jasdooit

Pakistan, October 14 – Last weekend, the western border once again became a site where policy and danger intersect. What started as local skirmishes turned into a night marked by intense fighting, cross-border attacks, and a rare demonstration of combined military operations. According to security officials and media reports, clashes erupted in several areas from Kurram to the Gavi region. The conflict began with small arms exchanges, then escalated to artillery battles, anti-tank missile attacks, and air strikes targeting locations inside Afghanistan. Local commanders on our side stated that 27 TTP militants were killed early in the morning in Kurram. The Inter Services Public Relations department released numbers indicating that numerous enemy positions were destroyed and hundreds of hostile fighters were neutralized. Afghan sources have reported damage and losses on their side and have criticized breaches of sovereignty. Independent confirmation remains challenging amid the confusion of war.

For Pakistanis, this episode has impact on two levels simultaneously. The first is immediate and emotional. Our troops stood their ground amid gunfire. They stopped attempts to cross the border near Sra Kwand and other locations. Fighters from the tribal areas in Kurram came to assist the front line. Pakistani tanks, artillery, and air force were used together to counter a coordinated attack. In such situations, the well-organized response of our military deserves clear acknowledgment. The personnel in uniform acted when the country was under threat. They did so with determination. That is not insignificant commendation.

The second level is strategic and extremely intricate. The operations were not just isolated battles. They extended into regions where militant structures, training facilities, and supply lines are reportedly present. Targeted attacks and deep incursions can hinder networks and create temporary advantages. However, they do not alone substitute for the more challenging tasks of integrating intelligence, cutting off financial support, and applying diplomatic pressure. If the aim is to render safe havens unsustainable, military actions must be complemented by continuous political and legal efforts that focus on those who enable and finance the conflict, not just the combatants.

Domestic politics should not transform battlefield actions into mere displays. Military operations are tactical in nature. Their strategic significance relies on whether civilian leadership can turn them into a lasting policy.

The government has responsibilities in both aspects. It is required to offer the public with reliable information. All data related to specific camps or leaders involved in recent attacks within Pakistan and intelligence should be compiled and presented in a way that allows external evaluation. Assessment of battle damage, images, and forensic evidence are important. They are important because when the state operates across a border, the consequences go beyond military. They also include political and diplomatic impacts.

Support for our military is neither naive nor overly emotional. It acknowledges their achievements when they were needed. However, achieving operational success without clear strategic direction can lead to ongoing cycles of conflict. This is how insurgent groups continue to exist. They scatter, adjust, and emerge again in different forms unless their supply routes and safe havens are cut off.

In conclusion, diplomacy needs to follow multiple paths simultaneously. Allies within the region and the Muslim community have called for caution. Mediation initiatives have reduced some tensions. This is beneficial. Pakistan should take advantage of these channels to demand concrete actions against groups based in Afghan territory and to secure binding agreements. Meanwhile, Islamabad must strengthen administration and police presence along its border so that local communities do not perceive military response as the sole option.

The night of attacks revealed two key points. Pakistan’s military is capable of reacting. The more challenging issue remains whether the state can transform battlefield actions into a consistent security framework and a regional agreement that avoids future conflicts. Firmness along the border is crucial. A strategy extending beyond the border is vital. Only when both elements are in place will the frontier no longer be the point where the nation’s tolerance is tested and found insufficient.