What's new

Restructuring the ISI

monitor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,570
Reaction score
7
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Restructuring the ISI

By Shaukat Qadir

I find it essential to begin with a response to a controversy generated by my previous article discussing an extension for the current ISI chief. I did not, at any stage, imply that a serving or retired general must head the ISI. In fact, far from it; I emphasised that most three-star officers took over as novices, to hand over to novices, and so on; pointing out that this is an assignment for a special breed of person. My issue was merely with the duration of the assignment of the ISI chief, whoever he/she might be.


First of all, the ISI has no business being called by that acronym. It never was intended to be, nor is, an organisation for the ‘inter services’. Constitutionally, it functions for and under the chief executive of the country. Perhaps the name was chosen due to the fact that it was initially staffed primarily by personnel drawn from the three military services, but the very name provides the first erroneous impression and, inevitably, leads to the erroneous conclusion that it functions under GHQ/JSHQ; this impression is compounded by the fact that it is invariably headed by a serving three-star officer and, all its divisions, by two-star officers. It should, at the earliest, be given another title, for example, National Intelligence Organisation, CIA or whatever.

Secondly, as I have pointed out, the intelligence business is a very special one, requiring special characteristics. There is little doubt that many serving/retired military personnel do possess the required characteristics, however, I am equally certain that there are many civilians who will also fill the bill; in fact, I could name a few bureaucrats and diplomats who would have been better utilised in intelligence rather than the assignments they held.

For a couple of decades now, the army inducts qualified volunteers into the intelligence corps and, whatever their initial affiliation, they spend their remaining service exclusively in intelligence. These are an invaluable asset and must continue to form the hard core of any premier intelligence agency, alongside their civilian counterparts, who are also selected for their special characteristics and qualifications.

Over the period of time and, particularly in the last 10 years or so, an increasing number of young, intelligent, and gifted civilians have been enrolled in intelligence organisations, including the ISI, but I would like to see them increase in numbers purely on merit. What is more, I am of the conviction that those who rise to command the divisions of the ISI should be elevated from this hard core.

Unquestionably, those selected by the three services to head these divisions are intelligent, aspiring officers who perform commendably, within their limitations! Once again, these limitations are an outcome of their background experience and limited tenure. All serving military officers aspire to command; units, brigades, divisions and corps. Their tenure with the ISI is a stepping stone to that end.

The CIA might not be the best intelligence organisation in the world, but it will suffice as an example. Its director is a political appointee chosen for his qualifications for the said assignment. Presently, General Petraeus is being considered for this assignment after he retires. Despite the prestige and extended tenure that goes with this assignment, several US newspapers reported that Petraeus was “disappointed” since he was “hoping to take over from Admiral Mike Mullen as CJCS”. If Petraeus is selected for this assignment, he won’t be the first ex-soldier to have become director CIA, but he will replace a civilian, and not the first one. In fact, George H W Bush (the senior one; the one who did have some intellect!) served as director CIA many years ago, before becoming the forty-first president of the US!

However, the two deputy directors of the CIA — who look after plans and operations — are hardcore professionals, usually with a lifetime in intelligence (though they have frequently served some time in any of the numerous other intelligence agencies in the US). They can only aspire to a possible political selection as director CIA or post-retirement re-employment heading CIA or another intelligence agency. They are not amateurs, however gifted or intelligent, who serve two- to three-year terms, as a stepping stone in the career of their choice!

Although I have never served, even for a day, in any intelligence organisation, I have lots of friends and students who have, and they were at the highest level. Let me state unequivocally that most of them were ideally suited to commanding the ISI division assigned to them, though there were a fair number who were highly unsuited as well. However, my point is that those suited to their respective assignments should have continued in those assignments. It would be only fair that they be suitably compensated monetarily, and by way of perquisites (perks), but their services must be fully utilised IF they are suitable for the job and they MUST serve long enough to contribute meaningfully.

Intelligence has always been the forward-most line of defence of any nation. In today’s modern world, with increasingly complicated and threatening issues surfacing, it is increasing in importance every day. Rightly or wrongly, intelligence organisations in general, and the ISI in particular, are considered responsible for all our problems and yet, when it is suggested that the incompetence, if incompetence there is, is due to a systemic flaw, we do not seem willing to correct it.

The problem is not of extensions but of tenure. The problem is not just the acronym, ISI, or what it stands for, but the implications that accompany this title. The problem is not in any lack of ‘intelligence’ amongst senior representatives of the ISI, but of sustained experience and continuity which, when coupled with intelligence and swift responses (which figure prominently in the characteristics of intelligence officers of decision-making seniority), provides the ingenuity and instinct that is the flash of genius among high-ranking intelligence officers.

We cannot improve upon our politicians; let us, at least, improve on those who provide them critical input for decision-making!

Published in The Express Tribune, April 14th, 2011.
 
The only thing which need to change is the Political Wing within the ISI needs to be dismantled and the ISI to concentrate not just on the REAL enemy India in India but also within the region and actively undermine it is every possible way..........a similar way the Indian RAW is doing, and those Indians who will undoubtedly say they dont, then need to consider dismantling the RAW altogether as no intelligence agency would not do the same.....Our ISI needs to be allowed to be much more pro-active in its projects........
 
