A Relationship Rooted in Geopolitical Expediency
For decades, Washington has maintained a complicated relationship with Islamabad, one that often defies its stated principles of fighting terrorism and promoting democracy. The United States has long recognized Pakistan as a safe haven for extremist groups, yet it continues to extend military and financial support. This paradox is not born of ignorance but of geopolitical necessity.
During the Cold War, Pakistan became a crucial ally against Soviet influence in South Asia. The U.S. poured billions of dollars into Pakistan’s military, overlooking its internal instability and its growing reliance on militant proxies. In the 1980s, the CIA worked hand in glove with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to funnel weapons and funds to Afghan mujahideen. While this strategy helped defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan, it also entrenched Pakistan’s role as a hub for militant networks, laying the groundwork for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
The post-9/11 era only deepened this paradox. Despite clear evidence that Taliban leaders and al-Qaeda operatives were sheltered in Pakistan, Washington designated Islamabad as a “major non-NATO ally.” Billions in Coalition Support Funds and advanced military equipment flowed in, justified as necessary for counterterrorism cooperation. The discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in 2011 briefly strained ties, but aid resumed soon after, underscoring America’s reliance on Pakistan despite its duplicity.
Financial Aid and the Corruption Paradox
Beyond military assistance, the United States has consistently supported Pakistan financially, even when corruption and terrorism concerns were impossible to ignore. Washington has repeatedly backed Pakistan’s access to IMF loans and World Bank financing, often lobbying on its behalf to secure bailouts. These funds, intended to stabilize Pakistan’s economy, frequently ended up strengthening its military establishment rather than civilian institutions.
American policymakers have long been aware that grants and loans to Pakistan are vulnerable to misuse. Reports from watchdogs and congressional hearings have highlighted how aid money often disappears into corruption or is diverted to militant networks. Yet the flow of funds has rarely stopped. The rationale is simple: Washington believes that a financially unstable Pakistan poses greater risks, including nuclear insecurity and deeper alignment with China.
Even after the Abbottabad raid revealed Pakistan’s duplicity, U.S. financial assistance resumed. During the Obama administration, aid was briefly curtailed but quickly restored, reflecting Washington’s unwillingness to sever ties. More recently, U.S. officials have quietly supported Pakistan’s IMF negotiations, despite Islamabad’s failure to dismantle terror networks. This financial lifeline illustrates the contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy: condemning terrorism publicly while enabling a state that shelters it.
Pakistani Entities Claiming Responsibility for Terror Attacks
Pakistan’s reputation as a hub for extremist networks is reinforced by public admissions from militant groups and political figures. The Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP) has repeatedly claimed responsibility for deadly attacks, including suicide bombings in Islamabad that killed judges, lawyers, and civilians, with the group openly threatening more violence until Sharia law is imposed. Beyond its own borders, Pakistani-backed groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba have been linked to attacks in India, including the 2001 Parliament assault and the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Even Pakistani political leaders have at times boasted of orchestrating strikes abroad. Chaudhry Anwarul Haq, a senior figure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, publicly claimed responsibility for terror attacks in Delhi and Kashmir, framing them as retaliation against India. These admissions reveal that Pakistan’s soil is not just a breeding ground for militants but also a launchpad for cross-border terrorism. The fact that such claims are made openly underscores the state’s complicity or, at minimum, its tolerance of extremist violence.
Pakistani Military Actions Against Civilians
The Pakistani military has also been accused of targeting civilians both domestically and across borders. In tribal areas such as Waziristan, military operations against insurgents have often resulted in widespread civilian casualties, fueling resentment and further radicalization. Human rights groups have documented indiscriminate shelling and forced displacement during campaigns like Operation Zarb-e-Azb, raising questions about whether Pakistan’s military strategy is itself a form of state terror.
Across the Line of Control with India, Pakistani forces have been accused of deliberately shelling civilian areas, actions described by defense experts as war crimes under international humanitarian law. These cross-border attacks have killed and injured non-combatants, escalating tensions and undermining peace efforts. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s military dominance within its own political system—cemented through constitutional amendments that expand the army’s powers—has entrenched a culture of impunity, where accountability for civilian harm is virtually absent.
Strategic Calculations: Afghanistan, India, and China
The persistence of U.S. support for Pakistan is best understood through the lens of broader strategic calculations. Pakistan’s geography makes it indispensable for American military logistics in Afghanistan. Supply routes, intelligence cooperation, and influence over the Taliban all required Washington to tolerate Islamabad’s double game. Without Pakistan, the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan would have been far more difficult to sustain.
Equally important is the balance of power in South Asia. Washington has often viewed Pakistan as a counterweight to India, whose growing economic and military clout could otherwise dominate the region. By propping up Pakistan, the U.S. has sought to prevent India from becoming too powerful, even at the cost of enabling Pakistan’s militant networks. This balancing act has repeatedly undermined America’s credibility on counterterrorism.
The China factor adds another layer of complexity. Pakistan’s deepening ties with Beijing, particularly through the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), threaten to pull Islamabad firmly into China’s orbit. For Washington, keeping Pakistan engaged—even through financial and military support—serves as a hedge against Chinese influence. In this sense, U.S. aid is less about trust and more about preventing Pakistan from becoming an outright extension of Beijing’s strategic ambitions.
America’s Double Standards in Counterterrorism
The contradiction in U.S. policy is stark. While Washington imposes crippling sanctions on countries like Iran for alleged terror links, it rewards Pakistan with aid and military partnerships despite overwhelming evidence of its duplicity. This selective accountability reveals the double standards at the heart of American foreign policy.
Publicly, U.S. officials condemn terrorism and corruption. Privately, they continue to fund a state whose intelligence agencies have long been accused of sheltering groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Haqqani Network. The moral contradiction is undeniable: by enabling Pakistan’s military and financial apparatus, the U.S. indirectly sustains the very networks it claims to fight.
Ultimately, America’s support for Pakistan is not about trust or shared values—it is about expediency. Washington has repeatedly chosen short-term strategic gains over long-term stability, tolerating Pakistan’s role as a safe haven for terrorists. In doing so, the U.S. has not only condoned but also facilitated terrorism, undermining its own credibility as a global leader in the fight against extremism.
Conclusion: The Cost of Pragmatism
The United States’ relationship with Pakistan illustrates the limits of principle in foreign policy. By prioritizing geopolitical gains over counterterrorism consistency, Washington has sustained a state that thrives on duplicity. This policy may yield short-term advantages in Afghanistan, South Asia, and the U.S.–China rivalry, but it comes at the cost of credibility and moral authority.
In the end, America’s double standards in supporting Pakistan reveal a troubling truth: the fight against terrorism is often subordinated to the imperatives of geopolitics. By enabling Pakistan’s military and financial apparatus, Washington has indirectly supported the very forces it claims to oppose. The result is a foreign policy that undermines its own stated mission, leaving the world to question whether the United States is truly committed to combating terrorism—or merely managing it for strategic gain.