By N. C. Bipindra

In October 2025, Pakistan once again exemplified that its enduring internal dysfunction has repercussions that extend well beyond its national boundaries.

The airstrikes conducted by the Pakistani military in Kabul on October 9, 2025, which were ostensibly directed at Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) insurgents, provoked retaliatory assaults by Afghan Taliban forces along the northwestern frontier.

These confrontations, which resulted in numerous fatalities on both sides and the displacement of hundreds of civilians, exemplify a recurrent pattern: Pakistan employs militarised aggression abroad as a diversion from its internal shortcomings.

Rather than attaining security objectives, these military operations have exacerbated instability, intensified humanitarian distress, and destabilized the larger South Asian region.

The Cross-Border Escalation

The airstrikes conducted in October ensued after prolonged periods of escalating hostilities along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Following the Taliban’s resurgence in authority in Kabul in 2021, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), while distinct in its organisational structure, is yet ideologically congruent with the Afghan Taliban and has markedly amplified its offensive operations within Pakistan territory.

Over the last four years, there has been a grievous toll on human life, with thousands of civilians and security personnel succumbing to violence, predominantly within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and its adjacent tribal areas.

In contrast, Pakistan’s countermeasures have exhibited a disproportionate nature, predominantly targeting Afghan territory rather than addressing the fundamental drivers of militancy that persist within its own geographical confines.

The airstrikes executed in Kabul, which were subsequently met with retaliatory operations by Afghan forces resulting in the deaths of numerous Pakistani soldiers, illuminate the peril that Pakistan’s militarised strategy is not only ineffectual but also counterproductive, exacerbating cross-border tensions rather than ameliorating them.

By carrying out these strikes, Pakistan appears to adopt a punitive approach: holding Kabul directly accountable for attacks by groups such as the TTP.

Yet this logic ignores the reality that Pakistan itself has historically nurtured and enabled militant groups for strategic purposes, including cultivating influence in Afghanistan.

The repercussions stemming from such policies have manifested predictably: the fortification of militant networks, an escalation in civilian casualties, and a deterioration of regional trust.

Economic Fragility: Aggression as Diversion

Pakistan’s external aggression is inextricably linked to its internal economic collapse.

According to the State Bank of Pakistan’s Annual Report on the State of the Economy 2024–25, the nation continues to grapple with persistent fiscal imbalances, inadequate domestic savings, suboptimal productivity, and vulnerability to climate-induced shocks.

Gross domestic savings persist, as the lowest within the regional context, whereas consumption is about 90% of GDP.

The frequent reliance on International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailouts highlights its structural economic dependency and the absence of mechanisms for self-sustaining growth.

Instead of implementing substantial reforms, Pakistan’s leadership has recurrently resorted to military ventures abroad to project an image of resilience.

Airstrikes and cross-border operations function as a symbolic demonstration of power, designed to divert the attention of a domestic populace disenchanted by escalating inflation, mounting debt, and rising unemployment.

This strategy of militarised diversion reflects a broader trend of economic mismanagement: the state engages in external conflict when internal legitimacy and fiscal capacity are inadequate to effectively address the fundamental crises at hand.

Political Instability and Manufactured Legitimacy

Politically, the Pakistani state continues to exhibit profound instability. The marginalisation of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, despite his considerable popular backing, demonstrates the military’s persistent dominance over the mechanisms of governance.

Khan initially profited from a close alliance with the military, which conferred legitimacy and facilitated his consolidation of power.

However, as his political course deviated from the military’s anticipations, he faced removal, incarceration, and a systematic erosion of his influence.

This trajectory reflects a recurrent theme within Pakistani political dynamics: civilian authority is fundamentally reliant upon military endorsement, and electoral processes are manipulated to uphold entrenched institutional interests rather than reflect the will of the electorate.

The October 2025 strikes occurred under a fragile coalition government, largely viewed as a creation of military patronage rather than genuine democratic consent.

Hence, due to the lack of legitimacy, the coalition has been unable to implement coherent domestic policies, relying instead on militarized symbolism to maintain public perception of strength.

Within this context, foreign aggression serves both as a mechanism of diversion and as an assertion of power by a government that is incapable of governing effectively within its own borders.

Institutional Decay and Militarisation of Governance

The militarisation of Pakistan extends beyond its armed forces; it infiltrates civilian institutions as well. State-owned enterprises, regulatory bodies, and even segments of the media and judiciary operate under the military’s dominance, ensuring compliance with institutional objectives rather than public accountability.

State-owned enterprises persist in consuming substantial fiscal resources without providing effective services. Capital markets remain superficial, characterised by limited investor confidence, while the majority of the population remains excluded from the formal financial system.

These systemic vulnerabilities intensify economic fragility and reinforce the military’s predominance in governance. By extending this militarisation to its foreign policy, Pakistan amplifies instability rather than alleviating it.

The October 2025 airstrikes targeting Afghan entities exemplify a strategy where military might substitutes for a coherent policy framework. Instead of fostering regional alliances, investing in domestic governance, or tackling internal terrorism, Pakistan exports instability, thereby ensuring that militancy persists along its borders.

The Human Cost and Regional Implications

Pakistan’s militarised policy toward Afghanistan has inflicted grave humanitarian and regional consequences. The October 2025 airstrikes in Afghan provinces such as Paktika and Khost killed at least 46 civilians and displaced thousands, deepening an already dire humanitarian crisis.

These attacks, framed as counterterrorism measures, have instead fueled anti-Pakistan sentiment, strengthened insurgent networks, and undermined any possibility of sustainable regional stability.

In South Asia’s interconnected landscape, Pakistan’s actions reverberate widely. The incursion across the border aggression erodes the principles of sovereignty and diplomacy that underpin regional cooperation.

By turning Afghanistan into a scapegoat for its internal economic and political failures, Pakistan has transformed a domestic crisis into a regional threat.

These military actions have strained diplomatic relations not only with Kabul but also with India and Iran, who are now compelled to advocate for restraint to avert broader conflict.

Internally, Pakistan’s economic fragility and political dysfunction feed into this cycle of militarisation. Instead of addressing structural reforms, Islamabad externalises its crises, using Afghanistan as both a theater of conflict and a diversion.

The result is a self-defeating strategy: instability spills across borders, insurgency intensifies, and regional trust deteriorates.

For South Asia to preserve a semblance of balance, Pakistan must abandon coercive militarism in favour of constructive dialogue and reform. Until such a shift occurs, its attempts to assert dominance through force will persist in undermining not only Afghanistan’s sovereignty but also the harmony of the entire region.

Militarisation as a Symptom, not a Solution

The military operations conducted in October 2025 reveal a clear pattern: Pakistan’s militarised approach to foreign policy is indicative of profound domestic crises, including economic vulnerability, political illegitimacy, and institutional decay, rather than serving as a viable resolution to these issues.

By exerting military force externally, Pakistan temporarily conceals its internal deficiencies. However, this strategy inadvertently intensifies regional instability, exacerbates humanitarian distress, and fuels militant insurgency.

To attain authentic security, Pakistan must confront the fundamental origins of its domestic instability. It is imperative to implement substantial economic reforms, reinstate civilian governance, and enhance institutional capability.

Military interventionism, particularly in the form of cross-border air strikes, will not yield enduring solutions; it merely serves to externalise internal dysfunction to the detriment of regional tranquility.

Until Pakistan actively addresses its inherent structural vulnerabilities, both its populace and neighbouring states will invariably bear the consequences.

NOTE: Follow Defence.Capital on Arattai.
NOTE: Follow Defence.Capital on Telegram.
NOTE: Follow Defence.Capital on WhatsApp.