TaimiKhan
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,956
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Seems the new version is very much in service with the special forces.
Nops, the SSG guys are holding M-16 variant M4 carbine, these are not G-3s.
Chief of Army Staff | General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.
- Thread starter fatman17
- Start date
- Status
Nops, the SSG guys are holding M-16 variant M4 carbine, these are not G-3s.
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Icarus
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2009
- Messages
- 9,040
- Reaction score
- 78
- Country
- Location
What about this one....looks different to the others.
WTF? The Uniform is MultiCam, badges are not Pakistani, who is this guy?
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Looking at the flag, i assumed the trooper to be PA guy.
Icarus
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2009
- Messages
- 9,040
- Reaction score
- 78
- Country
- Location
Probably is but maybe he is on training role with some other military. I have seen PA guys wear Saudi and Kuwaiti Uniforms when working as instructors there. But I would like to know where this exact picture was taken........
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
Come to think of it, the commo seems to be Australian type pattern. ??
Windjammer
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,319
- Reaction score
- 181
- Country
- Location
ASUO Aizaz Khattak is currently representing Pakistan at Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australia.
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
ASUO Aizaz Khattak is currently representing Pakistan at Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australia.
Don't they use PA uniform while at a foreign country? I've seen foreign officers use their uniforms in Pakistan while in training, combat dress as well as SD.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Defining National Interest
•Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani stated in a Monday address at the Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that no individual or institution held a monopoly on determining Pakistani national interest. He explained that “we all agree that strengthening the institutions, ensuring the rule of law and working within the well defined bounds of the constitution is the right way forward. Weakening of the institutions and trying to assume more than one's due role will set us back...We should not be carried away by short term considerations which may have greater negative consequences in the future.” He also said that anyone trying to drive a wedge between the Army and Pakistani citizens was doing a disservice to the national interest, a statement that some analysts interpret as a “response to unprecedented pressure the army is facing from the government, media and judiciary.” He said that the military’s strength is dependent on public support, and any “conspiracy theories” that try to undermine public support for the military put Pakistan’s national security at risk. Additionally, he acquiesced that while many in the government administration had made mistakes in the past, the most important thing moving forward was to ensure that policies promoted Constitutional rule of law and strengthened legal institutions.[xi]
•Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani stated in a Monday address at the Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that no individual or institution held a monopoly on determining Pakistani national interest. He explained that “we all agree that strengthening the institutions, ensuring the rule of law and working within the well defined bounds of the constitution is the right way forward. Weakening of the institutions and trying to assume more than one's due role will set us back...We should not be carried away by short term considerations which may have greater negative consequences in the future.” He also said that anyone trying to drive a wedge between the Army and Pakistani citizens was doing a disservice to the national interest, a statement that some analysts interpret as a “response to unprecedented pressure the army is facing from the government, media and judiciary.” He said that the military’s strength is dependent on public support, and any “conspiracy theories” that try to undermine public support for the military put Pakistan’s national security at risk. Additionally, he acquiesced that while many in the government administration had made mistakes in the past, the most important thing moving forward was to ensure that policies promoted Constitutional rule of law and strengthened legal institutions.[xi]
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
http://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-week_view&id=2189#wv_link2189
We Are Passing Through a Defining Phase - COAS
While speaking to a group of officers at GHQ, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said, “as a nation, we are passing through a defining phase. We are critically looking at the mistakes made in the past and trying to set the course for a better future. An intense discussion and debate is natural in this process. No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest. It should emerge only through a consensus, and all Pakistanis have a right to express their opinions. The constitution provides a clear mechanism for it.
We all have a great responsibility to shoulder. We should learn from our past, try to build the present and keep our eyes set on a better future. We all agree that strengthening the institutions, ensuring the rule of law and working within the well defined bounds of the constitution is the right way forward. Weakening of the institutions and trying to assume more than one's due role will set us back. We owe it to the future of Pakistan, to lay correct foundations, today. We should not be carried away by short term considerations which may have greater negative consequences in the future.
