Irony and paradox

[Patriot]

The only role of a military is to defend its nation from the outside threat. Since for Pakistan Military it has been changed altogether, for now they are doing what Police and para-military are trained for, teaching politics to the officers can also be made part of their curriculum.

In fact I would propose to send PA officers on deputation to Sehala for some Police training, to the Civil Services Academy for some civil bureaucratic training and for politics, well you need no training or perhaps Politicians can be invited to PMA for training the young cadets. Oh, I forgot, Musharraf and Hameed Gul are still alive, they should be hired for training the prospective cadets in PMA on how to hire people like Sharif uddin Peerzada to mutilate the constitution, how to erect pro-dictatorship political parties from nowhere, how to impose emergency to depose the CJ, and how to fire PMs in a row.

Ratus Ratus, would you mind giving the same adivce to your Military?

Giving Political Advise does not mean you have to plan a coup.For Example in US Top Generals give advice to Mr President but it's upto President to listen to the advice.

 

[qsaark]

What is being suggested here is the reflection of an extremely confused mindset and reflection of pathetic superiority complex. For good 40 or so years, the Military has ruled this miserable country directly or in-directly. There is no one area where we can claim we have improved under the military rule. Yet, it is being constantly argued that Military rule is better. We let the good half of the country goes, but we refused to let go the military rule. Now surely we'll loose the rest of the half but we'll not let go this false misconception that military rule is better. The whole damn world is saying democracy is the way to go, we say, no you are wrong, military is the way to go. OK, we’ll see how far the remaining Pakistan will go under these delusional beliefs.

 

[qsaark]

Giving Political Advise does not mean you have to plan a coup.For Example in US Top Generals give advice to Mr President but it's upto President to listen to the advice.

Yes but in US (and other civilized nations), the Governments are not over thrown for not listening to the 'advice' of the Generals, in Pakistan, it happens.

 

[SSGPA1]

Will we have ‘true’ parliamentary democracy? Or will we return to a variant of the Turkish or Musharraf model? Then there is the high possibility of us succumbing to a variant of the Iranian democratic model based on theological despotism. Given our collective schizophrenia, who can say with any confidence where we are headed. Hazarding a guess, I think there is a fair chance (though it will be a close run affair) that we will muddle along with our current democratic experiment

People in Sindh and NWFP vote pretty much the same way, result in Balochistan has also been consistent for the last two elections. I can't say the same about Punjab ... I am not a Punjabi and my comments are w/o any bias.

Any mood swing in Punjab means that Prov/Fed govt is in trouble ... First Punjab welcomed Bhutto then Punjab wlecomed Zia and stood quietly at the murder of Bhutto ... then Punjab vote swung between NS and BB for few elections ... Then Punjab welcomed Musharraf ... Last electsions Punjab splict its vote between NS and BB ... Punjabi vote means half of Pakistan .... this half need to be consistent and patient ...

Voters in Punjab need to look beyond banners and see the long term benefits of any policy.

 

[Bane Blade]

Essentially you are advocating a bureaucracy led (strongly advised) rule - in this case Army being the best qualified bureaucrats.

Most people who are pro-democracy would say that opinions should be formed by the people through democracy and that bureaucrats/executive should "implement" them. You seem to have reversed the positions. In that view, Army/executive does not question the orders it is given, but nevertheless has a strong role in how it is implemented.

I won't say what you are saying is wrong, but it is certainly different from democracy practiced in many countries. Whatever works for you, I guess.

I am pro democracy and guess what by some luck even an OCdt. in the British Army and a temporary member of PML(N) funny isn't it?

I think that a strong beurocratic setup needs to be bought in but it is going to be tough for my country to vote them in to power untill they don't get properly educated, future officers are always taught to be good leaders for the men they lead and that is why I think their needs to be similar training for everyone not exactly constriction style but I suggest that it is kept seperate from the actuall army but be called in as a last line of defence. One of the very prominent members of my party, he has also been president, named Shahbaz Sharif is a good administrator his party has been voted to power many times and during his administration people have been forced to work hard and he has set an example himself too. However I have a strong belief that apart from some Generals that have disobeyed the chain of Command that we have always been told to follow.