ISI needs to do more and be more active then to be reactive over their counter part
 
As an American across the pond reading this article my reaction is that India is not the enemy and this premise warps and has misapplied resources of the ISI to end up with ISI connections into Taliban cells used to murder and create mayhem in Kashmir.

India is rather a working model of democracy while Pakistan, while a less diverse nation vs. India (which has a huge Muslim population), has a great need for (my view of course) secularism vs. religiosity.

Separation of religion from the nation in Pakistan was moderately possible under Jinnah but not ever since Jinnah.

These few remarks are from fellow who while in his early 20s was a junior USAF officer attached to the Paksitan CIA in country Team Chief, as the Liaison Officer for the former USAF communicaitons intelligence base at Badabur, suburban Peshawar. We also were involved with supporing (I was not a pilot) the operation of the USAF gratis, totally free, on loan to the PAF for joint intel missions, the RB-57F (two such) aerial intelligence program.
 
As an American across the pond reading this article my reaction is that India is not the enemy and this premise warps and has misapplied resources of the ISI to end up with ISI connections into Taliban cells used to murder and create mayhem in Kashmir.

India is rather a working model of democracy while Pakistan, while a less diverse nation vs. India (which has a huge Muslim population), has a great need for (my view of course) secularism vs. religiosity.

Separation of religion from the nation in Pakistan was moderately possible under Jinnah but not ever since Jinnah.

These few remarks are from fellow who while in his early 20s was a junior USAF officer attached to the Paksitan CIA in country Team Chief, as the Liaison Officer for the former USAF communicaitons intelligence base at Badabur, suburban Peshawar. We also were involved with supporing (I was not a pilot) the operation of the USAF gratis, totally free, on loan to the PAF for joint intel missions, the RB-57F (two such) aerial intelligence program.

There are no taliban cells in Kashmir. Please provide proof of such claim.
 
This is just as usual american claim watching media and beleving on it.....I worked 5 years with Americans and as far their General Knowledge about world is almost null....they don't know anything about world except America....even they don't know the names of famous countries of the world....Mostly peoples just beleive what media says....and these days media is well maupalted in the hands of CIA....You can take examples of recently someone post the videos on these forums that Facebooks is part of CIA.
 
This is just as usual american claim watching media and beleving on it.....I worked 5 years with Americans and as far their General Knowledge about world is almost null....they don't know anything about world except America....even they don't know the names of famous countries of the world....Mostly peoples just beleive what media says....and these days media is well maupalted in the hands of CIA....You can take examples of recently someone post the videos on these forums that Facebooks is part of CIA.

That statement holds true, but with some qualifications.
If your colleagues were taxi-drivers, hamburger-flippers, barmen, restaurant waiters, gas-pumpmen, roustabouts, rodeo hands, construction workers and such like; undoubtedly it could be true.
But if you worked with qualified professionals like bankers, engineers, doctors, scientists, academics an the kind; then it will be untrue. It all depends on which strata of American Society you were part of.
My colleagues seem to be different, hence I experienced differently.
 
i am still trying to understand if the writer's emphasis was over appointing a civilian to head the ISI, or did he suggest that a uniformed dude who had served inside the organization since his inception thus making him experienced in the field of intelligence, should do the honors?
 
As an American across the pond reading this article my reaction is that India is not the enemy and this premise warps and has misapplied resources of the ISI to end up with ISI connections into Taliban cells used to murder and create mayhem in Kashmir.
You reaction is based on an incorrect understanding of the facts and situation then - the Taliban do not operate in Disputed Kashmir as a movement or organized group, and there is no credible evidence till date suggesting that they have sponsored/promoted/set up cells in Disputed Kashmir.

If anything, the Pakistani Taliban and associated groups have been involved in carrying out terrorist attacks (suicide bombings typically) against Pakistani forces and interests in Pakistan Administered Kashmir.

India is rather a working model of democracy while Pakistan, while a less diverse nation vs. India (which has a huge Muslim population), has a great need for (my view of course) secularism vs. religiosity.
Whether a nation is a 'working model of democracy' or not has little to do with whether the policies pursued by its government are ethical, moral or legal under international law. The US itself is a good example for why your implication is incorrect - the US intervened illegally and through violent (terrorist) proxies (militias, dictators) in several nations around the world to promote regimes that it viewed as friendly to it and anti-communist. The interventions in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Iran etc., that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and massive oppression at the hands of US backed regimes, is testament to the fact that democracy has nothing to do with foreign policy choices, especially covert ones.

In the case of India - Indian support for terrorist proxies and militias to enable 'regime changes' is also well documented in its interventions in the Pakistani territories of Junagadh, East Pakistan and Baluchistan. It supported violent warlords in Afghanistan to promote its own interests against those of Pakistan, and it founded and for a while supported the worlds deadliest terrorist movement, the LTTE in Sri Lanka - all while it was a 'democratic nation'.

