The landscape of counter-insurgency in Pakistan has been fundamentally altered in the last few years. Unlike its apex between 2007 and 2009, when Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commanded military-style formations and exerted control over significant swaths of territory, the TTP today operates as a more fluid and decentralized network. Decimated by sustained military operations, the group has transitioned from holding ground to blending in. This tactical shift has allowed small, independent cells known as tashkeels to cross from their sanctuaries in Afghanistan and embed themselves within the fabric of densely populated civilian areas. This tactical shift is a deliberate move to transform the conflict, forcing the state to confront a complex ethical and military dilemma where every action carries the risk of unintended consequences.
The Operational Dilemma of Entrenched Militancy
The TTP’s presence in civilian areas creates significant operational challenges for security forces. Terrorists who blend into local communities make it nearly impossible to conduct precision strikes without the risk of civilian casualties. This dynamic affects the Pakistani Army’s adherence to rules of engagement, which prioritize the protection of non-combatants. When militants are situated in homes, mosques, and markets, the military advantage of a strike is often weighed against the unacceptable risk of unintended harm. This situation places security forces in a difficult position, as they must navigate the dual imperative of combating terrorism while safeguarding the populace.
The Weaponization of Collateral Damage
The TTP has also demonstrated an ability to capitalize on any instance of collateral damage. A single errant shell or a misplaced strike, regardless of the TTP’s role in initiating conflict from a civilian area, can be presented as evidence of state aggression against its own people. This narrative, often disseminated through digital platforms, seeks to erode public support for the military’s operations. Data indicates that Pakistan has seen a concerning increase in terrorist attacks. In 2024, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa recorded the highest number of terrorist incidents in the country, with 295 attacks, which claimed 509 lives and left 517 others injured. These statistics underscore the volatile security environment that can give rise to such propaganda.
The narrative around collateral damage is at times also amplified by certain political groups. For example, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), while advocating for the rights of the Pashtun community, has been observed to use incidents of civilian casualties to criticize the Pakistani Army without consistently and explicitly condemning the TTP for its entrenchment within those same communities. This focus on the military’s response, without addressing the underlying militant activity, can contribute to a narrative that blurs the lines between counter-terrorism and state oppression. This selective commentary risks creating a perception of equivalence between the state’s efforts to eradicate terrorism and the terrorists’ actions.
A Global Pattern of Urban Warfare
This operational dilemma is not unique to Pakistan. It is a recurring feature of modern conflicts involving non-state actors, who deliberately operate from within population centers to exploit the constraints on conventional militaries. These armies, bound by international law and a moral obligation to protect civilians, are often hesitant to use heavy, indiscriminate firepower like artillery or aerial bombardment. This reluctance is well-understood by these groups, who use this constraint to their advantage.
In the Middle East, for instance, ISIS demonstrated a chilling effectiveness in using urban centers as a base of operations. During the Battle of Mosul in Iraq and the fight for Raqqa in Syria, ISIS militants embedded themselves deeply within the cities dense fabric, knowing that any airstrike or artillery fire would carry a high risk of civilian casualties. When these incidents did occur, the groups would seize upon them, distributing images and reports of the harm caused to paint the state and its military as cruel, brutal, and uncaring toward its own people.
In Africa, groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria have also employed similar tactics, using populated areas as strongholds from which to launch attacks. By operating in cities and towns, they exploit the inability of a conventional military to fight them on their terms. This strategy allows these groups to not only survive against overwhelming force but also to generate potent propaganda from any civilian casualties that do occur, further delegitimizing the state in the eyes of the public.
The Imperative of a Collective Approach
The complexities of this situation suggest that a purely military approach may be insufficient. The solution could require a multi-faceted approach that also involves community engagement and dialogue. A key element is empowering local populations, who are the primary victims of this instability, to actively and openly reject the militancy that has taken root among them. By isolating and actively opposing the elements, which may be facilitated by a few locals for various reasons, that foster militancy within their communities, and by collaborating with security forces, the populace can play a vital role in restoring peace. This form of civil-military partnership is essential to addressing the issue. It’s an issue that requires a collective approach, with local communities and the state working together to ensure the safety and security of all.
Pakistan’s Counter-Terrorism Dilemma: Balancing Civilian Protection and Security
The landscape of counter-insurgency in Pakistan has been fundamentally altered in the last few years. Unlike its apex between 2007 and 2009, when Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commanded military-style formations and exerted control over significant swaths of territory, the TTP today operates as a more fluid and decentralized network. Decimated by sustained military operations, the group has transitioned from holding ground to blending in. This tactical shift has allowed small, independent cells known as tashkeels to cross from their sanctuaries in Afghanistan and embed themselves within the fabric of densely populated civilian areas. This tactical shift is a deliberate move to transform the conflict, forcing the state to confront a complex ethical and military dilemma where every action carries the risk of unintended consequences.
The Operational Dilemma of Entrenched Militancy
The TTP’s presence in civilian areas creates significant operational challenges for security forces. Terrorists who blend into local communities make it nearly impossible to conduct precision strikes without the risk of civilian casualties. This dynamic affects the Pakistani Army’s adherence to rules of engagement, which prioritize the protection of non-combatants. When militants are situated in homes, mosques, and markets, the military advantage of a strike is often weighed against the unacceptable risk of unintended harm. This situation places security forces in a difficult position, as they must navigate the dual imperative of combating terrorism while safeguarding the populace.
