The Image of Pakistan Army Fast Getting Restored

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Gen. Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani move to bring Army back from civilian institutions and be neutral during the elections boosted the Army image first.

 

[Xeric]

Did you even read my post in which context I am replying to him? When did I say or suggest that 'senior' has to get promotion no matter what?

Ok wait, let me re-check the definitions of the following two words:

Supersede and
Revolt.

(they might have changed in definition when i was away to Mars.....)

No sir the definition is still the same, so i suggest that you re-read my post and chill.

 

[qsaark]

Ok wait, let me re-check the definitions of the following two words:

Supersede and
Revolt.

(they might have changed in definition when i was away to Mars.....)

No sir the definition is still the same, so i suggest that you re-read my post and chill.

Maybe you re-check the following post to which I was replying. You may want to pay some extra attention to the sentence in bold.

Originally Posted by taimikhan
Army would have accepted the decision, but they did remember what nawaz did with COAS Jehangir Karamat, who had resigned in a peaceful way. And the main reason army reacted was u dont put one of your own yaar as COAS by superseding other senior ones.

Instead of educating me, you might as well correct him (Taimkhan) that Army did not stage a coup against democratically elected PM because he had appointed General Ziauddin Butt who happened to be a Junior to Musharraf but for other (though only Musharraf and God know exactly) reasons.

 

[TaimiKhan]

AoA,

Let me clarify the context in which i said the superseding thing. If you guys look at the sentence clearly, i used the word yaar, meaning a friend. Being from the army background i am am very well aware superseding is very common in armed forces and coups dont happen due to this. Musharaf was made COAS by superseding Gen Ali Kuli Khan.

What i meant was u dont make a friend as COAS by superseding many other professional generals.

Pak has a history of COAS superseding senior generals, Zia came over 7 senior most generals and made COAS.

Gen Butt was a friend of Nawaz, who was made DG ISI on nawaz request, thats why nawaz superseded so many generals. He was selected not on the basis of professionalism nor he has any to lead such an army.

So i do hope i have the made my context clear.

Just imagine being a general, having spent your life to reach the top, made so many scarifies, did a number of courses in house and abroad and gotten top grades, seen the deserts, dry mountains, cold and heights of siachen, and in then end having been superseded by some engineer on the basis of some yaari, i guess u would have been pissed too.

 

[TaimiKhan]

And most important of all, if you look at last nawaz govt, he had been running pakistan not democratically, rather as an autocratic country or as an oligarchy, which i guess all our politicians do. Army was and has been the only institution which has tried to be independent, thats why whenever a politician has brought a COAS of his own, that COAS has revolted as they know survival of Pak is very much dependent on them as these politicians will do anything to keep in power and if army comes in their hand, they will destroy anyone who oppses them just as dictators, emperor, kings do.

 

[TaimiKhan]

History is full of such governments, states and still there are many.

And its a request to all of you to post comments by giving it a proper thought, dont be on an extreme, have a open mind and give a thought to every issue as things have many angles to look at.

 

[TaimiKhan]

In my teens, i also used to like nawaz and had many favorite politicians. Nawaz, imran khan, mushy uncle ji etc. But when u see problems from different angles, then you would realize that reality is something else, and ur views about life and issues change. Now i hate all these politicians. In my view right now in Pak there is not a single politician or party who wana work for pakistan, everyone has its own agenda.

Sorry for having said that but its the truth.

Army is not perfect, has many drawbacks, but atleast they r better then all of these politicians. Politicians only take bad decisions, only think about themselves. Army atleast take good decisions for pakistan and its people including bad ones.

Well, i would end here as this is a very very long long discussion and such conversations are useful when people who talk about it are knowledgeable & like to consider different opinions and welcome criticism and after looking at the facts make their mind, instead of being just passionate and blame army or a single party without looking at facts.

If someone didn't liked whatever i said am sorry and positive criticism is welcomed.

AH

 

[qsaark]

Gen Butt was a friend of Nawaz, who was made DG ISI on nawaz request, thats why nawaz superseded so many generals. He was selected not on the basis of professionalism nor he has any to lead such an army.

So i do hope i have the made my context clear.

Are you not forgetting that it was the same Nawaz Sharif who appointed Perwaiz Musharraf who superseded Ali Quli Khan? Why do you think he preferred to appoint Perwaiz Musharraf over Ali Quli Khan? Because Army chiefs in Pakistan have always been selected more for political reliability than for professional competence. Your theory of ‘yaars’ or ‘buddy’ also does not hold much water because the first Pakistani C-in-C, General Ayub was selected only because he was a buddy of General Iskander Mirza (than Secretary of Defense) who used his influence for Ayub’s appointment as C-in-C while ignoring General M.A. Khan and Gen N.A.M. Raza. Next comes General Musa Khan who superseded General Sher Ali Khan and Gen Latif Khan. Why this happened? Not because Musa was professionally better than his seniors, but because Ayub did not consider him a threat for his rule. Musa was followed by General Yahya Khan who superseded General Altaf Qadir and General Bakhtiar Rana. Was Yahya any better than his seniors professionally (forget about he was a hardcore drinker and womanizer)? Why did this happen? Only because he was hand picked by General Ayub for personal reasons. And the list goes on and on and on.

