Mythical soldiering

[maxpayne]

You started with your wrong understanding of a contingency plan, came about to why did Musharraf executed the ,99 coup by saying that it was because of a Kargil inquiry, and now have landed exactly where people like you usual land; the 3rd Nov emergency.

What next? You guys would probably ask for human right for Arnab Goswam.

No previous discussion ended. This was just addition in the list. Maybe more come in the future.

 

[sur]

... I would never fight a corporate world's war, nor of religio-fanatic's !!

... religious tinge to it, even the war that took place during His (PBUH) time...

... religious aspect, even the wars during Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) time. ....

Leader said "Religio-fanatics", NOT religious. There's a difference.
Prophet Muhammad was NOT a "fanatic" in religion. He fouht religious wars & NOT religio-fanatic wars.

Religio-Fanatic actions are those of TTP & ISIS & FSA etc etc etc...
Religio-Fanatic type of move was when Gen.Zia said if you want islam in Pak vote for me... etc.
Religio-Fanatic action is inquisition by Catholics,
"Religious" was was Prophet Dawood fighting & "religio-fanatic" is israel bombing Gaza.

Messenger of ALLAH was NOWHERE near the mentality that two of you mistakenly associate with him.

Just to repeat "Religious" is as in "Pak-Army" in general (excluding some exceptions) & "Religio-Fanatic" is as in "TTP".
Religious & Religio-Fanatic are at war with each other.

 

[niaz]

For the most part I disagree with the post. Here a soldier is idealized as heroic and fighting for the honour of the homeland.

Except for a few cases where ordinary citizens take up arms to defend or liberate their country, such as Kurdish Peshmerga or PLO, Vietcong, Mukti Bahini etc. most wars in history are fought for pure “Greed”. That is for the purpose of taking other people’s property, women & land thru brute force and by whatever means it takes. If this was not true, there would be no empires in the history.

Examine history of all the empires, be it Greek, Roman, Persian, Huns, Saljuqis, Mongols & Ottomans in the Middle East and the British in India; you will realize that main objective of the soldiering was to gain wealth and power. Soldiers who sided with the victors got the spoils and those on the losing sides were eliminated.

Would anyone can honestly say that Mahmud Ghaznavi’s 17 attacks on India, were not for acquiring riches of the Hindu temples. For what noble objective were Babur’s soldiers fighting for when they attacked Indian ruled by Muslim Lodhi dynasty? What about the mercenaries who fight purely for money!

Napoleon may have noble ideas of French greatness or Hitler may have wanted to prove that Germans were a superior race, but majority of ordinary soldiers of participants in both the great wars were draftees and had very little say in the matter. Leaders of the Arab Armies fighting the Ottoman Turks were paid in gold coins.

Since, majority of the soldiers in a lot of countries come thru ‘National service’ you can’t honestly say that they are fighting for a noble cause. In all volunteer armies such as Pak Army, no doubt some are motivated by the patriotic fervour, for majority it is a way of earning a living. Any one who hails from Punjab will know that joining the army is a family profession in some districts such as Chakwal, Jhelum, and Kharian etc. I know of families where grandfathers and fathers served in the British Indian Army with the sons joining Pakistan army.

I beg forgiveness for being cynical but you can’t convince that me more than a million soldiers of the subcontinent who formed the British Indian army in WWII were fighting for the honour of their homeland.

Finally, I would agree that despite the above, it does take an adventurous and courageous man to face bullets and cannon balls on the battlefield and such men deserve the respect and honour of the nation. Even though prime mover may be greed and lust for power; when courage & fighting prowess is combined with leadership qualities, you get men who shape history of the world.

 

[Xeric]

For the most part I disagree with the post. Here a soldier is idealized as heroic and fighting for the honour of the homeland.

Except for a few cases where ordinary citizens take up arms to defend or liberate their country, such as Kurdish Peshmerga or PLO, Vietcong, Mukti Bahini etc. most wars in history are fought for pure “Greed”. That is for the purpose of taking other people’s property, women & land thru brute force and by whatever means it takes. If this was not true, there would be no empires in the history.

