The argument I advance here was prompted by a recent opinion piece, advocating a proactive and coercive policy towards India. While the article raises legitimate and undeniable concerns about the ideological trajectory of Hindutva-driven Indian policies of persistent anti-Pakistan propaganda and continuous support of proxies operating against Pakistan, its policy prescription illustrates a broader problem that increasingly characterises strategic discourse. Strategic choices of this nature require careful consideration of their political, diplomatic, economic and military consequences. They are best debated in military planning rooms and among national security strategists, not advanced as straightforward policy prescriptions in opinion columns. Public opinion building is undoubtedly important but recommending the use of force without bearing responsibility for its operational, political and economic consequences risks narrowing the nation's strategic space rather than expanding it, particularly at a time when national resources remain under considerable strain.

A journalist's responsibility is to illuminate the full spectrum of policy options, examine their implications and enrich public understanding through balanced analysis. It is difficult to reconcile that role with reducing a complex strategic challenge to a mere "headache" and advocating a preemptively biased offensive response. Such an approach risks closing off the very multidimensional options that states deliberately preserve in pursuit of their national interests. Sound strategy lies not in limiting choices but in........

© The Express Tribune