Armed Forces draw their strength from the bedrock of the public support. National security is meaningless without it. Therefore, any effort which wittingly or unwittingly draws a wedge between the people and Armed Forces of Pakistan undermines the larger national interest. While constructive criticism is well understood, conspiracy theories based on rumours which create doubts about the very intent, are unacceptable.
The integrity and cohesion of the Armed Forces is essentially based on the trust reposed in them by the people of Pakistan. Strengthening this trust will ensure better security of the Country. Equally important is the trust between the leaders and the led of the Armed Forces. Any effort to create a distinction between the two, undermines the very basis of this concept and is not tolerated, be it Pakistan or any other country.
While individual mistakes might have been made by all of us in the Country, these should be best left to the due process of law. As we all are striving for the rule of law, the fundamental principle; that no one is guilty until proven, should not be forgotten. Let us not pre judge anyone, be it a civilian or a military person and extend it, unnecessarily, to undermine respective institutions.
All systems in Pakistan appear to be in a haste to achieve something, which can have both positive and negative implications. Let us take a pause and examine the two fundamental questions; One, are we promoting the rule of law and the Constitution? Two, are we strengthening or weakening the institutions? In the ultimate analysis, all of us would have served Pakistan better if history and our future generations judge us positively.”
--------------------------------------------------
Urdu:
We Are Passing Through a Defining Phase - COAS
While speaking to a group of officers at GHQ, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said, “as a nation, we are passing through a defining phase. We are critically looking at the mistakes made in the past and trying to set the course for a better future. An intense discussion and debate is natural in this process. No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest. It should emerge only through a consensus, and all Pakistanis have a right to express their opinions. The constitution provides a clear mechanism for it.
We all have a great responsibility to shoulder. We should learn from our past, try to build the present and keep our eyes set on a better future. We all agree that strengthening the institutions, ensuring the rule of law and working within the well defined bounds of the constitution is the right way forward. Weakening of the institutions and trying to assume more than one's due role will set us back. We owe it to the future of Pakistan, to lay correct foundations, today. We should not be carried away by short term considerations which may have greater negative consequences in the future.
Armed Forces draw their strength from the bedrock of the public support. National security is meaningless without it. Therefore, any effort which wittingly or unwittingly draws a wedge between the people and Armed Forces of Pakistan undermines the larger national interest. While constructive criticism is well understood, conspiracy theories based on rumours which create doubts about the very intent, are unacceptable.
The integrity and cohesion of the Armed Forces is essentially based on the trust reposed in them by the people of Pakistan. Strengthening this trust will ensure better security of the Country. Equally important is the trust between the leaders and the led of the Armed Forces. Any effort to create a distinction between the two, undermines the very basis of this concept and is not tolerated, be it Pakistan or any other country.
While individual mistakes might have been made by all of us in the Country, these should be best left to the due process of law. As we all are striving for the rule of law, the fundamental principle; that no one is guilty until proven, should not be forgotten. Let us not pre judge anyone, be it a civilian or a military person and extend it, unnecessarily, to undermine respective institutions.
All systems in Pakistan appear to be in a haste to achieve something, which can have both positive and negative implications. Let us take a pause and examine the two fundamental questions; One, are we promoting the rule of law and the Constitution? Two, are we strengthening or weakening the institutions? In the ultimate analysis, all of us would have served Pakistan better if history and our future generations judge us positively.”
--------------------------------------------------
Urdu:
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Continuity or change?
Babar Sattar
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Legal eye
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Why did the army chief need to issue the enigmatic statement on our state of institutional affairs with an attempt to draw some red lines for those asking awkward questions? Was he simply sharing his resolve to foster progressive change while acknowledging the past mistakes of the khakis? Was he projecting a changed khaki mindset, convinced of the need to abide by rule of law and strengthen all national institutions and not just the military as the author and preserver of national interest? Or was it a warning shot for those getting carried away with the concept of accountability of generals, a shut up call for the exuberant media and free counsel for the courts to slow things down?
The confusion in the army chiefs statement probably stems from the elements of continuity and change that coexist in the khaki mindset at the moment. The elements of change are most obvious in the concluding questions that Gen Kayani has invited us to ponder: One, are we promoting the rule of law and the constitution? And two, are we strengthening or weakening the institutions? The army chief is spot on in framing these questions. Given our history of martial laws and subversion of the constitution by army chiefs in the past, Gen Kayanis emphasis on rule of law is a breath of fresh air.