Examine history of all the empires, be it Greek, Roman, Persian, Huns, Saljuqis, Mongols & Ottomans in the Middle East and the British in India; you will realize that main objective of the soldiering was to gain wealth and power. Soldiers who sided with the victors got the spoils and those on the losing sides were eliminated.

Would anyone can honestly say that Mahmud Ghaznavi’s 17 attacks on India, were not for acquiring riches of the Hindu temples. For what noble objective were Babur’s soldiers fighting for when they attacked Indian ruled by Muslim Lodhi dynasty? What about the mercenaries who fight purely for money!

Napoleon may have noble ideas of French greatness or Hitler may have wanted to prove that Germans were a superior race, but majority of ordinary soldiers of participants in both the great wars were draftees and had very little say in the matter. Leaders of the Arab Armies fighting the Ottoman Turks were paid in gold coins.

Since, majority of the soldiers in a lot of countries come thru ‘National service’ you can’t honestly say that they are fighting for a noble cause. In all volunteer armies such as Pak Army, no doubt some are motivated by the patriotic fervour, for majority it is a way of earning a living. Any one who hails from Punjab will know that joining the army is a family profession in some districts such as Chakwal, Jhelum, and Kharian etc. I know of families where grandfathers and fathers served in the British Indian Army with the sons joining Pakistan army.

I beg forgiveness for being cynical but you can’t convince that me more than a million soldiers of the subcontinent who formed the British Indian army in WWII were fighting for the honour of their homeland.

Finally, I would agree that despite the above, it does take an adventurous and courageous man to face bullets and cannon balls on the battlefield and such men deserve the respect and honour of the nation. Even though prime mover may be greed and lust for power; when courage & fighting prowess is combined with leadership qualities, you get men who shape history of the world.

Sir, i respect what you say, but would say the following:-

- You should not forget as Clausewitz said that war is nothing but just another instrument of policy. So yes, whereas the foot soldier may be in for nationalistic cause, but then mostly he is unaware what his rulers/leader are up to. Hence, he should not get blamed.

- i also agree with the examples that you given to prove your point, also i must commend you for your grip over history, but i have a question; you presented one side of the story - of those soldiers who were aggressors (Greek, Roman, Persian, Huns, Saljuqis, Mongols & Ottomans in the Middle East etc) and were primarily after the wealth and power, but what you say of those soldiers who were at the receiving end? The one who were attacked and were forced to defend? Were they also after wealth and power? Because i doubt that the ones on the receiving end wanted to be attacked, especiallly when the attacker was after their wealth.

- Lastly, i'll like top copy/past a reply which i made to a similar comment on blog published at Express tribune (and also at PDF) Don’t take your soldiers for granted – The Express Tribune Blog :-

(The words in quotes and italic are of the other guy, my replies are following them)

1-"Soldiers of any country fights for a salary and not out of patriotism. Do you think if this soldier had a better education and a better opportunity, he would struggle in Siachen?"

Not necessarily, sir.

How can you generalize every soldier?

i didnt join the Army because there was no other option for me. Also, i know many soldiers who joined in because they wanted to serve.

Today we have soldiers who are masters although the education required is just matric. i know people who after failing to join the Army as an officer, joined in as soldiers, that's the level of motivation that i have seen. Now you may say that these are exception, but i tell you that what you implied in your comment was an exception.

Yes, you are correct to an extent that soldiers also need to feed their families, but then the question remains, if that was the only reason for them joining the military, why would they opt and do acts of valor, like the one i quoted in my blog? Why would there be examples of bravery, sacrifice and self-less devotion then if serving in any military is just like doing any other routine job?
Why would a US Marine jump on a grenade willingly? "Marine who took grenade blast for comrade receives Medal of Honor" http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06...

i could also quote such deeds in our Army too, but then you might not be satisfied.

