“We left billions, tens of billions of dollars’ worth of equipment behind,” former President Donald Trump lamented in his first cabinet meeting of his second term, reigniting debate over the $7.12 billion worth of US weapons left in Afghanistan after the chaotic 2021 withdrawal. But his call to ‘get a lot of that equipment back’ raises more questions than answers.
The abandoned arsenal—comprising over 40,000 vehicles, 300,000 rifles, and 17,000 air-to-ground bombs—has transformed Afghanistan into an unintended arms depot for militant groups. The security vacuum left behind has fueled insurgency, cross-border terrorism, and a regional power play that South Asia is still reeling from.
Afghanistan’s Militant Bazaar: A Byproduct of America’s Exit Strategy?
While the Pentagon insists that sensitive equipment was demilitarized before withdrawal, a significant portion of US weaponry was handed over to the Afghan National Army (ANA), which collapsed overnight. This rapid disintegration turned Kabul’s streets into a showroom of abandoned military-grade gear—some of it now resurfacing in conflict zones from the Pakistani border to Central Asia.
Pakistan is paying the price. Cross-border attacks from Afghanistan have surged, forcing Islamabad to divert critical security resources to counter an emboldened militant resurgence. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), flush with US-origin weaponry, has intensified its offensives, prompting fresh military deployments and straining Pakistan’s counterterrorism framework.
Also See: Why Did the U.S. Leave $7 Billion Worth of Weapons in Afghanistan?
The Geopolitical Chessboard: Who Gains?
Trump’s statement raises an uncomfortable reality—Afghanistan has become a de facto arms marketplace. According to intelligence reports:
- Weapons left behind are being resold—some reportedly making their way into regional conflicts, from Kashmir to the Middle East.
- Foreign actors, including India and Iran, are alleged to be facilitating the rehabilitation of US weaponry, shaping new security dynamics.
- The Afghan Taliban is leveraging its inherited arsenal not just for governance but for military projection, internal suppression, and transnational militant networks.
Reclaim, Retaliate, or Reinforce? Pakistan’s Path Forward
While Washington debates a theoretical retrieval of lost arms, Pakistan faces a more pressing reality. Islamabad has consistently raised concerns over Afghan-based militancy, yet global responses remain muted. If unchecked, this militarization could:
- Escalate regional instability by enabling a free flow of arms to hostile groups.
- Undermine counterterrorism efforts as militant factions gain strength.
- Force Pakistan into unilateral security action, including intensified border control, counterinsurgency operations, and diplomatic recalibration.
If the Taliban-led government of Afghanistan does not take responsibility for securing these weapons, it must be held accountable through performance—ensuring internal stability, preventing arms proliferation, and fostering better regional ties.
Trump’s remarks, though politically charged, reignite an urgent debate: What happens when the world’s most powerful military leaves behind a war chest in one of the world’s most volatile regions? The answer, unfortunately, is unfolding in real time—on Pakistan’s borders.
SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.
Trump’s Afghanistan Gambit: The Ghost of Abandoned US Weapons Haunts the Region
“We left billions, tens of billions of dollars’ worth of equipment behind,” former President Donald Trump lamented in his first cabinet meeting of his second term, reigniting debate over the $7.12 billion worth of US weapons left in Afghanistan after the chaotic 2021 withdrawal. But his call to ‘get a lot of that equipment back’ raises more questions than answers.
The abandoned arsenal—comprising over 40,000 vehicles, 300,000 rifles, and 17,000 air-to-ground bombs—has transformed Afghanistan into an unintended arms depot for militant groups. The security vacuum left behind has fueled insurgency, cross-border terrorism, and a regional power play that South Asia is still reeling from.
Afghanistan’s Militant Bazaar: A Byproduct of America’s Exit Strategy?
While the Pentagon insists that sensitive equipment was demilitarized before withdrawal, a significant portion of US weaponry was handed over to the Afghan National Army (ANA), which collapsed overnight. This rapid disintegration turned Kabul’s streets into a showroom of abandoned military-grade gear—some of it now resurfacing in conflict zones from the Pakistani border to Central Asia.
Pakistan is paying the price. Cross-border attacks from Afghanistan have surged, forcing Islamabad to divert critical security resources to counter an emboldened militant resurgence. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), flush with US-origin weaponry, has intensified its offensives, prompting fresh military deployments and straining Pakistan’s counterterrorism framework.
Also See: Why Did the U.S. Leave $7 Billion Worth of Weapons in Afghanistan?
The Geopolitical Chessboard: Who Gains?
Trump’s statement raises an uncomfortable reality—Afghanistan has become a de facto arms marketplace. According to intelligence reports:
Reclaim, Retaliate, or Reinforce? Pakistan’s Path Forward
While Washington debates a theoretical retrieval of lost arms, Pakistan faces a more pressing reality. Islamabad has consistently raised concerns over Afghan-based militancy, yet global responses remain muted. If unchecked, this militarization could:
If the Taliban-led government of Afghanistan does not take responsibility for securing these weapons, it must be held accountable through performance—ensuring internal stability, preventing arms proliferation, and fostering better regional ties.
Trump’s remarks, though politically charged, reignite an urgent debate: What happens when the world’s most powerful military leaves behind a war chest in one of the world’s most volatile regions? The answer, unfortunately, is unfolding in real time—on Pakistan’s borders.
SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance
The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.
The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System
As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.
Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal
The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.
The Indo-Afghan Arc: Rewriting Pakistan’s Strategic Geography
The deepening India-Afghanistan engagement marks a new strategic era in South Asia. Beneath the façade of humanitarian cooperation lies a calculated effort to constrict Pakistan’s strategic space, from intelligence leverage and soft power projection to potential encirclement on both eastern and western fronts. Drawing from the insights of Iqbal and Khushhal Khan Khattak, this analysis argues that Pakistan must reclaim its strategic selfhood, strengthen regional diplomacy, and transform its western border from a vulnerability into a vision of regional connectivity and stability.
Legitimacy, Agency, and the Illusion of Mediation
The recent talks in Turkey, attended by Afghan representatives, exposed the delicate politics of legitimacy and agency in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. By rejecting the Taliban’s proposal to include the TTP, Pakistan safeguarded its sovereignty and avoided legitimizing a militant group as a political actor, preserving its authority and strategic narrative.