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
Narrative Management and the ISKP–TTP Ecosystem
The assassination of Maulana Sultan reveals how ISKP and TTP deploy narrative coordination, delayed claims, and interchangeable branding to obscure accountability and sustain regional instability from Afghan soil.
Pakistan’s Defense Industrial Breakout
As the liberal international order fragments, Pakistan has executed a decisive shift from defense dependency to indigenous production. Through exports, combat validation, and joint industrialization, Islamabad is redefining sovereignty as an industrial and diplomatic asset.
Rethinking Afghan Repatriation from Pakistan
Amnesty International’s call to halt Afghan repatriation overlooks the limits of long-term hospitality. For Pakistan, the issue is less about abandoning rights than reasserting sovereign immigration control amid shifting realities in Afghanistan.
Iran’s Current Crisis: Structural Pressures and Political Trajectories
Iran’s 2025–26 unrest reflects simultaneous pressure on economic stability, political legitimacy, and state coercive capacity, marking a critical juncture for the Islamic Republic.
The New Architecture of US–Pakistan Relations
Andy Halus’s interview signals a strategic shift in US–Pakistan relations from security-centric ties to a multidimensional partnership centered on minerals, education, and soft power. Projects like Reko Diq now stand as the key test of this new architecture.