Hostile environment: A Reflection Of Strategic And Social Failures

Terrorism has never had a universally accepted definition. The reason is straightforward, as terrorism is not purely a legal matter; it is fundamentally political, geopolitical, and ideological. Throughout modern history, the label “terrorist” has been shaped less by objective criteria and more by political convenience. One nation’s “terrorist” is often another nation’s freedom fighter, liberation hero, or symbol of resistance. The term serves as a political instrument, deployed by states to delegitimize opponents, discredit dissenters, and justify security or strategic agendas.

As a political analyst, the first truth I emphasize is that: the terminology in conflict is never neutral. It reflects power, not principle. Violence does not erupt  accidently. Armed movements are born from structural failures, governance breakdowns, social fragmentation, foreign intervention, and long-standing historical grievances. When terrorism is reduced to the visible act of violence, its underlying drivers remain unexamined. A serious understanding requires a multi-layered look at history, identity, socioeconomic realities, and regional power politics.

Terrorism is not a colonial-era label for rebellious groups, nor is it limited to specific events, actors, or territories. It is the cumulative outcome of threatened identities, ideological manipulation, socioeconomic exclusion, institutional injustices, and state-level strategic miscalculations. Generations in conflict-ridden regions like ours have grown up under the shadow of war. As a result, war has become a lived certainty and peace a psychological impossibility. Violence is not an anomaly; it is a social inheritance.

A fact rarely acknowledged is that entire intellectual, political, and institutional ecosystems have been created to manufacture war, while almost no comparable infrastructure exists to promote peace. The world has built militaries, intelligence networks, ideological factories, and proxy systems, but it has not invested in educational or social institutions capable of producing non-violent political cultures. In such a vacuum, armed groups transform into not just power centers, but alternative social orders, offering identity, purpose, and belonging where the state has failed.

The social dimension is even more decisive. When trust between state and society collapses, when justice becomes selective, economic opportunity is captured by narrow elites, and citizens are systematically excluded from political participation, violence gradually evolves into the “last vocabulary” through which people express survival, dignity, and revenge. Under structural marginalization, many young people perceive conflict not as a choice but as the only path to reclaim rights, assert identity, or resist humiliation.

When the state withdraws or fails to deliver, other forces inevitably rise to fill the gap. Groups once on the margins slowly assume central roles, settling disputes, offering protection, and giving people a sense of belonging the government no longer provides. Over time, their authority becomes more visible than that of official institutions. They stop acting as mere rivals to the state and instead begin functioning as its replacements, shaping daily life where formal governance has collapsed. In such environments, the battlefield is not only physical but social, and the competition is not only over territory but over legitimacy itself.

From a strategic perspective, terrorism reaches its most dangerous form when regional states manipulate local grievances for short-term geopolitical gain. The proxy networks they cultivate to project influence or pressure rivals rarely remain obedient instruments. Over time, these groups develop their own ideological motivations and organisational autonomy, distancing themselves from the agendas of their original sponsors. Once this shift occurs, they slip beyond control, cross borders with ease, and act according to an internal logic no state can manage. At that point, terrorism stops functioning as a policy tool and transforms into an independent force, one its architects cannot restrain and whose victims cannot be shielded.

Another critical but overlooked dimension is the political socialization toward violence. Terrorism is not cultivated only on battlefields; it is engineered in the intellectual and social laboratories of everyday life. These “laboratories” include educational institutions, political platforms glorifying confrontation, economic deprivation that breeds anger, colonial legacies that deform identity, and unresolved ethnic rivalries that preserve historical wounds. Over time, entire generations become accustomed to the logic of violence. Peace begins to feel like surrender; dialogue appears as betrayal; compromise is interpreted as defeat.

This is why terrorism must be defined by actions, not actors. Any deliberate violence targeting innocent civilians for political objectives, whether justified under the so-called “war on terror” or any other title, is terrorism. Its moral identity is determined not by slogans, but by victims. And because terrorism emerges from structural injustice and ideological conditioning, it cannot be eradicated through military operations alone. States may control borders and deploy security forces, but as long as they ignore the political, economic, and intellectual ecosystems that produce extremism, terrorism will merely adapt, mutate, and reappear in new forms.

Sustainable stability requires a profound strategic shift, from managing weapons to reconstructing minds; from controlling territory to cultivating justice; from treating symptoms to addressing causes. Narratives must be corrected, historical injustices confronted, educational foundations strengthened, and political structures reformed to eliminate the roots of violence. Peace and civility must enter the curriculum not as decorative slogans but as foundational principles.

Ultimately, terrorism will persist until all relevant actors, states, societies, institutions, and political forces acknowledge their contribution to its creation. Only through honest admission, structural reform, and intellectual renewal can the cycle be broken. Otherwise, wars may disappear from battlefields, but terrorism will remain alive, embedded in mindsets, identities, and the political imagination of future generations.

Controlling Militancy Through Military Means:  Limits And Lessons

Our Pashto-Dari Website

  Donate Here