Almost 200 people have been killed in rebel attacks since Prime Minister Nawaz came to power last month, advocating peace talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
Nawaz's tougher line signals that the military still has the upper hand in policy-making, despite hopes that the government would have a larger say after he came to power in the country's first transition between civilian administrations.
"Of course we want to try talks but they are a far off possibility," said a government official, who has knowledge of discussions between civilian and military leaders on how to tackle the Taliban.
"There is so much ground work that needs to be done. And when you are dealing with a group as diverse and internally divided as the TTP, then you can never be sure that every sub-group would honour talks."
The military has ruled Pakistan for more than half the 66 years it has been independent.
Seeking to dispel a view that he is losing the momentum, Nawaz, who once said that "guns and bullets are not always the answer", has promised to come up with a new security strategy.
But progress has been painfully slow, blighted by infighting and the army's long-standing contempt for the civilian leadership.
An official report into the killing of Osama bin Laden by US forces in Pakistan in 2011, leaked this month, offered striking insights into just how deep this distrust runs.
In the document, the former chief of the ISI intelligence agency, which is dominated by the military, was quoted as saying bluntly that the country's political leadership was "unable to formulate any policy".
In the meantime, attacks continue unabated.
A bomb ripped through a busy street in Lahore on July 7, striking in the heart of Nawaz's otherwise relatively peaceful home city. President Asif Ali Zardari's security chief was killed in a suicide bomb in Karachi on July 10.
"They (the Pakistani Taliban) see this as an opportunity. They want to send a message to Nawaz of their strength and his relative weakness," said Ahmed Rashid, an author and expert on the Taliban.
"The army is against the talks right now. They want to hammer these guys a little bit more."
Yet, the military and the ISI are in favour of talks involving the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan. Although the TTP accepts the leader of the Afghan faction as its own leader, the two groups operate separately.
Need clear plan
The military leaders are at pains to distinguish between the Afghan Taliban, which they argue can be seen as fighting against occupation, and its local imitators who they see as domestic terrorists.
The United States, Pakistan's biggest donor, wants Islamabad to come up with a clear plan and step up its campaign against groups such as the Haqqani network which regularly attacks US forces in Afghanistan from hideouts in Pakistani mountains.
The Haqqani network is allied to the Afghan Taliban, but has bases in the rugged borderland between Afghanistan and Pakistan where other militant groups are also based.
"The hardball talk (from the government) has only come because the militants have shown that they really don't care (who is in power)," said Samina Ahmed, South Asia Project Director for the International Crisis Group. "(The Taliban) are willing to take them on regardless."
TTP is a loose alliance of al Qaeda-linked militants fighting to topple the government and to enforce austere Islamic law.
The army says talking to them is meaningless unless they lay down their arms. But the Taliban themselves, enraged by a May 28 drone strike that killed their deputy chief, Wali-ur-Rehman, are in no mood for negotiations either.
"We have authorised our people all over Pakistan to fully react if the government and security forces conduct operations against them," said one Taliban commander in the tribal western region of South Waziristan.
Confusion on the ground
Indeed, ceasefire deals have failed in the past, only allowing militants to regroup and strike again.
Nawaz's plan sees a shift from the previous government's 3D policy of "deterrence, development, democracy" to "dismantle, contain, prevent, educate and reintegrate".
It's unclear what this means in practice, and there is still no consensus. An all-party conference, designed as a step in adopting the new security plan, has been postponed indefinitely.
One stumbling block is the military - the army largely has a free hand regarding internal security. It is the army, its intelligence agencies and the Taliban itself who will decide whether to talk or fight.
Politicians hope that may be changing.
"The army also understands that it can't go it alone any more and for the sake of domestic stability and for its own survival, it may just relent," said a Pakistan Muslim League- Nawaz source.
For now, Nawaz, who has twice been prime minister and was ousted in a 1999 military coup, is manoeuvring carefully.
He has made a rare visit to the ISI headquarters to confront the generals face-to-face, while also ordering to set up a working group to initiate peace talks with militant groups.
His main idea is to establish an independent body above the government to coordinate intelligence sharing and correct what is known in Pakistan as the "civilian-military imbalance". Some in the military believe the ball is in his court.
"Today it would be incorrect to say that the army has full control over policy making," said one retired senior army officer. "It is just fashionable to say the army doesn't let civilians work. Question is, do they want to work?"
But for now, when it comes to the Taliban, there is more confusion than clarity.
"On the ground there is no policy as such," said one senior police officer posted in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region on the Afghan border. "Should I fight them or talk to them?"
