Mythical soldiering

[Xeric]

General Shahid Aziz in his book claimed, the coup d'etat was planned before musharraf went to Sri Lanka. Plane hijacking was an excuse to over throw the government

i guess he was referring to 'In the Line of Fire'.

 

[Bratva]

i guess he was referring to 'In the Line of Fire'.

While musharraf has not stated anything, but the alleged coup d'etat conspiracy theory existence "If Gov tries to fiddle with any COAS after Gen. Karamat" has been proved by Gen.Shahid own confession of a plan being hatched to throw government before Mushaffar went to Srilanka. Ganjaa tried to sideline Musharraf after Kargil fiasco, Musharraf got winds of his plan and threw his government

 

[livingdead]

Yes Yes Yes...but the problem is mindset in the army, they neither admit nor learn from mistakes.. its in culture of the organization, which is inherited from the colonial mindset.

if I were to change anything, that would be the army's culture & rip off their colonial past from their memories, all else will follow..

its the same in India if it is of any consolation to you. officers treat non officers as children. But this article is about soldiers of all countries and generations.
While I appreciate the job they do, I refuse to accept that we should treat them as super heros just because they are involved in killing and dying. Some people look forward to such job, some have no other option, there are various motivations other than 'dying for your country'.
I have equal respect for firefighters and police force if not more. They have much harder life.

 

[Khan_patriot]

Defending your country is fine. But his point was that there is nothing noble abou going to war to satisfy corporate or religious interests.

Such excuses are made by cowards who cant hack it in the army or any other branch of the military, there are no corporate interests in war (with the exception of America's wars), there is nothing for small countries to gain through warfare instead they end up losing more than they gain.....

 

[maxpayne]

I

The book does not state anything of this sort.

It does. Later editions omitted all controversial stuff. Like selling people for dollars. Let me re-check in case

 

[OrionHunter]

Its because they are fooled enough already... I would never fight a corporate world's war, nor of religio-fanatic's !!

Exactly!
You are the exact kind of guy the author has tried to differentiate from a soldier.
Guys, we have an empirical evidence here

It is impossible for a civilian to comprehend what soldiering is all about!

 

[maxpayne]

The book does not state anything of this sort.

"Why Nawaz Sharif attempted the coup remains a matter of speculation.
It cannot be said with certainty why he did so until all the actors
involved from his side have spoken, and spoken truthfully. But how the
army reacted to defend its honor is a study in presence of mind. Everyone
worked together toward the common goal of stopping the prime
minister's coup. The army was still smarting from the forced resignation
of my immediate predecessor, General Jahangir Karamat, and was
determined not to let another humiliation befall it. I had already conveyed
an indirect warning to the prime minister through several intermediaries:
"I am not Jahangir Karamat." My predecessor had retired
quietly, and I did not want the prime minister to think he could violate
the constitution so easily again." Page 110 (Courtesy, "In the Line of Fire"
I think that would suffice.

 

[janon]

Such excuses are made by cowards who cant hack it in the army or any other branch of the military, there are no corporate interests in war (with the exception of America's wars), there is nothing for small countries to gain through warfare instead they end up losing more than they gain.....

On the contrary, war has always been about economic or religious interests. For power struggles. What did Iraq invade Kuwait for? For oil fields. I can't think of any example of war where economic interests were not involved at all.

 

[livingdead]

It is impossible for a civilian to comprehend what soldiering is all about!

soldiers seems to blow their own trumpet too much here... ah since you got whole band for yourself..

 

[Leader]

"Why Nawaz Sharif attempted the coup remains a matter of speculation.
It cannot be said with certainty why he did so until all the actors
involved from his side have spoken, and spoken truthfully. But how the
army reacted to defend its honor is a study in presence of mind. Everyone
worked together toward the common goal of stopping the prime
minister's coup. The army was still smarting from the forced resignation
of my immediate predecessor, General Jahangir Karamat, and was
determined not to let another humiliation befall it. I had already conveyed
an indirect warning to the prime minister through several intermediaries:
"I am not Jahangir Karamat." My predecessor had retired
quietly, and I did not want the prime minister to think he could violate
the constitution so easily again." Page 110 (Courtesy, "In the Line of Fire"
I think that would suffice.

this is sheer evidence of the military's mind-set !! @VCheng

 

[VCheng]

this is sheer evidence of the military's mind-set !! @VCheng

How much more evidence is needed? It is already crystal clear.

It is impossible for a civilian to comprehend what soldiering is all about!

Are civilians too dumb to understand such a noble pursuit as soldiering?

 

[Arsalan]

@Leader , well, surprised!!

have read all the tree pages and found that extremism is on both sides
It is wrong to blame someone else MIND SET when you have SET your own so rigidly onto something!!

There must always be room for reconciliation, moderation is the right way. I do not mean to say the defaced and twisted face of religion and patriotism in the name of moderation but the room for debate on issues that are debatable and perhaps giving the facing party a fair chance to make there point and then judging it with a neutral mind. The way you are putting your argument i am a bit disappointed (not saying that this must matter to you off-course). Being a strong supporter of PTI, i do not think this is what message our party conveys!

 

[Leader]

@Leader , well, surprised!!

have read all the tree pages and found that extremism is on both sides
It is wrong to blame someone else MIND SET when you have SET your own so rigidly onto something!!

There must always be room for reconciliation, moderation is the right way. I do not mean to say the defaced and twisted face of religion and patriotism in the name of moderation but the room for debate on issues that are debatable and perhaps giving the facing party a fair chance to make there point and then judging it with a neutral mind. The way you are putting your argument i am a bit disappointed (not saying that this must matter to you off-course). Being a strong supporter of PTI, i do not think this is what message our party conveys!

I am not in denial. they are.. the system/constitution is clear, it has placed how the engine works...obey or there will be dysfunction in the society, the way we see is happening in 66 years...

ofcourse...

how am I putting my argument that disappoints you, when others are in denial and try to justify their illegal acts..

 

[Xeric]

"Why Nawaz Sharif attempted the coup remains a matter of speculation.
It cannot be said with certainty why he did so until all the actors
involved from his side have spoken, and spoken truthfully. But how the
army reacted to defend its honor is a study in presence of mind. Everyone
worked together toward the common goal of stopping the prime
minister's coup. The army was still smarting from the forced resignation
of my immediate predecessor, General Jahangir Karamat, and was
determined not to let another humiliation befall it. I had already conveyed
an indirect warning to the prime minister through several intermediaries:
"I am not Jahangir Karamat." My predecessor had retired
quietly, and I did not want the prime minister to think he could violate
the constitution so easily again." Page 110 (Courtesy, "In the Line of Fire"
I think that would suffice.

You need to learn to focus on words. Also, you need a clear understanding of what exactly a 'contingency plan' means in military.

Giving 'an indirect warning' cannot be equated with contingency planning, which would imply that 'a plan was prepared before hand, rehearsed and waited to be unfolded in case the primary plan fails.'

This would amount to a per-mediated act, which the coup of '99 was not.

You civilians on one hand like to take written words too literally where it suits you, but then also use the same words loosely (like you did when you claimed that there was a 'contingency plan') and imply anything and everything when it again suits you.

Advice: If you want to claim something, be sure that you do not extrapolate the facts yourself, unless stated in literal terms.

 

[Xeric]

It is impossible for a civilian to comprehend what soldiering is all about!

Not impossible, but difficult if they continue to stay in denial.