Over the last few years we have witnessed the emergence of a consensus in favour of rule of law and sanctity of the constitution. And who will dispute the need to strengthen the institutions of Pakistan? But that is not what the debate is about. It is about what actions would strengthen institutions, including the army, and who decides whether or not rule of law is being upheld. Being a bright man, General Kayani probably understands this better than most. And that is why the ISPR press release can only be rationalised or explained but not justified as a hangover of the extra-legal and political role that the khakis have played during a predominant part of our history.
The most charitable view of the army chiefs statement can be that he felt the need to reiterate his commitment to rule of law at a time when the democracy-doesnt-work-for-us voices are again itching for the intervention of saviours, while also exhibiting his esprit de corps and identifying the red lines that ought not be crossed in critiquing the generals. In other words, the army chief is acknowledging that, as a polity, Pakistan has become multi-polar with a wider distribution of power between state institutions. At the same time, he is reminding all and sundry that the army is still a locus of power and that, while incremental rebalancing of power might be acceptable, let there be no haste.
The wisdom of such counsel cannot be disputed. But the fact that a serving army chief believes he has the right and authority to manage the pace of change and do so publicly is what makes it wrong and the content of his message self-contradictory.
The army is a subset of the executive arm of the state subject to effective civilian control according to the constitution. Gen Kayani has no legal authority to determine inter-institutional boundaries or wag his finger and warn that, trying to assume more than ones due role will set us back. So why the statement was issued becomes the first gauge of the army chiefs professed allegiance to rule of law. As a public servant where does he derive the authority to pontificate about the due role and limits of constitutional institutions?
There are at least four aspects of the army chiefs statement that suggest that the pro-status quo sentiment is still potent in the khaki mindset. The statement starts out by emphasising the very agreeable and desirable truth which also multiplies by zero the rationale of all past military interventions no individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest. But, almost as if the army chief cannot help himself, he goes on to state that, any effort that wittingly or unwittingly draws a wedge between the people and the armed forces of Pakistan undermines the larger national interest.
The general asserts that, while constructive criticism is well understood, conspiracy theories based on rumors which create doubts about the very intent, are unacceptable. Would this critique of the leadership provided by General Kayani or the policies, decisions and actions of the military high command or retired generals unwittingly draw a wedge between khakis and people? Who decides what criticism is constructive and what isnt? And how will khakis exhibit unacceptability of the wrong kind of criticism? Will there be counter-arguments presented? Will critics be picked up and sorted out khaki-style?
Proceeding further in a shoot-the-messenger mode, the army chief declares that, equally important is the trust between the leader and the led of the armed forces...any effort to create a distinction between the two, undermines the very basis of this concept and is not tolerated... By identifying the leaders and the led distinctly, has the army chief contradicted the logic of his own argument? It is an acknowledged historical fact that generals have intervened in politics directly and played a role from beyond the curtain. Their actions, choices and conduct, not backed by law, have hurt this country just like the actions of individuals leading other institutions.
The other fact is that there is nothing but gratitude expressed, even by the staunchest critics of the armys role in politics, for the soldiers and officers who risk their lives to make this country safer. There is all around agreement that the army is a well-disciplined and well-oiled institution and it is in our best interest to keep it that way. But none of this undermines the fact that the power vested in generals who lead this institution comes with responsibility. As public office holders, these generals are accountable for the manner in which they discharge state power and their duties.
When called to account for their actions, whether in relation to the Abbottabad, GHQ and PNS Mehran attacks, the Asghar Khan and missing persons case or the NLC and Royal Palm inquiries, they must not hide behind morale of troops or projected division between the leaders and the led to shun accountability. President Obama fired General Stanley McChrystal (just as President Truman fired General MacArthur) during a war and no one questioned what it might do to the troops morale. So who created this us-versus-them distinction? Why should inquiry into alleged impropriety of public servants who are or have been general officers affect the morale of troops if the army is a part of the executive and subject to civilian control?
