Categories: Articles, writings & analyses

Controlling Militancy Through Military Means: Limits And Lessons

Pakistan’s internal security situation has continued to deteriorate despite the closure of crossing points along the Durand Line nearly three months ago and the use of air power against targets inside Afghanistan. These measures have not yielded the intended security outcomes nor led to alignment with Pakistan’s stated objectives. Instead, they have coincided with civilian harm, including women, children, and athletes, highlighting the limitations of unilateral, militarized approaches and underscoring the importance of coordinated regional and international efforts to promote stability.

Experience from nearly five decades of conflict in Afghanistan suggests that neglecting the root causes of radicalization and prioritizing coercive responses over structural reforms, systematic inclusivity, equitable distribution of opportunities, and credible political processes has contributed to the persistence and evolution of extremism rather than its reduction. Efforts to externalize responsibility have further compounded regional instability.

In contexts marked by military operations, long-term stability remains a distant goal. When such measures are combined with insufficient attention to genuine reconciliation, political inclusion, and socioeconomic opportunities, they fail to address underlying grievances and can inadvertently reinforce radicalization, perpetuating cycles of violence.

Non-state armed groups reportedly operating in the region appear to have evolved from rigid hierarchical structures into decentralized, adaptive networks capable of operating across areas of fragile security and limited stability. Their activities are often rooted in local grievances and influenced by surrounding political and social conflicts. While these groups have gained operational flexibility, their ideological narratives, propaganda, and recruitment mechanisms frequently remain tied to centralized leadership. This adaptability enables them to withstand sustained military campaigns, exploit governance gaps, and persist despite external pressure.

Historical experience shows that even legitimate and justified militarized responses to militancy often produce unintended and destabilizing consequences rather than lasting solutions. Afghanistan’s anti-Soviet armed struggle, for instance, strategically facilitated the emergence of al-Qaeda as a transnational network backed by external actors, while the so-called global war on terror contributed to the rise of ISIS. Subsequent military operations against ISIS fragmented the organization, accelerating the proliferation of splinter groups and affiliated cells across multiple regions. These patterns reveal a structural and historical flaw in over-reliance on military solutions: without addressing political exclusion, weak governance, and socioeconomic grievances, coercive approaches inadvertently create conditions for new and more resilient forms of extremism.

The ongoing operations and escalating attacks by armed groups in the region underscore that these are far from isolated security incidents. Rather, they reflect deeper strategic miscalculations and structural challenges, compounded by longstanding policy failures and historical grievances. These groups exploit gaps in coordination and protracted political tensions, drawing strength from civilian casualties during operations and embedding themselves within local conflict dynamics.

The challenges Afghanistan and its neighbors face today cannot be separated from the regional and international policies pursued during the Cold War and its aftermath. During that period, financial, military, and logistical support was provided to various armed actors for strategic purposes, creating militant infrastructures that have endured for decades. Many of those who enabled and benefited from these networks have largely evaded accountability, leaving Afghanistan and the wider region to bear the long-term consequences.

The result is a cycle of instability, weakened governance, and persistent insecurity, demonstrating that external interventions, even when framed as strategic necessities, can leave deep and lasting scars when local governance structures are ignored or undermined. Today, these historical legacies continue to shape security dynamics, constrain development, and complicate regional cooperation, underscoring the urgent need for policies that prioritize local stability, accountability, and inclusive governance.

Traditional social institutions, including tribal jirgas, religious leaders, media, and civil society activists, retain significant potential for mediation, community engagement, and the promotion of non-violent narratives, provided they operate with genuine neutrality. Tribal elders, religious scholars, and community representatives have historically played key roles in resolving disputes, maintaining social cohesion, and bridging divides in times of crisis. Today, however, their capacity is often compromised. Political actors, both state and non-state, frequently instrumentalize these figures to advance narrow agendas, while coercion and pressure further weaken their independence. The result is an erosion of public trust and legitimacy, leaving communities more vulnerable to polarization, radicalization, and social fragmentation. Strengthening these institutions’ autonomy and ensuring their voices are respected could transform them into powerful anchors for peace, stability, and civic resilience in Afghanistan and the wider region. Long-term stability will depend on moving beyond cycles of militarization toward structural approaches that prioritize political inclusion, accountable governance, social cohesion, and sustained dialogue.

Recent trends reveal sustained violence, declining trust, and largely reactive security coordination along the Durand Line. Despite heavy securitization, the gates on Durand Line lacks predictable, mutually accepted management mechanisms, creating risks for regional stability, economic connectivity, investment, and international security. Addressing these challenges requires policies grounded in historical lessons and empirical realities. Key steps include preventing sovereignty violations, minimizing civilian harm, restoring trade and transit, finalizing bilateral agreements, and establishing a joint bilateral mechanism to regulate the opening and closure of Durand Line gates, supported by strengthened intelligence coordination.

The disruption of trade and restricted movement along the Durand Line further underscores the broader economic risks tied to these security and management failures. Exporters, traders, and revenue authorities face both immediate and long-term losses, while markets and supply chains adapt to alternative routes, often bypassing traditional corridors. This dynamic shows that decisions regarding the Durand Line gates are not merely security matters, they directly affect regional economic resilience, the sustainability of trade networks, and the success of Afghanistan-Pakistan cooperation, as well as proposed regional connectivity projects.

These patterns demonstrate that militarized responses alone cannot resolve the region’s complex security challenges. Without addressing underlying governance failures, political exclusion, and socioeconomic grievances, each operation risks fueling the very extremism it seeks to suppress. Sustainable security will require integrated strategies that combine political solutions, social inclusion, and local engagement, otherwise, cycles of violence and instability are destined to persist.