One can join the military because he needed to feed himself, but you cant make him die or stay in harms way against his will. This holds true not just for our Army, but for the militaries the world over.


2-"Second coming to your anger and disgust towards what you call as pseudo liberals in your tweets...I don't think you understand at all what people like Asma Jahangir talk about. When she says 'faujis are
duffers', she is referring to the general and not the poor hardworking foot soldiers."

What my tweets have to do with the discussion here? Perhaps i did strike a raw nerve there, right?

As for the obsession you guys have with generals, well i had this to say in the end of this blog but then didnt, but i guess it needs to be said now:
'Those planning to have a field day about ‘Jernails’ over this blog, should understand that these men came from the same Pakistani lot who have ruined PIA, Pak Rails and Pak Steel, and just a few days back killed three Ahmadis. Remember, it’s the leadership (read Generals) that makes the difference.'


3-"Understand who Hamid Mir criticizes. They criticize the top generals who make policies and let poor soldiers die."

We very well know who Hamid Mir criticizes and why. Unfortunately, we never saw him criticizing the judiciary for letting off the hardcore terrorists or for that matter the govt/politicians for not making amends to the law/rules which had loopholes, due to which our judiciary had its hands tied. You must also know how difficult was it to have PPO passed. Whereas, in all other countries including India, such laws were passed right at the onset of terrorism. The Patriot Act, POTA etc are the two examples.

Lastly, it (always) has to be a General upon whose order soldiers have to die, isnt it?

Just to remind you, soldiers die even on the victorious side.

 

[niaz]

Sir, i respect what you say, but would say the following:-

- You should not forget as Clausewitz said that war is nothing but just another instrument of policy. So yes, whereas the foot soldier may be in for nationalistic cause, but then mostly he is unaware what his rulers/leader are up to. Hence, he should not get blamed.

- i also agree with the examples that you given to prove your point, also i must commend you for your grip over history, but i have a question; you presented one side of the story - of those soldiers who were aggressors (Greek, Roman, Persian, Huns, Saljuqis, Mongols & Ottomans in the Middle East etc) and were primarily after the wealth and power, but what you say of those soldiers who were at the receiving end? The one who were attacked and were forced to defend? Were they also after wealth and power? Because i doubt that the ones on the receiving end wanted to be attacked, especiallly when the attacker was after their wealth.

- Lastly, i'll like top copy/past a reply which i made to a similar comment on blog published at Express tribune (and also at PDF) Don’t take your soldiers for granted – The Express Tribune Blog :-

(The words in quotes and italic are of the other guy, my replies are following them)

1-"Soldiers of any country fights for a salary and not out of patriotism. Do you think if this soldier had a better education and a better opportunity, he would struggle in Siachen?"

Not necessarily, sir.

How can you generalize every soldier?

i didnt join the Army because there was no other option for me. Also, i know many soldiers who joined in because they wanted to serve.

Today we have soldiers who are masters although the education required is just matric. i know people who after failing to join the Army as an officer, joined in as soldiers, that's the level of motivation that i have seen. Now you may say that these are exception, but i tell you that what you implied in your comment was an exception.

Yes, you are correct to an extent that soldiers also need to feed their families, but then the question remains, if that was the only reason for them joining the military, why would they opt and do acts of valor, like the one i quoted in my blog? Why would there be examples of bravery, sacrifice and self-less devotion then if serving in any military is just like doing any other routine job?
Why would a US Marine jump on a grenade willingly? "Marine who took grenade blast for comrade receives Medal of Honor" http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06...

i could also quote such deeds in our Army too, but then you might not be satisfied.

One can join the military because he needed to feed himself, but you cant make him die or stay in harms way against his will. This holds true not just for our Army, but for the militaries the world over.


2-"Second coming to your anger and disgust towards what you call as pseudo liberals in your tweets...I don't think you understand at all what people like Asma Jahangir talk about. When she says 'faujis are
duffers', she is referring to the general and not the poor hardworking foot soldiers."

What my tweets have to do with the discussion here? Perhaps i did strike a raw nerve there, right?

