What's new

A military is only for war-Pervez Hoodboy

aryadravida

FULL MEMBER
Feb 7, 2020
569
-18
538
Country
India
Location
India
A military is only for war
Pervez HoodbhoyUpdated 10 Oct 2020
Facebook Count
Twitter Share

35
The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.

The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.
GEN Ayub Khan, president of Pakistan 1958-1969, was a simple man. His solutions to complex issues could sometimes take your breath away. On page 101 of Friends Not Masters — his autobiography written while in office — he complains that student indiscipline is rampant because “there are far too many students and not enough buildings, laboratories, and libraries”.
His suggested fix: “One instructor on a platform with a loudspeaker can take a very large body of students at one time, and just half an hour a day should build up their bodies and minds, and take the devil out of them.”
Actually, the business of purging devils is called exorcism, not education and sending PT masters to colleges or universities is absurd. But Ayub Khan’s charming modesty buys him reprieve. He readily admits that: “I was not a very bright student, nor did I find studies a particularly absorbing occupation.” In 1926, his father, a risaldar-major in the British Army, paid his fees for the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst where “life was spartan” and there was much rough and tumble among cadets. In keeping with the academy’s tradition to create a privileged officer class, he was duly assigned a British soldier as orderly.
Ayub’s cockeyed views on education owes to Sandhurst where physical drill and discipline came first and foremost. This would ensure that “the cadet has a graceful carriage, stands easy and erect, and shows by his bearing that he is manly and self-reliant. Mr Molesworth, an English authority, has said: The contrast between Hyperion and a Satyr is scarcely more striking than that which exists between the loutish bearing of a Lancashire lad and the firm, respectful, and self-respecting carriage of the same person after he has been disciplined and polished by the drill.”
Had Sandhurst-trained UK officers run British organisations they too might have failed like PIA, PSM, etc.
Hyperion (a deity who holds the cosmos in place) rather than Satyr (a goat-like man) was how the handsome young Ayub thought of himself. Although he never won any war, a strong self-image encouraged him into becoming the world’s first self-declared field marshal. It also gave him sufficient confidence to launch the coup of 1958, dismiss president Iskander Mirza from office, and spend the next decade steering the country. While these were years of extraordinary movement, they were not always in the right direction.
Ayub firmly hitched Pakistan to the American wagon and, flush with American weapons, launched Operation Gibraltar. This started the 1965 war but with all options gone he had to end it inconclusively. He irreversibly alienated East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In 1968, widespread agitation finally ended his so-called Decade of Development. Nevertheless Ayub Khan is popularly rated higher than the generals who succeeded him: Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq, and Pervez Musharraf.
Fortunately, British military academies have produced very few Ayub-like putschists. Certainly several British officers must have had Ayub-sized egos. Many an officer must have preened himself before a mirror and seen Hyperion there. But a military coup in the British system was and remains unthinkable. Why?
Successful societies know that those who fight wars well are not always best suited for running industries, academia, or government. Therefore British military officers, whether serving or retired, are not given preferential treatment outside of their specific skills. It is broadly realised that men in uniform can be heroic fighters in wartime but in other situations they can be just as clueless and bureaucratic as their civilian counterparts.
Imagine for a moment that the British military ran Britain or had a big hand in running it. Would British Airways survive cut-throat competition if its CEO was a retired RAF air marshal rather than some tech-savvy hi-fi business type? In working out complicated Brexit policy options, would a retired lieutenant general negotiate British interests better than a PhD in economics from Cambridge? Should the British Electricity Authority look for some distinguished electrical engineer or for a British army colonel instead? And would a Royal Navy admiral — serving or retired — be best placed to protect Britain’s interests in North Sea oil?
Fortunately for Britain, such an experiment has never been tried and military officers are not automatically made heads of organisations upon retirement. Else the result would be a graveyard of failing or flailing institutions similar to chronically sick organisations such as Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, Suparco, Wapda, PCSIR, and countless others. In these places merit is regularly superseded not just at the very top but inside departments as well.
Military mindsets undeniably contain some exceptional qualities. The testing conditions of war require that militaries develop a spectrum of capabilities stretching from command and control to logistics and materiel management. Many develop their own engineering and medical facilities that are very useful when a natural or man-made disaster strikes. In fact, most countries have legislation requiring armed forces to support civilian authorities during emergencies and war.
But what can keep a military from wandering into civilian and administrative affairs during peacetime? At the end of World War II powerful militaries in the Western world were flush with victory. Adoring publics showered rose petals upon hero generals who, at some point, could have asserted themselves and become dangerous. That is why president Harry Truman had to sack Gen Douglas MacArthur. The political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in 1957 that asserting civilian control is crucial and requires professionalising the military by setting it apart from the rest of society while teaching it to execute but not formulate policy.
Although military men in the age of electronic warfare have to be smarter and better informed than their predecessors, a graduate from some military academy is no substitute for those who have spent their careers honing specific skills in academia, industry, commerce, and a plethora of technical fields.
All Pakistani institutions are desperately short of competence and sorely need the right people in the right places. Retired officers when put at the head of organisations can make cosmetic changes and may superficially improve institutional discipline but not much else. Soldiers should stick to what they are good at and paid for — fighting wars rather than running businesses or making movies.
The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.
Published in Dawn, October 10th, 2020
 

