US CENTCOM Chief Gen. Michael Kurilla’s recent comments, which describe Pakistan as a “phenomenal partner” in counter-terrorism, strike a dissonant chord in New Delhi. While the statement reflects the United States’ desire to maintain relationships with both India and Pakistan independently, it overlooks key realities that have shaped South Asia’s strategic dynamics for decades. From India’s perspective, such proclamations raise not just eyebrows, but profound questions about the credibility and consistency of American foreign policy—particularly in the realm of counter-terrorism.
Origins and Genesis of ISIS-K: A Symptom of Regional Collapse
ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K or IS-KP) is the regional affiliate of the Islamic State group that emerged officially in January 2015, capitalizing on the vacuum left by collapsing militant hierarchies in the region.
Post-ISIS Expansion Strategy
With ISIS losing ground in Iraq and Syria, it sought to establish distant provinces (“wilayat”) in vulnerable regions. Khorasan—a historical region encompassing parts of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asia—was chosen for its strategic location and existing militant ecosystem.
Defectors and Regional Realignment
ISIS-K’s ranks were filled by breakaway factions from the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), Afghan Taliban, and elements linked to the Haqqani Network. Hafiz Saeed Khan, a former TTP commander, became its first leader, gaining endorsement and logistical support from ISIS central.
Terrorism as Strategy
ISIS-K has distinguished itself through indiscriminate violence—particularly suicide bombings in civilian areas, targeting minorities and attempting to delegitimize all existing state or insurgent actors, including the Taliban. Their strategy is not just ideological—it is to destabilize, discredit, and dominate.
The Unspoken Truth: Pakistan—The Breeding Ground of Terrorism
To present Pakistan as a “phenomenal partner” against a group like ISIS-K is a gross mischaracterization of both history and present realities. Pakistan’s soil has long served as a sanctuary and incubator for a range of terror organizations—notably the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the Haqqani Network, and factions of the Taliban.
This isn’t just India’s assertion; Pakistan’s own leadership has acknowledged this uncomfortable truth. In a televised interview on Sky News, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif candidly admitted that terrorists operating in Pakistan were “born and bred” on its own soil. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, while Foreign Minister, also acknowledged in international forums the challenges posed by Pakistan’s internal extremism and the costs it has inflicted on its own stability.
These statements alone should have disqualified the Pakistan Army from being glorified as a counter-terror ally. They confirm what the global security community has known for decades: Pakistan’s deep state plays both arsonist and firefighter—nurturing terror groups for strategic depth while posturing as a victim of terrorism to secure international aid and legitimacy.
The Legacy of Duplicity
Since the US launched its war on terror post-9/11, Pakistan has styled itself as a frontline ally. Yet, the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, in close proximity to the Pakistan Military Academy, exposed the duplicity. Either the Pakistani establishment was complicit in sheltering him, or it was dangerously incompetent—neither interpretation supports the notion of a “phenomenal partner.”
Despite such clear evidence of double-dealing, the US has continued to fund and arm Pakistan. These resources have often been diverted to fund asymmetric warfare against India—particularly in Kashmir—or to manipulate power balances in Afghanistan. India has repeatedly borne the brunt of this policy misjudgment.
The Cost of Strategic Myopia
India’s strategic disillusionment is not based on sentiment—it is anchored in facts. From the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, which were planned by Pakistan-based LeT operatives under the ISI’s watch, to continued infiltration along the LoC, the consequences of Washington’s indulgence toward Islamabad have been severe.
India has watched, often with deep concern, as figures like Hafiz Saeed, Sajid Mir, and Major Iqbal remain at large, enjoying the patronage of the Pakistani establishment. While Washington has labeled some of these individuals as terrorists and even placed bounties on their heads, the follow-through has been sporadic and politically convenient. The over-a-decade-long delay in the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, despite clear evidence of his role in the 26/11 conspiracy, is emblematic of this inconsistent justice.
Action vs. Advocacy: The Gap in US Rhetoric
It is hard to reconcile Gen. Kurilla’s praise for Pakistan with America’s professed values of transparency, democracy, and the rule of law. If the CENTCOM Chief truly believes in Pakistan’s credibility, it raises serious questions about the intelligence inputs guiding such statements.
Moreover, in the post-withdrawal chaos of Afghanistan, the US left behind not only its allies but also significant military hardware, some of which is suspected to have found its way into Pakistan. There is growing concern that such transfers—deliberate or inadvertent—are once again feeding the very fire the US claims to extinguish.
Strategic Interests or Strategic Ignorance?
To understand Washington’s position, one must look at the broader strategic chessboard:
Buffer against rivals: Pakistan borders Iran, China, and Afghanistan—making it valuable for intelligence and logistics.
Rare earth corridor: The mineral-rich border regions are of interest to Washington, especially as China tightens its grip on global rare earth supplies.
Shadow base access: Speculative reports about covert US engagements with Taliban-controlled Bagram airbase hint at a backdoor presence via Pakistan.
Crypto diplomacy: Financial entanglements, including a rumored cryptocurrency venture involving a member of the Trump family and Pakistani entities, suggest a transactional element to Washington’s regional calculus.
Such ties may serve short-term goals but imperil long-term regional stability.
India Demands Strategic Clarity
General Kurilla remarked that the US relationship with India and Pakistan is “not a binary switch.” While diplomatically sound, this comment sidesteps the moral and operational distinction between a democracy that upholds international norms and a state that harbors terrorists.
By equating India and Pakistan in the same breath when discussing counter-terrorism, the US not only undermines India’s sacrifices but rewards duplicity. Such false equivalence demoralizes global efforts to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable and legitimizes bad actors.
Undermining Stability, Tilting the Scales
The double standards go beyond rhetoric. At global forums like the FATF, the US has often shielded Pakistan from being blacklisted. At the UN, action against known terrorists is diluted, delayed, or diverted.
During flashpoints like the Pulwama-Balakot standoff or India’s operational responses to border provocations, US commentary has often disproportionately called for restraint from India, while allowing Pakistan’s provocations to go unaddressed.
This approach weakens India’s deterrence posture and encourages a cycle of provocation, denial, and escalation—perpetuating the regional instability the US claims to deter.
Conclusion: A Partnership Demanding Honesty
India does not oppose the US maintaining relations with Pakistan. But it does oppose hypocrisy masquerading as diplomacy. A regime that shelters terrorists, manipulates proxies, and admits to being a breeding ground for terrorism cannot be a “phenomenal partner.” To call it so is not just factually incorrect—it is strategically irresponsible.
If Washington truly values India as a regional pillar for democracy, development, and security, then it must practice strategic clarity. Praise where it’s due—but also criticism where it’s warranted. The US cannot hope to lead a stable Indo-Pacific while glossing over Pakistan’s dark entanglements with terrorism.
Stability in South Asia does not require ambivalence. It requires courage—to speak the truth, to call out state-sponsored terrorism, and to forge partnerships built not just on expedience, but on principle.