As for the obsession you guys have with generals, well i had this to say in the end of this blog but then didnt, but i guess it needs to be said now:
'Those planning to have a field day about ‘Jernails’ over this blog, should understand that these men came from the same Pakistani lot who have ruined PIA, Pak Rails and Pak Steel, and just a few days back killed three Ahmadis. Remember, it’s the leadership (read Generals) that makes the difference.'


3-"Understand who Hamid Mir criticizes. They criticize the top generals who make policies and let poor soldiers die."

We very well know who Hamid Mir criticizes and why. Unfortunately, we never saw him criticizing the judiciary for letting off the hardcore terrorists or for that matter the govt/politicians for not making amends to the law/rules which had loopholes, due to which our judiciary had its hands tied. You must also know how difficult was it to have PPO passed. Whereas, in all other countries including India, such laws were passed right at the onset of terrorism. The Patriot Act, POTA etc are the two examples.

Lastly, it (always) has to be a General upon whose order soldiers have to die, isnt it?

Just to remind you, soldiers die even on the victorious side.

It so happens that I have read Von Clausewitz as no student of history can understand military theory without perusing books by Von Clausewitz and Capt. Liddle Hart, but that was long time ago.

I totally agree with you that as majority of the soldiers in the recent history came thru draft, they carry no blame whatsoever for the megalomaniac designs of their leaders.

In answer to your question:

Quote

I also agree with the examples that you given to prove your point, also i must commend you for your grip over history, but i have a question; you presented one side of the story - of those soldiers who were aggressors (Greek, Roman, Persian, Huns, Saljuqis, Mongols & Ottomans in the Middle East etc) and were primarily after the wealth and power, but what you say of those soldiers who were at the receiving end? The one who were attacked and were forced to defend? Were they also after wealth and power? Because i doubt that the ones on the receiving end wanted to be attacked, especially when the attacker was after their wealth.”

Unquote

In my book a ‘Freedom Fighter’ and ‘Soldier’ are differentiated. For example I would call Vietcong, Hamas or Hezbollah of Lebanon freedom fighters. Even Marhatta leader Shivaji was initially a freedom fighter. Majority of these learnt to fight by actually fighting. However, whether it is for ’Honour & Glory’ or out of basic instinct to defend their family and their personal property is debatable.

By ‘Soldier’ one refers to someone who is employed for fighting. The very word is derived from the Latin ‘Solidus’ which was a gold coin introduced by the Emperor Constantine; hence the implication fighting for money.

Finally, I must stress that as mentioned in the last paragraph of my earlier post; I greatly admire soldiering profession and acknowledge the fact that historically people who shaped map of the world were military men. Had PAF Public School Sargodha accepted me back in 1956, I would have joined PAF myself.

My argument is that for the most part a soldier is fighting for mundane reasons such as economic advancement and not for some esoteric purposes.

 

[VCheng]

My argument is that for the most part a soldier is fighting for mundane reasons such as economic advancement and not for some esoteric purposes.

And yet the tendency to highly romanticize such trained and disciplined killers as some kind of noble warriors is strong, only to try and hide that mundane reality. But it fails.

 

[Xeric]

My argument is that for the most part a soldier is fighting for mundane reasons such as economic advancement and not for some esoteric purposes.

Sure, soldiers have families too. People mostly forget that nothing comes for free in this world. Every doctor, volunteer, firefighter, NGO and charity worker gets paid.

But, having said that categorizing soldiers and volunteers alongwith the highly paid and rewarded jobs is hypocritical to say the least.

An example, and then i would lay by case to rest:

There's a relative of mine, a close friend too. Not very bright, not very confident. Call it person A. And then there's another guy of similar attributes, let's call him person B. A and B were class fellows. When they did their matric, i was aware that their fathers were uncertain of their futures knowing that they both wont be able to go for higher studies. So as is the norm, they decided to send both of them for Diploma of Associate Engineers instead if the regular FSc or FA, believing that by having some technical education they can later open up an electronic store or a repair shop or even get some kind of a job. Both were able to earn their diplomas, B fetching better grades than A.

