Terrorism resurgence and the need for unity

The anniversary of 9/11 reminds us that terrorism is not a relic of the past; it is a shape-shifting threat that continues to haunt nations, especially those like Pakistan that were thrust into the frontline of a war they did not start. In the aftermath of that day, Pakistan became a non-NATO ally, a designation that brought both strategic burden and moral ambiguity. The fallout was swift and brutal: the very groups once seen as proxies turned inward, and the country was plunged into a nightmare that lasted more than a decade.

The Lal Masjid siege in 2007 marked a turning point. It shattered the illusion that militancy could be contained or negotiated with. What followed was a relentless wave of violence — suicide bombings, sectarian killings and attacks on schools, shrines and security forces. Pakistan responded with resolve.

Let us pause and consider the sheer scale of Pakistan's military commitment to counterterrorism. Since 2002, the country has launched a series of major operations. Each targeted entrenched militant networks, reclaimed territory and disrupted terrorist logistics. Few nations have fought such an extended internal war with such consistency and sacrifice.

But terrorism, like all ideological contagions, changes its form and formation. Today, Pakistan faces a renewed threat — one that is transnational and technologically sophisticated.

The resurgence of TTP, the lethality of BLA and the emergence of ISKP is no accident. It is the direct consequence of post-2021 Afghan instability, external sponsorship and internal fragmentation.

At least 57 terrorist camps now operate from Afghan soil. In 2025 alone, Pakistani forces have neutralised more than 125 Afghan nationals fighting alongside TTP. The Afghan Interim Government's cooperation remains cosmetic at best. Meanwhile, India's support for BLA and TTP — through funding, propaganda and logistical facilitation — is no longer covert. It is strategic and sustained.

Pakistan's most dangerous vulnerability today is not external, but internal. The national counter-terrorism narrative stands fractured, undermined by political isolation and ideological rigidity. PTI, once at the helm of K-P, now finds itself sidelined, while PTM continues to voice concerns rooted in years of conflict and displacement. They represent real constituencies with real influence. The challenge, then, is not the existence of political divergence, but the absence of political convergence on matters of national survival.

Differences within the polity are natural, even necessary, but in moments of national crisis, passion must not override nationalism, nor should ideological inflexibility eclipse the spirit of collective resolve. PTI and PTM must recognise that their role in shaping public opinion is pivotal — and that their engagement, not estrangement, will determine whether Pakistan emerges united or divided.

It is tempting, in moments of crisis, to go solo — to launch operations without consensus, to frame dissent as disloyalty. But Pakistan cannot afford that luxury. The people of K-P and Balochistan have suffered more than any other region. Their skepticism and mistrust are not manufactured.

The military's role in defending Pakistan is indispensable. But counterterrorism is not just a kinetic challenge; it is a political and social one. Before any new operation is launched, the government must engage all stakeholders. Not to seek permission, but to build ownership. PTI and PTM must be part of the conversation — not as adversaries, but as partners. Their constituencies are the very communities where terrorism festers and where resilience must be rebuilt.

Bajaur is bleeding. Refugee networks are being exploited. Disinformation is eroding public trust. The enemy is evolving. Our response must evolve faster — but not at the cost of unity.

Pakistan has been the worst victim of terrorism. We have buried over 80,000 lives. We have lost billions in economic damage. We have watched our children grow up in fear. This is not a partisan issue, but national wound. And wounds do not heal through force alone. They heal through trust, inclusion and clarity of purpose.

The military must act. But the nation must stand with it — not behind it, not against it, but beside it.