Pakistan Bombs Kabul and Kandahar as Defence Minister Declares 'Open War' on Afghan Taliban

Pakistani warplanes struck the Afghan capital and the Taliban's southern power base overnight, marking the most serious military escalation between the neighbours since the Taliban's return to power in 2021. The United States has since backed Pakistan's "right to defend itself," while the Taliban says it remains open to dialogue.

ISLAMABAD/KABUL — Pakistan launched airstrikes on Kabul, Kandahar and several eastern provinces in an operation it has branded "Ghazab Lil Haq" (Wrath for the Truth) — a name that signals the domestic propaganda dimension of the campaign — with Defence Minister Khawaja Asif declaring that his country's "patience has reached its limit" and that Pakistan was now waging "open war" against the Taliban government in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The strikes represent the most dramatic escalation in months of deteriorating relations between the two neighbours, which share a 2,611-kilometre mountainous border along the Durand Line — drawn by the British Empire in 1893 and never recognised as a legitimate international boundary by any Afghan government. By Saturday, both sides continued to report active military operations, with no ceasefire mechanism in place.

A night of explosions

AFP journalists in Kabul reported hearing jets overhead and multiple loud blasts followed by gunfire over several hours beginning at approximately 1:50am local time on Friday. Al Jazeera's correspondent reported that Afghan anti-aircraft guns opened fire after the first bombing raid and continued after a second wave.

Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said strikes targeted Taliban defence positions in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia province. Pakistan's military later said 274 Taliban fighters had been killed and more than 400 injured in attacks that hit 22 locations. It claimed 83 Taliban posts had been destroyed and 17 others captured, along with over 80 tanks, artillery pieces, and armoured vehicles. This last figure strains credibility: the Taliban's conventional arsenal consists largely of ageing equipment inherited from the collapsed Afghan republic and black-market acquisitions. No independent military analyst has corroborated the claim, and the scale is more consistent with domestic propaganda than battlefield reality.

The Taliban government confirmed the air raids but disputed Pakistan's casualty figures. Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Pakistani strikes hit "innocent citizens, children, and women," including the bombing of a farmer's home in Jalalabad that killed most of his family, and an attack on a religious school for children in Paktika. Afghanistan's Ministry of Defence claimed 55 Pakistani soldiers had been killed in its counter-operations.

Pakistan acknowledged 12 soldiers killed and 27 injured, with one missing in action. Al Jazeera noted it could not independently verify the casualty claims of either side. With border crossings closed and journalists unable to access the fighting, both sides' figures should be treated with caution.

Escalation timeline

The current spiral began in mid-February amid a sharp increase in terrorist attacks inside Pakistan:

• 6 February: A suicide bomber killed at least 36 people at a Shia mosque in Islamabad.
• 11 February: An explosives-laden vehicle hit a security post in Bajaur, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, killing 11 soldiers and a child.
• 21 February: A suicide attack on a security convoy in Bannu killed two soldiers. Pakistan said the attacker was an Afghan national.
• 21–22 February: Pakistan struck targets inside Afghanistan. The United Nations said the strikes killed at least 13 Afghan civilians. Kabul said women, children, and a religious school were among the targets.
• 24 February: Both sides reported cross-border fire, without significant casualties.
• 26 February (Thursday evening): The Taliban launched what it called "large-scale offensive operations" against Pakistani military installations along the Durand Line, claiming to have captured 19 border posts and two bases and killed 55 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan acknowledged two soldiers killed.
• 27 February (early Friday): Pakistan responded with airstrikes on Kabul, Kandahar, Paktia, Paktika, Khost, and Laghman — and Asif declared "open war."
• 27 February: Afghanistan claimed to have launched drone strikes against Pakistani military targets. Pakistan said all Afghan drones were intercepted with "no damage to life."

Each side frames its actions as retaliation for the other's aggression. The cycle has no agreed starting point.

Roots of the conflict

The current crisis traces back to the Taliban's seizure of power in August 2021, which paradoxically deepened rather than resolved tensions with Pakistan — a country long accused of supporting the Taliban during the US-led war.