Pakistan Space Agency

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 22, 2019
3,470
-24
5,305
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
  1. General Ayub Khan swapped Shaksgam Valley.
  2. General Yahya Khan lost half of the country in just 17-days.
  3. General Zia-ul-Haq lost Siachin Glacier.
  4. General (convicted traitor) Pervez Musharraf lost Kargil / Waziristan.
Considering the above events in the last 73-years, I am wondering whether Pakistani Army is even capable of fighting a war?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mrc

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 19, 2013
9,437
0
10,687
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
Author is a atheist Liberal fascist with gross anti Islam and anti pakistan agenda
  1. General Ayub Khan swapped Shaksgam Valley.
  2. General Yahya Khan lost a half of the country in just 17-days.
  3. General Zia-ul-Haq lost Siachin Glacier.
  4. General (convicted traitor) Pervez Musharraf lost Kargil / Waziristan.
  5. General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani allowed OBL raid.
  6. General Qamar Javed Bajwa allowed annexation of Indian Occupied Kashmir.
Considering the above events in the last 73-years, I am wondering whether Pakistani Army is even capable of fighting a war?


Why don't you make up loss of North America and kalimanjaro mountains while you are at it
 

That Guy

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 29, 2013
10,718
39
13,132
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Author is a atheist Liberal fascist with gross anti Islam and anti pakistan agenda




Why don't you make up loss of North America and kalimanjaro mountains while you are at it
Can I ask you something? Did you read the article?
 

313ghazi

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 14, 2017
7,622
35
14,714
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
His general point is right buys he's full of sh1t.

Britains Brexit negotiator is part of the Aristocracy. He's a baron and has a degree in history and French.

The head of Biritsh Airways is a Spaniard with a degree in business.

He's making up lies to fit his narrative - standard practise for Pakistan hating Hood Boi
 

mikkix

SENIOR MEMBER
May 7, 2010
2,463
-3
1,098
Country
Pakistan
Location
Japan
  1. General Ayub Khan swapped Shaksgam Valley.
  2. General Yahya Khan lost a half of the country in just 17-days.
  3. General Zia-ul-Haq lost Siachin Glacier.
  4. General (convicted traitor) Pervez Musharraf lost Kargil / Waziristan.
  5. General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani allowed OBL raid.
  6. General Qamar Javed Bajwa allowed annexation of Indian Occupied Kashmir.
Considering the above events in the last 73-years, I am wondering whether Pakistani Army is even capable of fighting a war?
How pakistan lost kargil war?
Mamhoos shareef was PM at time of Kargil.
Shahbaz manhoos was CM when raimond davis left Pakistan.
Nawaz allowed tomahawk missiles to cross Quetta Pakistan province to kill pushtuns in Afghanistan as per Shareef. As per Shareef some missiles were blasted in Balochistan, question is how many baloch killed in that missiles in Balochistan. Shareef hijacked PIA airplane in nawabshah. Pushed plane to land in Endia.
 

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 26, 2018
5,349
20
13,107
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Our men in uniform are the best fighting men in the World, acknowledged by many globally. But this great resource has been wasted time and again by a handful of few on the top ,whose priorities lie not on the frontiers but somewhere else!!
 
Last edited:

Chakar The Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 25, 2018
4,011
0
1,911
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Ireland
I respect him for his opinion but just don't agree at all.


I believe in diversity in thought process, the fact that some one with such anti military thoughts is given space in Pakistani main stream media goes to show the tolerance that Pakistani society is slowly showing. I hope a day comes where people are allowed to express their thoughts without fear of being labelled traitor or kafir.
 