 

[blain2]

as long as army is doing the job its suppose to do and stay in their barracks yes nothin stoping army to restore its image .... ! day is near when pak have an army as to army having pakistan ..

O yaar, khuda ka wasta, stop cycling this same old bogus statement of Army having Pakistan and this or that. I have yet to argue with a single person who has been able to credibly convince me that it is indeed this case. It is nothing but a slogan of the politicians who have been shut out of politics and have been unable to get the routine going, which is to eat up what they can after spending a little from their pockets to get elected.

If you really want to argue with me, put some facts in front of me about how the Army owns the country. And by all means bring your quotes from "Military Inc."

You do nothing but a disservice to this country of yours by putting down your own Army on baseless claims.

 

[MastanKhan]

Taimikhan,

First of all---welcome aboard----secondly---please don't be apologetic for what you write and don't worry about the positive or negative criticism---as you have made the choice to put your thoughts over here---let the responders do so as they comprhend---positive or negative.

One more time---you are a welcome addition to the board for the time being---

 

[blain2]

Are you not forgetting that it was the same Nawaz Sharif who appointed Perwaiz Musharraf who superseded Ali Quli Khan? Why do you think he preferred to appoint Perwaiz Musharraf over Ali Quli Khan? Because Army chiefs in Pakistan have always been selected more for political reliability than for professional competence. Your theory of ‘yaars’ or ‘buddy’ also does not hold much water because the first Pakistani C-in-C, General Ayub was selected only because he was a buddy of General Iskander Mirza (than Secretary of Defense) who used his influence for Ayub’s appointment as C-in-C while ignoring General M.A. Khan and Gen N.A.M. Raza. Next comes General Musa Khan who superseded General Sher Ali Khan and Gen Latif Khan. Why this happened? Not because Musa was professionally better than his seniors, but because Ayub did not consider him a threat for his rule. Musa was followed by General Yahya Khan who superseded General Altaf Qadir and General Bakhtiar Rana. Was Yahya any better than his seniors professionally (forget about he was a hardcore drinker and womanizer)? Why did this happen? Only because he was hand picked by General Ayub for personal reasons. And the list goes on and on and on.

Qsaark,

Good points but why is any of the above so surprising given the fact that politicians misbehave and the Army puts them in check and based on this behavior every single politician President/PM wants his own man in the spot of the CoAS.

Based on above, there is definitely a history however one thing that I do want to point out is that compared to the past, all of the officers who make it to the running for the CoAS are much more professional than what we have seen in the past. So this performance issue that we often discuss may be there, but it is certainly not a very big factor. The most oft-quoted example is that of Gen Habibullah and Gen Musa in the past. There the two were indeed different in terms of quality. Musa was a good soldier, but Gen Habibullah was more rounded, and better educated than Musa (who grew professionally from the ranks).

The difference in the Army of the day is that there is so much going on in terms of performance evaluation throughout the careers of officers that by the time they make it to Corp Commanders, most of them have very similar resumes and pretty much all can have a fair shot at the post of CoAS. In the times of Musharraf, the issue of Ali Kuli Khan vs. Musharraf had come up. I know for a fact that both were very good officers. Lt Gen Ali Kuli Khan was always good with his performances on course and training, yet Musharraf was equally good once he got serious with his career. Going to Sandhurst is a plus, but certainly not something that you get to use for the rest of your career to get ahead.

So I guess the point I am trying to make is that yes there is always politicking going on when it comes to picking the new chief, however unlike in the past, the candidates in the running are all very close in terms of their professional performance. You have a much better pool of candidates to pick from. The case of Lt Gen Ziaduddin Butt was an anomaly because first of all he was from a non-fighting (supporting) Arm. Call it tradition or whatever else but Pakistan Army has yet to see a chief from a supporting arm. Secondly, him being the DG ISI also was considered to be an issue as it tends to get political, however Kiyani too was DG ISI, but prior to that, Gen Kiyani had all of the right appointments of DGMO, Corps Commander, VCoAS etc. which sort of took care of his being appointed DG-ISI.

The point to make is that even though Gen Kiyani was appointed by Musharraf (Who definitely had his political considerations in mind), yet his choice has been proven to be an excellent one. This to me proves that the system of evaluation and promotion up to the higher ranks works fairly well. Politics will remain a fact of life for a while, however it is reassuring to see that all of those who are being considered by the politicians for the role have been put through the thick and thin of service over their 32-34+ years in uniform before they are considered for the job of the CoAS.

 

[MastanKhan]

O yaar, khuda ka wasta, stop cycling this same old bogus statement of Army having Pakistan and this or that. I have yet to argue with a single person who has been able to credibly convince me that it is indeed this case. It is nothing but a slogan of the politicians who have been shut out of politics and have been unable to get the routine going, which is to eat up what they can after spending a little from their pockets to get elected.

If you really want to argue with me, put some facts in front of me about how the Army owns the country. And by all means bring your quotes from "Military Inc."

