Next CJCSC: Time for a Chairman from Navy or Air Force

[Ghazwa-e-Hind]

As others have stated, lets give PAF a chance for CJCSC

PAF has performed really well on 27th Feb

 

[Jinn Baba]

Should be from PAF. After all, it will be PAF that needs to assist both the PA and PN if a conflict broke out. This role is for better coordination between the forces so PAF holding this position makes most sense.

 

[SABRE]

Dear what powers you intend giving to chairman of a committee. Do you want him to order move some corps, some PN ships, some PAF squadrons or something even serious?

Much like the US JCS, CJCSC does not need to have operational command authority. But he should be bureaucratically empowered over the Tri-Services and their respective chiefs.

a) CJCSC is the defence/security advisor to the PM. In this capacity, he should be responsible for joint defence and security affairs coordination on behalf of the PM. This is one of the reasons why such positions exist. In all the major wars and conflicts Pakistan has fought there seems to be a disconnect between the Army, Air Force and the Navy. This shows that wars & conflicts cannot be completely and effectively managed by the GHQ, especially when it has its hands full with the ground operations.

b) CJCSC should periodically lead the impartial review of the structure, mission and the doctrine of the armed forces and suggest restructuring based on the requirements and necessities of the time. This is highly critical for militaries to both succeed in their missions as well as survive as organizations.

c) In relation to the above, CJCSC should be the lead military officer in formulating the defence budget as well as in the decision-making relating to arms acquisitions for the Tri-services.

d) CJCSC is, in principle, superior to the three service chiefs and therefore not only he should be treated as such but should have a degree of administrative authority over the three chiefs. Of course, such an authority must represent the will of PM.

* The seat CJCSC was established with the intent that it would be rotated between the Tri-Services. I think we must adhere to this principle.

 

[Xestan]

Much like the US JCS, CJCSC does not need to have operational command authority. But he should be bureaucratically empowered over the Tri-Services and their respective chiefs.

a) CJCSC is the defence/security advisor to the PM. In this capacity, he should be responsible for joint defence and security affairs coordination on behalf of the PM. This is one of the reasons why such positions exist. In all the major wars and conflicts Pakistan has fought there seems to be a disconnect between the Army, Air Force and the Navy. This shows that wars & conflicts cannot be completely and effectively managed by the GHQ, especially when it has its hands full with the ground operations.

b) CJCSC should periodically lead the impartial review of the structure, mission and the doctrine of the armed forces and suggest restructuring based on the requirements and necessities of the time. This is highly critical for militaries to both succeed in their missions as well as survive as organizations.

c) In relation to the above, CJCSC should be the lead military officer in formulating the defence budget as well as in the decision-making relating to arms acquisitions for the Tri-services.

d) CJCSC is, in principle, superior to the three service chiefs and therefore not only he should be treated as such but should have a degree of administrative authority over the three chiefs. Of course, such an authority must represent the will of PM.

* The seat CJCSC was established with the intent that it would be rotated between the Tri-Services. I think we must adhere to this principle.

Adding to that, with a large military force, we no longer can rely on the same structure. The office of CJCSC has to be empowered, when it comes to policy making, and the offices of the services chiefs should be left with operational control, until our Military top brass gets wise enough to decentralise and build commands on the lines of US Military and Combatant Commanders should report to the Prime Minister directly. This should be pushed ahead but there's little hope.

 

[alibaz]

Much like the US JCS, CJCSC does not need to have operational command authority. But he should be bureaucratically empowered over the Tri-Services and their respective chiefs.

a) CJCSC is the defence/security advisor to the PM. In this capacity, he should be responsible for joint defence and security affairs coordination on behalf of the PM. This is one of the reasons why such positions exist. In all the major wars and conflicts Pakistan has fought there seems to be a disconnect between the Army, Air Force and the Navy. This shows that wars & conflicts cannot be completely and effectively managed by the GHQ, especially when it has its hands full with the ground operations.

b) CJCSC should periodically lead the impartial review of the structure, mission and the doctrine of the armed forces and suggest restructuring based on the requirements and necessities of the time. This is highly critical for militaries to both succeed in their missions as well as survive as organizations.

c) In relation to the above, CJCSC should be the lead military officer in formulating the defence budget as well as in the decision-making relating to arms acquisitions for the Tri-services.

d) CJCSC is, in principle, superior to the three service chiefs and therefore not only he should be treated as such but should have a degree of administrative authority over the three chiefs. Of course, such an authority must represent the will of PM.

* The seat CJCSC was established with the intent that it would be rotated between the Tri-Services. I think we must adhere to this principle.

Except point d, he has all those roles and functions. As far as administrative authority is concerned probably that is a bit difficult preposition for all three services chiefs. Additionally all services chiefs along with various three and two star bosses of various institutions including commanders of three services strategic forces are members of his committee.
You are right that originally the post is meant for tri services on rotation basis (which should be). At the moment due to a heavily dominated strength of army troops in strategic forces may be that's the reason he is from army for quite some time (just a guess).

 

[khanasifm]

On the same lines why is dg ispr from army only it’s inter services public relations covering all services ?? Again army .......

If usaf and usn general can lead the whole US military so can ...

Lastly ssg tried combined forces from all services like US agin army in lead but in US it can be from any branch

Copying but only half *** job [emoji1]

 

[Haris Ali2140]

On the same lines why is dg ispr from army only it’s inter services public relations covering all services ?? Again army .......

If usaf and usn general can lead the whole US military so can ...

Lastly ssg tried combined forces from all services like US agin army in lead but in US it can be from any branch

Copying but only half *** job [emoji1]

My 2 cents:
Problem with copying US scenario is that all the wings are independent of each other. Navy has its own airforce same with the marines.