When the Pursuit of Security Produces Insecurity

The troubled history of relations between Kabul and Islamabad cannot be understood solely through the activities of the TTP, the BLA, or the recent violence in Badakhshan province. While these security challenges are serious, they represent symptoms rather than the root cause of a relationship that has long been shaped by competing strategic perceptions, unrealistic security doctrines, and decades of accumulated mistrust.

Any meaningful evaluation of the Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict requires assessing the underlying geopolitical disputes, the counterterrorism strategies that have relied predominantly on military operations, the assumptions underpinning those strategies, and their consequences. Experience suggests that policies intended to enhance security have often generated new sources of insecurity by fuelling public resentment, eroding trust between the two states, and creating conditions that militant organisations have exploited for recruitment and propaganda.

The experiences of Afghanistan and Pakistan reveal a striking historical parallel. During the previous two decades, successive Afghan governments relied heavily on military operations while attributing the insurgency to support originating from Pakistan. Today, Pakistan has adopted a comparable approach, combining military operations with the view that Afghanistan bears primary responsibility for militant groups operating against it. In both periods, the government pursuing this strategy remained dissatisfied with the other side’s counterterrorism efforts, yet the conflict persisted.

Rather than producing durable security, these approaches reinforced a cycle of mutual recrimination while leaving the deeper ideological, political, economic, and institutional drivers of instability largely unaddressed. Lasting peace requires confronting these structural factors, as military and coercive measures alone cannot resolve a conflict rooted in broader governance and political challenges.

In my assessment, Pakistan’s approach towards Afghanistan has extended beyond legitimate security concerns and included efforts to influence Afghanistan’s political trajectory through indirect means. Pakistan’s constant reliance on proxy actors reflected a strategic calculation that shaping Afghanistan’s political environment could serve its security interests. However, these policies produced consequences that extended well beyond their stated objectives, contributing to prolonged instability and creating security challenges that affected both countries and the wider region. Pakistan’s security challenges therefore cannot be understood solely through the lens of external threats; they are also linked to the long-term consequences of strategies adopted over decades to address those perceived threats.

One of the most enduring sources of tension has been the unresolved question of the Durand Line. Afghanistan’s long-standing position of not formally recognising the Durand Line as an international border has remained a sensitive issue, while Pakistan has consistently regarded it as a settled international boundary. Rather than being addressed through a mutually acceptable political process, the issue has frequently become intertwined with broader security calculations, reinforcing mistrust between the two countries.

Another dimension of this rivalry has been Afghanistan’s efforts to expand its economic and diplomatic connectivity. For Afghanistan, broader regional engagement represents sovereignty, economic opportunity, and regional integration. Within Pakistan’s security establishment, however, developments that reduce its traditional influence or create new strategic partnerships have often generated concern. Pakistan’s security perceptions and persistent misinterpretation of Afghanistan’s intentions have contributed significantly to the widening strategic divergence between the two countries.

As a result, Afghanistan’s efforts to pursue an independent, balanced, and sovereign foreign policy have often been interpreted by Pakistan as a security challenge rather than an opportunity for regional cooperation and mutual benefit. This perspective overlooks Afghanistan’s legitimate sovereign right to develop its diplomatic, political, and economic relations in accordance with its own national interests, economic priorities, and foreign policy objectives. More importantly, it has proved counterproductive, ultimately undermining Pakistan’s own strategic, economic, and regional interests.

The refugee policy, gate-control policy, and transit trade policy illustrate how influence-oriented approaches can produce unintended consequences. Although these measures have often been justified on national security grounds, their broader political, economic, and humanitarian consequences have frequently undermined their intended objectives. Likewise, restrictions affecting cross-border movement and transit trade have consequences that extend far beyond administrative control. Economic connectivity creates shared interests, strengthens interdependence, and reduces tensions. When economic links are weakened, opportunities for cooperation diminish and mistrust becomes increasingly difficult to overcome.

The persistence of instability in the region demonstrates that the central challenge has never simply been a lack of military capability. Rather, it has been the absence of a sustainable political framework capable of addressing the underlying causes of confrontation. Recent public debate in Pakistan over proposals to mobilise lashkars appears to reflect the continued influence of strategic-depth thinking and has raised concerns about further militarising a region that has already endured decades of conflict. Critics argue that counterinsurgency is the responsibility of the state, not local communities, and warn that such approaches could deepen divisions and generate new tensions between the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Afghanistan. A region that has suffered so much can ill afford another cycle of insecurity.

Ultimately, the Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict stems from unresolved political and territorial disputes and has been profoundly shaped by Pakistan’s strategic-depth doctrine. Conceived as a means of enhancing Pakistan’s security, the doctrine has instead fostered decades of mutual mistrust, fuelled recurring instability in Afghanistan, and ultimately generated serious security challenges for Pakistan itself. Lasting stability requires a fundamental reassessment of this approach, together with greater respect for sovereignty, sustained political engagement, expanded economic cooperation, and the peaceful management of legitimate security concerns.

Afghanistan’s Diversified Trade Corridors and the Limits of Economic Pressure

Our Pashto-Dari Website

  Donate Here