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
Herat Border Tragedy: The Deadly Consequences of Afghanistan’s Governance Failures
The Herat border tragedy, is a stark illustration of the human cost of Afghanistan’s governance failures. With limited economic opportunities, widespread poverty, and insufficient social support, families are forced to undertake life-threatening journeys across freezing mountains. The incident underscores the urgent need for the Afghan government to provide stable livelihoods, establish safe migration routes, and strengthen healthcare and social services, as humanitarian risks continue to escalate across the country.
Debunking the Gaza Deployment Narrative
False claims of a Pakistani troop deployment to Gaza, amplified by disinformation networks, were firmly rejected by the Foreign Office, reaffirming that Pakistan’s military operates only under UN mandates and constitutional limits.
The End of the 1971 Consensus
Sharif Osman Hadi’s death has become the symbolic burial of the 1971 Consensus that long structured India–Bangladesh relations. For a generation with no lived memory of the Liberation War, Hadi embodies a Second Independence, reframing 1971 as the start of Indian dominance rather than true sovereignty. His killing has accelerated Bangladesh’s rupture with India and exposed a deep strategic crisis across South Asia.
Afghan Taliban’s Biopolitics
The Taliban’s health diplomacy is reshaping Afghanistan’s geopolitical landscape. By phasing out Pakistani pharmaceuticals and inviting Indian partnerships, Kabul securitizes its healthcare infrastructure as a tool of strategic realignment. The shift highlights the intersection of sovereignty, economic statecraft, and regional influence, with Afghan patients bearing the immediate consequences.
Who Benefits from Islamophobia?
In the wake of global violence, political actors often replace evidence-based analysis with collective blame. Islamophobia, when elevated from fringe rhetoric to state discourse, fractures society and weakens security.