles dragging our early 20th century border disputes with Czechoslowakia until now and not ending them as we did in 1958. How will that have benefitted our country?

In my interactions with Afghans I didn't really find them to be level-headed and foresighted people as such. I put it down as the main reason their country is so fragmented and under-developed.

 

[raharris1973]

He was popular among the 2002 loya jirga until the US forced his withdraw

Why was the US motivated to "force" him to withdraw?
Was the King grossly unpopular with all the power holders with access to guns in the country? Was the King grossly unpopular with the country Washington was depending on as the supply line for the country, Pakistan? The common citizen may have liked him, but some votes were perhaps more equal than others.

A major part of why the King was overthrown was his refusal to more strongly push Pashtunistan

So he was overthrown in large part out of a refusal to be as nationalistically stupid as his public or elite opinion at the time demanded? That's all too common in the developing world. And it speaks well of his judgment.

 

[walmart]

To create a stable Afghanistan you need a group of Afghans with their heads screwed on who don't go chasing imaginary or illusionary dreams of some greater Afghanistan but help foster stable borders and don't give any excuse to neighbours to meddle internally.

The more secular governments and movements of Afghanistan have/do push Pashtunistan to one degree or another.

Was the King grossly unpopular with the country Washington was depending on as the supply line for the country, Pakistan?

That and Hamid Karzai was viewed as more pro-American

So he was overthrown in large part out of a refusal to be as nationalistically stupid as his public or elite opinion at the time demanded? That's all too common in the developing world. And it speaks well of his judgment.

Pretty much.

 

[kholieken]

In many ways its like us Poles dragging our early 20th century border disputes with Czechoslowakia until now and not ending them as we did in 1958. How will that have benefitted our country?

In my interactions with Afghans I didn't really find them to be level-headed and foresighted people as such. I put it down as the main reason their country is so fragmented and under-developed.

These is highly unfair to Afghan. There are 36 million (15% of Pakistan population) of Pashtun in Pakistan. That is bigger than 15 million Pashtun in Afghanistan. So it is understandable that Pashtun resent Durand line.

If there are 70 million of Poles in neighbouring Czechowslovakia, Polish people would have ambition to recapture it too.

 

[Monk78]

Is this really accurate though? AFAIK the Pakistanis in 2001 didn't want him anywhere near power because they were worried about his anti-Pakistan stance.

To create a stable Afghanistan you need a group of Afghans with their heads screwed on who don't go chasing imaginary or illusionary dreams of some greater Afghanistan but help foster stable borders and don't give any excuse to neighbours to meddle internally.

Its in Afghanistan's best interest to have Pakistan on board. Its not Pakistan's job to ensure Afghanistan does.

The problems of Afghanistan lie in Afghanistan not in some external territory.

In many ways its like us Poles dragging our early 20th century border disputes with Czechoslowakia until now and not ending them as we did in 1958. How will that have benefitted our country?

In my interactions with Afghans I didn't really find them to be level-headed and foresighted people as such. I put it down as the main reason their country is so fragmented and under-developed.

You have presented the Pakistani case better than most ( all) Pakistani leaders
Thank you !

 

[Monk78]

These is highly unfair to Afghan. There are 36 million (15% of Pakistan population) of Pashtun in Pakistan. That is bigger than 15 million Pashtun in Afghanistan. So it is understandable that Pashtun resent Durand line.

If there are 70 million of Poles in neighbouring Czechowslovakia, Polish people would have ambition to recapture it too.

Afghan king signed that agreement with British empire , if it was unfair why didn’t the afghans take it up with UK and demand compensation
And by that logic it should be Pakistan who should take Pashtun parts of Afghanistan.

 

[CalBear]

Return to the Grave from whence you came!

With Iron, Salt, Blood, and Power I fix you back into the ground where you may once again rest!