Pakistan rejects Afghan Taliban's claims of civilian casualties in counterterrorism operations

The dispute centers on civilian harm from Pakistan’s counterterrorism strikes inside Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban government says civilians were killed or injured. Pakistan denies this and presents its operations as defensive action against threats launched from Afghan territory. The disagreement deepens already strained relations between the neighbours.

An Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesperson told CNN that 1,119 Afghan civilians had been killed or injured in Pakistani military strikes since late 2021, according to Afghan media. Pakistan’s Foreign Office rejected the claim as “baseless and unsubstantiated.” It said the strikes were directed only at terrorists and their logistical support bases.

Pakistan argues that attacks from Afghan soil have caused more than 3,500 casualties in 2026. It says its responses followed necessity, distinction, precaution, and proportionality. The Afghan Taliban, however, continues to report civilian casualties. Both sides’ competing accounts make independent verification especially important, while the dispute adds pressure to an already tense border relationship.

Counterterrorism operations are organized security or military actions against terrorist groups, their infrastructure, and the systems that help them plan and conduct attacks. Their purpose is to prevent further violence and protect civilians and security forces. In this case, Pakistan says the operations respond to attacks allegedly planned or launched from Afghan territory.

The Foreign Office said Pakistan’s actions were “directed only and exclusively against terrorists and their logistical support bases in Afghanistan.” It identified the threat as including groups such as the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and the Balochistan Liberation Army, which Pakistan accuses the Afghan Taliban of sheltering. Pakistan says its forces do not deliberately target civilians.

The Afghan Taliban disputes Pakistan’s account and claims civilian casualties from the strikes. Pakistan maintains that its conduct reflected restraint and that its response was proportionate to the threat. The central issue is therefore both the identity of the targets and whether military action can prevent attacks without harming civilians or worsening regional instability.

The figures show how sharply the two governments describe the conflict’s human cost. The Afghan Foreign Ministry’s reported number concerns Afghan civilians allegedly killed or injured by Pakistani military strikes since late 2021. Pakistan’s figure concerns casualties it attributes to terrorist attacks originating from Afghan soil during 2026.

An Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesperson told CNN that 1,119 Afghan civilians had been killed or injured in Pakistani strikes since late 2021, according to Afghan media. Pakistan’s Foreign Office rejected that claim. It said attacks emanating from Afghan soil had claimed more than 3,500 casualties in 2026, while accusing terrorist networks of operating from Afghanistan.

These figures measure different harms and come from opposing sides, so they do not directly cancel each other out. The article does not provide an independent reconciliation of the numbers. It does report that a United Nations monitoring report linked continued Afghan Taliban support for the TTP to more frequent and deadlier attacks in Pakistan.

Pakistan says its strikes are a response to repeated terrorist attacks against Pakistani civilians and security forces. The Foreign Office describes the action as self-defence and says it became necessary because terrorist networks allegedly operate from Afghan territory. Pakistan also says the Afghan Taliban has failed to prevent its soil from being used for attacks.

The Foreign Office specifically accused the Afghan Taliban of sheltering the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Balochistan Liberation Army, and their affiliates. Pakistan says these groups threaten regional peace and stability. It further claimed that thousands of Pakistani civilians had been killed in attacks planned, financed, supported, and carried out from Afghan soil.

The Afghan Taliban rejects Pakistan’s accusations and has raised its own claims about civilian casualties. A UN Security Council-mandated monitoring report covering December 16, 2025, to June 9, 2026, said continued Taliban support for the TTP contributed to more frequent and lethal attacks in Pakistan. The dispute continues to strain bilateral ties.

If both governments continue accusing each other of enabling attacks and causing civilian deaths, cooperation is likely to become harder. Trust is already weak because Pakistan says Taliban appeals to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries have gone unheeded. The Afghan Taliban, meanwhile, repeatedly claims that Pakistani strikes harm civilians.

The article describes a cycle of violence in September: Pakistani airstrikes followed terrorist attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, then drone incursions were reported, followed by two more rounds of retaliatory strikes. Continued accusations could encourage further military responses, border incidents, and public pressure on each government to take a harder position.

The Foreign Office called on the international community to hold the Afghan Taliban accountable for its obligations. Pakistan also reserved the right to take necessary measures to protect its sovereignty and citizens. Unless the alleged sanctuaries and civilian-casualty claims are addressed, relations could deteriorate further, with wider risks for regional peace and stability.

Self-defence is the claimed right to use force to repel or stop an armed attack, subject to international law. Necessity means force must be needed to address the threat, rather than used when peaceful options can reasonably work. In the article, Pakistan presents its strikes as a last resort after attacks from Afghan soil.

Distinction requires parties to separate civilians and civilian objects from fighters and military targets. Precaution requires feasible steps to verify targets and reduce civilian harm. Proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause civilian harm excessive compared with the concrete military advantage anticipated. These principles apply together, not as separate permissions.

Pakistan says its actions followed all five ideas: self-defence, necessity, distinction, precaution, and proportionality. It says the strikes were limited to terrorists and logistical bases and reflected restraint. The Afghan Taliban’s civilian-casualty claims challenge that account. Whether the principles were actually met would depend on reliable evidence about targets, expected harm, and the threat faced.

Civilian-casualty and responsibility claims are difficult to verify during armed conflict because investigators may lack safe access to strike sites. Records can be incomplete, witnesses may be displaced or afraid, and damage can make it hard to identify weapons, targets, or the sequence of events. This explanation uses general conflict-reporting knowledge; the article itself only presents competing claims.

Responsibility is also difficult to establish when attacks cross a border. Governments may classify information about military operations, while armed groups may operate through local networks or deny involvement. In this dispute, the Afghan Taliban reports civilian casualties, while Pakistan says it struck terrorists and support bases. Neither side’s account is independently reconciled in the article.

Reliable assessment usually requires multiple sources, such as casualty records, hospital data, witness accounts, imagery, and information about the weapons used. Access and safety problems can delay that work. Until stronger evidence is available, conflicting numbers and accusations can circulate, deepen mistrust, and complicate diplomatic efforts.