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Mr Nawaz sharif i want to send thiss message to u bcoz u r the promie minsiter of pakistan and before u sit on the seat of prmie minister u made a promise taht u will listen to the problem of the nation my problem si that i wnat u to make the men dead who sued the five year old girl as a symbol i want you to kill them streets frst thorw stones on them and then u shoudl by ur own hands cut heir heads off their neck just kill them i want pakistan as an independent country be sure u r listening to ur people our beloved leader QUAID-E-AZAM made this country as an independent state u should listen to the problems u should kill them i am a youth and i want u to listen me i shall be very thank ful to u mister nawaz sharif i am a girl of 16 years find me if u can but i want u to kill those people so that such dogs people should not amke such a bad mistake again i am not using bad words i want to abuse them but i am educated and i want people to listen my message thats y i am not using abd language
To Whom it Is Requested to Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Shareef That: Me Muhammad Iqbal(Resident of:Chah Sultan Bakash Wala Qasab Ayaz Abad Marral Multan CNIC# 36302-8791665-7 Cell# 0333-6179060) Sir i am a poor Farmer.My Children are in professional Education.One is the Student Of MBBS(in NMC Roll# 208 M.Yasir Iqbal) 4th year 2nd is Student of Electrical Engineering 4th semester(in GCUF Roll#2705) and 3rd My Daughter has passed Matriculation with 95% marks Sir From 2005 to 2013 I am still bounded in loans I have to pay Loans (1:Golden loan at NBP Loan is 540000/Rs 2:Land is reserved for tractor)Approximately 1 million /Rs(1000,000) i have to pay as a loan.Sir from last two years Due to Failure in Crops I have left nothing to Survive.Please Sir Help me at this stage. My Investment to Build up the Future of Pakistan will be in No Gain I have Send so many Application to CM Shahbaz Shareef.But DCO did not solve our Problems.Sir i have no resources for further Expenses of my Children Education Please Seek in to my metter Deeply.I am Deserving Person.or Present me in front of Mian Brothers
@US CENTCOM:
Your official/signature statement might be acceptable to people back there at US! Infect this historical statement originated way back and used by many perpetrators while exiting, providing justifications for history books.
Al Qaeda & Taliban has never been as stronger, lethal, and well equipped as they are now. Exhausted US forces are trying to avoid this reality by saying that we have completed our job killing OBL and some other leaders by spending trillions of dollars. Deploying full-fledged NATO forces to hunt a scattered group of terrorist infect is poorly justified, that killed thousands of innocent civilian including children. If world accepts your version of justifications then you may have to keep feeding these monsters for ages otherwise they will strike you back and will further deteriorate regional stability regardless of boundaries.
@US CENTCOM: good
"REBEL" attacks? No, these are terrorists! The journalism here has been in a downward spiral since the elections.
@Rana:
The United States came to Afghanistan to defeat an elusive enemy, Al Qaeda. No one can deny that the enemy has been decimated, and most of their leaders have either been captured or killed. They have completely been on the run for the last many years now, so how is it that you suggest “humiliating defeat” on our part? Our mission in Afghanistan has come to its natural conclusion. We are now just passing on the security of the country to a capable Afghan forces as our force levels taper off.. The United States understands the challenges faced by Pakistan due to the increased terrorist activities as the new government takes the reins. We support the efforts that the Pakistani government takes to safe guard its security and welfare of its citizens. It is Pakistani government’s decision as to how to deal with the terrorists. We stand by them, and hope to build on our cooperative relationship.
Abdul Qaddus DET-United States Central Command
“The army is against the talks right now. They want to hammer these guys a little bit more.” . Maybe you need a bigger hammer? To my knowledge it has been several years since the military has launched a significant offensive against the Taliban and what the military considers hammering some would consider nibbling.
The write-up is as confusing as the whole situation is. Is the Military in control; or is Nawaz Sharif in control??? The article does not clearly state it. It just parrots well-known facts and then attempts to say something, but what is that something is not clear. We all know, that directly or indirectly, the military has been in control of Pakistan for more than half of its' existence. Army does not appoint its' own chief. When Gen. Kayani's term expires on Nov 28, 2013, PM Nawaz Sharif will appoint the new army chief according to his own choice. Army cannot force Sharif to appoint someone Sharif does not want to. If an attempt is made to force something he does not want to, Sharif can always submit his resignation and inform the public, who will overwhelmingly and wholeheartedly back him and his party. The people of Pakistan all through its' history has stared down the dictators, but they need leaders with a spine, and with integrity, whom they can trust. The Pakistani masses, given the choice, have always made the right decision of electing from the available options. Always. I cannot say the same thing about people they have elected.
"Reuters" story to create confusion between Pak army and Nawaz government. They both should be aware of the conspiracies of Western biased media. Our media should also avoid the biased stories which are against the national interests.
dismantle, contain, prevent, educate and reintegrate.
Instead of these, there should be one course of action. ANNIHILATE.
Is this an article to bash military or to give some news on what government thinks?
The author is right. Every single man like of that must be killed. And now, only army is the option.
US are forced to negotiate with Taliban for their safer exist from AFG after humiliating defeat. We are not going anywhere!! We have to decide either to let these rabid creatures grow or to keep eradicating them slowly & tactically with passage of time. I believe NS’s understanding about national security is getting coordinated with the security establishment!
Quote "use of military force may be unavoidable in the face of escalating violence across the country"
How long you will divert the attention of poor masses from REAL issues;
NO water No GAS, No electricity no welfare
ONLY YOUR POCKETS ARE FULL OF MONEY AND YOUR HOUSE IS SPREAD ON ACRES
no more fooling its not 1990's