What's new

Maverick Pakistan: Army leading it to oblivion

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan

WISDOM & VALOUR - THE GENERAL'S VIEWS
Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain

The Pakistan Army continues to baffle. Known to be the power behind Pakistan's foreign and security related policies its hold is also for the purpose of perpetuating its control over Pakistan's polity and in fact almost every facet of existence of the nation.

From 1977 onwards, when General Zia ul Haq overthrew Zulfiqar Bhutto, the control of the Army has been all pervading, even as democracy prevails. It is the Pakistan Army's concept of existence that has led the government to follow the policy of proxy war against India; 'war by a thousand cuts' has been the Army's way of carrying out retribution for the loss it suffered in 1971. The opening of India's economy in 1991 almost coincided with Pakistan's launch of proxy war in J&K and beyond. Yet it was the Pakistan Army's single handed obsession which prevented Pakistan from joining in the larger game of economic cooperation and development which may have permitted it to also make strides in development as India did. A quarter of a century down the line the Pakistan Army appears to have learnt no lessons, kept its vice like grip over national policies, disallowed the natural process of cooperation to achieve economic goals and continued to play spoiler as far as relations with India are concerned. The baffling part is that it is now extending its maverick behavior beyond the realm of India, Pakistan relations. The Saudi-Iran standoff is not something from where Pakistan will appear with any cheer. In fact, more likely, it will emerge with much egg on its face.

It is surprising that General Raheel Sharif, Pakistan's strongman gave such unequivocal support to Saudi Arabia during his meeting with visiting Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman on January 12, 2016. Salman is obviously visiting Pakistan in the wake of its worsening relationship with Iran after the execution of the Saudi Shia cleric, Sheikh Nimr el Nimr a fortnight ago. It would be recalled that the minority Saudi Shia community in the oil rich eastern part of Saudi Arabia is increasingly restive after the execution and there has also been emotional outbursts in Tehran. The Grand Ayatollah Al Khamenei has even expressed his desire for retribution for the execution of Nimr el Nimr. Diplomatic relations between the two countries have also been broken off. The Saudi Defence Minister's visit is an attempt to test Pakistan's resolve to come to its assistance after the experience of the war in Yemen in which Pakistan refused to provide ground troops citing its own internal security problems. A visit by the Saudi Foreign Minister preceded Salman reinforcing the above assessment. It is reported that General Raheel Sharif while responding to the visitor stated that "…. any threat to Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity would evoke a strong response from Pakistan."



Going as far as that is fine because Saudi Arabia has indirectly bankrolled much of Pakistan's defence capability and in fact even its nuclear program in return for two things; first the cooperation to allow growth of Saudi Salafi ideology within Pakistan; and second secure an assurance of Pakistani support in the event of a major threat to its security. In the eighties through to part of the mid-nineties, Pakistan placed an infantry brigade at the disposal of the royal family for its own protection. However, at the launch of the war in Yemen in 2015 Pakistan refused to become a part of the 35 country coalition led by the Saudis leading to some tensions.

In the wake of the above background it is indeed surprising that General Raheel Sharif has chosen to use strong words in support of the Saudis including a statement which purportedly states that Pakistan would "wipe Iran off the map" ostensibly if it threatened Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons. Can Pakistan afford to make such a strong statement and if so is it at the behest of external powers or its own convictions. Pakistan has a 15 percent Shia minority which has been at the receiving end of much violence from Pakistan's Sunni radical groups, the Lashkar e Jhangvi being the leading one. Gen Sharif, in fact, was at the forefront of action against these groups and others creating mayhem in Pakistan's port city, Karachi and much of Punjab leading to the killing of the LeJ leader.

