Afghanistan has endured repeated cross-border airstrikes in recent months, reviving a basic question that should not be lost in the language of security and retaliation: how far can one state go inside the territory of another, and what protection is owed to civilians who are not taking part in hostilities?
This is not only a military question. It is also about sovereignty, civilian life and the rules that are supposed to prevent regional disputes from becoming open-ended cycles of force.
For Afghans, the human cost is not abstract. A United Nations report cited in September by Amu TV said Pakistani strikes had affected areas in Ghazni, Kunar, Khost, Paktika and Paktiya. The same report said airstrikes on June 28 in Kunar, Paktika and Paktiya killed 28 civilians and injured 189. Pakistan told UNAMA that its strikes targeted militant hideouts and infrastructure linked to attacks inside Pakistan, while the Taliban authorities rejected that assertion.
Those competing claims should be investigated, but they do not remove the obligation to protect civilians.
Islamic teachings place a grave value on innocent life. War does not erase moral limits, and non-combatants do not become legitimate targets simply because states are locked in a security dispute. Women, children, older people and other civilians remain human beings before they are statistics in a border crisis.
The same principle appears in international humanitarian law: parties to a conflict must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and attacks may not be directed at civilians.
Afghanistan is also a sovereign state. Its borders and airspace are not merely administrative lines. The UN Charter rests on respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of states. When military force crosses an international boundary, the legal and political consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate target.
For Afghanistan, the answer should not be another cycle of unaccountable violence. Every incident should be documented, civilian harm should be independently investigated and disputes should be taken through diplomacy, mediation and lawful international mechanisms.
This is not an argument for any particular Afghan government or faction. It is an argument that Afghan civilians should not be treated as expendable and that the country’s sovereignty should not depend on the discretion of a stronger neighbour.
Afghanistan has already lived through decades of war. Its people have a legitimate interest in a future where security disputes are not settled over their homes.
Afghanistan’s skies belong to Afghanistan. Civilian lives deserve protection, territorial integrity deserves respect, and cross-border force should remain subject to law, evidence and accountability.