From Osama to Hafiz Saeed: Why Pakistan Remains a Safe Haven for Terrorists

When U.S. Navy SEALs raided a compound in Abbottabad in 2011, the world expected chaos—but no one expected that the man hiding behind those walls was Osama bin Laden, the face of global terrorism. What was even more unsettling? The compound was just a few kilometers away from Pakistan’s elite military academy.
For years, Pakistan has maintained its stance as a victim of terrorism. But how does a “victim” become the hideout for the world's most wanted terrorists? From sheltering Osama bin Laden to letting Hafiz Saeed address public rallies, Pakistan’s track record makes it hard to believe that all of this is mere coincidence. There seems to be a pattern—one that points to complicity rather than incompetence.

The world's most dangerous man didn’t hide in caves. He was living comfortably in a three-story compound in a city filled with military personnel and intelligence units. For years.
According to the U.S., Osama had been residing in Abbottabad since at least 2006. The compound had no internet or phone connection, high walls, and barbed wire—but none of this raised suspicion?
Pakistan’s government claimed ignorance. Then-President Asif Ali Zardari even wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post denying that his country had knowingly sheltered bin Laden. But global intelligence agencies weren’t buying it. The real question was simple: Could a nation’s most-wanted fugitive live in a garrison town without some level of state protection?
The answer, many believe, lies with Pakistan’s shadowy intelligence agency: the ISI.

The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has long been considered the puppet master behind Pakistan’s complex web of extremist groups. Western analysts often describe its behavior as a “double game”: cracking down on terrorists that threaten Pakistan internally, while quietly nurturing others that serve geopolitical purposes—especially in India and Afghanistan.
Take the Haqqani Network, for instance. Despite being designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., it has operated for years with alleged ISI backing, targeting NATO troops in Afghanistan.
It’s this selective support system that continues to allow terror leaders to operate, regroup, and rebrand under different names—all within Pakistani territory.

Let’s talk about another name—Hafiz Saeed. The mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 innocent civilians, including foreign nationals. India has been screaming for justice for over a decade, but Saeed walked freely in Pakistan until international pressure forced minimal action.
Saeed didn’t just roam free. He founded Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which openly held rallies, raised funds, and promoted extremist ideology—all under the nose of the Pakistani government. In fact, his organization was so public that it set up relief camps and even ambulance services to gain legitimacy.
Only after immense pressure from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) did Pakistan finally arrest him in 2019. He was sentenced for terror financing—not for the Mumbai attacks. Convenient, isn’t it?
Even behind bars, there are reports suggesting Saeed enjoys VIP treatment. House arrest, minimal restrictions, and selective enforcement make the whole legal exercise seem like a show for international audiences.

Saeed isn’t alone. Other groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), led by Masood Azhar, have operated training camps in Pakistan's tribal areas for years. JeM was responsible for the 2019 Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel. In response, India carried out the Balakot airstrikes—hitting JeM's training facilities inside Pakistan.
What happened next? Pakistan downplayed the existence of the camps. Azhar was reportedly “missing” or “hospitalized.” Another masterstroke of denial.
The list doesn’t end there—Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and Al-Qaeda affiliates all have roots, branches, or safe houses in Pakistan. And while Pakistan claims to be dismantling them, evidence points to these groups rebranding under different names and continuing their activities unchecked.

So, why does Pakistan continue this dangerous dance? Analysts point to the country’s “Strategic Depth” doctrine. The idea is simple: Pakistan supports militant groups as leverage against India and to control influence in neighboring Afghanistan. These non-state actors serve as a low-cost, high-impact tool of foreign policy.
This strategy, however, comes with a price—global isolation, economic sanctions, and diplomatic embarrassment.
Even allies like the U.S. have suspended military aid, citing Pakistan’s failure to act decisively against terror networks. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump publicly accused Pakistan of "lies and deceit" and cut off aid worth billions of dollars.

For years, Pakistan has remained on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) “grey list”—a global watchlist for countries with serious issues in curbing terror financing and money laundering. While Pakistan was finally removed in 2022 after pledging reforms, many believe it was a tactical move to escape sanctions rather than a genuine transformation.
The moment international pressure eases, many of these groups find ways to bounce back under different names, often continuing their operations with a wink and a nod from local authorities.

The irony is, Pakistan has suffered immensely from terrorism itself. From the Peshawar school massacre in 2014 to regular attacks on security forces, thousands of Pakistani civilians and soldiers have lost their lives. So why support groups that can turn rogue?
The answer may lie in the lack of a consistent national policy. Pakistan continues to differentiate between “good terrorists” (those who attack its enemies) and “bad terrorists” (those who attack within). This blurred moral compass has led to a vicious cycle of extremism that threatens not just neighboring countries, but Pakistan’s own stability.

From harboring bin Laden to protecting Hafiz Saeed, Pakistan’s role as a sanctuary for terrorists cannot be brushed off as a series of accidents. It’s a systemic issue, deeply rooted in statecraft, ideology, and regional rivalry.
Until Pakistan draws a hard line—where no terror group is treated as a strategic asset—the global community will continue to see it as part of the problem, not the solution.
The world doesn’t need more promises or cosmetic arrests. It needs transparency, real crackdowns, and a political will that refuses to protect extremists in the name of national interest.
The time to choose sides is now—and the choice between peace and proxy terror has never been clearer.

Explore the latest trends and tips in Health & Fitness, Travel, Life Hacks, Fashion & Beauty, and Relationships at Times Life!