Reichsmarschall

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 16, 2016
9,537
-21
18,322
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
A military is only for war
Pervez HoodbhoyUpdated 10 Oct 2020
Facebook Count
Twitter Share

35
The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.

The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.
GEN Ayub Khan, president of Pakistan 1958-1969, was a simple man. His solutions to complex issues could sometimes take your breath away. On page 101 of Friends Not Masters — his autobiography written while in office — he complains that student indiscipline is rampant because “there are far too many students and not enough buildings, laboratories, and libraries”.
His suggested fix: “One instructor on a platform with a loudspeaker can take a very large body of students at one time, and just half an hour a day should build up their bodies and minds, and take the devil out of them.”
Actually, the business of purging devils is called exorcism, not education and sending PT masters to colleges or universities is absurd. But Ayub Khan’s charming modesty buys him reprieve. He readily admits that: “I was not a very bright student, nor did I find studies a particularly absorbing occupation.” In 1926, his father, a risaldar-major in the British Army, paid his fees for the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst where “life was spartan” and there was much rough and tumble among cadets. In keeping with the academy’s tradition to create a privileged officer class, he was duly assigned a British soldier as orderly.
Ayub’s cockeyed views on education owes to Sandhurst where physical drill and discipline came first and foremost. This would ensure that “the cadet has a graceful carriage, stands easy and erect, and shows by his bearing that he is manly and self-reliant. Mr Molesworth, an English authority, has said: The contrast between Hyperion and a Satyr is scarcely more striking than that which exists between the loutish bearing of a Lancashire lad and the firm, respectful, and self-respecting carriage of the same person after he has been disciplined and polished by the drill.”

Hyperion (a deity who holds the cosmos in place) rather than Satyr (a goat-like man) was how the handsome young Ayub thought of himself. Although he never won any war, a strong self-image encouraged him into becoming the world’s first self-declared field marshal. It also gave him sufficient confidence to launch the coup of 1958, dismiss president Iskander Mirza from office, and spend the next decade steering the country. While these were years of extraordinary movement, they were not always in the right direction.
Ayub firmly hitched Pakistan to the American wagon and, flush with American weapons, launched Operation Gibraltar. This started the 1965 war but with all options gone he had to end it inconclusively. He irreversibly alienated East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In 1968, widespread agitation finally ended his so-called Decade of Development. Nevertheless Ayub Khan is popularly rated higher than the generals who succeeded him: Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq, and Pervez Musharraf.
Fortunately, British military academies have produced very few Ayub-like putschists. Certainly several British officers must have had Ayub-sized egos. Many an officer must have preened himself before a mirror and seen Hyperion there. But a military coup in the British system was and remains unthinkable. Why?
Successful societies know that those who fight wars well are not always best suited for running industries, academia, or government. Therefore British military officers, whether serving or retired, are not given preferential treatment outside of their specific skills. It is broadly realised that men in uniform can be heroic fighters in wartime but in other situations they can be just as clueless and bureaucratic as their civilian counterparts.
Imagine for a moment that the British military ran Britain or had a big hand in running it. Would British Airways survive cut-throat competition if its CEO was a retired RAF air marshal rather than some tech-savvy hi-fi business type? In working out complicated Brexit policy options, would a retired lieutenant general negotiate British interests better than a PhD in economics from Cambridge? Should the British Electricity Authority look for some distinguished electrical engineer or for a British army colonel instead? And would a Royal Navy admiral — serving or retired — be best placed to protect Britain’s interests in North Sea oil?
Fortunately for Britain, such an experiment has never been tried and military officers are not automatically made heads of organisations upon retirement. Else the result would be a graveyard of failing or flailing institutions similar to chronically sick organisations such as Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, Suparco, Wapda, PCSIR, and countless others. In these places merit is regularly superseded not just at the very top but inside departments as well.
Military mindsets undeniably contain some exceptional qualities. The testing conditions of war require that militaries develop a spectrum of capabilities stretching from command and control to logistics and materiel management. Many develop their own engineering and medical facilities that are very useful when a natural or man-made disaster strikes. In fact, most countries have legislation requiring armed forces to support civilian authorities during emergencies and war.
But what can keep a military from wandering into civilian and administrative affairs during peacetime? At the end of World War II powerful militaries in the Western world were flush with victory. Adoring publics showered rose petals upon hero generals who, at some point, could have asserted themselves and become dangerous. That is why president Harry Truman had to sack Gen Douglas MacArthur. The political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in 1957 that asserting civilian control is crucial and requires professionalising the military by setting it apart from the rest of society while teaching it to execute but not formulate policy.
Although military men in the age of electronic warfare have to be smarter and better informed than their predecessors, a graduate from some military academy is no substitute for those who have spent their careers honing specific skills in academia, industry, commerce, and a plethora of technical fields.
All Pakistani institutions are desperately short of competence and sorely need the right people in the right places. Retired officers when put at the head of organisations can make cosmetic changes and may superficially improve institutional discipline but not much else. Soldiers should stick to what they are good at and paid for — fighting wars rather than running businesses or making movies.
The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.
Published in Dawn, October 10th, 2020
Care to explain why army officer are running brothels in India?
 

