Lt. Gen (R) Amjad Shoaib's first interview after FIA 'interrogation'

[truthseeker2010]

Not the elite.

Every entity, be it political or dictatorship, has tried to create a system to keep itself in power. Take PPP for example. They are governing Sindh. They have a support system in villages and rural areas. PTI has almost the same in KPK. PMLN has entrenched its tentacles in Punjab. In comparison, military is everywhere, not just one part. A dictator can thus have access everywhere in Pakistan. He automatically becomes stronger than other parties, not just through men with guns but through a system which is already in place. There are differences however like a dictator leaves and a new COAS takes over, who may or may not have political ambitions, where as a political party like PPP, PTI etc will always have political ambitions as that’s the reason of their creation.

As for nuclear assets, they are secure through another system in place. This is one example of mistrust between political system and military.

Now why would you think that military made a system (not just nuclear safety, but overall) for itself ?

So from army is right to being dictator is everywhere.
What you are basically saying is that there is divide and rule for civilians but the dictator is the unifying force. I agree with the first part but disagree on the latter since the "dictator" or army leadership can no longer bring together the people. Had this been the case b****** bajwa had imposed the martial law and become the "messiah" for the public like past coas who became dictators. Instead ISPR sided with the undemocratically elected civil gov and than started justifying it.

 

[villageidiot]

Now why would you think that military made a system (not just nuclear safety, but overall) for itself ?

Self interest and self-preservation? Like you just mentioned?
Or is it for the greater good of Pakistan should the parties prove inadequate?

 

[Signalian]

Self interest and self-preservation? Like you just mentioned?
Or is it for the greater good of Pakistan should the parties prove inadequate?

I cant say for sure. Maybe political instability, fragile nature of parliament, senate, judiciary, law etc

 

[PakCan]

I cant say for sure. Maybe political instability, fragile nature of parliament, senate, judiciary, law etc

And how did we get there? They could have intervened by forcing the courts to do the right thing. They could have provided proof to the courts and made sure criminals were prosecuted.

But they chose to create a parallel government.

If I am loyal to my country, I make sure criminals are prosecuted. I don’t create MQM and TLP to play dirty politics. (NOTE to everyone- I am not questioning loyalty of soldiers here, I am questioning generals who start chasing $)

 

[Signalian]

They could have intervened by forcing the courts to do the right thing.

Intervention.

The halal intervention and the haram intervention. After all, its intervention, which is sometimes dictatorship too.

 

[PakCan]

Intervention.

The halal intervention and the haram intervention. After all, its intervention, which is sometimes dictatorship too.

They could have done it in a halal way and public would have forgiven them.

Started in 1958 and still ongoing. Haram is more lucrative, every intervention happened out of ego and not to safeguard Pakistan. Musharraf could have prosecuted all corrupt politicians and allowed new blood to take charge. What did he do? Gave NRO and became part of the same corrupt system.

What did Bajwa do? Allowed all the corrupt politicians to come in power. Look at the first thing they did, changed laws to help themselves. Pakistan is headed towards a disaster and generals refuse to make a u-turn because their ego is bigger than Pakistan.

Or you going to claim Bajwa is not behind this and has no power to do anything.

 

[Acetic Acid]

Or is it for the greater good of Pakistan should the parties prove inadequate?

Political parties aren't inadequate so we're here for greater good
This chooran have sold so many times that it didn't work this time.

All he's trying to say that over the years system have been this way and people had no problem so keep it this way
If military is toppling governments and bribing or threading politicians to change sides then it's fault of those greedy politicians

Another thing that Political parties have support in base in just certain provinces while military have all over then military should form a party and contest election they'll get to know the reality.
Only 1 COAS in our history contested election without his uniform and he lost badly; 1988 Tikka khan

 

[Signalian]

They could have done it in a halal way and public would have forgiven them.

Started in 1958 and still ongoing. Haram is more lucrative, every intervention happened out of ego and not to safeguard Pakistan. Musharraf could have prosecuted all corrupt politicians and allowed new blood to take charge. What did he do? Gave NRO and became part of the same corrupt system.

What did Bajwa do? Allowed all the corrupt politicians to come in power. Look at the first thing they did, changed laws to help themselves. Pakistan is headed towards a disaster and generals refuse to make a u-turn because their ego is bigger than Pakistan.

Or you going to claim Bajwa is not behind this and has no power to do anything.

I think intervention shouldn't occur at all, it has chances to lead to dictatorship. But besides that, military has made a system of its own. It seems Pakistan may fail, military system might not. In any case, this system lifts Pakistan when required. Currently in floods. Usually in providing jobs. One more thing that was seen in past for retired officers or soldiers to be able to get jobs. Military catered for them once again.

As for political instability, military intervention is not a good option. The political system should be strengthened on its own. So should law, judiciary, police and other departments. Military has played its part, both positive (e.g. training cops) and negative (e.g. dictatorship).

 

[PakCan]

I think intervention shouldn't occur at all, it has chances to lead to dictatorship. But besides that, military has made a system of its own. It seems Pakistan may fail, military system might not. In any case, this system lifts Pakistan when required. Currently in floods. Usually in providing jobs. One more thing that was seen in past for retired officers or soldiers to be able to get jobs. Military catered for them once again.

That right there is the biggest problem. What you think is army’s strength is actually a weakness. Pakistan future must be linked with Pakistan military. Pakistan economy must be Pakistan Army’s economic strength. What Army has done is create a separate system which gives them a false sense of security. When you have a system on merit , army doesn’t have to worry about its retired soldiers getting jobs. Pakistan is in this mess because democratic system was never allowed to mature, blame goes on politicians and army.

