EACH counterterrorism strike inside Afghanistan follows a predictable pattern. The Taliban regime immediately claims “civilian casualties,” and UNAMA rapidly amplifies the narrative. This routine completely bypasses any rigorous investigation into the actual identity of the deceased, their reasons for being at the site or the specific terrorist infrastructure targeted by Pakistan’s precision operations.
This happened precisely after counterterror strikes conducted by Pakistan on the night of 9/10 June. Did UNAMA verify the identities of these individuals before classifying them as civilians or did they ignore the fact that TTP commanders, facilitators and their family networks were actively operating from these compounds? The locations targeted were not ordinary civilian homes, but active operational nodes within a terrorist network.
In Spera, Khost, an operation targeting two houses left 18 terrorists dead and 10 injured. In Birmal, Paktika, a strike on commander Sangar’s hideout killed five terrorists and injured nine. Were these compounds genuine civilian homes or were they part of a larger TTP infrastructure operating under the protection of the Taliban regime?
The Taliban has transformed Kunar, Khost and Paktika into a strategic rear base for the TTP, allowing commanders to live openly, train recruits and orchestrate cross-border attacks into Pakistan. These commanders deliberately embed their families and civilian structures within their hideouts to exploit the propaganda value of any subsequent casualties. If TTP commanders were embedded at these sites, it raises the critical question of whether women and children were being used as human shields to generate propaganda and deter counterterrorism operations—a possibility UNAMA routinely overlooks.
The Taliban regime repeatedly invokes the civilian casualty narrative after every strike, yet remains silent on why terrorists launching cross-border attacks enjoy sanctuary on Afghan soil. The same regime that demands respect for its sovereignty fails to explain why it allows the TTP to use its territory as a launchpad. Kabul’s silence on this terrorist infrastructure is deafening and UNAMA’s silence amounts to complicity.
As expected, the Afghan Taliban will complain about civilian casualties, while no one from Afghanistan—including UNAMA—will disclose the real facts. The inconvenient truth is that the Taliban’s focus on “civilian casualties” serves as a shield for terrorist facilitation. Although UNAMA’s mandate demands impartial reporting, it often echoes Kabul’s talking points due to structural constraints.
The survival and operational presence of UNAMA staff depend heavily on keeping the Taliban regime satisfied, as exposing Taliban militarization or terrorist facilitation would make them targets. When operating in Kabul requires appeasing the de facto authorities, neutrality becomes difficult to maintain.
Furthermore, UNAMA is accused of avoiding confrontation with the Taliban’s broader human shield doctrine and the militarization of populated areas. The TTP has adopted an operational model where commanders house fighters, weapons and families under a single roof. Following a strike, the Taliban categorizes every fatality as a civilian and UNAMA amplifies the claim without independent verification.
This doctrine is presented as a tool to generate international pressure and restrict Pakistan’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. By failing to distinguish between actual non-combatants and terrorists, UNAMA is portrayed as unintentionally reinforcing this strategy.
—The writer is contributing columnist.
