By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Saturday, a wave of coordinated suicide and gun attacks across Balochistan province by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) resulted in 33 fatalities, including civilians and security personnel, with authorities reporting 92 insurgents killed in response. The attacks, considered the deadliest in decades for militants, targeted various locations, including a high-security prison and police stations. The BLA claimed responsibility, and the military alleged Indian backing, a claim India has previously denied. These attacks follow a recent increase in violence by Baloch separatists and the Pakistani Taliban, and authorities reported that over 133 militants have been killed in the past 48 hours.
Read the original article here
More than 120 dead after multiple suicide and gun attacks in Pakistan, officials say, and the numbers are truly staggering. The Pakistani military’s report paints a picture of intense conflict in Balochistan, with a significant disparity in casualties between the attackers and the responding forces. It’s difficult to process the reported figures: 92 insurgents killed versus 18 civilians and 15 security personnel. That ratio seems almost unheard of, raising questions about the nature of the attacks and the counter-operations. One can’t help but wonder if the numbers, as they’re being presented, truly capture the full picture of the events.
The fact that these attacks were described as the “deadliest single day for militants in decades” underscores the gravity of the situation. Baloch insurgents, the Pakistani Taliban, and Baloch separatists all seem to be involved, highlighting the complexity of the conflict. The targeting of civilians, a high-security prison, police stations, and paramilitary installations suggests a coordinated and ambitious operation. It’s a stark reminder that in these situations, it’s often the civilians who pay the highest price.
The immediate blame game is also predictable. It’s almost a given that the Pakistani government would point the finger at India. We’ve seen this pattern before, and it’s a standard tactic used to deflect attention from internal problems and rally support. The phrase “If you harbor a snake in your backyard, don’t be surprised when it bites you” feels particularly apt in this context. The Pakistani state’s struggles to assert control in Balochistan and other regions are well-documented, and this lack of control creates a breeding ground for unrest and violence.
Pakistan’s internal conflicts seem to be a recurring pattern, with the attacks becoming increasingly frequent. This constant instability has far-reaching consequences, extending beyond the immediate loss of life and physical destruction. It also affects economic development and social stability, creating a cycle of violence. The strategic approach of “bleeding India with a thousand cuts” appears to be having the opposite effect, and Pakistan is suffering the most from this.
The situation in Balochistan itself is particularly concerning. The province is rich in resources, but the local population often sees little benefit, with the central government seemingly prioritizing the interests of other regions. This perceived exploitation fuels resentment and creates a fertile ground for insurgent groups. It’s a classic example of the “stone age mentality” of Pakistan, where instead of building bridges the country is caught in a cycle of attacks and blame.
The narratives surrounding these events are also filled with confusion, especially from the Pakistani military. Free and open media coverage is practically non-existent in the area, and therefore the military’s version of events is all the outsiders have. It makes me wonder about the accuracy of the casualty figures and the true nature of the attacks and the counter responses. Were the security personnel and civilian casualties underplayed? Was the number of insurgents exaggerated? It’s impossible to know for sure without independent verification.
The high number of insurgent deaths compared to the number of people killed in general is also interesting. There’s a good chance that many of the attackers were simply caught up in the crossfire during the response, rather than active participants in the initial attacks. The targets of the insurgents, such as the prison and the paramilitary headquarters, suggest that they were aiming for high-value targets, which would have increased the intensity of the fight.
In the end, it feels like this situation will continue to unfold in the same way. The Pakistani government will continue to point fingers, while the underlying issues driving the conflict remain unresolved. The lack of a clear picture makes it hard to say what truly happened, and if the numbers make sense. I expect the instability in Pakistan to continue for the foreseeable future, potentially leading to a fragmentation of the country.