Lisa, it seems you are engaging in a bit of revisionism yourself to blame Zahir Shah for the attraction of Afghan intellectuals of the 50s-70s to socialism and communism. In that respect they were just like any intellectuals to be found anywhere in the developing world, and a fair number in the west. They no doubt envisioned themselves as

the preferred ruling class who would finally get things right. If Zahir Shah’s sin was that he did not turn Afghanistan into a highly developed country, well, what success stories were out there at the time that were not based on oil revenue? If the complaint is that times were good but not good enough, one could say that about any era in human history.

With regards to the idea that no-one suggested he come back to power after the Soviet withdrawal, in July 1987 Afghan intellectual and author Sayd Majrooh sampled 2,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan whom they preferred as Afghanistan’s leader and 71 percent replied they favored Zahir Shah. Ironically those who most consistently called for his intervention as a peacemaker were the Afghan communists, who saw Zahir as a moderating force who might shield them from the revenge of the Mujahedin. Communist dictator Najibullah had no desire to fall into the hands of the insurgents; surrendering to Zahir Shah would be a much safer option. Sadly for him this did not come to pass and he got the Mussolini treatment.

I can’t buy the argument that everything that followed Zahir’s overthrow was his fault because he let himself get overthrown. Sure he might have done better in that regard if he had inherited more of the old “Iron Emir’s” mettle, but that being the case he might not have lasted 40 years on the throne either. Violence begets violence; I can’t blame the old gent for not behaving the same way as his successors who brought such pain to that country.