The portrayal of Pakistan as whited sepulture against the Taliban: a case study of American media

Pakistan's relations with Afghanistan have a long disturbing history. Since Pakistan's independence, the first contention arose when Afghanistan objected to Pakistan's admission to the United Nations. The relations have also been engulfed by territorial claims on part of Afghanistan due to which the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is still porous and not fenced. Pakistan played a pivotal role in the Afghan-Soviet War in 1979 and thus from there the story of the Taliban groups germinated. Many analysts believe that the CIA and ISI both trained and funded the Taliban groups to be used against the Soviets and the result was Soviet withdrawal from the region but lacking a long-term strategy, the very group resulted in deteriorating the peace in the region.

After the terrorist incidents in the U.S., the War on Terror began as a new challenge for the world. The US declared war against Afghanistan in 2001 to combat Al-Qaeda. The Bush Doctrine of "Us vs. Them" estranged nations into moderates vs. terrorists and compelled other states either to become US allies or face consequences, implying no neutrality on matters of world peace and US security. Pakistan joined the US-led coalition, a choice later framed by President Musharraf as necessary to avoid being "bombed back to the Stone Age." The present study therefore aims to analyze the identity of the Taliban groups in relation to Pakistan and to assess whether Pakistan is presented as a whited sepulture, undermining a binary ally vs. enemy categorization.

The paper situates its inquiry within post-9/11 information environments characterized as fifth-generation or cognitive warfare, where media act as instruments shaping public opinion and exerting agenda-setting power. Prior research notes US media’s alignment with foreign policy narratives, including framing of WMDs in Iraq and dehumanization of enemy actors. Drawing on Said’s Orientalism, the study highlights how Western media construct the 'other' to justify imperial policies, linking politics, culture, and media in processes of otherization. Cultural criminology perspectives emphasize dehumanizing language that strips enemy actors of individuality and rights. The paper notes that definitions of 'enemy' are contingent on state interests; media in different countries (e.g., India’s coverage of the 2021 Taliban rule; Pakistani media’s alignment with national foreign policy) frame the Taliban in line with national agendas. Against this backdrop, the study examines whether US media portrayals of the Taliban—and Pakistan’s relationship to them—align with US foreign policy and contribute to binary or non-binary depictions of ally vs. enemy.

Design and source selection: The study adopts a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Time magazine, chosen for its global reach and more deliberative, analytical format compared to daily newspapers. Time has a center-left leaning. The dataset comprises 509 Pakistan-related articles published from 2001 to 2010.

Analytic framework: Analysis proceeds on three levels restricted to contexts where Taliban* occurs within a Pakistani scenario.

1. Time-specific pattern: Absolute yearly frequencies of the node Taliban* (all derivations) in Pakistan-related contexts were computed and plotted.
2. Collocation analysis: Two statistical measures were used without limiting to the Pakistan-only context to identify the broader association structure of Taliban*: t-test (window L5–R5, t ≥ 3, frequency ≥ 9) for statistical significance; and MI² (threshold MI² ≥ 9, frequency ≥ 9) for strength of association. Tools used: Wordsmith (Concordance) and Graph Coll.
3. Semantic categorization: Collocates of Taliban* in Pakistan-related contexts were manually grouped into semantic categories. Function words were excluded. Categorization draws on Huff and Kertzer (2018) and CDA strategies (van Dijk’s ideological square; Reisigl and Wodak’s nomination and predication). Two category frameworks were applied:

• Category A (collocates representing Taliban/supporting actors/activities): Identity; Tactics/Strategies (violent and non-violent); Targets/Victims/Goals; Areas; Supporters (including nature of support: financial, training/protection, emotional, connections/alliances); Time.
• Category B (collocates representing actors working against Taliban or against each other on Taliban-related issues): Identity; Tactics/Strategies/Activities (violent and non-violent); Victims; Areas; Timing. For polyfunctional items (e.g., “Afghanistan” as identity marker, action location, or hideout), concordance lines were expanded to assign context-specific roles. Quantitative outputs (absolute token frequencies by category) were visualized via histograms, and qualitative close reading contextualized patterns with historical/political background.

Supplementary procedures: Qualitative analysis involved expanding concordances for contextual interpretation, noting salient silences/omissions and discourse strategies (e.g., dehumanization).

