Wars help foreground issues, send a telling message to the adversary and serve political ends at home and abroad but the issues that led to the war remain unaddressed.
To the relief of sensible Pakistanis, Afghans and others in the region, the Pakistan-Afghanistan war this month ended quickly after the two countries agreed to a ceasefire at the Qatar-brokered talks in Doha last Saturday.
Qatar's foreign ministry announced that Islamabad and Kabul had agreed to a ceasefire that sought to pave the way for lasting peace and stability between the two neighbours. On its part, Qatar pledged to continue its mediation.
According to the Afghan Minister of Defence Mowlawi Yaqoob Mujahid, Pakistan assured that it would not stage aerial attacks. Afghanistan also requested that the Afghan refugees in Pakistan, who number in lakhs, be treated humanely.
On the next meeting to be held in Turkiye, Mujahid said that the modalities of implementing the Doha agreement would be discussed but not the disputed border between the two countries called the Durand Line. It remains to be seen how the talks go as many of the issues have bedevilled bilateral relations for decades.
The ceasefire showed the limitations of war as an instrument of State policy. Nations go to war with the intention of fighting to the finish and gaining their objectives in toto. But in most cases, they fail to do so and negotiate to get some relief rather than a solution.
However, wars do help foreground issues and posture to impress a domestic or an international constituency. But the basic issues remain unsolved unless meaningful talks are held and they are a rarity.
Most nations are too weak to fight to the finish, and in a few days into the war, allow themselves to be persuaded by external powers to go for a truce.
Pakistan was infinitely better armed than the Afghan army, the rag tag Afghan Taliban and its Pakistani ally, the Therik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). But Pakistan was weak in an important sense. No country stood four square behind it. Pakistan's Islamic friends (the Saudis, Qataris and Iranians) and the Chinese, did not come to Pakistan's support as such but appealed for restraint. Qatar brought about a 48-hour ceasefire first and then persuaded the warring parties to come to the discussion table in Qatar on October 18.
These countries had no reason to take sides and support the war. The Saudis, Qataris and the Iranians were war weary and the Chinese had economic interests in a peaceful Afghanistan and Pakistan. Though the Saudis have a defence pact with Pakistan, it is generally understood that they will not rush to Pakistan's aid with military assistance, even in the event of a longish war with Afghanistan.
The US was also aloof, with President Trump only suggesting restraint. The US was impressed with the Pakistan air forces' performance in the May war against India. It got close to the Pakistani leadership, especially to army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. Trump was felt flattered when Pakistan openly accepted his role in ending the war with India and nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, despite having issues with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the US did not want to tilt the scales against Afghanistan. This is because the US was interested in getting Taliban's cooperation to root out the Daesh (ISIS) and other international Islamic terror groups that still have bases in Afghanistan. US also wants all Americans in Taliban's custody released.
In Afghanistan, the US has no option but to deal with the Taliban because non-Taliban Afghan groups are now too weak to help. After the Taliban took over Kabul from the departing Americans in 2021, they have consolidated themselves and are aiming at securing diplomatic recognition.
Writing in "Modern Diplomacy" Pakistani scholar, Nimra Malik, says that it is now commonplace for US envoys to meet former Taliban insurgents who have transitioned into the de facto government in Kabul. Prisoner exchanges, high level meetings, and even proposals to reopen a military base in Afghanistan indicate a pragmatic shift in U.S. strategy, Malik says.
Tracing the US-Taliban interaction, Malik says, "In January 2025, the US and Qatar brokered a prisoner swap that freed two Americans (Ryan Corbett and William McEntee) in exchange for a veteran Taliban militant, Khan Mohammad. In March 2025 the Taliban released another detainee, George Glezmann, after talks with a Trump appointed US hostage envoy. More recently, on September 13, 2025, Taliban officials announced that US envoys led by Special Envoy Adam Boehler and veteran diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad had met in Kabul and agreed to a prisoner exchange."
US media reported that these conversations covered not only hostages, but also larger issues such as lifting travel bans and even the Taliban's requests to have Guantanamo detainees exchanged for American prisoners.
Russia, China, and the Central Asian countries are all seriously negotiating with the Taliban to get them to check the activities of terrorist groups on Afghan soil. They have set up "contact groups" to negotiate with the Taliban collectively. Major industrial countries like China, Russia and India, are eyeing Afghanistan's mineral resources, said to be worth US$ 1 trillion. Therefore,an unstable Afghanistan is not desired by any country.
In the Indian subcontinent, wars have stopped without achieving the desired or stated goals. This is because, countries in the region have insufficient military strength, mobilizing ability and economic resources to carry on fighting for long periods.
And friendly nations with interests in the warring countries quickly intervene to bring about a ceasefire. They make use of the strategic and economic inter-dependence in this increasingly globalised world to intervene. In the case of India and Pakistan, Western nations tend to worry about the use of nuclear weapons if the fighting between them escalates.
The first India-Pakistan war in Kashmir in 1948-49 ended in a ceasefire without a decisive conclusion because the then newly independent Pakistan and India lacked military and economic strength to continue. India had no resources to drive the Pakistan-led tribal raiders completely out of Kashmir and Pakistan did not have the manpower or material to capture the Kashmir Valley. UN intervention was sought, and a ceasefire was agreed to. But the political dispute over Kashmir persists to this day.
India and Pakistan fought over Kashmir again in 1965. This too was a limited war as constraints on both sides led to Soviet mediation, a truce and exchange of captured territories.
The 1971 Indian campaign in East Pakistan was the only one to secure a definitive result. This was partly due to the geographical advantage India enjoyed over Pakistan and partly due to the help it got from the Soviets. Pakistan on the contrary got no tangible help from its allies, the US and China.
However, the euphoria in India over the victory in 1971 did not last long. The war triggered economic problems and political problems for Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Sikh separatism raised its head in Punjab. The Jaiprakash Narain-led "Total Revolution" caught on like wild fire, eventually leading to the ouster of Indira Gandhi from power.
Pakistan's misadventure in Kargil (in North Kashmir) in 1999, also ended quickly because the US intervened. The May 2025 war between the Pakistan and Indian air forces ended in four days mainly because the US feared a nuclear holocaust as both countries were nuclear armed. India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire but belligerent statements continued to vitiate the atmosphere. The underlying issues or grievances continued to rankle.
Both sides must be aware that war does not bring the desired results but domestic political exigencies, national egos and historical grievances prevent meaningful dialogue in a spirit of give and take. In short, wars help foreground issues, send a telling message to the adversary and serve political ends at home and abroad, but rarely do they lead to lasting solutions.