Islamabad’s military escalation reignites scrutiny over long-accused pro-terrorism policies now spiraling back.
Pakistan’s decision to bomb Kabul and multiple Afghan cities has ignited not just a battlefield confrontation, but a profound geopolitical reckoning. Islamabad’s declaration of “open war” follows years of accusations that elements within Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment cultivated, supported, or tolerated the very militant networks that later destabilized Afghanistan. What Pakistani officials labeled “Operation Ghazab lil Haq” has instead exposed serious strategic and moral flaws in the country’s military calculus.
Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif declared the situation an “open war,” framing the offensive as retaliation. Yet striking major Afghan urban centers has raised serious humanitarian and legal concerns, with critics arguing that broad aerial bombardment risks civilian harm and destabilizes an already fragile region. For decades, analysts, Western intelligence assessments, and Afghan officials have pointed to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency and segments of the security apparatus as key players in enabling the rise and persistence of the Taliban.
Today’s escalation exposes the inherent contradiction. Pakistan now finds itself bombing actors that many regional observers believe were once viewed as strategic assets. The cycle of proxy engagement and blowback appears to have come full circle. Military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry claimed dozens of Afghan targets were hit and hundreds of Taliban personnel killed. However, the narrative of dominance has been undermined by battlefield developments, including the reported downing of a Pakistani fighter jet over Jalalabad and the capture of its pilot by Afghan forces. Afghan officials, including local police representatives, publicly confirmed the aircraft’s destruction and the pilot’s detention.
The loss of a combat aircraft so early in the escalation signals vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s air campaign and weakens its assertion of operational superiority. Subsequent explosions in Jalalabad further illustrate that the conflict remains volatile and far from controlled. Under Operation Ghazab lil Haq, Pakistani airstrikes reportedly hit 22 Afghan targets.
The deeper issue is credibility of Pakistan. For years, Afghanistan accused Pakistan of enabling militant safe havens along the border. International watchdogs repeatedly questioned Islamabad’s selective counterterrorism enforcement. Afghanistan’s government, despite the strikes, has publicly called for dialogue rather than continued escalation. This contrast has fueled criticism that Islamabad’s approach prioritizes force over diplomacy. Many regional analysts argue that Pakistan’s actions risk isolating it diplomatically while inflaming nationalist resistance inside Afghanistan.
Beyond the immediate battlefield, Pakistan’s decision to escalate militarily may prove strategically counterproductive. A drawn-out conflict strains economic resources, damages international credibility, and heightens internal security risks. If the war continues to produce aircraft losses and mounting casualties, Islamabad’s gamble could deepen rather than resolve instability along its western frontier.
As the situation unfolds, one reality is increasingly clear: initiating broad air assaults has not delivered a decisive advantage. Instead, it has amplified scrutiny of Pakistan’s choices, raised moral questions about proportionality, and exposed the risks of overreach in a conflict where escalation may carry consequences far beyond the battlefield.
