Among the legacies of the Vietnam war was 'collateral damage', a nasty, cold-blooded term meant to camouflage the reality of civilian casualties behind its bland, bureaucratic facade.

In the so-called war against terror, the American pounding of Afghanistan is inevitably spreading death and destruction among the civilian population. And just as inevitably, collateral damage is being inflicted on Pakistan as well: with each report of an errant bomb or missile killing innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan, the support for General Musharraf slips a little. Another kind of collateral damage we are suffering from is the steady inflow of Afghan refugees fleeing the carpet-bombing of their battered nation.

Indeed, if the aid agencies had their way, this inflow would turn into a flood. From Oxfam to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, they are all demanding that Pakistan open its borders to the unfortunate Afghans who are desperate for food, shelter and medical assistance at our doorsteps. All these well-intentioned relief agency officials want to avert a looming humanitarian disaster as winter approaches, food stocks in Afghanistan run low and American bombing makes distribution of supplies impossible.

At the risk of sounding hard-hearted and callous, may I suggest that those demanding that Pakistan allow these poor Afghans in should seriously consider flying them to their own countries and caring for them there. I make this suggestion in all seriousness. As the country with the biggest population of refugees in the world already on its soil, Pakistan is now being asked to take possibly millions more. And yet, a boatload of Afghans seeking to reach Australia is refused entry and causes a major incident.

Somehow this entire arm-twisting exercise reeks of hypocrisy. We already have anywhere between two and three million Afghans living here, courtesy the Soviet invasion and the subsequent civil war there. Hundreds of thousands of these were born in Pakistan, have never been to Afghanistan, and possibly never will. Their fathers and brothers have been engaged in all manner of trade and professions, ranging from transport and mining to gun-running and drug smuggling. Their presence has placed a huge burden on the environment and the government exchequer.

Despite all this, bleeding hearts across the world want us to take in another couple of millions. I would suggest they put their land where their mouth is and offer the Afghans the hospitality they want us to provide. Sure, they are offering to put up the refugee camps and pay for the food and the medicine for now. But what happens when the current campaign in Afghanistan ends and the glare of the media shifts to whatever fresh target the Pentagon has in its sights? This happened when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan a decade ago, and most of the three million refugees sensibly refused to return to a country where a civil war produced more carnage in Kabul than the Soviets did.

This time it is American bombs that are producing the fear and uncertainty, driving more and more Afghans towards our borders. In both cases, we ended up as the victims of geography and the agendas of superpowers that were too far away to have to bear the full consequence of their actions. And although in both instances, there are initially an inflow of aid to cope with the situation, donor fatigue soon set in during the late nineties, with the result that Pakistan's weak economy was left to bear the burden. There is no guarantee that this will not happen again.

But more than the money required for the upkeep of the refugees, there are other kinds of price. Firstly, the devastation caused to the environment of the Frontier province is long-term as a result of trees chopped down for fuel. During Zia's days, police were not allowed to apply the laws of the land to our Afghan population. Then they have entered a range of professions and trades, depriving locals of employment opportunities since they are willing to work for lower wages.

It is estimated that 50,000 Afghans are working in Quetta alone. Their involvement in crimes of all kinds is aggravating an already grim law and order situation. And their presence in large numbers provides the foot soldiers for the extremist religious groups and the jihadi outfits that have virtually established a state within a state. In fact, many of the bearded faces seen on BBC and CNN belong to Afghans who have settled in major cities from Karachi to Islamabad.

Given all these hidden as well as quantifiable costs of playing host to the existing population of refugees, it is amazing that the aid community is now applying pressure on Pakistan to accept yet more Afghans. They are trying to reassure us by saying that the camps would be located in 'remote' parts of the country. But we know only too well that many Afghans do not stay where they are supposed to. Indeed, an unknown number of them have Pakistani identity cards and avail themselves of the educational and medical facilities intended for Pakistani citizens. Thousands have also got Pakistani passports.

When the first flood of our neighbours arrived in the eighties, there was much official talk of 'welcoming our Afghan brethren.' No longer. Even their Pakistani Pashtun cousins and tribesmen are fed up. Although they may be demonstrating against American bombing, they would not like the present influx of refugees to stay on as the previous one did.

When a few thousand asylum-seekers are admitted to Britain and do not return, there is loud and angry criticism of the government. The other Europeans are very tough with their illegal immigrants, fearing an erosion of their cultural values. The Americans do their best to halt the flow of economic refugees who risk their lives and pay fortunes to unscrupulous agents. The Australians are willing to let shiploads of asylum seekers sink rather than allow them to land on their under-populated shores. And yet we are being pressed to take in millions of more Afghans over and above the two million-plus who are already here.

"Let the polluter pay" is an established principle in determining who pays to clean up after an environmental disaster. Here, I would suggest we amend this to read: "Let the bomber pay." Having joined the American-led coalition, we should not be penalized by having an additional burden imposed on us. At some point, we have to say enough is enough, and that point has been reached.