B being motivated to join the military applied for officership but was not recommended, so he later enrolled in as a soldier. A also had a similar choice but having failed to get through ISSB, and blaming me for 'not helping' him, waited and later got a job in a vehicle manufacturing plant in Pakistan.

A year down the road, while B just passed out from his training center, A had already been to Japan for a 2 months course offered by his company. Later, while B was getting deployed in FATA during Musharraf's era when things were not very idle and brushed death twice, A toured Japan for another 2 times.

Being in communication with both of them, i mostly heard A bitching, moaning and complaining about his job - a job where is so called office or workshop was air-conditioned, where he was earning twice the amount as B despite having similar education, where he would be back to his parents after a day's shift, where he lunch was free and he had a 10 hours shift, mostly doing the same things which were routine and were done in a clockwise fashion requiring almost no manual / brain input. Consider it like a bank cashier who just have to count money everyday, five days a week.

Now a word about Mr B. While A would join his duty at 9 am, B was having his tea break at 9 having had his breakfast at around 5 am already. He then had to fixed timing or leaving his unit. He would stand for 4 hours night duty every alternative day. Undergo endurance marches on fortnightly basis, would be woken up from sleep almost every day at odd hours, be it his impossible-to-get afternoon nap or a night's sleep and would usually miss his lunch or dinner due to uncertain routine. He dug trenches even when he was not in FATA, he would whitewash walls, plant tree saplings on behalf of the mighty Forest Dept, load/unload military trucks every single day, stock rations, measure POL, would move to another city/province at a notice of few hours, was at times forced to play games even when he was not in a mood. Besides getting trained in his own job as per his trade in the Arm he served.

During the next 5 years while A stuck to Karachi going from his home to his job, B saw 3 stations including Kashmir where he had to conditions similar to what i narrate in my blog: The Saf Shikan. | Page 9

While A would almost everyday had free time at his disposal after he was back from his job and would enjoy his youth, B was never free even when he was off duty. Even if B was lucky enough to have 2 hours freedom on a given day, he would require written permission from an Officer just to leave his unit boundary to the next restaurant within the cantt premises, or else the unit's canteen was where he would have access to TV or may the soldier's ante-room where he was forced to watch what other senior NCOs or JCOs were watching. Now compare this with A who already had his 'own' room after he started earning. Not that B was not able to afford his own TV, but unlike the US military there's no concept of owning ones private space in our military. While A and B's other class fellows improved upon their CD/DVD collections, surfed the net, dinned out, smoked seeshas and went to Kaghan on vacations, B spent his youth working almost 24/7 and only finding respite when he would go back home to his parents after 3-4 months.

A then quit his job, complaining that it was 'tough'. He got another job in Dubai, quit that after another six months even it paid more but for him it was 'tougher' than the previous one especially when he had to stay away from his family for not more than 2 months at a stretch. He than switched to a renowned Oil & Gas company in Saudia, where he works for 1.5 months and then is on leave for the next 1.5 months. He earns 0.3 million a month there, but still complains of the Saudi deserts and the heat despite that his container his air-conditioned and the food that gets even out at the desert can envy many 3-5 star hotels.

Now, if you guys want me to believe that both A and B are equal and that i should not respect B more, sorry sir, i wont do it.

P.S. Oh yes, on my advice i got B to apply for another job (similar to A's first job) despite he being in the military. He didnt go for it despite being appointed, and i didnt ask him the reason. Being in the profession of arms, man-management and understanding humans comes with my job description. So when i compare both A and B as humans, professionals and workers, i know B is much better than A when it comes to IQ, knowledge and dedication to work. We tried our best to get A do his BE as being a simple DAE was not enough, but he couldnt. Whereas B furthered his education even while staying in the military, though due to service exigencies he couldnt go for regular education. He has a Masters degree today and earns less than A in a tougher environment, whereas Mr A is still a DAE.