I've been researching historical situations that could be useful analogies to Pakistan's predicament. An interesting one is the American Civil War.
In my analysis of the ACW, social pressures coupled with restrictions on free speech and fear of economic stagnation resulted in an upward spiral of competitive militancy among Southern politicians that eventually split the South from the North. The South was eventually defeated, but why was there no guerrilla war afterwards?
Well, the answer is that there was. President Lincoln was shot by a terrorist in the last days of the war. While the Confederate armies surrendered and most of the officers and men returned to their homes to resume normal economic life under the generous surrender terms, some did not, both out of conviction and from foreign support.
Less than six weeks after the Confederate surrender, Major-General Sheridan was at the Mexican border, for the Confederacy had been receiving arms from the French-supported Austrian "Mexican emperor" Maximilian. Sheridan had to discourage the wavering, insincere ex-Confederate Texan and Louisianan soldiers and prevent the efforts of the French to covertly supply them with weapons meant to reignite the rebellion. While Sheridan was forbidden to cross into Mexico in force, secretly he supplied the Mexican republicans with arms. This had the effect of driving the French troops of Emperor Napoleon III out of the country. For Sheridan, the "war of rebellion" truly ended in 1870, when Prussian troops compelled his shadow enemy Napoleon III to surrender at Sedan - an event Sheridan witnessed in person as a military observer in the Prussian Army, representing the U.S.
However, ending foreign support was only part of the story - the most minor part. Other Union generals, specifically Major-General Sherman, foresaw that some of the old Confederate military leaders did not care about danger or cost to the population and might continue a guerilla. (Sherman was especially worried because before the Civil War most Northern politicians deliberately blinded themselves to the possibility of an armed conflict with the South.) One of those Sherman had in mind, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, established the Ku Kux Klan, an organization that terrorized blacks and infiltrated law enforcement in the South. In such an environment, capital investment was very limited, thus the areas where the KKK was strongest lagged behind the rest of the country economically as a result.
The influence of the KKK was very great, probably peaking in the 1930s. What happened to destroy the KKK network, then?
First, a growing revulsion of the KKK, both its goals and methods.
Second, active cultural push-back to undermine the KKK. Some white citizens gathered courage enough not just to vocally denounce the KKK but bodily protect prominent Negroes from harm.
Third, the KKK was then infiltrated and many of its secrets exposed and it was presented to the public as an enemy of freedom, rather than a protector of white citizenry. It was not the government that began this.
It was Hollywood.
Finally, the growing civil rights movement and the court decisions of the 1950s and laws of the 1960s motivated the federal and state governments to investigate the KKK, reduce its influence, and convict its criminal elements in the courts. While the KKK organization remains today, its influence seems just about nil. There hasn't been an incident of mass white supremacist terror for over twenty years, and that was undertaken by an individual, not an organization.
So it seems unlikely to me that concentrating on RAW's influence, real or imagined, is going to be the decisive factor here. You have the advantage of knowing what happened to the U.S. and how it was dealt with. So with motivation and gumption you may be able to defeat in a few years what took American a century to accomplish. Good luck to you!
Sarcasm
