Islamabad – Former United States envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad has urged Pakistan to abandon its ongoing military operation against the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and instead pursue negotiations, a suggestion that comes despite the group’s violent history and repeated violations of past ceasefires.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday, Khalilzad argued that the military offensive risks fueling further instability. “Violence between Pakistan’s security forces and the Pakistani Taliban has resulted in the deaths of a significant number of security personnel and citizens,” he wrote, calling for a shift from military to political strategy.
His remarks echoed those of former prime minister Imran Khan, who, from jail, has also described a military solution as a “mistake.” But analysts note that previous peace initiatives with the TTP have repeatedly collapsed, with militant attacks surging after short-lived truces.
Analysts argue that Khalilzad’s framing creates a false parallel between Pakistan’s fight against the TTP and America’s war in Afghanistan. The contexts, actors, and stakes are entirely different, and equating them misreads both history and present realities.
Failed Track Record of Talks
Khalilzad has urged Pakistan to adopt a “credible political strategy” with the TTP, arguing that military action cannot deliver lasting peace. But Islamabad has walked that road before. Since 2007, successive governments have entered talks with the group, including a 2022 jirga of 57 elders that travelled to Kabul, only for negotiations to collapse when the TTP demanded reversal of the FATA–KP merger. The group quickly abandoned its ceasefire and escalated attacks.
Officials stress that every round of dialogue has allowed the TTP to regroup and return to violence, while its demands remain unconstitutional and hostile to Pakistan’s sovereignty.
This track record shows that Pakistan has already tested the “political settlement” route, only to see violence intensify. Negotiations, far from solving the problem, have repeatedly emboldened militants.
Islamabad’s Position
During his tenure as US special representative, Khalilzad recalled that Pakistan had urged Washington to engage in talks with the Afghan Taliban. In a recent post, he argued, “the time has come for Pakistan to consider doing the same.”
Analysts, however, caution that the TTP cannot be equated with that trajectory of development.
Islamabad stresses that unlike the Afghan Taliban, an insurgent force fighting foreign troops and a fragile Kabul government, the TTP is a proscribed terrorist outfit waging war on Pakistan itself, targeting schools, markets, and security personnel from safe havens across the border.
This is not about shaping statehood or political development; it is about dismantling a terrorist network that thrives on undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty and stability.
Even Operation Sarbakaf, the ongoing military offensive, was launched only after a 14-day dialogue effort collapsed. Officials maintain that past appeasement policies have merely emboldened militants, giving them space to regroup and escalate violence.
Domestic Political Undercurrents
Khalilzad’s call aligns with criticism from Imran Khan, who has accused the army chief of launching operations merely to “appease lobbies opposed to the Afghan government.” His comments came even as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, during a tribute to 19 fallen soldiers, warned Afghanistan it must choose between ties with Pakistan or alignment with the TTP.
Officials note that since April, Pakistan has repeatedly pressed Kabul through diplomatic channels to rein in the TTP, but attacks have only intensified. Even China, despite its leverage as a major stakeholder in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, has been unable to secure meaningful restraint from the Taliban authorities.
The core responsibility here lies with Kabul, not to mediate Pakistan’s internal strategy, but to stop its soil from being used by the TTP and allied militants against a neighbor, in line with international law and the Doha Agreement.
Analysts argue that PTI’s “soft talk” on the TTP and its Afghan patrons weakens national consensus against militancy, undermining counterterrorism efforts and the broader state narrative.
The Core Dilemma
For Islamabad, the dilemma remains unresolved: military operations suppress the TTP in the short term, but repeated attempts at dialogue have failed to deliver lasting peace. With violence once again escalating in Pakistan’s northwest and Balochistan, the debate reignited by Khalilzad underscores the need for all political forces to abandon conciliatory tendencies and issue a clear, joint, and unambiguous declaration of zero tolerance toward the TTP. At the same time, Afghanistan must uphold its commitments under the accord and respect international law.
Pakistan’s fight against the TTP, officials insist, is fundamentally different from America’s war in Afghanistan, describing it as a sovereign state confronting a proscribed militant group operating from across the border. They argue that lasting stability will depend not on legitimising militants through talks, but on dismantling their sanctuaries, cutting external linkages, and pairing security measures with development for peaceful citizens.