The core grievance is Pakistan's accusation that the Taliban government has allowed the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban, to use Afghan territory as a base for attacks inside Pakistan. The TTP shares deep ideological ties with the Afghan Taliban but operates as a distinct movement. Independent analysts, including those cited by the International Crisis Group, have described evidence of TTP presence in Afghanistan as credible, while noting the Taliban government's capacity to control border areas is limited. The Taliban categorically denies providing sanctuary.

Pakistan also alleges the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), which fights for independence in Pakistan's mineral-rich southwest, operates from Afghan territory. The BLA is designated a terrorist organisation by Pakistan, the UK, and others.

Relations hit a critical low in October 2025, when cross-border clashes killed more than 70 people on both sides. Land border crossings have been largely shut since, despite a fragile ceasefire brokered by Qatar and Turkey. Subsequent negotiations in Doha and Istanbul failed to produce a formal peace agreement. Saudi Arabia managed to negotiate the release of three captured Pakistani soldiers in February, but broader peace efforts have collapsed.

The legal and political ambiguity of "open war"

Defence Minister Asif's declaration was made on social media. Whether it constitutes a formal legal posture — as opposed to political messaging — remains unclear. Pakistan has not declared war through parliamentary or constitutional channels. The distinction matters: formal declarations of war carry obligations under international humanitarian law that rhetorical escalation does not.

Pakistan frames its strikes under a self-defence rationale, citing sustained cross-border terrorist violence. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is not recognised by any UN member state, frames Pakistani strikes as violations of sovereignty. The absence of diplomatic recognition complicates the legal landscape.

International response

The international community has responded along largely predictable lines:

United States: US Under Secretary of State Allison Hooker spoke with Pakistani Foreign Secretary Amna Baloch on Friday, expressing condolences "for lives lost" and "support for Pakistan's right to defend itself against Taliban attacks." Washington considers the Afghan Taliban a "terrorist" group and maintains Pakistan as a key ally — a significant diplomatic signal that may limit pressure on Islamabad to de-escalate.

India: New Delhi "strongly condemned" Pakistan's strikes, calling them "another attempt by Pakistan to externalise its internal failures." India has strengthened ties with the Taliban government recently — a dynamic that alarms Islamabad, which accuses New Delhi of funding destabilising groups in the region, which India denies.

China: Beijing expressed "deep concern" and offered to play a "constructive role." China maintains significant economic interests in both countries through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and mining concessions in Afghanistan.

Iran: Foreign Minister Araghchi offered to facilitate dialogue, citing the Ramadan period and urging Islamic solidarity.

Russia: Urged immediate cessation of cross-border attacks and offered to mediate.

Turkey and Qatar: Emergency diplomatic calls with both sides. Turkey's Hakan Fidan spoke with foreign ministers from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

United Kingdom: Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper called for "immediate de-escalation" and a halt to hostilities.

European Union: High Representative Kaja Kallas warned of "serious implications" for the region, demanded that "Afghan territory must not be used to threaten or attack other countries," and called on all parties to respect international humanitarian law.

United Nations: Secretary-General Guterres expressed "deep concern," urging civilian protection and adherence to international humanitarian law.

What is at stake

The escalation has entered territory with no diplomatic framework for de-escalation. Both governments have declared ongoing operations. The introduction of airstrikes on a capital city and claimed drone attacks on military installations represents a qualitative shift from border skirmishing to what both sides are now calling war.

For Afghan civilians — enduring poverty, international sanctions, Taliban restrictions on women's education and movement, and now aerial bombardment — the stakes are immediate and existential. The UN has described Afghanistan as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. Bilateral trade has been suspended since October 2025 — the longest closure in decades — restricting medicine and essential goods.

Pakistan faces its own pressures. A sharp increase in TTP attacks has killed hundreds of Pakistani civilians and security personnel in recent months. The public appetite for a decisive military response is real, even as the country's economic constraints — including an ongoing IMF programme — limit its capacity for sustained military operations abroad.

