Official security briefings released over the past year present a deeply troubling picture. In Balochistan alone, authorities report conducting nearly 78,000 intelligence-based operations in 2025, resulting in the neutralisation of just 700 militants. In the Bannu district, security officials acknowledge that militants attempted nearly two drone attacks per day for six months. Across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, women and children have fallen victim to militant drone strikes, yet without provoking the public outrage once directed at American drones in the former tribal areas.

These are not isolated failures. They are symptoms, drawn from the state’s own data, of a security apparatus trapped in strategic stagnation, where immense operational activity produces limited strategic gain, while the full human cost remains selectively obscured. More troubling still, these claims and figures pass largely without systematic scrutiny, either from official oversight bodies or from independent analysts.

The conflicting security narratives emerging from different regions demand serious examination. Briefings from Balochistan and Bannu district exemplify a recurring pattern. They offer raw numbers without meaningful analysis, obscuring more than they reveal. When these documents are read together, a core contradiction emerges. Security forces report extraordinary volumes of intelligence-based activity, yet the outcomes indicate the quality and utility of the intelligence itself. This analysis does not question the courage of those on the front lines. It questions whether their sacrifices are translating into durable security or merely sustaining a cycle of attrition.

The Balochistan report is undermined by its own metrics. The claim that 78,000 intelligence-based operations led to the neutralisation of 700 militants, roughly one militant per 110 to 115 operations, points to more than inefficiency. It signals a systemic crisis in intelligence credibility. Either the intelligence is chronically outdated, excessively vague, or focused on peripheral actors rather than operational command........

© The Friday Times