Gen Kayani is right about the undesirability of media trials. Innocent until proven guilty is a cardinal principle of law, but it must apply across the board. Did a deliberate media campaign not publicly try and convict Husain Haqqani in the Memo case not long ago? Should the presumption of innocence not benefit the missing persons? Let generals offended by media trials file defamation suits against journalists and media outlets instead of the army chief standing up for them in what will be seen as protection of holy cows. It is the facilitation of fair and transparent inquiry into allegations against generals that would exhibit the army chiefs commitment to equality and rule of law.
Let us hope that in the tug of war between proponents of status quo and those of change within the khakis the latter prevail. The leadership challenge for the army as well as all other state institutions lies not in fiercely defending their perceived turfs but in exhibiting humility in accepting criticism for past wrongs and showing courage in fostering introspection and behavioural change in the interest of a better future.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
Babar Sattar
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Legal eye
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Why did the army chief need to issue the enigmatic statement on our state of institutional affairs with an attempt to draw some red lines for those asking awkward questions? Was he simply sharing his resolve to foster progressive change while acknowledging the past mistakes of the khakis? Was he projecting a changed khaki mindset, convinced of the need to abide by rule of law and strengthen all national institutions and not just the military as the author and preserver of national interest? Or was it a warning shot for those getting carried away with the concept of accountability of generals, a shut up call for the exuberant media and free counsel for the courts to slow things down?
The confusion in the army chiefs statement probably stems from the elements of continuity and change that coexist in the khaki mindset at the moment. The elements of change are most obvious in the concluding questions that Gen Kayani has invited us to ponder: One, are we promoting the rule of law and the constitution? And two, are we strengthening or weakening the institutions? The army chief is spot on in framing these questions. Given our history of martial laws and subversion of the constitution by army chiefs in the past, Gen Kayanis emphasis on rule of law is a breath of fresh air.
Over the last few years we have witnessed the emergence of a consensus in favour of rule of law and sanctity of the constitution. And who will dispute the need to strengthen the institutions of Pakistan? But that is not what the debate is about. It is about what actions would strengthen institutions, including the army, and who decides whether or not rule of law is being upheld. Being a bright man, General Kayani probably understands this better than most. And that is why the ISPR press release can only be rationalised or explained but not justified as a hangover of the extra-legal and political role that the khakis have played during a predominant part of our history.
The most charitable view of the army chiefs statement can be that he felt the need to reiterate his commitment to rule of law at a time when the democracy-doesnt-work-for-us voices are again itching for the intervention of saviours, while also exhibiting his esprit de corps and identifying the red lines that ought not be crossed in critiquing the generals. In other words, the army chief is acknowledging that, as a polity, Pakistan has become multi-polar with a wider distribution of power between state institutions. At the same time, he is reminding all and sundry that the army is still a locus of power and that, while incremental rebalancing of power might be acceptable, let there be no haste.
The wisdom of such counsel cannot be disputed. But the fact that a serving army chief believes he has the right and authority to manage the pace of change and do so publicly is what makes it wrong and the content of his message self-contradictory.
The army is a subset of the executive arm of the state subject to effective civilian control according to the constitution. Gen Kayani has no legal authority to determine inter-institutional boundaries or wag his finger and warn that, trying to assume more than ones due role will set us back. So why the statement was issued becomes the first gauge of the army chiefs professed allegiance to rule of law. As a public servant where does he derive the authority to pontificate about the due role and limits of constitutional institutions?
There are at least four aspects of the army chiefs statement that suggest that the pro-status quo sentiment is still potent in the khaki mindset. The statement starts out by emphasising the very agreeable and desirable truth which also multiplies by zero the rationale of all past military interventions no individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest. But, almost as if the army chief cannot help himself, he goes on to state that, any effort that wittingly or unwittingly draws a wedge between the people and the armed forces of Pakistan undermines the larger national interest.