As for political instability, military intervention is not a good option. The political system should be strengthened on its own. So should law, judiciary, police and other departments. Military has played its part, both positive (e.g. training cops) and negative (e.g. dictatorship).

I 100% agree with you, no intervention at all, but we are way past that now. Interventions have created a mess that needs to be cleaned. They can clean this by insuring 100% clean elections.

We need our army and our generals have to stop making the same mistakes. Army cannot run a parallel system and it must do a self evaluation. I am not a blind khan follower but I believe he makes us go in a right direction. Once the garbage has been cleansed, it will give hope to the people that change is possible. New voices will rise and new faces will emerge. Khan has no family in politics, after him people will be forced to evaluate new leaders.

They have intervened for 70years, that’s why I say yes to one last intervention by allowing free and fair elections.

 

[villageidiot]

Maybe political instability, fragile nature of parliament, senate, judiciary, law etc

So the greater good of the country it is. It's a safe guard against the aforementioned evils.

In that case, would the establishment prefer that all this responsibility of the country on their shoulders be shifted to the relevant shoulders. That would require them to slowly give away power and build institutional capacity and foster strong patriotic civilian leadership Or, is it that civilians are in inherently greedy and corrupt, not because of lack of institutional oversight, just something that's inherent in them.

Have they ever tried such an endeavor in the history of Pakistan?

What Army has done is create a separate system which gives them a false sense of security. When you have a system on merit , army doesn’t have to worry about its retired soldiers getting jobs.

Bang on. Sir, I could kiss you right now. I've rarely seen so much truth in so little words. It's the state within a state, elite capture, the works, and the clinging on to the status quo and consequently punishing anyone who threatens it that's keeping us down.

I 100% agree with you, no intervention at all, but we are way past that now. Interventions have created a mess that needs to be cleaned. They can clean this by insuring 100% clean elections.

that’s why I say yes to one last intervention by allowing free and fair elections.

We are at a precipice. We finally have a chance to get rid of all (or most) the rot in the system with free and fair election and the only stumbling block is the establishment. They don't even need to intervene per say. Just back away from supporting the corrupt bastards.

 

[villageidiot]

Intervention.

The halal intervention and the haram intervention. After all, its intervention, which is sometimes dictatorship too.

So, you're saying it's either wholesale intervention or staying neutral?

Political parties aren't inadequate so we're here for greater good
This chooran have sold so many times that it didn't work this time.

All he's trying to say that over the years system have been this way and people had no problem so keep it this way
If military is toppling governments and bribing or threading politicians to change sides then it's fault of those greedy politicians

Another thing that Political parties have support in base in just certain provinces while military have all over then military should form a party and contest election they'll get to know the reality.
Only 1 COAS in our history contested election without his uniform and he lost badly; 1988 Tikka khan

I know, bro. Just trying to see how long he can maintain this faulty argument.

 

[SabzShaheen]

I think intervention shouldn't occur at all, it has chances to lead to dictatorship. But besides that, military has made a system of its own. It seems Pakistan may fail, military system might not. In any case, this system lifts Pakistan when required. Currently in floods. Usually in providing jobs. One more thing that was seen in past for retired officers or soldiers to be able to get jobs. Military catered for them once again.

As for political instability, military intervention is not a good option. The political system should be strengthened on its own. So should law, judiciary, police and other departments. Military has played its part, both positive (e.g. training cops) and negative (e.g. dictatorship).

All of the benefits without any accountability. A two-tier hierarchical society with the martial class sustaining their own society and leeching off the ordinary civilian peasant. Sure, it lifts the country from above the bare minimum threshold of total collapse but the nation itself may rot and stink and drown.

Destroy the system and start again, oh Islami Jumhuriyah.

 

[Signalian]

So, you're saying it's either wholesale intervention or staying neutral?

Neutral is quite recent. Past intervention hasn't been helpful.

I know, bro. Just trying to see how long he can maintain this faulty argument.

If you are referring to me here, I never took it as a competition, rather a progression. I can stop here voluntarily, if it is irking you incessantly.

PS: Real life isn't what you visualize and/or demand here on PDF. Its much more complex.

 

[villageidiot]

Neutral is quite recent. Past intervention hasn't been helpful.

That's a good trend. I certainly hope they can progress from neutral to good intervention in the future.

If you are referring to me here, I never took it as a competition, rather a progression.

I was indeed referring to you here, sir. However these is nothing insidious in that or I wouldn't have posted that comment. I was thinking of it as a mild form of debate rather. Not a competition at all. I didn't join PDF for that kind of thing. I don't find it conducive for the purpose.

I have been lurking on this forum since early 2018 and have developed an admiration for certain members, esp. the die hard military supporters (I used to be one of them). My list includes you, which is why it was even more shocking to see this line of argument. Kinda like seeing your heroes fall. It's the worst feeling. But, I suppose we'll have to used to that. A lot of idols were broken these last few months.

I can stop here voluntarily, if it is irking you incessantly.

Not at all, sir. Why would it irk me when I am engaging voluntarily in the discussion? Besides, who am I to stop you from sharing your opinion. it's a free country, ain't it?


Back to my point, I was hoping to see what's the logical end to this argument that since the military is all powerful and stable (for what it's worth), it should remain so at the cost of the rest of the country and it's institutions.

PS: Real life isn't what you visualize and/or demand here on PDF. Its much more complex.

I am sure you are right but if there is some hidden message or symbolism in these words, I'll admit I didn't get it.