Get Full Access:
Save 44% Now
Trusted by over 40,000 readers

Areas of Northwestern Pakistan

March 3, 2017 On March 2, Pakistan’s Cabinet approved the incorporation of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas into the adjacent province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The move will end the autonomous status of the region that straddles the border with Afghanistan and has been a global hub of transnational jihadi activity. During the early 2000s, an anti-Pakistan jihadi insurgency took shape in the tribal areas in which Pakistan had supported anti-Soviet Islamist insurgents, and later on, the Afghan Taliban. The rise of this Taliban movement was aided by al-Qaida, which relocated to Pakistan after the destruction of its Afghanistan facilities in late 2001. Over time, Pakistan lost control of the tribal badlands along its northwestern border with Afghanistan and many districts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

pakistan-tribal-agencies-frontier-regions

(click to enlarge)

The tide shifted in 2009 when Pakistan retook the Swat district, which had become a de facto Taliban emirate deep inside the country. Islamabad also launched a major offensive in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal areas. It took another five years for the Pakistanis to mount an offensive in North Waziristan in June 2014. While the frequency of attacks in Pakistan has considerably declined between 2014 and now, the recent wave suggests that the jihadi rebels retained their capabilities during the crackdown by going underground. To learn more about the increasing pressure from jihadism along the international boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the destabilizing effects it has had, check out our recent Deep Dive, “The Afghanistan-Pakistan Fault Line.”

FREE E-Book:

Geopolitics 101

By Jacob Shapiro
Understanding Geopolitics Starts Here.

Get your FREE copy:




    Please leave this field empty.




Please leave this field empty.

We value your thoughts and opinions. If you have a comment on this article, drop us a note in the window above. Your comments will not be published and will only be shared with our team of analysts.



Related Articles

  • Turkey and a Dangerous Power Vacuum in Northwestern Syria

    Turkish forces recently began massing on the southwestern border with Syria. As many as 80 military vehicles, including an unknown number of tanks and medical aid trucks, were dispatched to a part of Hatay province that’s approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the border. Another convoy of an unspecified number of military vehicles was reportedly sent to another area of Hatay, just 2 miles from Syria’s border, and a third collection of 20 army vehicles was seen close to the border near Bab al-Hawa in Syria, about 7 miles from Reyhanli.

    By themselves, these movements might seem innocuous – it is, after all, normal for Turkey to move soldiers and materiel around its borders depending on where it believes threats could arise. But context is everything, and the context of these deployments is not routine. On Sept. 15, Turkey, Iran and Russia agreed in Astana to set up a safe zone in Syria’s Idlib province, just west of Aleppo. They reportedly agreed to divide the province into three zones, each controlled by a different country. That same day, a pro-government Turkish newspaper reported that 25,000 Turkish soldiers were preparing for deployment into Idlib province, with the goal of taking control of a roughly 2,000-square-mile (5,000-square-kilometer) area with over 2 million inhabitants.

    Keep reading
  • Missile Defense Isn’t an Answer to the North Korea Crisis

    Sept. 15, 2017 The prospect that North Korea could fire missiles at its enemies has, perhaps unsurprisingly, shone a spotlight on the ways in which potential targets could defend themselves. And when it comes to missiles, some say the best defense is more missiles. Ballistic missile defense indeed seems like a natural antidote, and though these systems have been in use for some time – and some have even intercepted their targets – the security they promise could hardly be considered absolute.

    The U.S. began to pour money into missile defense systems as soon as it showed the destructive power of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. BMD became a fixture of U.S. defense planning throughout the Cold War, with investment peaking under President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative during the mid-1980s. Eventually, the amount of money needed to counter advanced arsenals from countries like Russia and China was deemed unsustainable. So after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the focus on missile defense shifted to emerging, more limited threats from so-called rogue states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Since 2002, the U.S. has spent between $8 billion and $10 billion annually on research, testing and deployment of BMD systems – almost all of it under the watchful eye of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

    Keep reading
  • Why Syria Can’t Be Put Back Together

    Sept. 8, 2017 Lebanon’s recent history provides valuable insights into what we can expect from Syria’s civil war and future. Lebanon is much smaller than Syria, and its ethnic groups were more evenly proportioned before its civil war. Even so, in 1975, it went to war – and at war it stayed for more than 15 years. We expect Syria’s civil war – which is already midway through its sixth year – to last at least as long.

    Lebanon’s post-war years haven’t exactly been peaceful either. Syria’s will be worse. Syria is a broken country, and no amount of diplomatic handwringing or bombing is going to put it back together. The reason is simple: ethnic and sectarian chaos.

    Keep reading

Geopolitical Futures tells you what matters and what doesn’t.

People say you can’t predict geopolitics.

We have.

Subscribe Now
Learn More About Site Licenses