A Pakistani airstrike struck a rehabilitation centre in Kabul on Monday, killing at least 12 people and wounding 30 others, according to Afghan officials. The facility, operated by a British charity, was housing displaced families and recovering addicts. The strike has drawn international condemnation, with the UK Foreign Office summoning the Pakistani ambassador for an explanation.
The attack occurred in the Khair Khana district of western Kabul. Witnesses reported multiple explosions, followed by fire and smoke emanating from the compound. The charity, which requested anonymity due to security concerns, confirmed that its staff were among the casualties but provided no further details.
Pakistani military officials claimed the strike targeted a militant hideout linked to cross-border attacks. However, no evidence of militant activity at the site has been provided. The Afghan government condemned the strike as a violation of its sovereignty and a breach of international law.
The incident occurs against a backdrop of deteriorating relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kabul has repeatedly accused Islamabad of harbouring Taliban fighters, while Pakistan claims Afghan soil is used by militants to launch attacks on its territory. This latest escalation threatens to derail ongoing peace talks between the two nations.
Humanitarian organisations have expressed alarm at the attack. The Red Cross called for an independent investigation, noting that the rehabilitation centre was clearly marked and its coordinates had been shared with all parties to the conflict. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said it was verifying reports of civilian casualties.
For British aid groups operating in Afghanistan, the strike represents a new level of risk. The UK has been a major donor to humanitarian efforts in the country, contributing over £300 million since 2021. However, security for aid workers has become increasingly precarious, with attacks on humanitarian sites rising sharply this year.
The strike also raises questions about the accuracy of intelligence used to justify such operations. In recent months, Pakistan has conducted a series of airstrikes on alleged militant targets in Afghanistan, but independent observers have noted a pattern of civilian casualties. The use of heavy ordnance in densely populated areas, as was the case here, is especially concerning.
From a scientific perspective, the incident exemplifies the collision of geopolitical turbulence with humanitarian infrastructure. Conflict zones are dynamic systems where feedback loops of violence and displacement compound vulnerabilities. The loss of a rehabilitation centre not only kills and wounds individuals but also destabilises the community by removing a critical support node.
In response, the charity has suspended operations in Kabul pending a security review. The British government has offered consular assistance to any UK nationals affected and is working with international partners to ensure safe passage for aid workers. But the broader implications for humanitarian access in Afghanistan are stark: if rehabilitation centres are deemed legitimate targets, the entire aid architecture becomes compromised.
The attack also underscores the need for deconfliction mechanisms to protect civilian infrastructure. In conflict zones, clear communication channels between military forces and humanitarian actors are essential. Without them, sites like this rehab centre become unintentional targets, with devastating consequences.
As the dust settles over Khair Khana, the immediate priority is medical evacuation and support for the injured. But the long-term question looms: how can humanitarian aid continue in a theatre where the rules of war are being systematically disregarded?
This is not an isolated event but a symptom of a broader erosion of international norms. For every civilian killed in such strikes, the space for diplomacy and peace narrows. The rehabilitation centre was a place of healing, not a battlefield. Its destruction should serve as a stark reminder of the true cost of conflict: a cost measured not in strategic gains but in human lives and shattered communities.