• Temporal salience: Taliban* appeared 106 times in Pakistan-related contexts across 2001–2010. Peaks occurred in 2001 (22 instances) and 2009 (22), with a trough at 2005 (0). After a decline from 2001 to 2005, mentions rose through 2009. The early peak aligns with the US invasion of Afghanistan and Taliban government overthrow; the later rise corresponds to intensified violence in Pakistan (e.g., post-2007 Lal Masjid crisis and subsequent operations).
• Significant and strong collocations: t-test results (selected content words) show al-Qaeda (t=10.4), Afghanistan (t=8.8), fighters (t=8.4), forces (t=7.1), U.S (t=7.2), Pakistan (t=6.4) significantly associated with Taliban*. MI² results indicate strong associations with mullah (MI²=13.4), fighters (13.0), al-Qaeda (12.2), Afghanistan (11.1), and Pakistan (9.2), with Pakistan showing a stronger MI² association than the U.S (9.2 vs 9.2, comparable; Pakistan explicitly highlighted as more strongly connected in this dataset). Nomenclature such as fighters/militants/forces reflects semantic variance and ambiguity.
• Ambiguous nomenclature and identity layering: Media usage alternates among Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban (e.g., TTP), and often employs Taliban without consistent identity markers, obscuring whether Afghan or Pakistani factions are referenced. Pakistani and other foreign nationalities are sometimes enumerated as Taliban members. Titles like ambassador/spokesman/agriculture minister indicate Afghan Taliban governance roles; however, Time generally avoids conferring official titles, using leader/commander instead, aligning with US distancing from recognition.
• Pakistan–Taliban linkage: Semantic categories highlight Pakistan recurrently as supporter/sanctuary: links, ties, indulgent/paternal framing; support/backing; funding/sponsorship; training/protection; presence of safe havens/hideouts/bases in Pakistan (e.g., Quetta, border areas, Northwest, Swat). Simultaneously, Pakistan (military/intelligence) is depicted arresting, deporting, advancing on strongholds, and conducting operations (e.g., Wana, Swat, South Waziristan), and is itself a prime target of Taliban violence.
• Dehumanization strategies: Terms like creeping, flow, infiltrates are used in describing “Talibanization,” contributing to de-individualization and moral disengagement typical of enemy framing.
• Silences regarding US role: Coverage does not link Afghan Taliban emergence to alleged US/CIA support for Mujahideen in the 1980s–90s, maintaining US foreign policy distance from Taliban origins.
• Targets, tactics, and goals: Pakistani Taliban are associated with violent attacks and assaults (e.g., coordinated assault on the US consulate in Peshawar, 2010). Primary targets include Pakistani military/intelligence, civilians, and high-profile kidnappings (e.g., Daniel Pearl). Goals include prisoner releases and leverage against state actors.
• Non-binary portrayal of Pakistan: The corpus frames Pakistan simultaneously as ally (frontline partner in War on Terror) and as alleged supporter/sanctuary provider for Taliban-linked groups; yet Pakistan is also a frequent victim/target. This duality undermines a strict ally vs. enemy binary and mirrors US policy debates over whether Pakistan was doing “enough.”
• Media emphasis patterns: Labeling/identity categories are prominent, followed by Supporters and Tactics/Strategies. Pakistani costs (civilian/military casualties and economic impacts) receive little attention despite extensive domestic tolls from terrorism and counterinsurgency.

The study set out to examine how US media link Pakistan to the Taliban post-9/11 and whether Pakistan is framed as a whited sepulture that defies an ally/enemy binary. The temporal patterning and collocational evidence show sustained and significant association of Taliban with al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, with Pakistan emerging as a strong and recurrent co-text. Semantic categorization clarifies that Time’s coverage simultaneously depicts Pakistan as sanctuary/supporter (funding, training/protection, safe havens, emotional/paternal metaphors) and as an actor combating the Taliban (arrests, deportations, military offensives) while also being a primary target of Taliban violence. This dual portrayal directly addresses the research question: Pakistan is framed as playing a double game, complicating simplistic binaries.

Furthermore, the use of dehumanizing descriptors and the omission of US/CIA involvement in Taliban origins suggest alignment with US foreign policy narratives and broader cognitive warfare dynamics, where media framing shapes public understanding of enemy actors and proxies. The findings are significant for media, security, and policy studies: they evidence how discourse constructs complex actor identities, normalizes certain policy stances (e.g., pressure on Pakistan to act against sanctuaries), and obscures inconvenient histories. By surfacing ambiguity in labels (Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban/TTP) and demonstrating how these labels are unevenly applied, the analysis shows how opacity in nomenclature can sustain particular policy framings and public perceptions.

The paper offers a corpus-assisted CDA of Time magazine’s 2001–2010 coverage linking Pakistan and Taliban groups. It contributes empirical evidence on temporal salience, statistically significant and strong collocations, and a detailed semantic categorization that reveals ambiguous nomenclature, dehumanizing frames, and a dual portrayal of Pakistan as both supporter/sanctuary and adversary/victim. It also identifies silences concerning the US role in Taliban origins and limited attention to Pakistan’s human and economic costs. Explicit future research directions are not stated in the article.