The Shia communities anywhere in the world have a natural affinity towards Iran, being persecuted minority in most Sunni dominated states. The Shias are known for their propensity towards self-sacrifice taking great motivation from the iconic battle of Karbala. If driven against the wall in Pakistan they could add another serious dimension to the already exasperating internal security situation. Iran may not have been a compulsive Pakistan supporter but it surely has never opposed Pakistan on the politico-strategic front except in the situation against the Taliban where it supported the nine party Alliance in Afghanistan. It has a border with Pakistan all along the restive Baluchistan province with some common spillover of the ethnic population. In conflicts with India it is known to have sided with Pakistan although not passionately. Gen Raheel has to realize that Iran has great potential to create problems for Pakistan both in Baluchistan and on the sectarian front. Pakistan should well understand its vulnerability given the fact that without any such intent on the part of Iran, it (Pakistan) is already in the throes of a strangulating internal security situation. On the other flank exists India which too has held back and never exploited Pakistan's fault lines amidst many demands that it should pay back Pakistan for all the mischief that the latter has sponsored in India's J&K and elsewhere in the country.

Pakistan's military leadership, both serving and veteran, has a serious problem with motor mouths. At the drop of a hat Parvez Musharaf reminds India about nuclear weapons as if a nuclear asymmetry exists in the subcontinent. Their latest charade is the supposed newly acquired capability of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) which they mention often, dropping the term at will to send home some kind of a message to India's leadership. Iran is not exactly bereft of nuclear weapon capability. In the world of international military posturing latent and undercover nuclear capability must be taken for granted. India did that right through the eighties and most of the nineties in relation to Pakistan. To be flanked by a declared nuclear weapon state on one side and a potentially nuclear capable undercover nuclear state on the other isn't exactly a good idea if you have bad relations with both. I would have given General Raheel Sharif much more competence than he has displayed through his indiscrete statement. He belies his strategic background of having been a member of the Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) program which always lays emphasis on security, stability and prosperity as its doctrine.

Perhaps it was a mis-reportage in which case it will be denied soon. Be it as it may, the salvo has been fired and it won't do much to keep Pakistan out of the growing Iran-Saudi standoff, a situation in which it had the potential of playing a far more positive role. Probably, its a long aspired dream of being the flag bearer of the Islamic world would have received an impetus if it was seen to be neutral. That was expected after the very bold stance taken during the Saudi led alliance's launch of war in Yemen against Houthis who are purportedly supported by Iran. In a stroke General Sharif has lost that advantage and got Pakistan unnecessarily involved in an emerging situation in which it cannot come out the winner.

Is this combined US-Saudi pressure which is manifesting? Unlikely, because the US itself is drawing towards rapprochement with Iran, after the Nuclear Deal. It is also seen to be distancing itself from Saudi Arabia and keeping a neutral stance. The Russians who are seen to be getting closer to Pakistan aren't going to be too happy with threats to its ally, Iran. The Russia-Iran equation appears to be playing its role in stabilizing the Middle East in as much as the control over Daesh is concerned.

This is Pakistan's peculiar problem; running foreign policy both from Islamabad and Rawalpindi. It has its fallout on the other flank too where the peace process with India would have acquired maturing proportions but for Rawalpindi's hesitation to allow it to run the course. The Pakistan Army, perceived as villain of the peace, needs a course correction in the ham handed way it is running the affairs of the state. It can only take Pakistan down the path to the oblivion that awaits it. The more its leadership talks of its nuclear weapons as weapons of war fighting the more will it misread the opportunities that wait, on both flanks

Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain's Blog : Maverick Pakistan: Army leading it to oblivion
 
. .
I think the author of the article is taking it to the extreme. I have no idea about the end result for the article.

Pakistan said this " Any threat to Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity will evoke a strong response from Islamabad, Pakistani army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif "

They clearly mentioned territorial integrity, they did not mention that we are gonna jump into this proxy war between them. Even when they announced that we are becoming a part of the 34 nation alliance, it was mentioned that we will not support any initiative which is against Syria or Iran.

So we all know Iran can not threaten Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity, thus till that happens we can't come head to head with Iran nor there is any need to nuke it which the author is trying to imply.

And before lecturing us on issuing statements about nukes, it would be wise that he looks at their own statements in this regard.
 
.
Spot on! Pakistan has got itself stuck between a rock and a hard place in its pursuit of its long aspired dream of being the flag bearer of the Islamic world by trying to broker 'peace' between the Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. The gulf is too wide to bridge and the twain shall never meet.

