In the past two days, a familiar and deeply troubling chorus for “dialogue” has emerged, sung by three seemingly disparate voices: former US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and a prominent Pakistani politician, Imran Khan. This almost simultaneous demand to negotiate with a group that has been characterized by violence is not accidental. On closer examination, there is a threatening and strategic trend at play. This orchestrated message appears less of a true appeal to peace and more of a strategic action in order to advance a particular and often selfish agenda.

The history of the negotiations with the TTP can be described as a Cautionary tale. Every attempt at dialogue in the past, including the one in 2022, did not reach peace and provoked a renewed wave of violence. The two-faced TTP took the ceasefire as a tactical rest and reorganized, re-armed, and re-established themselves in new regions. As one side was held in negotiations, another was still attacking, showing a lack of seriousness and a masterful act of deception. The statement of TTP acknowledges it as an “oppressed movement” with origins in the country, but in the same breath, it brags of being present in every city and village “from Gilgit to Karachi” and vows to retaliate “slaps with a stone”. Not the language of a group that wants peace; it is the posturing of a group that is trying to take off the pressure and preserve its ability to be violent.

Security-wise, the time of these dialogue calls is especially questionable. As winter is coming, TTP become less capable of using their mountainous bases to operate. The operations against them that have been reinforced in the past several months are more effective in colder weather. Operations against them, which have been intensified in recent months, have become more effective in colder conditions. TTP demand talks to have a tactical reprieve, a means to reorganize, resubstitute, and strengthen their positions without military pressure. It is not a transition to a political solution, as Khalilzad indicates; it is a strategic retreat to save their forces and fight another day. It has long been established that TTP has used negotiations as a safety net to organize its future attacks, and to be deceived by it again would be a big mistake.

The chorus for dialogue is amplified by an outside voice, that of Zalmay Khalilzad. The hypocrisy and defective reasoning that have always been a mainstay of US policy in the region are vividly demonstrated in his recent tweet. He preaches to the Pakistani establishment the necessity of negotiating, conveniently ignoring how the militants have used the opportunity of dialogue in the past. The US government seems content with the constant disarray in the region. This negotiation or else strategy by Washington, mediated through personalities such as Khalilzad, is used to destabilize Pakistan by legitimizing a terrorist group. A semi-government Afghan Media outlet also echoed the words of Zalmay Khalilzad. Thus, instead of a neutral party and a responsible neighbor, the Afghan government has turned out to be a puppet in this regional game, which is aimed at putting pressure on Pakistan.

Lastly, Imran Khan’s tweet puts the political aspect into perspective. He makes a direct and dangerous comparison between the May 9 riots and the TTP issue and considers both a false flag operation. It is a very reckless and unfounded assertion. He dilutes the reality of the danger of the TTP by comparing a national security issue and martyrdom of citizens and troops to a politically driven event at home. His invitation to a peace delegation is not designed to achieve a solution but to gain political mileage and give the existing government a bad image. This rhetoric politicizes national security; not only does this rhetoric empower TTP, but it also demoralizes the security forces of the country, who are on the front lines.

Summing up, the fact that Khalilzad, the TTP, Imran Khan, and the Afghan government all called for dialogue is no mere coincidence. They are a complicated and interrelated network of strategic interests, political opportunism, and manipulation of history. As much as dialogue must be on the table as the last option, it cannot replace a viable and long-term security policy. A history of the TTP has demonstrated that any negotiation when in a weak position will only embolden the enemy and result in more violence. Pakistan should not fall prey to these calculated demands to hold talks, which are merely a dangerous game of compromise. The security and stability of the nation lie in a sober vision that recognizes the misleading image of the TTP and the foreign elements aiming to use the internal weaknesses of Pakistan.

ALSO SEE

A Dangerous Narrative: How Political Rhetoric Undermines Pakistan’s Fight Against Terrorism

Imran Khan’s rhetoric on military operations in KP presents a dangerous gamble that undermines Pakistan’s fight against terrorism.