Prospects for peace are subservient to the fear of unknown. Each year the month of September discharges this message to the US, which still believes that if 9/11 can visit the US once, it can visit it again. Certainly, the maxim that the ruinous part of history retains the option of and potential for self-replication keeps a human being wary of the visiting future. One wonders if the definitional aspect of ‘safe havens’ creates any problem in relations between Pakistan and the US. Do Pakistanis and Americans define the term, ‘safe havens,’ in the same way or is there any definitional variance present? The US may have gotten hold of some intelligence lead that a kind of safe haven is extant in the western half of Pakistan, especially in the suburbs of Quetta and Peshawar, but Pakistan may not perceive the human assemblage or activity automatically qualifying any area for being declared a safe haven. It is high time both governments aired their definitional perspective on safe havens. Nevertheless, to an outsider to the exclusive informational loop, the apparent yardstick to gauge the possibility for the presence of the number of safe havens in the western half of Pakistan is the number of violent attacks on Kabul. What bolster this causational relationship is the past, when the Taliban were born into the suburbs of Quetta (Qilla Abdullah District) and later on appeared in Spin Boldak, a district in the eastern Kandahar Province of Afghanistan, in October 1994. The notoriety of the suburbs of Peshawar for harbouring the Taliban was established in the aftermath of 9/11 when the Taliban, along with al-Qaeda operatives, fled Afghanistan in celerity and took refuge in Pakistan.. Sometimes, it seems that the term ‘Taliban’ is both illusory and cumbrous in the sense that it creates necessarily an impression of a Pashtun militant of Afghan nationality, who has been educated from a religious seminary in the western half of Pakistan and who claims to have political stakes next door The US thinks that, in the post-1996 era, when the Taliban were holding the reins of Kabul, the presence of safe havens for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan inflicted 9/11 on the US. Today, the presence of any safe havens around Afghanistan keeps alive the danger of the disruption of peace in Kabul. The concern ancillary to this supposed tragedy is that if the Kabul government crumbles, the next round of the spawning of safe heavens back in Afghanistan for any al-Qaeda like organisation may take place prompting to repeat the 9/11 episode. Two such developments are known in Pakistan, but their end results remain unknown. First, the success of drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal area in eliminating al-Qaeda was the outcome of the information provided accurately to the US authorities by insiders to the tribal area. That is, the loyalty of certain locals, whosoever was ready to assist in return for money (or may be for the US citizenship), was bought to turn against the foreign militants who had sought refuge there. The US dollars on the ground and missile-laden drones in the air squeezed the life out of al-Qaeda. In this regard, what is less emphasised are drones, which are bald of missiles. The technological (or electronic) advancement in the drone technology generating drones of various sizes and types help a drone-handler to gather information of any locality. Listening drones are also available to the bewilderment of many. Second, over the years, the Peshawar Consulate of the US has grown in its technical size to increase the compass of its intelligence (or information) gathering activities. Both the chip and strip technologies have outclassed their competitors. Certainly, the consecration aspect of any war is that it allows the allocation of resources, both human and material, to develop a new kind of technology. Sometimes, it seems that the term ‘Taliban’ is both illusory and cumbrous in the sense that it creates necessarily an impression of a Pashtun militant of Afghan nationality, who has been educated from a religious seminary in the western half of Pakistan and who claims to have stakes in the political affairs of Afghanistan. Generally, the relationship between an Afghan and the politics of Afghanistan makes sense, but the relationship between a Taliban and the Afghan politics is impugned because of the assumed tilt of the Taliban (ie Afghan Taliban) towards Pakistan. Against this background, the term ‘safe havens’ makes such congregations an extension of Afghanistan into Pakistan. Apparently, both the terms ‘Taliban’ and ‘safe havens’ in their given form are instrumental in rendering the US commitment to Afghanistan open-ended. The regime change was made possible by force whereas the regime stabilisation was made possible by the introduction of the constitution-based democratic system. Both these steps made the Taliban irrelevant to Afghanistan owing to shrinking physical and political space for them — and these are both the grievances nursed by the Taliban. Interestingly, these are also the points where Pakistan finds itself handicapped. That is, neither can Pakistan help reverse the regime change in Kabul nor can Pakistan offer a system alternative to constitutional democracy in Afghanistan. In the given scenario, staying the course seems the best available option with the US. Moreover, in the staying option lies the seeds of the successful US exit strategy. If safe havens are the extension of Afghanistan into Pakistan or the Taliban active in Afghanistan are the expression of Pakistan in Afghanistan, the outcry in Pakistan on the projected surge in US forces amounting to just four thousand is justified, but not otherwise. The anxiety gripping Pakistan on the news of surge disqualifies Pakistan for being a neutral observer. An illusion, overwhelming many in Pakistan, is that the US is alone in Afghanistan. On the other hand, Europeans have rallied around a consensus that the presence of a democratic government in Afghanistan is the best bid against any disruption of peace in Europe, especially the Western Europe. Announced on August 21, the policy of US President Donald Trump describing his version of Af-Pak strategy is reflective of the intentions of the dropping of the mother of all bombs on some hilly area in Afghanistan in April 2017. On the other hand, the hope, which is somehow still booming in some circles in Pakistan, is that the US will one day get bogged down in Afghanistan but then the hope strikes the dead-end when it is imagined what options will be open to the Taliban (ie Afghan Taliban) or Pakistan afterward. In September 1996, after capturing Kabul, the Afghan Taliban stopped listening to Pakistan. Neither could Pakistan avert 9/11 nor could it save itself from the ravages of the war on terror. In both instances, Pakistan remained at the receiving end of the repercussions. Presently, it seems that Pakistan is failing in convincing the Afghan Taliban (if and when they are listening to Pakistan) that they have to learn to survive democratically by taking part in the elections. No one is stopping the Afghan Taliban from taking over Kabul but the itinerary adopted to do so is important. The writer can be reached at, qaisarrashid@yahoo.com Published in Daily Times, September 24th 2017.