The Sharifs would have done well to have stayed out of this mess. As to why the PA has to get involved in what is purely a politico-diplomatic standoff, best left to the respective governments to sort out, is ridiculous to say the least.
 
Last edited:
.
Without attributing any credible crime list to Saudi Arabia the writer has out rightly made it look the evil of the two, in the context of Pakistan, ignoring Iran's international reputation as well as Iran's reasonable crime list.

Moreover, if read in light of latest updates and efforts from PA and GoP, the writer's myopia becomes more pronounced. The Sharifs in power have decided to visit both Iran and KSA for playing a role of mediator as opposed to the writer's view of siding with KSA and declaring a war on Iran
 
.
The AUTHOR is clearly pro Iranian by what one understands from his article and the way he says if Pakistan gives statement in any manner in favour of Saudia Arabia so he is making Iran a threat for itself and Pakistan will not bear any good consequences for it as Russia is already an ally of Iran and America tilting towards Iran by making it sanction free and going away from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan cannot have problem with two nations both who are Nuclear power (Iran,India)
. Iran is not exactly bereft of nuclear weapon capability
and
In the world of international military posturing latent and undercover nuclear capability must be taken for granted. India did that right through the eighties and most of the nineties in relation to Pakistan. To be flanked by a declared nuclear weapon state on one side and a potentially nuclear capable undercover nuclear state on the other isn't exactly a good idea if you have bad relations with both.

1. The reality is America has it's own global strategy and aims and Iran has it's own at few points both differ(Israel) due to which America for some time can have good reations with Iran but not in the long run and will remove Iran when again he will find it of no use to him

2. Russia has no allies it deals only on the basis of National interest and anywhere where there is some national interest to Russia he is a ally of his and Iran is not that much dear to Russia or important that it will put pressure or boss us to make changes in our foreign policies in regards of Iran

3. Regarding this Nuclear war thing that one country is nuclear declared state and other has the capability but not declared and it will be messy for us if we have problem with both well we already have a problem with India and if you are added in that list doesn't matter because once a nuclear is fired it won't be two or three will be enough to totally annihilate all of us so if we will go you will also go


Note: Iran is in no position to dictate any of it's policy to Pakistan on it's own or through anyone else. Pakistan shall do whatever it desires to do rather Iran should concentrate on making good relations with Pakistan than to threaten it or have any problems with it



@Horus @Xeric What do you people say on it
 
.
I think the author of the article is taking it to the extreme. I have no idea about the end result for the article.

Pakistan said this " Any threat to Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity will evoke a strong response from Islamabad, Pakistani army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif "

They clearly mentioned territorial integrity, they did not mention that we are gonna jump into this proxy war between them. Even when they announced that we are becoming a part of the 34 nation alliance, it was mentioned that we will not support any initiative which is against Syria or Iran.

So we all know Iran can not threaten Saudi Arabia's territorial integrity, thus till that happens we can't come head to head with Iran nor there is any need to nuke it which the author is trying to imply.

And before lecturing us on issuing statements about nukes, it would be wise that he looks at their own statements in this regard.

So if its not near future and author has taken it far then Gen Shareef must be calling a bluff..or so it looks like.
 
.
So if its not near future and author has taken it far then Gen Shareef must be calling a bluff..or so it looks like.

Its not a bluff, its a clear message to all, that we will not indulge in your proxy wars, but if anyone threatened the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia, meaning if someone tried to invade Saudi Arabia, then we will have to come to the saudis aid.

And we know Iran for now and in future(looking at present capabilities) can not directly invade Saudi Arabia due to geographical & regional constraints. And for now the possible enemy is Houtis from Yemen or ISIS from Iraq, but they are long away from invading Saudi Arabia. And i think Saudis should be prepared to atleast take on Houtis & ISIS on its own. They have the man power and no other Muslim country has better equipment then them for that & they have access to more equipment whenever required.
 
