Beyond Combat: Reimagining Counterterrorism In Pakistan

A sudden bang shattered the silence during Friday prayers at a mosque in my neighborhood, F-11 in Islamabad. For a moment, the congregation froze. Nothing had happened, yet the collective reaction spoke volumes. Even an innocuous noise disrupting worship reveals how deeply fear has seeped into daily life. When ordinary tremors expose institutional fragility, terrorism has fundamentally reshaped how we exist. It has normalized the abnormal: armed policemen patrolling mosque grounds, fortified barriers encircling everyday existence. Below lies a persistent anxiety, one neither spoken aloud nor easily named.

That unease is familiar to me. I witnessed too rapidly how a single terrorist attack can transform not only a society’s sense of security but also the very mechanisms by which it defends itself. During the 9/11 crisis in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, I attended a critical incident management course as part of cautious reintegration efforts. Suddenly, a program assistant burst into the classroom announcing that America itself had been struck. Names and identities were listed, the hope that the path leading toward our region would be spared faded instantly. It was not the case that external forces would spare us; the danger arrived directly.

Terrorism is not defeated by adjectives.

— Dr Syed Kaleem Imam

Stepping back into my position as senior superintendent of police in Rawalpindi revealed a different reality entirely. A decisive alliance with Western powers transformed Pakistan into a frontline partner—and eventually, the frontline itself. Former combatants became today’s militants; some devolved into criminals while others drifted further into terrorism. The allegiance cultivated between the nation and the West during the Afghan conflict turned on against its own people.

Two decades on, Pakistan tops the Global Terrorism Index 2026. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan together account for more than 74 percent of the nation’s terrorist incidents and 67 percent of associated fatalities in 2025. After decades of sustained struggle, we must confront harder questions. Who are we continue fighting? What perpetuates new recruits, and what draws young men and women to violence? Perhaps the fundamental issue is not merely how to defeat terrorism, but lessons learned over the years about how not to.

Terrorists can indeed be expelled. Following the 2014 Army Public School massacre in Peshawar, the national response altered much of the trajectory. Yet vanquishing individual battlegrounds distinguishes not from conquering the overall war. When the underlying conditions persist, terrorism returns regardless of battlefield victories. If replicating previous strategies had resolved the problem, this crisis would have ended eons ago. It is time for honest self-inquiry rather than complacency.

First, cease cultivating tomorrow’s militants while dismantling present ones. Force is sometimes warranted; however, indiscriminate action carries costs. Collective punishment, collateral damage, arbitrary detention, and public humiliation erode trust the very communities we claim to serve. Poor policing tactics and overly punitive security measures may eliminate one operative, only to generate the next.

Second, abandon selective and politicized counterterrorism approaches. Distinguishing between “good” and “bad” terrorists based on convenience has proven catastrophic for a nation that has paid exorbitant prices for such partitions. Likewise, political instrumentalization of anti-terrorism creates perilous precedents. Law enforcement cannot be forced to trade sides overnight; maintaining public confidence demands unwavering commitment to impartial duty.

Third, reject shortcuts that bypass legal safeguards. Extrajudicial coercion appears formidable but exposes deep institutional fractures. When investigations falter, witnesses are coerced, prosecutions evaporate, and cases dissolve—the subsequent operation simply begins once again. Such cycles are not tactical successes; they constitute institutional regression rooted in repeated failure.

It is long past due for a broader perspective beyond firepower. Militancy thrives on marginalization, precarious governance, injustice, extremist ideologies, and absent economic opportunity. Eliminating a militant while leaving unresolved grievances merely resets the timeline. Success metrics should extend beyond territorial casualties. Reportedly, hundreds—or occasionally thousands—of terrorists have been killed. Yet an unsettling query remains: if targeted eliminations were sufficient, why does the phenomenon persist unabated?

Reframing martyrdom discourse is equally essential. Our fallen police officers and soldiers merit honor, yet effective command demands bringing them home safely upon mission completion. After every significant assault, rigorous evaluations are mandatory: identify gaps, assign accountability, and establish timelines for remedy. Without relentless learning from setbacks, preparation inevitably sets the stage for recurrence.

While international safe havens matter, they cannot fully account for the challenge. We must investigate what fails domestically as well. When civil capacities are saturated, military intervention may become necessary, yet the ultimate responsibility must remain with the bureaucracy and rooted in law. Terrorism is suppressed not through press releases and online campaigns but through superior intelligence, proficient policing, credible justice systems, and citizen confidence in governmental authority.

Certain language describes false optimism. Slogans claiming that enemies’ “back has been broken,” that they have “turned the tide,” that networks have “been dismantled” and that the threat will “crush decisively” are inadequate descriptions of reality. The recent attack in Kohat, which claimed twenty-three lives at a police mosque during Friday prayers, serves as a stark reminder that terrorism remains active. The core lesson persists: terrorist eradication requires concrete actions, not grand declarations.

Pakistan possesses no shortage of courage or strategic vision; what it lacks is disciplined perseverance through constitutional adherence, professionally trained institutions, and sound governance. Frequently, premature triumphalism leads only to delayed tragedies—lives extinguished, fractured neighborhoods, and convictions that wither from neglect.

Drawing inspiration from Ben Gazur’s collection *A Short History of the World in 50 Failures*, one observes that failure acquires value only through systematic reflection. Alternatively, drawing on a sentiment often misattributed to Charles Darwin: survival depends less on raw strength or intellect than on adaptability and responsiveness to change.

Counterterrorism must cultivate profound humility: the willingness to learn, adjust, and ultimately retreat, or repeat mistakes endlessly. For Pakistan, the pivotal test is not solely about the ferocity of strikes but whether we restructure the conditions enabling terror’s resurgence. Failure to confront root causes results in identical conflicts repeated ad infinitum.

The writer is a former federal secretary, inspector general of police and UN police commissioner, and teaches law and philosophy at universities. X: @KaleemImam

Source link