Pakistan Army Central Command

[Rafi]

Army capable of responding to threats: COAS

The army chief visited Tilla Ranges near Jhelum and witnessed the culmination of large-scale maneuver exercises by formations of central command in near-real environment.


Earlier on arrival, the COAS was received by Commander Central Command Lieutenant General Tariq Khan.

Even though Southern Command has been mentioned extensively by the media, this is the first time - that General Tariq Khan has officially been acknowledged as Commander CENTCOM.

 

[maxpayne]

Army capable of responding to threats: COAS

The army chief visited Tilla Ranges near Jhelum and witnessed the culmination of large-scale maneuver exercises by formations of central command in near-real environment.

Earlier on arrival, the COAS was received by Commander Central Command Lieutenant General Tariq Khan.

Even though Southern Command has been mentioned extensively by the media, this is the first time - that General Tariq Khan has officially been acknowledged as Commander CENTCOM.

What is the main function of CENTCOM?

 

[blain2]

Too many corps to command through the GHQ is the fundamental issue that the regional commands look to solve. Thus the corps are in the process of being put under the regional commands. The original idea was that the PA should have a regional command mapped roughly to PAF's regional air commands and their areas of responsibility. From a Tri-services standpoint it makes things better in terms of coordination, and from the standpoint of the Army, during combat operations, it would allow the regional commands to be able to plan and execute operations on their own without having to incur the delays and other complexities that arise in the go between the corps headquarters and the operations directorate at the GHQ.

The journey to the regional command based structure has been a long one and these discussions have been going on since the late 80s and have gone cold and hot many times. With more funding available, the organizational restructuring has picked up pace.

 

[Informant]

Too many corps to command through the GHQ is the fundamental issue that the regional commands look to solve. Thus the corps are in the process of being put under the regional commands. The original idea was that the PA should have a regional command mapped roughly to PAF's regional air commands and their areas of responsibility. From a Tri-services standpoint it makes things better in terms of coordination, and from the standpoint of the Army, during combat operations, it would allow the regional commands to be able to plan and execute operations on their own without having to incur the delays and other complexities that arise in the go between the corps headquarters and the operations directorate at the GHQ.

The journey to the regional command based structure has been a long one and these discussions have been going on since the late 80s and have gone cold and hot many times. With more funding available, the organizational restructuring has picked up pace.

Mr 2, why does the COAS give these useless statements as we can take care, or respond or such nonsense. Why dont they adopt a policy of silence. The Israeli Armed Forces just shut up but take concrete actions ( however unjustified ). They are all show and very less talk.

These statements only make our forces look all talk and well very dismal show.

 

[Kompromat]

Who are commanding the SOUTHCOM, EASTCOM, WESTCOM and NORTHCOM ?

I also heard that a five star post maybe created for Joint Chief Of Staff adding new admin powers to his role?

 

[blain2]

The plans are afoot for only 3 subordinate commands under the GHQ, namely Southern, Central and Northern.

While Southern and Central command have been operational to a certain extent, the Northern command will probably take over the responsibilities that have typically been shouldered by X Corps, including FCNA, and some additional formations. The current model is to have one of the Corps HQs also taking on the responsibility of commanding the region. However some expensive yet necessary changes need to be made in the command structure as well. E.g. Corps commanders being subordinated to a peer who takes on the regional command will need some adjustment.

Mr 2, why does the COAS give these useless statements as we can take care, or respond or such nonsense. Why dont they adopt a policy of silence. The Israeli Armed Forces just shut up but take concrete actions ( however unjustified ). They are all show and very less talk.

These statements only make our forces look all talk and well very dismal show.

Unlike Israel, Pakistan is in the middle of a Low Intensity Conflict. The Army needs its position to be understood by the public and civilian administration given the low morale in the country in general with regards to the militancy. You may have noticed, under the new Chief, the Army has been responding to all instigation by the other side. Some responses are overt, many others are covert. I do agree, more action and less talk is always good. However exceptions exist.

 

[Informant]

The plans are afoot for only 3 subordinate commands under the GHQ, namely Southern, Central and Northern.

While Southern and Central command have been operational to a certain extent, the Northern command will probably take over the responsibilities that have typically been shouldered by X Corps, including FCNA, and some additional formations. The current model is to have one of the Corps HQs also taking on the responsibility of commanding the region. However some expensive yet necessary changes need to be made in the command structure as well. E.g. Corps commanders being subordinated to a peer who takes on the regional command will need some adjustment.


Unlike Israel, Pakistan is in the middle of a Low Intensity Conflict. The Army needs its position to be understood by the public and civilian administration given the low morale in the country in general with regards to the militancy. You may have noticed, under the new Chief, the Army has been responding to all instigation by the other side. Some responses are overt, many others are covert. I do agree, more action and less talk is always good. However exceptions exist.

We see Iranians posturing and threatening/using a harsher tone ( I agree with them being idiots in diplomacy ) why doesnt the Army give them a proper response? We have yet to see something in response from the army as well.

We seriously need to **** shit up.

Pardon my French.

 

[Thorough Pro]

This also mitigates the risk of "loss of leadership and direction" in event of major surprise attack on GHQ. More power and independence to regional commands focussed solely on their areas of responsibilities enhances their capability for timely decision making and better co-ordination with other arms.