The Weaponization of Collateral Damage
The TTP has also demonstrated an ability to capitalize on any instance of collateral damage. A single errant shell or a misplaced strike, regardless of the TTP’s role in initiating conflict from a civilian area, can be presented as evidence of state aggression against its own people. This narrative, often disseminated through digital platforms, seeks to erode public support for the military’s operations. Data indicates that Pakistan has seen a concerning increase in terrorist attacks. In 2024, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa recorded the highest number of terrorist incidents in the country, with 295 attacks, which claimed 509 lives and left 517 others injured. These statistics underscore the volatile security environment that can give rise to such propaganda.
The narrative around collateral damage is at times also amplified by certain political groups. For example, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), while advocating for the rights of the Pashtun community, has been observed to use incidents of civilian casualties to criticize the Pakistani Army without consistently and explicitly condemning the TTP for its entrenchment within those same communities. This focus on the military’s response, without addressing the underlying militant activity, can contribute to a narrative that blurs the lines between counter-terrorism and state oppression. This selective commentary risks creating a perception of equivalence between the state’s efforts to eradicate terrorism and the terrorists’ actions.
A Global Pattern of Urban Warfare
This operational dilemma is not unique to Pakistan. It is a recurring feature of modern conflicts involving non-state actors, who deliberately operate from within population centers to exploit the constraints on conventional militaries. These armies, bound by international law and a moral obligation to protect civilians, are often hesitant to use heavy, indiscriminate firepower like artillery or aerial bombardment. This reluctance is well-understood by these groups, who use this constraint to their advantage.
In the Middle East, for instance, ISIS demonstrated a chilling effectiveness in using urban centers as a base of operations. During the Battle of Mosul in Iraq and the fight for Raqqa in Syria, ISIS militants embedded themselves deeply within the cities dense fabric, knowing that any airstrike or artillery fire would carry a high risk of civilian casualties. When these incidents did occur, the groups would seize upon them, distributing images and reports of the harm caused to paint the state and its military as cruel, brutal, and uncaring toward its own people.
In Africa, groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria have also employed similar tactics, using populated areas as strongholds from which to launch attacks. By operating in cities and towns, they exploit the inability of a conventional military to fight them on their terms. This strategy allows these groups to not only survive against overwhelming force but also to generate potent propaganda from any civilian casualties that do occur, further delegitimizing the state in the eyes of the public.
The Imperative of a Collective Approach
The complexities of this situation suggest that a purely military approach may be insufficient. The solution could require a multi-faceted approach that also involves community engagement and dialogue. A key element is empowering local populations, who are the primary victims of this instability, to actively and openly reject the militancy that has taken root among them. By isolating and actively opposing the elements, which may be facilitated by a few locals for various reasons, that foster militancy within their communities, and by collaborating with security forces, the populace can play a vital role in restoring peace. This form of civil-military partnership is essential to addressing the issue. It’s an issue that requires a collective approach, with local communities and the state working together to ensure the safety and security of all.
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
After Sheikh Hasina’s Exit, Can India Rebuild Its Strategic Ties with Bangladesh by Pushing Dhaka Towards the Quad?
Sheikh Hasina’s resignation ended India’s golden era of ties with Bangladesh, leaving New Delhi scrambling to counter China’s growing influence. Can Quad engagement offer India a path to rebuild trust and secure the Bay of Bengal?
Between Security and Privacy: Contextualizing Amnesty’s Claims on Pakistan’s Surveillance
Amnesty International’s Shadows of Control paints a bleak picture of Pakistan’s digital surveillance. Yet by sidelining the country’s acute security challenges, dismissing existing legal safeguards, and overlooking its own credibility issues, the report offers a partial and misleading narrative. A more balanced approach requires situating surveillance within Pakistan’s counterterrorism imperatives and recognizing the global double standards at play.
The End of Liberal Internationalism? Trump’s New Realism
Donald Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly marked a sharp break from America’s seven-decade stewardship of the liberal international order. Rooted in realist principles, his speech rejected multilateralism, attacked the UN’s legitimacy, and reframed alliances as transactional bargains. From immigration and climate policy to NATO and Middle East conflicts, Trump outlined a vision of unilateral power and national sovereignty that directly challenges the institutional foundations of global governance.
Colonial Legacies of Bombay and Calcutta
Bombay and Calcutta were more than colonial capitals, they embodied imperial urban planning, economic integration, and cultural hybridity. From segregated ‘white’ and ‘black’ towns to thriving ports, industries, and nationalist thought, these cities reveal how British rule reshaped India’s urban life while leaving enduring legacies still visible today.
The Many Faces of Activism: Symbolism, Lawfare, and Separatist Politics
Mahrang Baloch is hailed as a human rights defender, yet her rhetoric, symbolism, and political positioning reveal alignment with separatist objectives. Her activism reflects the dynamics of narrative warfare, where political fronts provide legitimacy to armed insurgencies.