Pakistan's jihadist networks are contributing to the spread of global jihadist violence

Image: Jihad Watch

On July 6, 2007, Pakistani authorities found an anti-aircraft gun strategically placed along a covert flight path used by then-President General Pervez Musharraf. His plane had just taken off from the heavily protected Chaklala airbase in Rawalpindi. The placement of such a weapon on a classified route, despite the extensive surveillance and secrecy in place, highlights the deep-rooted issues within Pakistan’s national security apparatus.

This wasn’t the act of an isolated individual; it reflected a broader systemic failure, illustrating how deeply entrenched corruption and dysfunction have infiltrated the state’s institutions. While the origins of the leaked itinerary remain a mystery, it paints a grim picture of Pakistani politics: a realm dominated by instability, sabotage, and treachery, particularly among intelligence agencies. Civilian intelligence, military intelligence, and the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) all operate with mutual distrust, each maintaining its own sphere of influence and evading accountability.

At the core of this turmoil is Pakistan’s “deep state,” a malevolent coalition of military leaders, corrupt bureaucrats, and extremist clerics, all operating behind a veneer of legality. Fueled by state backing, this underground network has suffocated any aspirations for democratic governance in the country.

What should be public institutions have been distorted into instruments of control, profit, and ideological manipulation. Military-run corporations, the privileged elite, and corrupt politicians have forged an empire at the expense of the common people. Democracy is a mere mockery, enacted through rigged elections that ultimately serve the interests of the military establishment.

The constitution mandates that civilian governments be answerable to the people. However, in Pakistan, power is tightly held by the generals in Rawalpindi, who pull the strings behind the rise and fall of prime ministers, as if they were directing a scripted drama.

The civilian seat of power in Islamabad has become largely ceremonial. Since General Zia-ul-Haq’s era, democracy has been a pawn in the military’s power games. Elections are not free contests but choreographed events; candidates are not elected, but appointed—provided they relinquish control over crucial matters like national defense and foreign policy.

Any attempt by civilian leaders to assert democratic control is met with swift and severe retribution. Nawaz Sharif, for instance, learned this lesson twice. His efforts to limit the ISI’s power and strengthen the civilian Intelligence Bureau led to direct military retaliation. What followed was not mere political conflict, but a battle between two competing states within the same country.

His administration was undermined, his reputation tarnished through media campaigns, and his political career ended not by popular vote, but through a judicial ruling influenced by military pressure. The Panama Papers scandal became the perfect instrument for the military to exact revenge. Sharif, disqualified in 2017, continues to accuse the army of orchestrating his removal—a process reminiscent of the bloodless coup of 1999 that first ousted him.

His supposed offense? The audacity to pursue peace with India. Sharif championed diplomacy and sought to resolve the Kashmir conflict—an unforgivable act in the eyes of the military, whose very survival depends on perpetual conflict. For the generals, war is a means to maintain relevance; peace is a threat.

Pakistan’s military treats insurgency in Kashmir not as a crisis, but as a currency—justifying budget increases, garnering public loyalty, and enhancing geopolitical maneuvering. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad are not seen as rogue elements, but as strategic assets. They serve as the military’s proxy forces, waging asymmetric warfare against India while maintaining plausible deniability.

This policy of weaponized Islamism extends far beyond South Asia. Several 9/11 hijackers were radicalized and trained in Pakistan, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the attacks, who found sanctuary and support within the country until his capture in 2003.

For years, he moved freely in Pakistan, shielded by the ISI’s duplicity. Training camps in Pakistan’s tribal regions sheltered al-Qaeda operatives, while Islamabad publicly pledged allegiance to Washington’s war on terror. The result was the tragic loss of nearly 3,000 lives in the U.S.—enabled by a state that acted as an ally while secretly facilitating the terrorists.

The 2005 London bombings, which killed 52 civilians and wounded many more, were similarly rooted in Pakistan’s radical madrassa system. The bombers, including ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan, had visited Pakistan for "religious study"—a cover for radicalization and training in regions long under the influence of the ISI.

Despite intelligence warnings from Britain about Pakistan's role in the radicalization pipeline, the government dismissed or ignored the concerns. As a result, Pakistan became a hub for exporting jihadism across the globe.

Even ISIS found fertile ground within Pakistan. While ISIS thrived in Syria and Iraq, its Khorasan branch—ISIS-K—established strongholds within Pakistan’s tribal areas, drawing from a pool of extremists nurtured under Pakistan’s state-sponsored jihadist policies.

Reports from Afghan and U.S. intelligence agencies have frequently highlighted the role of Pakistani safe havens in facilitating ISIS-K’s operations. The 2021 bombing at Kabul airport, which killed over 180 civilians and 13 U.S. soldiers, was carried out by ISIS-K—an entity nurtured in the same terrain that once supported the Taliban.

Pakistan’s role in supporting proxy terror is perhaps most evident in its constant efforts to destabilize India. In December 2001, five gunmen attacked the Indian Parliament, killing nine and bringing two nuclear-armed nations to the brink of war.

The attack was orchestrated by Jaish-e-Muhammad, with the backing of the ISI. The goal was clear: to escalate tensions between India and Pakistan, derail peace talks, and reaffirm the military’s hold over national security. The mission was accomplished.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)