Pakistan's "well-planned and calibrated" airstrikes against terrorist hideouts inside Afghanistan, described as a continuation of Operation Ghazab Lil Haq, reflect an escalating pattern of unilateral military action in response to TTP- and BLA-linked violence inside the country. Pakistani officials claim these strikes have eliminated dozens, if not hundreds, of militants operating from cross-border sanctuaries.

Officials describe this approach as "unavoidable", with the implied objective of compelling the Kabul regime to take demonstrable action against terrorist groups targeting Pakistan. The closure of border crossings for almost a year is also rooted in the same rationale. Official messaging increasingly suggests that relations with Afghanistan have reached a "point of no return" because of Kabul's alleged failure to rein in violent groups operating from its territory.

However justified Pakistan's counterterrorism responses may be, they carry a costly consequence: deepening hostility with the rulers in Kabul, an endless cycle of mutual accusations and little prospect of an end to daily violence. This exposes a structural flaw in the current policy: every military or militant action triggers reciprocal accusations, further erodes trust and narrows the space for cooperative solutions.

Historical evidence from Vietnam, Afghanistan (both for the US and the former Soviet Union), and Iraq (for the US and UK) suggests that military action can temporarily suppress violence and create space for other measures. Yet, durable outcomes depend heavily on political legitimacy, local........

© The Express Tribune