Many believe the political fallout from the BSA (Bilateral Security Agreement) reveals validity within the several conspiracy theories that have been floating about the AfPak region. Many of them were casually waved off by elites as they seemed far-fetched and impossible.

“It is simple. You give money to Pakistan…they give it to the ISI…they give it to Tehriki’s (Pakistani Taliban) and Haqqani…and they kill us…and you!” This is a simplified paraphrased conversation I had with an Afghan Army sergeant as we walked to a planning meeting for an operation. It was said almost in jest, but a tone of sincerity was easy to pick up as well.

Shoe on the other foot, it makes sense Afghans, with Indian money, would be poised to support and fund Pakistani Taliban operations within Pakistan itself, however the theory’s credence goes only as far as one is willing to follow it down the rabbit hole. To pursue this Indo-Afghan conspiracy school of thought, one must be willing to admit that within this region lies a conflict that has been festering long before our presence. For almost 70 years, border crossing ventures and nuclear threats have been the military formulas of achieving each country’s objective. However, with an all too delicate ceasefire between the countries, why would India want to risk re-opening direct armed conflict? The devil’s advocate would summon the instance of Mumbai.

While this rabbit hole is narrow, its evidence burrows deep in a historical context. Moreover, the modus operandi has consistently been to fund and indirectly push religiously fanatic proxies, such as the Taliban, to do one’s dirty work. This MO is so embedded in the psyche that American agents have been photo-shopped into many pictures of TTP fighting against Pakistani military.

Well, what does this say to the future of Afghanistan? The better question may be, who has the staying power to win out…the inherent xenophobic nature of the Taliban or the vast economic resources of the states?

Choosing the former means you probably believe the enemy is one, intact entity, a theory that holds little weight considering the multitude of groups fracturing, morphing, and fighting each other on a daily basis. Time will tell, but it is difficult to accept that peace talks with an all Afghan-Taliban party will hold influence over a collection of international fighters, all vying for different interests.

It is equally challenging to believe any one nation has full control over these chaotic groups. Yes, India may well be puppet-mastering the same groups that Pakistan forces into attack again Afghanistan…what an ugly ménage a trois of violence. But no one will be able to permanently control or destroy the Taliban and their subsidiaries.

I find it easier, and equally unsettling, to believe the future will look like something in the middle of the spectrum. The Afghan military and police will garrison themselves in the larger cities, which will remain relatively progressive surrounded by what I’ve always called The Land That Time Forgot. The enemy will do their best to capitalize on gains in the tribal areas, with everlasting hindrance of infighting thwarting any progression towards full cohesion.

The final question many wonder is what does this mean for America? Are we safe from another attack originating from Afghanistan? Probably…but it’s the principle that I worry about. Did we learn from the war? Even as it is hard to say the words, much less type them, but can we answer the question…for what did we send our sons and daughters to war? Funny…I find it much more fulfilling to care about the country I really fought for rather than my own.