Too many corps to command through the GHQ is the fundamental issue that the regional commands look to solve. Thus the corps are in the process of being put under the regional commands. The original idea was that the PA should have a regional command mapped roughly to PAF's regional air commands and their areas of responsibility. From a Tri-services standpoint it makes things better in terms of coordination, and from the standpoint of the Army, during combat operations, it would allow the regional commands to be able to plan and execute operations on their own without having to incur the delays and other complexities that arise in the go between the corps headquarters and the operations directorate at the GHQ.

The journey to the regional command based structure has been a long one and these discussions have been going on since the late 80s and have gone cold and hot many times. With more funding available, the organizational restructuring has picked up pace.

 

[Armstrong]

Too many corps to command through the GHQ is the fundamental issue that the regional commands look to solve. Thus the corps are in the process of being put under the regional commands. The original idea was that the PA should have a regional command mapped roughly to PAF's regional air commands and their areas of responsibility. From a Tri-services standpoint it makes things better in terms of coordination, and from the standpoint of the Army, during combat operations, it would allow the regional commands to be able to plan and execute operations on their own without having to incur the delays and other complexities that arise in the go between the corps headquarters and the operations directorate at the GHQ.

The journey to the regional command based structure has been a long one and these discussions have been going on since the late 80s and have gone cold and hot many times. With more funding available, the organizational restructuring has picked up pace.

How would you rate the Pakistani Armed Forces (all of them) on a scale of proactivity in that how much are they are bureaucratic beast that lives by tried and tested policies and procedures and how much is it an innovative institution that is constantly in a state of self-appraisal and doesn't shy away from calling a previous wrong....a 'wrong' and enact institutional changes accordingly ?

@Xeric @Icarus - I'd like you to answer this too !

 

[Rahi812]

The U.S. is following the formula of regional command. I think this is really a good idea. The regional command formula will definitely make the army more efficient, but I don't see it is gonna work in near future. Because the basic idea in this formula is sharing of power, which I think no army chief wants in Pakistan. The post of Chairman, Joint Chief of Army Staff has been created for a long time, but no administrative powers are given in this post, what to talk about regional commands, that is a long way to go.

 

[Icarus]

How would you rate the Pakistani Armed Forces (all of them) on a scale of proactivity in that how much are they are bureaucratic beast that lives by tried and tested policies and procedures and how much is it an innovative institution that is constantly in a state of self-appraisal and doesn't shy away from calling a previous wrong....a 'wrong' and enact institutional changes accordingly ?

@Xeric @Icarus - I'd like you to answer this too !

Our Armed Forces are a blend of new meets the old, at some point we are all holding on to a legacy and a history that holds to our colonial roots but at the same time, the Army is constantly in a state of adopting and adapting to everything that comes in its way. The way our Armed Forces have adapted to meet the Taliban situation is praiseworthy, the Army, Police, Intelligence and Air force were never meant to be fighting an Islamist insurgency inside a country founded in the name of Islam but when the problem arose, our boys were there to meet the challenge.

 

[Donatello]

The plans are afoot for only 3 subordinate commands under the GHQ, namely Southern, Central and Northern.

While Southern and Central command have been operational to a certain extent, the Northern command will probably take over the responsibilities that have typically been shouldered by X Corps, including FCNA, and some additional formations. The current model is to have one of the Corps HQs also taking on the responsibility of commanding the region. However some expensive yet necessary changes need to be made in the command structure as well. E.g. Corps commanders being subordinated to a peer who takes on the regional command will need some adjustment.


Unlike Israel, Pakistan is in the middle of a Low Intensity Conflict. The Army needs its position to be understood by the public and civilian administration given the low morale in the country in general with regards to the militancy. You may have noticed, under the new Chief, the Army has been responding to all instigation by the other side. Some responses are overt, many others are covert. I do agree, more action and less talk is always good. However exceptions exist.

How good is the communication from one regional command to the other? What if, say southern command needs more resources, can the other commands chip in for it without seriously affecting their own respective fighting ability?

 

[Rafi]

How good is the communication from one regional command to the other? What if, say southern command needs more resources, can the other commands chip in for it without seriously affecting their own respective fighting ability?

Redundancy and flexibility are being planned into the system, along with strategic reserves ready to plug gaps, or aid in further reinforcing openings in space both vertical and horizontal.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Its delegation of power, not sharing of power.

The U.S. is following the formula of regional command. I think this is really a good idea. The regional command formula will definitely make the army more efficient, but I don't see it is gonna work in near future. Because the basic idea in this formula is sharing of power, which I think no army chief wants in Pakistan. The post of Chairman, Joint Chief of Army Staff has been created for a long time, but no administrative powers are given in this post, what to talk about regional commands, that is a long way to go.

 

[Rahi812]

Its delegation of power, not sharing of power.

Agree with you, it is the delegation of power. In the present circumstances in Pakistan, where higher authorities like to play one man show and like the status quo, I don't think this is going to happen.

How good is the communication from one regional command to the other? What if, say southern command needs more resources, can the other commands chip in for it without seriously affecting their own respective fighting ability?

This is all hypothetical, on the ground there is no such delegation of commands. The top brass likes the status quo.