Pak's jihadi general Munir is trapped in his own vice

Pakistan's army chief General Asim Munir appears to be a general caught in his own labyrinth. His Jihadi motivations and political aspirations to recast himself in the mold of his predecessors like Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf who made baiting and bleeding India their sole domestic political strategy now seem to have backfired. Pakistan has very few options to respond to Indian military action while a lack of response or a soft hit will demoralise the nation.

Amid rapidly escalating hostilities, India has struck multiple air defence systems and key targets inside Pakistan and has also managed to intercept a wave of missiles and drones launched across the border targeting Indian military installations and civilian areas. India's vigorous military action comes when it's Pakistan which is expected by its masses to exercise muscular force against India in response to India's strikes on nine sites of terrorist infrastructure inside Pakistan to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack.

A senior officer told The Times of India: “Operation Sindoor is fully underway. Pakistan army chief Asim Munir will not be given a face-saving exit.” Stuck in his own trap, General Munir will now struggle to find an exit, given India's uncompromising stance.

What was General Asim Munir’s calculus?

General Munir's gameplan behind sponsoring the Pahalgam attack could be to provoke India into a military response. He had several overlapping strategic motivations such as political survival, institutional legitimacy, ideological convictions, and historical continuity within the military establishment. His gameplan can be seen in the context of Pakistan’s internal challenges, the erosion of the military's public standing, and his own jihadi fervour.

Since 2022, the Pakistani military has faced an unprecedented erosion of its domestic standing. Once seen as the most respected and feared institution in the country, the military has come under increasing scrutiny and public resentment due to its central role in the ouster and imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The crackdown on Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and the widespread belief that the judiciary and electoral systems have been manipulated by the military establishment, have deeply undermined its image.

Moreover, the army has been repeatedly embarrassed by a growing wave of insurgent violence in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The killing of security personnel in ambushes and targeted attacks — often livestreamed or reported widely on social media — has exposed the vulnerability of what was once perceived as an untouchable institution.

In such a context, General Munir was under immense pressure to restore the army’s authority and aura of invincibility. A limited escalation with India — particularly one that can be framed as a response to Kashmiri “resistance” — would offer the opportunity to unite the nation around the military, deflect criticism, and reassert its centrality to the state’s identity.

The aim of a Hamas-type attack in a high-visibility area like Pahalgam might not be to ignite a full-scale war, but rather to provoke a limited military retaliation from India. This would then be used as a pretext for mobilizing nationalistic sentiment in Pakistan.

In a carefully controlled environment, such an incident could allow General Munir to frame India as the aggressor and Pakistan as the victim, particularly in domestic and international narratives; shift the national discourse away from internal repression and toward external threats; justify a new wave of military-led initiatives, potentially including emergency powers, media censorship, and further crackdown on dissent in the name of national security; and demonstrate resolve to both the Pakistani public and the military rank and file demoralized by recent failures.

Such a move would be high-risk — given India's post-Uri and post-Pulwama doctrine of swift and targeted retaliation — but that risk would be outweighed by the gains for General Munir and Pakistani military.

General Munir, a former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is often viewed as someone deeply steeped in the ideological ethos of Pakistan’s military — one that sees itself not merely as a defender of borders, but as a guardian of Islamic identity and the Kashmiri cause. These ideas reflected in the controversial speech General Munir had made days before the Pahalgam attack in which he called Kashmir Pakistan's "jugular vein".

His speech and earlier proclamation of "Jihad Fi Sabilillah" (jihad in the way of Allah) show that Munir sees himself as a continuation of the ideological legacy of General Zia-ul-Haq, who fused Islam with military nationalism, and General Musharraf, who combined battlefield aggression (as seen in Kargil) with authoritarian control.

Zia believed in exporting jihad as a tool of regional influence and internal cohesion, while Musharraf believed in bold, high-risk maneuvers to shape regional dynamics and consolidate domestic power. Munir, facing a collapsing political consensus and increasing internal chaos, might have viewed a “Kashmir moment” as his opportunity to join this pantheon of military strongmen who reshaped Pakistan’s trajectory.

In such a vision, the Pahalgam attack would not just be a tactical maneuver but a strategic signal: the army remains the final arbiter of national destiny, and the doctrine of “bleeding India by a thousand cuts” remains alive in some form.

Faced with an increasingly defiant population, internal dissent, and the crumbling myth of the army’s omnipotence, Munir might have seen no better option than returning to the time-tested formula of external threat and internal unity — even if it means inviting dangerous escalation with a more powerful adversary.

How the Jihadi general got trapped

General Munir finds himself caught in a vice of his own making. The recent escalation between India and Pakistan has not only exposed the limitations of Pakistan’s conventional and asymmetric strategies but has also left Munir isolated diplomatically, domestically, and militarily. India’s carefully calibrated military strikes, first on nine terror hubs deep inside Pakistani territory, followed by precise drone attacks on key military installations, have upended the traditional strategic calculus of South Asia.

India's recent pre-emptive strikes were not just punitive; they were demonstrative. By hitting multiple targets with clinical precision and subsequently launching drone strikes on military assets, India has sent a clear message: the old rules of engagement no longer apply. What’s more, India has stated in no uncertain terms that any Pakistani retaliation will invite a broader and more devastating response. In effect, New Delhi has seized escalation.

General Munir’s dilemma is stark. Should he retaliate, he risks triggering a broader military conflict that Pakistan’s economy and military are ill-prepared to sustain. The Pakistani military is stretched thin, battling insurgents in Balochistan, maintaining internal order amid economic unrest, and trying to preserve its grip on political power. Meanwhile, the drone warfare dimension introduced by India has exposed vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s air defense — a domain where superiority was long presumed, if not assured.

Yet inaction carries its own peril. Failure to respond would be perceived domestically as weakness, especially within the rank and file of the military and the right-wing political and religious groups that form the core of Pakistan’s hyper-nationalist discourse. For a country where the military is the principal institution of state power and prestige, this erosion of face could prove destabilizing.

In past crises, Pakistan could reliably count on international intervention to defuse tensions. The United States, in particular, played the role of crisis manager, often stepping in to prevent escalation. But this time, Washington is nowhere to be found. Vice President JD Vance has made it clear that America will not intervene in this conflict.

Other traditional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also not stepped forward actively to get Pakistan a face-saving deal. Financial support, once easily accessed, is now conditional and slow-moving. Even China, Pakistan’s closest strategic partner, has offered only tepid statements, carefully avoiding taking sides in a conflict that could disrupt its trade routes and international image.

All of this unfolds against a backdrop of deep economic malaise. Pakistan is scrambling to secure financial aid from friendly nations and international institutions. India's Press Information Bureau (PIB) on Friday trolled the Economic Affairs Division of Government of Pakistan posting on X for "urging International partners" to loan Islamabad more funds in the wake of the "heavy losses inflicted by enemy". Using a snippet from the popular Bollywood movie 'Golmaal', the fact-check unit of the government mocked Pakistan. "Yeh koi tareeka hai bheek maangne ka? (Is this the way to beg?)" the post read.

India’s repeated warnings against Pakistani retaliation are not mere bravado; they represent a new doctrine of preemption and overwhelming response. And crucially, India is offering no diplomatic off-ramp. This is a deliberate move -- to corner Munir, to force a reckoning, and perhaps to recalibrate the region’s security architecture for good. With few options left, General Munir stands at a crossroads -- escalate and risk catastrophic defeat, or de-escalate and accept strategic humiliation. Either path carries immense consequences for Pakistan and its military establishment.