.
Its not a bluff, its a clear message to all, that we will not indulge in your proxy wars, but if anyone threatened the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia, meaning if someone tried to invade Saudi Arabia, then we will have to come to the saudis aid.

And we know Iran for now and in future(looking at present capabilities) can not directly invade Saudi Arabia due to geographical & regional constraints. And for now the possible enemy is Houtis from Yemen or ISIS from Iraq, but they are long away from invading Saudi Arabia. And i think Saudis should be prepared to atleast take on Houtis & ISIS on its own. They have the man power and no other Muslim country has better equipment then them for that & they have access to more equipment whenever required.

Not going to real terms of war, which means battle where armed forces are involved. but It does look like a war that is active since ages btn these two nations.
My question to you is..
1. After refusal to send in forces to help Saudi in Yemen conflict suited you well and saved you from a big disaster.
2. Reaffirming the stance to come to Saudi's help when her territorial integrity is in danger or whatever other reasons is laudable. But how does that impact you from a foreign policy stand point when you yourself have 15% Shia population who covertly pursue Iran nationalism, Russia which is finding a new partner with Pakistan also a very close ally of Iran, and a neighbour who never actually did any harm to Pakistan's interests, something that the author seems to stress upon?
 
.
India would envy a position where Pakistan is right now. We are involved in brokering two peace deals with all regional powers working with us. Of course Indians would hate that as enemy would.
 
.
Not going to real terms of war, which means battle where armed forces are involved. but It does look like a war that is active since ages btn these two nations.
My question to you is..
1. After refusal to send in forces to help Saudi in Yemen conflict suited you well and saved you from a big disaster.
2. Reaffirming the stance to come to Saudi's help when her territorial integrity is in danger or whatever other reasons is laudable. But how does that impact you from a foreign policy stand point when you yourself have 15% Shia population who covertly pursue Iran nationalism, Russia which is finding a new partner with Pakistan also a very close ally of Iran, and a neighbour who never actually did any harm to Pakistan's interests, something that the author seems to stress upon?

1. Where is the question here ? Didn't get your point.
2. I think the answer to this i have already given in the post you quoted. There is no real chance of Iran Vs Saudi direct confrontation. It will be through proxy wars, which we are already seeing. In foreseeable future, Saudi territorial integrity is gonna be threatened by either Houtis or ISIS. And Houtis don't seem to be a real danger so far, yeah if ISIS reaches their border then may be they are a danger which threatens Saudi territorial integrity. In that case, chances are there that we are gonna have to send forces to help protect Saudi interests. Thus i don't think there is any need to bring in Russia or Pak Shia population to this discussion.
 
.
India would envy a position where Pakistan is right now. We are involved in brokering two peace deals with all regional powers working with us. Of course Indians would hate that as enemy would.

Not really,

Pakistan isn't exactly in a enviable position..having a desire to be a peace broker and having the capability to be one are two different things.

Trying to broker peace between taliban and the Afghan government?

Trying to broker peace between Saudi and Iran?

The latest is that it has gone worse between all 4 parties - and all of them aren't exactly looking for a broker.

Anyway, Let us know how that goes.
 
. .
India would envy a position where Pakistan is right now.
How come? Iran & saudi are going to fight using proxies. So it will yemen,iraq,pakistan which be the theatre.
Saudi will try to stir up things in Iran using proxies in pakistan and Iran will certainly will be wary of it. Pakistan govt will not be involved in it but they cannot buttress the pro-saudi forces either. In short pakistan is caught between rock & the sea.
 
.
India would envy a position where Pakistan is right now. We are involved in brokering two peace deals with all regional powers working with us. Of course Indians would hate that as enemy would.
Incorrect.

The Pakistani mentality is that after a fire in the neighboring houses, it takes pride in being around the people(great powers) dousing it. And then being foolish enough to think that this is called 'being important'.

India would hate such a scenario for itself. We would like none of our neighbours barring Pakistan to be on fire in the first place. We have extensive trade and other interests with them. We would utterly hate making a neighbour of ours like what Pakistan has made Afghanistan in the first place.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom