Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And yet continue to do so actively and on a continual basis. Why?

Let us focus on the present and future - the military has been condemned enough for its past forays into ruling the country.

Currently there is no military rule and we have an elected civilian government in charge - therefore, the onus is on these elected representatives to deliver on governance and reforms.

And yet they have done so multiple times, and keep this threat hanging like Democles' sword.

Again, in the present, how is the military, even if it is 'keeping the threat dangling like a Democles' Sword' preventing the elected representatives from governing properly and enacting reforms?

As I pointed out to Muse, since the military is not running the government currently, the blame and criticizm for failing to deliver on governance and socio-economic development lies on the elected civilian government, not the military. Criticizm of the military should remain (so long as the military does not impose military rule) in the domain the military is responsible for - the COIN campaign in FATA and Swat, training, acquisitions etc.

But not at the expense of all other crucial sectors such as education and health. TEN TIMES the budget for education and more needed? Really?

When the Taliban are blowing up schools, hospitals, bridges and roads, it is akin to putting the 'cart before the horse' by arguing that the State should not focus on building the capacity of the institutions responsible for eliminating these groups destroying the very infrastructure you wish the State to focus on.

And as I pointed out, the State can fund both the COIN/Conventional preparedness of the Military, as well as significantly enhance development funding, by enacting the tax and other institutional reforms mentioned.

I fail to understand why so many of you are so loath to see the tax base in Pakistan expanded and the loss making PSE's costing us billions of dollars a year privatized/restructured, and instead continue to carp about 'small change' (comparatively speaking) available from cutting the defence budget, which would also end up making us weaker to both internal and external threats.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Egypt, as well as your other examples, are those of "banana republics". Please read my post again: Other than banana republics like Burma, where else would the military usurp that kind of authority for itself?


Edit: "Banana republic is a pejorative term that refers to a politically unstable country dependent upon limited economic resources, and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, corrupt politico-economic plutocracy or oligarchy."

Wouldn't Turkey be an example of the military being the 'ultimate authority', at least until the Islamist parties took control?

And even when the Islamists took control, the military did not go down without a fight, making lots of noises about 'stepping in' if the Islamists 'went out of control'. IIRC, it took a lot of pressure domestically and from the EU and elsewhere, on the Turkish military, for it to remain out of the political process.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do you mean to say that is is NOT sedition for the COAS to be thinking about dismissing civilian authority? Other than banana republics like Burma, where else would the military usurp that kind of authority for itself?

Out of curiosity - when the elected political players are manipulating the courts and the 'mobs' to weaken/eliminate their political opponents 'illegally', arguments about 'constitutional behavior' on the part of any institution are pretty much pointless. If we are to talk about 'constitutional behavior', then you cannot merely expect one institution to follow the constitution perfectly, while everyone else is shredding the very same constitution to pieces for personal and political gain.

 

[VCheng]

Out of curiosity - when the elected political players are manipulating the courts and the 'mobs' to weaken/eliminate their political opponents 'illegally', arguments about 'constitutional behavior' on the part of any institution are pretty much pointless. If we are to talk about 'constitutional behavior', then you cannot merely expect one institution to follow the constitution perfectly, while everyone else is shredding the very same constitution to pieces for personal and political gain.

I will respond to your other posts as time permits, but this one deserves to be mentioned first.


I AGREE with you here. That is exactly the tragedy that perpetuates the status quo, and that is also why I feel so dejected and helpless since I do not see any impetus of meaningful change succeeding in the foreseeable future as the rest of the world passes us by.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So what's the point of engaging you further

That was precisely my question to you, since you refuse to actually address any of the arguments being made to counter the proposals made by the AVM, Niaz and yourself to 'reform and retool the military'.

What would you call your own arguments, other than 'distortion and obfuscation', when you refuse to address the arguments of the other side?

Perhaps it is a matter of 'style' - I choose to focus on the tangible, actual policies, numbers and stats, while you choose to engage in high flying ideological rhetoric about some Utopian vision of Pakistan; 'love Pakistan vs hate India', 'security state vs prosperity state' etc. - and that rhetoric, quite frankly, is just meaningless gobbeldygook to me, when not accompanied by specific policy prescriptions and discussions.

- good day and good riddance to you, Sir.

Good day indeed, though 'good riddance' is certainly not going to happen so long as you choose to avoid the issue and make flawed arguments calling for 'reforming the Fauj', when the real problems lie in the structural weaknesses in Pakistan's governance and economy: Tax reforms, restructuring the PSE's, LEA reforms etc.

 

[Xeric]

And yet continue to do so actively and on a continual basis. Why?

And yet they have done so multiple times, and keep this threat hanging like Democles' sword.

..which would be fine, except that the military actively engineers and is involved in such failures.

A general question;
If i am able to manipulate you (constantly), so would it be because i am shrewd or that you are stupid?

 

[VCheng]

A general question;
If i am able to manipulate you (constantly), so would it be because i am shrewd or that you are stupid?

Good one!

That contention would be true only if it were a level playing field. The military has, over the decades, stacked the deck to the point that the field is tilted permanently in its favor.

But, as I agreed with AM, the military CANNOT be expected to be the only one playing by the rules.

Which brings me back to why I feel dejected since I do not see how or why this situation would change.

 

[muse]

let's refrain from vague demands. It has been quite long now (starting from the discussion in TT sec) that we dont see you guys satisfied with the Fauj's performance, but still we dont see any clear demand-list from your side although you have taken help from AVMs and other 'intellectuals'. It's high time that we start talking in tangible terms. See, AM and others have been very clear when they demand something from the govt and the politicians. For instance, they ask them to reduce upon their personal expenditures, they ask them to bring the SOEs back on track, they ask them to put a stop on corruption, they ask them introduce tax reforms and so on and so forth, but we dont see you doing the same.

Is it that you deliberately want the issue to remain vague?

Xeric


There is no "demand" list because that's not what this is about - this thread is about exploring the need, if any, of the Pakistan army transitioning towards a new and improved Fauj - And so the transition is about making the fauj and leaner, meaner fighting machine, designed to hunt and kill Islamist insurgents that the genius Fauj itself manufactured.

We all agree that the government can do a much better job at managing state enterprises and collecting taxes, Etc., so we have no point of contention there - It seems you are not following that the net effect of the kinds of changes the AVM suggests is to also change the threat matrix to enable Pakistan and India to evolve normal relations.

Do you understand this? This isn't the pind brother man, where demands are to met or countered - this is a much deeper exercise but you may not realize how much you have given away by the reactionary and knee jerk positions you have offered -- all of them by the way about India -- So, really I would suggest we give up on playing the India card to justify the kind of Fauj we have created - In fact I think the notion that we can play a winning card by giving the Indian the enemy he wants (China) is a winning game for Pakistan - to allow us space to put Pakistan's economy on a more sond footing, an economy that can afford a meaner and more mobile, more technological, more lethal fighting force.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will respond to your other posts as time permits, but this one deserves to be mentioned first.

Take your time. I have to sneak in my own responses whenever time permits, and please do keep in mind that though my 'tone' may seem bellicose at times, I completely respect your right to voice your opinions and disagree.

I AGREE with you here. That is exactly the tragedy that perpetuates the status quo, and that is also why I feel so dejected and helpless since I do not see any impetus of meaningful change succeeding in the foreseeable future as the rest of the world passes us by.

And on that I agree with you, which is why, despite the PPP putting up an abysmal performance so far, I am completely against a military coup. The PPP needs to fail at the elections, and it is only such a failure that will act as a catalyst for change in the behavior of our elected politicians over time. A military coup is merely going to give the PPP a 'free pass', and blame everything on the 'establishment' for not allowing it to finish its term.

I am, however, perhaps more forgiving of the 'behind the scenes pressure' applied by the military in cases such as the restoration of the judiciary, which threatened to completely destabilize the country through a confrontation between the PPP and the opposition+media+civil society groups. I am more forgiving because our politicians are not much for respecting the constitution, and if military pressure can at least stave off some major confrontations and allow the elected governments at the Center and provinces to continue, then such a role is a positive one, at least till our elected representatives 'mature'.

 

[Xeric]

Sawal gandom jawab chana...

This aint working no more.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....the transition is about making the fauj and leaner, meaner fighting machine, ...

Sir Muse.

This is all well and good. Pray elaborate a bit (perhaps I missed that in an earlier post of yours) the following:

--How to make Pak army "lean" And "mean"

Thus some following numbers:


1. How many divisions of army would make it lean and what type of capabilities for each division would make them "mean".

2. How many tanks do we need?

3. How many trucks heavy/medium

4. How many planes if any

5. fighting/transport helicopters.

Add more if missed something.


peace.

 

[muse]

Historian

May I suggest you review the lead article in the thread? Because that's what we're supposed to be discussing not what some other people want us to

 

[FaujHistorian]

Historian

May I suggest you review the lead article in the thread? Because that's what we're supposed to be discussing not what some other people want us to

Muse Sir,

I had read that one and that's why I asked the questions from your highness.

The lead article talked about posting 2 divisions along Western borders (one each in Peshawar and Quetta). That doesn't address the assertions you are making about "lean and mean" army.

So if you truly want to have a good discussion then go beyond quoting someone else and provide your vision here.

Peace.

 

[muse]

Historian


Fortunately the thread is about the ideas presented in the lead article.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Historian


Fortunately the thread is about the ideas presented in the lead article.

Sir,

Looks like you want to play as mole in the "Whack-A-Mole" game.

It is OK if you want to have fun like that. Your choice!

The lead article is half-baked collection of terms such as "re-structuring" but there is nothing in it that addresses the questions such as:

1. How many divisions of army would make it lean and what type of capabilities for each division would make them "mean".

2. How many tanks do we need? or perhaps you want to get rid of them all.

3. How many trucks heavy/medium. Or may be you want your donkeys to be bought by the army and used?

4. How many planes if any. Planes. What planes. There is no such thing in Quran Hadees and UK.

5. fighting/transport helicopters. buy some kabooters.

6. naval assets. Had them. Got burned on the orders of Tariq.

etc.

pray Sir, quit being a mole and participate in the discussion.

Peace.