Perceptions vs. Reality: Counterterrorism or State Violence

When Pakistan violated Afghan sovereignty and conducted strikes inside Afghan territory, it framed the action as a pre-emptive security response against armed groups allegedly operating from Afghan soil. This was not a marginal incident or a technical miscalculation. It constituted a clear breach of Afghanistan’s sovereignty and carried serious legal and political implications. Such actions demand evaluation not through official explanations, but through observable outcomes and established international standards.

In modern military practice, legitimacy is tied to verifiable results. Credible counterterrorism operations must produce identifiable evidence: the neutralization of a senior militant figure, the dismantling of a terrorist group’s command structure, or the public presentation of intelligence substantiating the strike. Yet, despite the scale of the operation, Pakistan has offered no confirmed information indicating that a high-ranking TTP leader was killed or that any operational TTP hub was destroyed.

Reports from the affected areas instead point to a different outcome. Civilian casualties, including women and children, have been widely reported, along with damage to Afghan military infrastructure. While Islamabad maintains that the strikes were intended to dismantle terrorist group hideouts, the absence of verifiable results, combined with evidence of civilian harm, raises serious concerns under international law and casts doubt on the credibility of the stated objectives.

Counterterrorism cannot function as an unlimited justification when compliance with international humanitarian law remains uncertain. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity are not optional; they are binding legal obligations. Every civilian casualty and every strike on state facilities intensifies legal scrutiny and weakens the credibility of the claimed defensive rationale. When force is employed beyond a state’s territory, legitimacy derives not from official declarations but from demonstrable conformity with international legal norms and transparent accountability.

The recurring use of force along the Durand Line further deepens these concerns. Over the years, Pakistan has launched multiple air and artillery strikes inside Afghan territory, typically accompanied by similar claims of targeting militant elements. In late 2025 and early 2026, Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes in eastern provinces including Nangarhar, Paktika, and Khost, describing them as intelligence-driven operations against camps allegedly used by Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Afghan sources reported civilian deaths and injuries, later confirmed in assessments by the United Nations, while Islamabad maintained that militants had been killed. Pakistan’s assertions, however, remain disputed and have not been supported by independently verifiable evidence.

Since the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan, these dynamics have hardened further. Regional security arrangements remain fragmented, and incidents along the Durand Line have become a recurring source of tension. Pakistan continues to assert that hostile armed groups operate from Afghan territory, while Afghan authorities reject these claims and condemn the strikes as violations of sovereignty. This accumulated mistrust has narrowed the space for cooperation and transformed security concerns into enduring political disputes.

In this environment, military operations along the Durand Line are more likely to aggravate tensions than neutralize threats. Pakistan’s internal security challenges are real, and militant violence has imposed a heavy cost on its society. Yet many of these challenges originate within Pakistan itself and reflect the long-term consequences of its strategic depth doctrine in Afghanistan. To the extent that cross-border dynamics contribute to these security concerns, they should be addressed through diplomacy with Afghanistan as a sovereign neighbor and an equal partner.

Recent developments have highlighted a sudden warming in U.S.–Pakistan relations, with Washington showing renewed interest in strategic access and military assets in Afghanistan following its withdrawal. This shift has intensified common perceptions that Pakistan’s military actions along the Durand Line may intersect with broader external interests seeking to limit Afghanistan’s ability to consolidate its military capacity. While no formal project or coordination has been confirmed, the timing and context of these operations contribute to widespread suspicion within Afghanistan and beyond. Such perceptions shape public understanding of Pakistan’s strikes, framing them not merely as counterterrorism measures but as part of a complex strategic dynamic with regional and international implications.

Pakistan itself once adopted a similar position when confronted with comparable circumstances. During the years of the United States’ drone campaign in Pakistan’s tribal areas, Islamabad repeatedly condemned those strikes as violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Pakistani officials argued that counterterrorism concerns could not justify unilateral military action inside another state’s territory without consent. That position was widely articulated in diplomatic forums and international discussions as a defense of sovereign rights and international law. Even if a similar situation exists in Afghanistan today, the same principle must apply. Sovereignty cannot be a selective standard invoked only when convenient; it is a universal norm that governs relations between states. If cross-border security concerns arise, they must be addressed through cooperation, intelligence coordination, and diplomatic engagement rather than unilateral force that risks escalating tensions and undermining regional stability.

Without clear evidence, airstrikes are widely perceived as acts of state violence rather than counterterrorism. They are seen as symbolic demonstrations or pressure-driven maneuvers aimed at political leverage, not genuine security solutions. This perception is reinforced when Afghan military facilities are damaged while no credible information is provided about neutralized militant leadership.

Such operations also carry a domestic political dimension. Governments facing multidimensional internal pressures often resort to highly visible military actions to reassure the public and project decisiveness. While this may provide short-term political reassurance, it fails to create sustainable security, no matter how the proponents of a warring mindset justify it. Repeated reliance on military measures without coordination, transparency, or diplomatic engagement constrains political space, deepens mistrust, and solidifies cycles of reciprocal escalation. Over time, this approach undermines regional stability.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are bound by geography, history, and economic interdependence. Instability on one side of the Durand Line inevitably affects the other. If Pakistan’s operation had achieved concrete counterterrorism results, presenting credible evidence would have strengthened its position internationally. In the absence of such clarity, observers are left to judge the consequences rather than the stated intentions.

The central question therefore remains unresolved: did these strikes meaningfully reduce the threat, or did they deepen an already fragile relationship? Lasting stability will not emerge from episodic air operations, but from accountable coordination, credible intelligence sharing, respect for sovereignty, and sustained political engagement. Without these foundations, force will continue to substitute for strategy, and insecurity will persist.

The Counterproductive Logic of Coercion

Our Pashto-Dari Website

  Donate Here