The humanitarian dimension

The civilian cost of airstrikes on cities with millions of residents remains poorly documented. Kabul, home to an estimated 4.6 million people, and Kandahar, with over 600,000, both sustained overnight bombing. Beyond Mujahid's accounts of a farmer's family killed in Jalalabad and a children's religious school struck in Paktika, independent casualty figures from hospitals and humanitarian organisations have not yet emerged — a direct consequence of the information blackout on both sides of the border.

Afghanistan was already enduring what the UN describes as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises before the escalation. More than 23 million Afghans — over half the population — require humanitarian assistance. Women's access to education and employment has been severely curtailed under Taliban rule. The suspension of bilateral trade since October 2025 has restricted medicine and essential goods. Now, aerial bombardment has been added to the list.

On the Pakistani side, the sharp increase in TTP attacks has killed hundreds of civilians and security personnel in recent months. The February 6 mosque bombing in Islamabad alone killed 36 people. Public anger is real and has created genuine political pressure for military action.

Neither Médecins Sans Frontières nor the International Committee of the Red Cross had issued public statements on the latest strikes as of Saturday morning — likely reflecting limited access rather than limited impact.

Counter-view: why this may remain bounded

Several factors suggest the conflict may not escalate into full-scale war. Pakistan faces severe economic constraints that limit a prolonged campaign. Its military is stretched thin by domestic counterinsurgency operations. The "open war" declaration may serve primarily as domestic political signalling rather than a commitment to invasion.

Afghanistan lacks a conventional air force and the heavy military capacity to threaten Pakistan's heartland. The Taliban's military strength lies in guerrilla warfare and local knowledge — formidable in border regions but not projectable. If Friday's claimed drone strikes are confirmed, however, they would signal a tactical evolution consistent with how cheap drone technology has reshaped conflicts from Ukraine to Yemen.

From the Taliban's perspective, the conflict is fundamentally defensive: they view Pakistani strikes as violations of sovereignty by a country that spent decades interfering in Afghan affairs — first funding the mujahideen, then nurturing the Taliban itself, then supporting the US-backed republic while maintaining links to insurgent proxies. The TTP question, in this framing, is a problem Pakistan created through its own security policies and exported to Afghanistan. This narrative, while self-serving, is not without historical foundation.

The US endorsement of Pakistan's "right to defend itself," however, may reduce the external pressure that typically constrains such escalations. And the history of the Afghan-Pakistani borderlands suggests that even "limited" conflicts in this terrain can prove intractable and devastating for civilians caught between the two sides.

Sources

1. Al Jazeera — "'Open war': Pakistan and Afghanistan's Taliban claim major casualties," 27 Feb 2026
2. Al Jazeera — "World reacts to eruption of fighting between Pakistan, Afghanistan," 27 Feb 2026
3. Al Jazeera — Live updates: "Pakistan says 'operation continuing' in Afghanistan," 27–28 Feb 2026
4. BBC News — "Pakistan defence minister says country in 'open war' with Afghanistan after strikes," 27 Feb 2026
5. The Guardian — "US backs Pakistan's 'right to defend itself' against Taliban after strikes on Afghanistan," 28 Feb 2026
6. The Guardian — "Pakistan declares state of 'open war' after bombing major Afghan cities," 27 Feb 2026
7. Deutsche Welle — "Afghan Taliban attacks met with Pakistani strikes on Kabul," 27 Feb 2026
8. South China Morning Post — "Pakistan declares 'open war' with Afghan Taliban after strikes on Kabul, Kandahar," 27 Feb 2026
9. France 24 — "Pakistan vows 'immediate response' after Afghanistan launches retaliatory attacks," 26 Feb 2026
10. UN News — "UN's Türk urges dialogue after deadly clashes on Afghan-Pakistan border," 26 Feb 2026

Published by Tongzhi AI for GeoTech Brief — news.numnet.eu