For decades, the statement that “Pakistan is going through the most critical period in its history” has been a recurring theme. While it may sometimes seem like an exaggerated analysis, this view is not only held by Pakistan’s critics but is also echoed by all political parties, the government, the army, and the establishment within the country. They all concur that Pakistan is grappling with severe instability, highlighted by the recent military operation named ‘Azm-e-Isthekam.’ (Resolve for Stability)Economically weakened over the past 71 years due to its persistent conflict with neighboring India, Pakistan’s claim of facing critical times has indeed been a prolonged reality. Since its establishment, the state has been in a gradual decline. The situation in Balochistan is particularly distinct, as the region was annexed by force. The other provinces, which initially joined Pakistan willingly, now find themselves chasing an elusive sense of stability and prosperity.
Pakistan’s resilience, or perhaps its ability to prolong its existence, can be attributed to occasional lifelines provided by external circumstances, such as the global war on terror. During this period, Pakistan found itself in a favorable position as the United States needed a strategic partner in the region. The U.S. poured substantial financial resources into Pakistan, despite the historically fraught and often duplicitous nature of their relationship. While Pakistan received aid from the U.S., it simultaneously pursued actions that countered American interests. Politicians, guided by the military, continued to foster an ‘anti-American’ narrative, maintaining a delicate balance that has kept the state afloat.
This complex and often contradictory relationship continues, reflecting the broader instability and challenges that Pakistan faces both internally and externally.Turning the pages of history, it’s clear that much of Pakistan’s progress, including its status as a nuclear power, would not have been possible without significant assistance from the United States. In 1955, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy approved the establishment of the country’s first nuclear power plant, with the United States providing $350,000 in aid. The following year, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission signed an agreement with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, facilitating research and training support on nuclear energy. This agreement opened the doors to prestigious institutions such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, both affiliated with the U.S. Department of Energy.In 1965, Pakistani scientist Abdul Salam successfully persuaded the U.S. to help establish the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology. Engineer Peter Carter designed the reactor, and American Machine and Foundry (Company) built first reactor of Pakistan. That same year, the U.S. also assisted in the purchase of the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant.
However, the Indo-Pak war in 1965 led to the cessation of U.S. military aid to Pakistan. For the next fifteen years, U.S. aid was minimal, a period during which Pakistan faced significant crises, including its division into two countries. In 1979, after the CIA reported that Pakistan was developing an atomic bomb, U.S. President Jimmy Carter halted all aid except for food assistance. Yet, Pakistan’s fortunes shifted again as the U.S. increased military aid to counter Soviet advances in Afghanistan.
This aid was subject to the Pressler Amendment, introduced by U.S. Senator Larry Pressler, which made assistance conditional on the U.S. President certifying that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons. President George H.W. Bush was unable to provide this assurance, leading to another cessation of aid. However, the events of 9/11 once again opened the floodgates of U.S. dollars to Pakistan.
Throughout this fluctuating relationship, the interests of the region’s subjugated nations, particularly the Baloch and Pashtun, were largely ignored. The seeds of ‘Jihad’ sown during this period have since grown into a widespread problem of extremism affecting countries globally, where terrorism was previously unimaginable. Leaders of the Pashtun Protection Movement refer to this conflict as the ‘dollar war,’ fought by Pakistan to secure U.S. dollars.
The operation announced on June 22, 2024, under the name Operation Azm-e-Isthekam, has sparked controversy even before its commencement. For the first time, Pakistan’s major federal parties—Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI)—are rejecting this operation. The government coalition in Islamabad also lacks coordination on this matter. The Pakistani army appears hesitant, as it lacks the usual support for this operation, even in its stronghold of Punjab.
Amidst Pakistan’s political and economic instability, Shahbaz Sharif’s government is struggling to stabilize the country’s economy, largely relying on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for support. Concurrently, the Pakistani army has announced a new operation named ‘Azm-e-Isthekam,.’Mainstream analysts in Pakistan are divided on this issue. Many are uncertain about the necessity of another military operation, particularly after the continuous military campaigns in Balochistan and Pashtun regions. The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) frequently claims that the Pakistani army is seeking more money and support under the guise of this operation.