The general asserts that, while constructive criticism is well understood, conspiracy theories based on rumors which create doubts about the very intent, are unacceptable. Would this critique of the leadership provided by General Kayani or the policies, decisions and actions of the military high command or retired generals unwittingly draw a wedge between khakis and people? Who decides what criticism is constructive and what isnt? And how will khakis exhibit unacceptability of the wrong kind of criticism? Will there be counter-arguments presented? Will critics be picked up and sorted out khaki-style?
Proceeding further in a shoot-the-messenger mode, the army chief declares that, equally important is the trust between the leader and the led of the armed forces...any effort to create a distinction between the two, undermines the very basis of this concept and is not tolerated... By identifying the leaders and the led distinctly, has the army chief contradicted the logic of his own argument? It is an acknowledged historical fact that generals have intervened in politics directly and played a role from beyond the curtain. Their actions, choices and conduct, not backed by law, have hurt this country just like the actions of individuals leading other institutions.
The other fact is that there is nothing but gratitude expressed, even by the staunchest critics of the armys role in politics, for the soldiers and officers who risk their lives to make this country safer. There is all around agreement that the army is a well-disciplined and well-oiled institution and it is in our best interest to keep it that way. But none of this undermines the fact that the power vested in generals who lead this institution comes with responsibility. As public office holders, these generals are accountable for the manner in which they discharge state power and their duties.
When called to account for their actions, whether in relation to the Abbottabad, GHQ and PNS Mehran attacks, the Asghar Khan and missing persons case or the NLC and Royal Palm inquiries, they must not hide behind morale of troops or projected division between the leaders and the led to shun accountability. President Obama fired General Stanley McChrystal (just as President Truman fired General MacArthur) during a war and no one questioned what it might do to the troops morale. So who created this us-versus-them distinction? Why should inquiry into alleged impropriety of public servants who are or have been general officers affect the morale of troops if the army is a part of the executive and subject to civilian control?
Gen Kayani is right about the undesirability of media trials. Innocent until proven guilty is a cardinal principle of law, but it must apply across the board. Did a deliberate media campaign not publicly try and convict Husain Haqqani in the Memo case not long ago? Should the presumption of innocence not benefit the missing persons? Let generals offended by media trials file defamation suits against journalists and media outlets instead of the army chief standing up for them in what will be seen as protection of holy cows. It is the facilitation of fair and transparent inquiry into allegations against generals that would exhibit the army chiefs commitment to equality and rule of law.
Let us hope that in the tug of war between proponents of status quo and those of change within the khakis the latter prevail. The leadership challenge for the army as well as all other state institutions lies not in fiercely defending their perceived turfs but in exhibiting humility in accepting criticism for past wrongs and showing courage in fostering introspection and behavioural change in the interest of a better future.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
Najam Khan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 8
My only question is why this "enough is enough" now? There had been countless times in past 4-5 years when he should have stepped his foot down. Their is no doubt that he served the country in the most difficult time but it was shortcomings in his leadership/Govt and Pakistan's foreign policy that bring such problems to us.
Had Kiyani and his leadership clear about their stance on CIA operations in Pakistan,there would have been no Raymond Davis. No drone strikes (Yes, they don't come from out of the world and strike precisely. Target identification is done using GPS chips, which are thrown at designated targets by the locals(working on CIA's payroll)...everybody loves dollars.), No OBL operation, No Salala and last but not the least, not free hand to PPP govt for corruption.
All the political mess and Internal threats in the country are because of shortcomings of the people at the helm of affairs. Role of politicians since 2008 is not different that bunch of guys taking everything in their hands before jumping out from a burning boat (which is unfortunately Pakistan).
Had Kiyani and his leadership clear about their stance on CIA operations in Pakistan,there would have been no Raymond Davis. No drone strikes (Yes, they don't come from out of the world and strike precisely. Target identification is done using GPS chips, which are thrown at designated targets by the locals(working on CIA's payroll)...everybody loves dollars.), No OBL operation, No Salala and last but not the least, not free hand to PPP govt for corruption.
All the political mess and Internal threats in the country are because of shortcomings of the people at the helm of affairs. Role of politicians since 2008 is not different that bunch of guys taking everything in their hands before jumping out from a burning boat (which is unfortunately Pakistan).
- Status
Similar threads
