Islamabad – The statements of Imran Khan, posted on his social media page on X, express a highly impactful and politically charged discourse against the military operation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Addressed to Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, his message presents a clear and unyielding stance: “Under no circumstances should another military operation be allowed.”

This stand, although cloaked in a humanitarian and peaceful call, should be subjected to critical assessment, especially when viewed against a bleak background of a renewed insurgency, posing a threat to the lives of citizens and the stability of the state.

The Political Framing of a National Security Issue

The rhetoric of Khan is a powerful combination of political protest, historical complaints, and emotional appeal that makes a strong appeal to his support base. He argues that military operations are not a solution, but a catalyst for more terrorism, hatred, and destruction.

By asserting that “when the military and the people confront each other, the military as an institution suffers the most damage,” he places the military in an adversarial position to the public.

He further claims that the operation is being conducted “solely to weaken PTI,” drawing a parallel to the past when the Awami National Party (ANP) was, in his view, “wiped out from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa” by similar “Musharraf-era failed policies.”

This framing, though politically astute, runs the risk of propagating an unhealthy line of narrative that doubts state institutions and undermines the very real danger of militants.

The Reality on the Ground

Situation on the ground, however, depicts a very different scenario. Counter-terrorism operations are not an abstract political gambit in nature, but rather a direct reaction to a real and growing security menace.

According to recent intelligence reports, there has been an unbelievable influx of more than 8,000 Fitna-ul-Khawarij suicide bombers in Afghanistan to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

These militants are not a creation of military operations; they are actively operating, they are establishing illegal roadblocks and attacking both the security agencies and the civilians.

A recent fatal assault in the Frontier Corps (FC) lines in Bannu, as an example, was made by suicide bombers, three of whom were found to be Afghan nationals, which is definite evidence of cross-border infiltration and the persistent threat of such terrorist groups as the TTP.

To argue against military action in the face of such a confirmed and widespread threat is to ignore the primary responsibility of any government: to safeguard the lives and property of its people.

The Flawed Logic of Dialogue

The demand by Khan to engage in dialogue, although an acceptable instrument of diplomacy, appears to be out of touch with reality at the moment. He orders KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur to “go to Afghanistan, sit with them, and hold discussions regarding mutual issues and peace and security.”

Although it is best to resolve the issues via discussions, the method disregards the fact that militants have a history of taking such negotiations as an opportunity to reorganize, re-equip, and consolidate their positions.

A recent video of an Afghan Taliban senior official declaring jihad against the Pakistani state as an individual duty highlights the ideological antagonism that cannot be defused through simple discussions. When militants are actively crossing the border and claiming responsibility for the attacks, the dialogue time might be over, and a sharp, resolute action would be needed.

Ignoring the Security Dimension of the Refugee Crisis

The rhetoric of Khan extends to the humanitarian problem of Afghan refugees. He condemns their “merciless expulsion” as being against “both Islamic tradition and humanity,” linking the action to an attempt to “appease the anti-Taliban lobby.”

While the expulsions are undeniably a complex and sensitive issue, framing them as a purely political move by a “short-sighted” military leadership ignores the significant security dimension.

The presence of Afghan nationals in terror attacks, such as in the case in Bannu, provides evidence of a definite nexus between cross-border movement and renewed militancy. The decisions taken on national security are usually not without challenge and are taken within the framework of safeguarding the nation, a nuance that his words intentionally miss to create a more easily digestible and more emotionally charged story.

A Dangerous Gamble for Political Gain

By telling Gandapur to “firmly resist” military operations, Khan is directly encouraging a provincial government to defy the federal government on a matter of national security. Not only does this create an institutional crisis, but it also gives a polarizing front to the same aspects of terrorism that Pakistan is supposed to be fighting.

He states that operations lacking the backing of the public, local representative, or political party cannot succeed. But his own words are actively attempting to undermine that support, to produce those conditions which would render such operations more difficult.

This rhetoric is a dangerous gamble in a country that has struggled to attain peace at the highest cost. It risks sacrificing the security of the many for the political gain of one.

The issue of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is quite intricate, yet history has demonstrated that once the will of the state to deal with militancy is called into question, it is the masses that will bear the brunt of the impact.

Also See: Fayyaz Chohan Levels Serious Corruption Allegations Against Imran Khan