Any time the Army comes to power we do a lasting damage to ourself and for some reason army gets a lot of support which is a wrong thing, to be a better country everyone needs to be involved in its politics with more zest and zeal I think that PML(N) are not the solution but the first steps to the solution and if their will be another party out their who I feel can bring change I will certainly support it. That is the way we need to move forwards I wouldn't hazard saying that to me an uneducated man is just as much as a very well trained pet he or she can easily be manipulated. Poor need to be educated that in my opinion is the only way forward.

 

[niaz]

Main role of the army to defend threats from without in only part of it. Traditional role of the army thru out history has been to safeguard the “State”. Be it from outside or inside.

Historically most states survived only as long as they had strong army. Roman state was in fact built on the strength or the army. Unites States of today is result of successful military operation against the Southern States. A similar case in point was Nigeria where the oil rich south lost out to poor but numerically superior North.

In my opinion, Army/military is the main tool available with any state for the exercise of physical power. Whenever the existence of the state is threatened whether from internal and external enemies, army has to be called in to ensure survival of the state.

Pakistan’s case is no different. We lost East Pakistan because for whatever reasons. Pakistan Army failed to come up trumps. It is incorrect to assume that we lost it because we did not agree to make Mujib ur Rahman Prime Minister of Pakistan. Mujib Ur Rahman won on his 6 point agenda. Acceptance this agenda meant creation of two states in all but name. Had Mujib been made PM, there would have been a Damocles sword hanging on Pakistan’ neck in perpetuity!

Bing less crafty than Mujib; Sufi Mohammed has been forthright in declaring his agenda. What else was there for GOP to do after the dialogue process (including the acceptance of separate judicial system) had failed to create peace? Without suggesting that we should go ahead and kill all who oppose the gov’t; what do you think will happens if PA fails to deliver the task given to it by GOP which is establishing the writ of the state in Swat and FATA?

Problem arises when PA leadership in their role as ultimate guardians of the state view politicians as a bunch of corrupt nincompoops (with some justification) and engineer take over of the gov’t at every opportunity. IMO to overcome this
problem we are left with only two choices:

Either follow Turkish example and give constitutional power to the Army to topple the elected gov’t and hold new elections within 90 days anytime army think state is in peril, or cut the Army down to size so that it is no longer powerful enough to take over.

To achieve second goal Pakistan will have to resolve her difference with India by what ever means possible. Once perceived threat from India disappears, there would be no need for such a large and powerful leviathan.

 

[Contrarian]

Either follow Turkish example and give constitutional power to the Army to topple the elected gov’t and hold new elections within 90 days anytime army think state is in peril, or cut the Army down to size so that it is no longer powerful enough to take over.

To achieve second goal Pakistan will have to resolve her difference with India by what ever means possible. Once perceived threat from India disappears, there would be no need for such a large and powerful leviathan.

That would not be possible as the Pakistani Army has an interest in keeping India hostile. It is also the sole guardian of the foreign policy with India. India justifies or personifies the need for the existence of Pakistani Army. A rapproachment with India would ultimately lead to the populace asking uncomfortable questions to the Army about their size, their funding, among numerous other things. This opinion has been well espoused by many writers as well.

Oh and i donot for an instance suggest India is an angel. By all means, India is and also has been hostile. But there is no institutional objection for India to open up with Pakistan. In Pakistan, the largest, most powerful, most efficient and well organized institution is the Pakistani Army. The Indian Army gets no say in issues of State. So basically its upto the politicians on this side.

 

[qsaark]

That would not be possible as the Pakistani Army has an interest in keeping India hostile. It is also the sole guardian of the foreign policy with India. India justifies or personifies the need for the existence of Pakistani Army. A rapproachment with India would ultimately lead to the populace asking uncomfortable questions to the Army about their size, their funding, among numerous other things. This opinion has been well espoused by many writers as well.

Malaymishra, I second with every word of yours. Our Army derives its strength from some of the unfortunate decisions of the India. If India starts behaving more maturely, I guess Pakistan Army will gradually but surely loose its grip on Pakistan Government. Will it ever happen, I do not know.

 

[Zob]

i agree with what you said MALAY however the Indian drama in late DECEMBER...has given renewed support to the claims by our MILITARY that INDIA indeed is our enemy and we cannot reduce our deterrence in terms of military strength…the Indian drama couldn’t have come at a better time for our military…just when support for the military was at its lowest due to MUSHARRAF….

i am sorry as long as INDIA remains a threat army will be able to excercise its power as it wills...

