The Double-Edged Sword: America’s Dual Stance on Terrorism and the Pakistan Conundrum

 

(Image Courtesy:- Getty Images)

The United States has long positioned itself as a global leader in the fight against terrorism. From the ashes of 9/11 to military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond, America has spent trillions combating extremist threats. However, behind its loud condemnations and costly wars lies a more shadowy and controversial side — one of selective engagement, covert operations, and strategic partnerships with nations like Pakistan, which have themselves been accused of nurturing terrorist ideologies and groups.

This duality — condemning terrorism while, at times, condoning or enabling it — has led to far-reaching consequences, not only destabilizing regions but also backfiring on American interests. The entanglement with Pakistan, a country repeatedly accused of harboring terrorist networks, offers a stark case study of this paradox.

Part I: The Ideological War Against Terrorism

After 9/11, President George W. Bush declared a "War on Terror," a new kind of conflict not against a country, but against a nebulous ideology and network of extremists. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was quickly overthrown, Al-Qaeda operatives were hunted down, and surveillance policies like the Patriot Act transformed the global security environment.

Yet even during this period of high moral rhetoric, cracks began to show in America’s stance. While publicly vowing to dismantle terrorist networks, Washington often ignored or downplayed the complex dynamics in Pakistan — a so-called ally that continued to host and support some of the world’s most dangerous militants.

Part II: Pakistan – Ally or Enabler?

From the very beginning of the War on Terror, Pakistan positioned itself as a frontline ally. It opened up its airspace and intelligence channels to the U.S., capturing or helping locate Al-Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

However, even as Islamabad cooperated, its powerful military and intelligence agency — the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) — was playing a double game. It continued its strategic patronage of the Taliban and the Haqqani network, seeing them as useful tools to secure its interests in Afghanistan.

The most egregious example came in 2011, when Osama bin Laden was found and killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in Abbottabad, Pakistan — just kilometers away from a major military academy. This exposed a chilling reality: America’s most-wanted terrorist had been hiding in plain sight in a supposed ally’s backyard.

Part III: The CIA-ISI Nexus and the Cold War Legacy

The roots of this paradox stretch back to the Cold War, when the U.S., through the CIA, funneled billions of dollars in arms and support to Islamist mujahideen in Afghanistan via Pakistan’s ISI. This alliance helped defeat Soviet forces but also gave rise to the jihadist ecosystem that would later birth the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

During the 1980s, leaders like General Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan actively Islamized the country’s military and education systems, creating a fertile ground for extremism. The U.S. largely turned a blind eye, focused solely on defeating the Soviets. Once that mission was complete, the region was abandoned, allowing the jihadist monster to grow unchecked.

This legacy is crucial to understanding America’s current predicament: it helped create the very infrastructure of terror it now seeks to destroy.

Part IV: Arms, Aid, and the Price of “Stability”

Over the past two decades, the U.S. has provided over $33 billion in aid to Pakistan, much of it military. This has included fighter jets, drones, and advanced weaponry — ostensibly to fight terrorism. In reality, much of this support has been used by Pakistan to bolster its defense against India and empower groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and others.

These groups have been responsible for numerous attacks, including the horrific 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which 166 people were killed, including Americans. Despite strong evidence linking LeT to Pakistan’s ISI, the U.S. continued to engage Islamabad as a partner, showing a troubling willingness to ignore inconvenient truths in favor of strategic interests.

Part V: Defining Moments That Reshaped Global Terrorism

Several key moments stand out as turning points in the evolution of global terrorism, many of which were influenced or complicated by U.S. actions:

1. 9/11 Attacks (2001): The most devastating terrorist attack on American soil, it fundamentally redefined global security and launched the War on Terror.

2. Invasion of Iraq (2003): Justified by flawed intelligence, the war destabilized the region, gave rise to ISIS, and diverted resources from the fight in Afghanistan.

3. Osama bin Laden’s Death (2011): A symbolic victory that exposed Pakistan’s duplicity and prompted a reevaluation of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

4. Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021): Marked the end of America’s longest war, but also handed the country back to the Taliban, reviving fears of a terrorist resurgence.

5. Designation of Pakistan as Grey-Listed by FATF: Repeated grey-listing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for terror financing showed international recognition of Pakistan’s role in terror support.

Part VI: America’s Blind Spots and Strategic Myopia

The fundamental flaw in America’s counter-terrorism strategy has been its selective morality. It has often judged terrorism based on political convenience rather than universal principles. While it sanctions Iran for supporting Hezbollah, it turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s export of Wahhabism or Pakistan’s terror factories.

This inconsistency has eroded U.S. credibility, allowed extremist ideologies to flourish, and disillusioned populations who view America's interventions with suspicion.

Moreover, by continuing arms sales and aid to states like Pakistan, the U.S. has inadvertently fueled the very militancy it seeks to eliminate. It’s a self-defeating cycle — a double-edged sword where geopolitical interests undermine ideological commitments.

Part VII: The Backlash — Terror Comes Home

The impact of this dual policy has not spared the U.S. itself. American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed by Taliban and proxy groups backed by Pakistani networks. The Haqqani Network, responsible for killing American troops, was long tolerated — if not assisted — by the ISI.

Domestically, radicalization has also grown. Lone wolf attacks, inspired by extremist ideologies nurtured abroad, have increased. From San Bernardino to the Boston Marathon bombing, the repercussions of unchecked terrorism networks have reached U.S. soil again and again.

Part VIII: The Way Forward – Rethinking Alliances and Accountability

If the U.S. truly wishes to lead a global fight against terrorism, it must first confront its own contradictions. This requires:

1. Ending Strategic Hypocrisy: The U.S. must stop distinguishing between “good” and “bad” terrorists based on geopolitical utility.

2. Holding Pakistan Accountable: Aid and arms must be conditional on verifiable action against terror groups. The U.S. should support international calls to designate Pakistan-based entities as terror organizations.

3. Multilateral Engagement: America should work more closely with regional players like India and the EU, fostering coalitions that are not burdened by legacy relationships with state sponsors of terror.

4. Investing in Counter-Radicalization: Beyond drones and bombs, America must support educational reforms, civil society, and deradicalization programs in terror-prone regions.

5. Transparency and Congressional Oversight: All covert alliances, including intelligence collaboration with controversial states, should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.

Conclusion

America’s dual nature in fighting terrorism — where it condemns violence in speeches while enabling it through alliances — has created a dangerous global environment. Nowhere is this more evident than in its relationship with Pakistan, a nation that has simultaneously fought and fueled terror.

As new threats emerge — from cyber-jihad to lone-wolf attackers — the U.S. must evolve its strategy. Moral clarity, consistent policy, and a willingness to confront inconvenient truths are the need of the hour.

History has shown that the monsters fed in the dark eventually come back to bite. It’s time for America to choose: will it continue to walk both sides of the line, or finally stand firm against terrorism in all its formats.