Historically, the Pakistani army has launched numerous operations: Operation Fair Play in 1971, Operation Zalzala in 1989 to support the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, and Operation Rah-e-Raast in 1992 against Mujahideen encroaching from Afghanistan. This was followed by other significant military campaigns, including Operation Badr (1993), Operation Khyber (1994), Operation Janbaaz (1995), Operation Sheerdil (1997), Operation Zalzala II (2000), Operation Zarb-e-Azb (2014), Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (2017), and Operation Khyber IV (2017). Despite high-profile claims, these operations have often resulted in displacement, loss of lives, and injuries to thousands, particularly among the Pashtun population.
The Pakistani army’s need for public opinion, political party support, and international backing for yet another large-scale operation raises critical questions. Despite extensive military campaigns, significant resources, and substantial financial investments, the desired stability remains elusive. The recurring need for such operations highlights underlying issues that have not been effectively addressed by previous efforts.Pakistani analysts often fall silent or provide vague answers when questioned about the persistent need for military operations, but the truth is that war has been a profitable business for the Pakistani army.
There’s a telling anecdote: A doctor, who trained his son to become a good doctor, once fell ill and let his son manage his clinic. Upon recovering, the doctor noticed that one of his regular patients no longer visited. When he asked his son about the patient, the son proudly explained that he had healed a long-standing foot wound by removing a hidden bone fragment, something the father had never done in his 31 years of treatment. The father responded, “Son, I knew about that bone. But if I had removed it 31 years ago, you wouldn’t have studied in America and become a doctor.”This story reflects the philosophy of the Pakistani army, which understands that complete elimination of extremism and peaceful relations with neighboring countries would diminish its justification for interference in state affairs. The generals benefit financially, using the profits to acquire luxury assets.
In a recent address at the Wilson Center in Washington, Masood Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, conveyed to an audience of American policymakers, scholars, intellectuals, and corporate leaders that Pakistan is committed to the opposition and eradication of terrorist networks. He announced the initiation of ‘Operation Azm-e-Isthekam’, a strategic campaign aimed at strengthening Pakistan’s counter-terrorism efforts. Ambassador Khan emphasized the necessity for advanced small arms and sophisticated communication equipment to effectively carry out this operation.China, despite its public friendship with Pakistan, shows some resentment. Yet, this operation is crucial for the future of its billion-dollar CPEC projects. Pakistan will likely pressure Iran for military cooperation against Baloch insurgents in Balochistan, with full support from China. However, the Afghan government’s ideological stance, despite ISIS threats, poses a challenge to both Pakistan and Iran’s efforts to maintain regional stability.
In conclusion, while the Pakistani army’s operations may have short-term tactical benefits, they risk perpetuating a cycle of instability and conflict that undermines long-term peace and development in the region.Pakistan is currently grappling with the Baloch independence movement and the rise of Pashtun nationalism. Meanwhile, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is attempting to stabilize and strengthen its rule, showing sympathy for the Pashtun people under Pakistani control and Pashtune expressing a deep connection to the Pashtun homeland (Afghanistan). These dynamics could potentially lead to significant shifts in regional relations.
The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) views its jihad as a mission to liberate Pakistani Pashtuns from the Pakistan Army’s control. Organizations like the TTP draw strength from enduring ideologies, which have often proven resistant to military operations. The Afghan government is likely to distance itself from direct involvement in this conflict, but support for the TTP within Afghanistan remains strong at both state and public levels.Pakistan has contemplated attacking Afghan and Iranian territories to protect its interests, but such actions would likely exacerbate its problems. Aware of these potential consequences, the Pakistani military is strategically positioning itself before engaging in any large-scale conflicts.To achieve its objectives, Pakistani authorities have divided their approach into theoretical, social, and operational phases. They are currently focusing on the theoretical and social phases, attempting to build a supportive narrative before moving to the operational phase. However, the success of Operation Azm-e-Istehkam appears uncertain, and time is running out for Pakistan to address its internal and external challenges effectively.