313ghazi

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 14, 2017
7,622
35
14,714
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
I respect him for his opinion but just don't agree at all.


I believe in diversity in thought process, the fact that some one with such anti military thoughts is given space in Pakistani main stream media goes to show the tolerance that Pakistani society is slowly showing. I hope a day comes where people are allowed to express their thoughts without fear of being labelled traitor or kafir.
Be honest how often is there smoke without fire? What do some people have to do for the label of treason to stick?

Freedom of speech is being abused to push the agenda of traitors today like anti semitism is being abused to push the Zionist agenda in the west.
 

Jungibaaz

RETIRED MOD
Jul 4, 2010
7,345
90
14,863
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Agree with the OP, the criticism is quite tame and specific.
  1. General Ayub Khan swapped Shaksgam Valley.
  2. General Yahya Khan lost a half of the country in just 17-days.
  3. General Zia-ul-Haq lost Siachin Glacier.
  4. General (convicted traitor) Pervez Musharraf lost Kargil / Waziristan.
  5. General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani allowed OBL raid.
  6. General Qamar Javed Bajwa allowed annexation of Indian Occupied Kashmir.
Considering the above events in the last 73-years, I am wondering whether Pakistani Army is even capable of fighting a war?
Agree on the dictators, but the army as a whole and the men in it are our pride. The latest political movements are not against the army, only against the leadership’s intervention in politics, which is both unwelcome and unconstitutional. As for the OP, it mostly talks about industry and state owned enterprises being run most efficiently by people specialised for that role rather than generic retired officers.
Author is a atheist Liberal fascist with gross anti Islam and anti pakistan agenda


Why don't you make up loss of North America and kalimanjaro mountains while you are at it
What did he say in the article that is anti-Islam or anti Pakistan? Please point it out, thanks.
 

Protest_again

SENIOR MEMBER
May 19, 2019
3,087
-37
2,096
Country
India
Location
India
Pakistan army deserves Pakistan. It is they who protects it. Any externalities it commits in the land is just a luxury they earned through their service. Its the Raja - Praja relationship. The defacto monarch of the state is the COAS. The elections and elected all have to bend before the monarchical head. Pakistan populace wants this arrangement to continue. In my opinion, great choice by the people.
 

Pakistan Space Agency

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 22, 2019
3,470
-24
5,305
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
... Shahbaz manhoos was CM when raimond davis left Pakistan [in a PAF C-130 aircraft]. ...
I am not sure if you understand the roles of President, Prime Minister, Army Chief, Air Marshall and Chief Minister.
Author is a atheist Liberal fascist with gross anti Islam and anti pakistan agenda ...
If Athiests are allowed to join Pakistan Army then I don't know what's the problem here?
... Agree on the dictators, but the army as a whole and the men in it are our pride. The latest political movements are not against the army, only against the leadership’s intervention in politics, which is both unwelcome and unconstitutional. ...
Absolutely agreed. Pakistan Army is made up of warriors. The soldiers do so much much for the country without taking much credit.

The Generals though, once they become Army Chiefs, don't know what happens to them...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikkix

SENIOR MEMBER
May 7, 2010
2,463
-3
1,098
Country
Pakistan
Location
Japan
I am not sure if you understand the roles of President, Prime Minister, Army Chief, Air Marshall and Chief Minister.
I think you do not aware of roles Kid. The so called revolutionary leader and CM can stop Military but he did not. Your revolutionary leaders sitting at the lap of military for PMship and power.
Why your leaders made Qamar Bajwa army chief?
Why your leaders retain Asim Bajwa DGispr?
Why your leaders made Asim Bajwa Liutenent General?
Why your leaders went into the courts against Memogate case?
Why your leaders took money from Osama bin laden and in Mehrangate case?
Why your leaders terminated sitting army chief when he was outside?
Why your revolutionary leader allows Raheel shareef to served in Ksa?
Where is your revolution then?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top