You do nothing but a disservice to this country of yours by putting down your own Army on baseless claims.

Hi Blain,

Somebody has to run pakistan----what difference would it make to a poor soul---if it is run by the army or the civilians---people want democracy---people want justice---people want freedom of speech and movement---people want a better life---.

Pakistanis at this stage would care less---if you put a Dog as the president / prime minister of pakistan and he / she gave the people the above items---.

It is a prpaganda by politicians that any form of democracy---let me restate it---even the worst form of democracy is better than millitary rule---those fools have their heads stuck up where there is no light.

The only form of democracy that is acceptable is the one which provides rights to the majority---.

I wish pakistanis stand up and transcend the boundary line of family, caste, language barriers and provicialism when the nation needs them---.

If Shahbaz Sharif would have accepted Mushharaf offer of pm ship---and if he would have sacrificed his self and family loyalty for pakistan and stepped upto the plate---pakistan would have been in a different position today and Musharraf had been long gone.

The army inc is the best possible example available to the civilians as to how to run a successful corporation in a positive and in a profitable manner. It is one of the best profitable organization run anywhere in the world for the benefits of the soldiers---retired or otherwise---.

The problem with the civilians is that they shamelessly, do not want to raise their work standards and provide the workers with better resource and oppurtunity---they donot want to participate in the welbeing of the community---their factories are massive polluters of chemicals and other stuff---their working conditions are way below mediocre---in order to get the attention away from the real problems----they bring out this army inc issue.

If army inc is such a good example---then they should have a civilian inc example performing as well.

 

[qsaark]

The problem with the civilians is that they shamelessly, do not want to raise their work standards and provide the workers with better resource and oppurtunity---they donot want to participate in the welbeing of the community---their factories are massive polluters of chemicals and other stuff---their working conditions are way below mediocre---in order to get the attention away from the real problems----they bring out this army inc issue.

You are generalizing and generalization is wrong. Army has ruled this country for good 31 years, what got changed? We became Singapore, or Taiwan or N-Korea or what? Show me what dictatorship has given us other than futile war of 1965, loss of our eastern arm and shameful surrender of 90 or so thousand of military and paramilitary. Drug and arms culture and extremism. Support your claims with the achievements before blaming civilians for everything. Many countries got independence around the same time or even later than Pakistan. Where are they today and where we are. Even Vietnam has better economy than we have even though it is a nation that literally rose from its ashes. Show me a country where this military Inc. model has worked.

 

[blain2]

The solution is to not blame one or the other. Both have been a reaction to the other. Military rule is used by the politicians to hide their own failures by claiming the military has destroyed all of the institutions, yet when the politicians rule, they are an abject failure due to their own petty politics.

I can tell you one thing and that is the intent on the side of the Army is usually to build the nation. The fact that Army is not suited for such a role is the reason it fails. Yet the same cannot be said of most of the politicians. They have the tools to do what they need to, yet tend to get bogged down by their own pettiness (which in most cases comes down to filling their own pockets and extending their stay).

The day the ethos of "Service to the nation" takes root in the characters of our politicians, from that day on the Army will not intervene. Another observation that I would like to bring to your attention is that over the past few occasions, the Army has taken over when the state of the country became really bad. Having been around the Army and talking to many, many officers, the feeling I get is that they feel the same way the citizens of Pakistan feel. When the perceptions about mis-governance and eroding of the spirit of Pakistan's sovereignty arise (due to economic, political, and strategic failures.) then the Army feels duty bound to step in.

The Country and the Army have yet to see a sensible and mature political leadership emerge. While it is easy to say that they have not been given a chance, in my opinion, this sensibility starts with one leader. If he is honest and thinks about service to the nation before anything else then this problem of Army needing to step in will go by the way side. The reason Army gets into this mess is because they feel that the public will support them and in the past on all such occasions the Army has been welcomed by the masses.

So its really a time for the civilian politicians to realize that dwelling on this chicken or the egg deal with regards to whose fault it really is for Pakistan's current morass does not help the situation. Pakistan is dying for lack of honest and sensible leadership. Had Musharraf been a civilian, Pakistan may have had some of that. However much more of it and uninterrupted is what is needed.

 

[qsaark]

Blain, I hate the blame game. But I have to say that Army always came in the name of good governance, but did they really deliver what they had promised? As MK has said, I myself really don’t care who is running the government, but than I want to see the result. Yes, you are right that the Military Dictators were generally welcomed, but what about when they left? Their departure was as much or even more welcomed by the masses. Why? Because the Generals failed to deliver, just like the politicians before them. If the system can not be altered or improved, what is the need of disturbing it?

You say that Army stepped in when the situation was bad. How bad? Who has the definition of ‘bad situation’? Was the country under attack and the political leadership failed to cope with the situation? Or was there a mutiny that civilians were unable to control? How bad was the situation when Ayub took over the command from Iskander Mirza? How bad was the situation when Yahya literally inherited from Ayub? How bad was the situation when Zia took over the charge just before the politicians had reached to a truce? How can we defend the action of Zia when he sent Junejo government home? And more recently, when Musharraf sent NS home?