By Sardar Khan NiaziA senior counterterrorism official’s resignation, though couched in the language of routine transition, has cast a long and unsettling shadow over a war that has largely escaped sustained public scrutiny. In a country where security narratives are tightly managed and dissent is often muted, such a departure inevitably raises more questions than it answers. Why would a seasoned official — presumably privy to the inner workings of the state’s counterterrorism apparatus — step down at a time when the threat landscape remains volatile? Was it fatigue, disagreement over policy direction, or a deeper disillusionment with strategies that have yielded diminishing returns? In the absence of transparency, speculation fills the void. For years, the counterterrorism framework has operated on a familiar script: kinetic operations, intelligence-led targeting, and periodic declarations of success. While these measures have undoubtedly disrupted militant networks, they have not eradicated the underlying drivers of extremism. The persistence — and in some areas, resurgence — of militant activity suggests that the problem is more complex than official narratives often admit. The resignation brings into focus an uncomfortable possibility: that there may be internal recognition of strategic stagnation. Counterterrorism, as practiced, may be locked in a cycle of tactical victories but strategic drift. Eliminating operatives does not dismantle ideologies; nor does it address governance deficits, economic marginalization, and regional instability — all of which continue to feed militancy. Equally troubling is the lack of public debate. Wars that are not openly discussed are rarely democratically owned. Parliamentary oversight remains limited, civil society engagement is sporadic, and media........

© The Patriot