 

[Patriot]

The Kashmir issue is the main problem however a strong Army is required (I mean Millitrily not government type) otherwise Pakistan will have to act like India's Sattelite state.I think we should have a strong Army something along the lines of Turkey Army.

 

[qsaark]

The Kashmir issue is the main problem however a strong Army is required (I mean Millitrily not government type) otherwise Pakistan will have to act like India's Sattelite state.I think we should have a strong Army something along the lines of Turkey Army.

Kashmir is no longer an issue Saad, we have lost Kashmir. Accept this as a reality! Sooner we acccept this, better it would be for us. Kashmir is a issue for the politicians who score points and a issue for the Army who's existance (in current numbers) depends on Kashmir issue. Fact of the matter is, neither with force nor with diplomacy can we win Kashmir period. If something happens, it will happen from within Kashmir and if an when it happens, they would need no support from our Military.

In your own reply, you have said that we need strong military otherwise Pakistan will act like India's satellite state. And you are right, Kashmir resolved or not, Military will always find excuses for its existance in current number.

Now having said all that, I AM IN THE FAVOUR OF HAVING A POTENT FORCE for the defense of our country.

 

[Contrarian]

Our Army derives its strength from some of the unfortunate decisions of the India. If India starts behaving more maturely, I guess Pakistan Army will gradually but surely loose its grip on Pakistan Government. Will it ever happen, I do not know.

I have to disagree with you here. It is not just India which has been responsible for the current state of relations with Pakistan. Its Pakistan equally if not more-in my eyes.

However, that is not relevant. Blame and counter blames are the easiest to do.

 

[qsaark]

I have to disagree with you here. It is not just India which has been responsible for the current state of relations with Pakistan. Its Pakistan equally if not more-in my eyes.

However, that is not relevant. Blame and counter blames are the easiest to do.

I never said it was only India who was responsible. Both the countries have their fair share in this dirty game.

 

[Contrarian]

Kashmir is no longer an issue Saad, we have lost Kashmir. Accept this as a reality! Sooner we acccept this, better it would be for us. Kashmir is a issue for the politicians who score points and a issue for the Army who's existance (in current numbers) depends on Kashmir issue. Fact of the matter is, neither with force nor with diplomacy can we win Kashmir period. If something happens, it will happen from within Kashmir and if an when it happens, they would need no support from our Military.

I completely agree on this one. Many Pakistani's however disagree with this line of thinking. There is no practical way that Pakistani Army would be able to take Kashmir from India. The time when war was an option is long gone. Pakistan cannot militarily intervene and take Kashmir. Diplomatically, it is not possible either.

If fate somehow decides that Kashmir would not be with India, then it would not be Pakistani Army which would be needed for the job. Kashmir can only secede from India in a non-violent way if and when the Kashmiri's want it to happen. The Amarnath land row actually did more in making people in India question themselves about Kashmir than any proxy war ever will. And that was because all the agitations were peaceful.

Pakistan's proxy war in Kashmir has only resulted in India sending hundreds of thousands of more troops to Kashmir which has only made lives of ordinary Kashmiri's more miserable. They get caught between the militants and the security forces. So they are the loosers in every direction.

In your own reply, you have said that we need strong military otherwise Pakistan will act like India's satellite state. And you are right, Kashmir resolved or not, Military will always find excuses for its existance in current number.

I disagree, Bangladesh doesnt really have a military to challenge India, yet it is no proxy of India. It does what it wants to do and doesnt accept Indian diktats.

Military does not ensure an independent nation, its diplomacy.

Now having said all that, I AM IN THE FAVOUR OF HAVING A POTENT FORCE for the defense of our country.

Even i agree. But the question is about the extensive size of the PA were India not to be considered a threat.. Having a potent force does not mean maintaining the same force levels.

 

[qsaark]

I disagree, Bangladesh doesn’t really have a military to challenge India, yet it is no proxy of India. It does what it wants to do and doesn’t accept Indian diktats. Military does not ensure an independent nation, its diplomacy.

Pardon me for not being very clear. I meant to say that Kashmir or no Kashmir, Pakistan Army will always find excuses for its existence in current number. I did not agree with him (Saad) on 'satellite sate' thing. Even though, given the experience of smaller states such as Nepal, Bhotan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka with India, the fear is not absolutely baseless.

Even i agree. But the question is about the extensive size of the PA were India not to be considered a threat.. Having a potent force does not mean maintaining the same force levels.

Yes, by potent, I mean potent, not a large Army similar in size.