Separation of religion from the nation in Pakistan was moderately possible under Jinnah but not ever since Jinnah.
'Separation of religion and the State' is irrelevant to the current discussion, and irrelevant in general to the discussion on terrorism and extremism - the role of religion in societies will change of its own accord as societies evolve, one way or another.
 
WRT to the article, I'll repeat the comment I posted on the Tribune site:

I believe the transfer of power and control of powerful and influential organizations such as the ISI is best handled through placing their control in bipartisan committees, which would both monitor such organizations and recommend names to the PM/President for appointment as Chiefs.

Given the political immaturity, corruption and nepotism displayed by our politicians and their use of State entities to pursue political vendettas, bipartisan parliamentary commissions are the best way forward to assure all stake holders – governing party, opposition and military – that these sensitive organizations will not be destroyed through politicization, as have other state entities such as law enforcement agencies, PIA, Pakistan Steel and Pakistan Railways. In the past, the higher judiciary was also largely politicized and used to victimize the opposition and opponents of the incumbent rulers, while overlooking all manner of crimes and violations of the law by the incumbent government and its supporters.

It is only recently that, with the Justice Chaudhry Supreme Court, that we have seen the judiciary act fairly and attempt to hold the elected government responsible for violations of the law. However, even now the judiciary is handicapped in that the 'prosecution and law enforcement' that are supposed to make a case against acts violating the law, are controlled by the incumbent government, which means that the prosecution and investigation agencies either refuse to comply with SC judgements/orders, or deliberately present weak cases.

A process similar to the recently implemented Supreme Court judge appointment panel in parliament should also be followed in appointment of the services chiefs and heads of the various Federal and Provincial intelligence and law enforcement agencies (FIA, IB etc.), to make them truly autonomous and free of political interference by one part or another.

The Army will likely not object much if such a fair and neutral process to appoint competent and neutral individuals to sensitive agencies was implemented, and agencies such as the ISI were not put under the control of political lackeys such as Rehman Malik and ruined through the induction of thousands of incompetent 'jiyalas' or other party workers.
 
ISI will "de-structre " you before you "restructure it" - it works really fine as it is , no need to put it under the magnifying glass.
 
WRT to the article, I'll repeat the comment I posted on the Tribune site:

I believe the transfer of power and control of powerful and influential organizations such as the ISI is best handled through placing their control in bipartisan committees, which would both monitor such organizations and recommend names to the PM/President for appointment as Chiefs.
i agree.

But do you want the ISI to be headed by a civilian or fauji?

i think the DG should be anyone from the tri services but the JS HQ should be the one that should forward the name(s) of potential DGs, may be in the form of a panel of 3 to 5 Lt Gens/Vice Adm/Air Vice Marshals and then the appointment should be finalized by the head of state/leader of the house etc. Better, if this is done by parliament(ary) (committee).

The Army will likely not object much if such a fair and neutral process to appoint competent and neutral individuals to sensitive agencies was implemented, and agencies such as the ISI were not put under the control of political lackeys such as Rehman Malik and ruined through the induction of thousands of incompetent 'jiyalas' or other party workers.
An absolute civilian control over an agency like ISI can turn into a dooms day scenario. At best someone from the bureaucracy may be suitable for this job, but then his lack of experience in the field of intelligence would be a problem. Also, the way i have seen our bureaucracy working, i doubt they would be able to deliver.
 
I don't think any restructuring is required and especially not in the form of adding more civilians. Army (I mean all three services) is the only organization in Pakistan that is well trained, where rules, regulations and procedures are implemented and followed and where secrecy and confidentiality has some meaning. I remember some years ago there were talks of giving the ISI under the control of interior ministry by the govt. which was strongly rejected by the Army. I remember talking to someone who said that the information received and carried by the ISI is sometimes so sensitive that it is for eyes of Chief of Army Staff only and involving civilians would mean opening up the most crucial secrets of Pakistan. ISI is best left under the control of the services.
 
I don't think any restructuring is required and especially not in the form of adding more civilians. Army (I mean all three services) is the only organization in Pakistan that is well trained, where rules, regulations and procedures are implemented and followed and where secrecy and confidentiality has some meaning. I remember some years ago there were talks of giving the ISI under the control of interior ministry by the govt. which was strongly rejected by the Army. I remember talking to someone who said that the information received and carried by the ISI is sometimes so sensitive that it is for eyes of Chief of Army Staff only and involving civilians would mean opening up the most crucial secrets of Pakistan. ISI is best left under the control of the services.

I agree with the part for not handing over the Institute to the ministries but that doesnt mean that it shouldnt allow talented civilians on board, if ones sole purpose is to serve in intelligence, does that mean one must join PA/ PN /PAF/ FIA / Police........and who said that civilians can't follow the orders or keep the secrecy, thats a totaly wrong implications, you just need to find the right people for the job,
care to explain how other intelligence agencies around the world recruit their agents? , not everyone was recruited from army
 
^^ The ISI has more civilians then it has uniformed personnel.
 
Back
Top Bottom