What's new

Pakistani Army asks for Respect.

Karamat's article does NOT describe an Army that accepts civilian "supremacy". It says that based upon public opinion and the Army's desire to avoid responsibility for drone strikes, etc. it is accepting civilian direction.

That, of course, could change any moment. That is not supremacy. It isnt' even accountability. But this may be the moment to seize the reigns and actually bring the Army to heel through such institutional reforms as parliament-appointed and accountable Inspector Generals, making military personnel subject to civilian courts, and even constitutional amendments removing any possible mechanism for a return to military rule.
And it could also be the moment that the elected politicians strengthen faith in the democratic process by enacting the long promised Election Commission reforms as well as the reforms to the accountability/anti-graft bureau promised to the people.

They could reform the Federal (and provincial) law enforcement and prosecution services to increase the faith of the average Pakistani in those institutions.

Absolutely, there is a lot the current political leadership can do, has the support of the average Pakistani to do, faces no opposition from the military to do, and yet has not done and does not appear likely to do.

The military is not to blame for that failure to reform and win the trust and support of the average Pakistani by the civilian leadership.
 
Xeric

Don't be that way - just Grow Up - it's not "the military", It's Pakistan's armed forces, without Pakistan, these are meaningless

So Musey, having nothing worthwhile to discuss, we are now going to talk about 'denotations and connotations of words', right?

i think we know what military, fauj and Pakistan armed forces mean when we talk of them on PDF. Or else, i think i should start referring to you as "Sir Muse, who hails from Pakistan and expats at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and holds the prestigious appointment of a Think Tank at a renowned Online Forum namely Pakistan Defence Forum."
 
Karamat's article does NOT describe an Army that accepts civilian "supremacy". It says that based upon public opinion and the Army's desire to avoid responsibility for drone strikes, etc. it is accepting civilian direction.

That, of course, could change any moment. That is not supremacy. It isnt' even accountability. But this may be the moment to seize the reigns and actually bring the Army to heel through such institutional reforms as parliament-appointed and accountable Inspector Generals, making military personnel subject to civilian courts, and even constitutional amendments removing any possible mechanism for a return to military rule.

After Gen Zia ul Haq's reign the military had no interest in civilian matters, Nawaz Sharif's stupidity led to the Gen Musharraf led coup.

This man, Genera Karamt , had spoken about the need for a national council for security of which the sitting government and the chiefs’ of the armed services would be members .

This gave pain to Nawaz Sharif , who got Gen Karamat to resign and then Nawaz hand picked Gen Musharraf for the Chief. After 6 months Nawaz again wanted to remove Musharraf and yet again he behaved foolishly when he tried to appoint a new COAS while the current one was out of the country.

So long as the politicians behave in this manner they will keep eating leather, the ball was in their court before and it’s in their court now also

One last thing , you people should get out of Jerusalem , if you do that there wont be this much unrest around the globe , practice what you preach and be part of the solution and not the problem
 
There is need to have more people from the civil side know about what the armed forces do, for that we should probably develop national level program where it will become mandatory to serve at least six to three months for all registered Pakistanis Nationals, this service can be done at any time between the age of 20 to 30 years.

There is a lot that people simply don’t understand about the armed force which is real pity , I've seen this sort of stupidity being displayed elsewhere on other forums also.

If we develop a mandatory national service program and civilians do attachments with the armed forces they will have a better appreciation for the armed forces, other wise these 'drawing room' type discussions are just a poo throwing match and I just cannot relate to this mindset, maybe because I've seen life in the armed froces so up close that this thought process that I see in some of my country men is just extremely alien for me.

Now the bloody civilians have to complete a 6-month crash course to understand what the armed forces actually do. I am such a fool that all my life I've been thinking that they are hired to defend the country from external aggressors. At least this should be their first and foremost duty.

I am not a genius like Zia, Yahya or Musharraf - I'm a simple-minded civilian who doesn't understand these complicated issues. Therefore, I request you to please tell us in few sentences what they actually do?
 
@muse

how can just one incident of may 2nd can bring a 180 degree shift in the way you think.Constantly Emphasizing on one just point is not bad but by doing it you will definitely overlook the other aspects as well and that is what others are currently avoiding.I suggest you to keep your judgement for some other time.Any drastic or wrong move and the outsiders will take advantage.You are only asking for drastic measures which is highly impractical at the current point of time.My humble suggestion is to keep your head cool


Well, fair enough, however, I would say that your basic propositions are not applicable - My point of view has not changed since may 02, however, the Osama at Kakul and followed by the Mehran episodes (and here I am referring not just to the failure of security but the cover ups), highlight the reality of the armed forces failing to see the change in public perception about what exactly is the competency or the role of the armed forces - people are convinced that the armed forces seem cut off from Pakistan, that their interests are other than those of Pakistan.

I can also appreciate the concerns of many who find the inability of the armed forces to "connect" with Pakistan, to be of great concern - allow me add, that it is not people who ask questions of the armed forces who have created this "disconnect", it is the behavior and attitude of the armed forces and only they can reform their attitude and behavior.

I assure you I appreciate your post and will remain open to refining the positions I have taken.
Karamat's article does NOT describe an Army that accepts civilian "supremacy". It says that based upon public opinion and the Army's desire to avoid responsibility for drone strikes, etc. it is accepting civilian direction.

That, of course, could change any moment. That is not supremacy. It isnt' even accountability. But this may be the moment to seize the reigns and actually bring the Army to heel through such institutional reforms as parliament-appointed and accountable Inspector Generals, making military personnel subject to civilian courts, and even constitutional amendments removing any possible mechanism for a return to military rule.
Solomon

I certainly agree with your contention that the article by General Karamat is thin on conviction of experience and heavy on political anger -- and to me it says this army still does not get it and perhaps this intransigence has to be dealt with more vigorously. On the other hand, I must acknowledge to you that the blackmail the army has engaged in, that is to say the threat it hold over the Pakistani nation and state, that it will not act with out "political consensus" as opposed to carrying out the lawful orders of the government - is sobering --- this army seems determined to risk the very existence of Pakistan to maintain her privileges and perks -- and perhaps people will have ot decide for themselves if it will be enough to simply reform this organization or a complete restructuring is called for.
 
This man, Genera Karamt , had spoken about the need for a national council for security of which the sitting government and the chiefs’ of the armed services would be members . This gave pain to Nawaz Sharif , who got Gen Karamat to resign -
I know the story. I did not denounce Gen Karamat, whose acceptance of his firing by NS was probably his bitterest and finest career moment. I dispute his interpretation of the facts he cites. As a career military officer, he perhaps doesn't grasp the trust deficit in what he sees as Pakistan's most professional and efficient organization.

"Old soldiers don't die, they just fade away." - Douglas MacArthur, 5-star general removed as theater commander in 1950 due to a dispute with President Harry Truman. Twenty years before he had followed another president's order to fire upon ex-soldiers of the "Bonus Army" who were demonstrating for back pay.

And it could also be the moment that the elected politicians strengthen faith in the democratic process by enacting the long promised Election Commission reforms as well as the reforms to the accountability/anti-graft bureau promised to the people.
I think you agree with me that if the politicians allow themselves to be distracted the moment for military reform will pass. Democratic politicians can't fix everything at once and timing can be everything; do the military reform now, improve the electoral process later.

The military is not to blame for that failure to reform and win the trust and support of the average Pakistani by the civilian leadership.
So what if citizens don't like their elected leadership? As long as there is no coup they can be voted out. Can't do that when the generals take the reigns.
 
...the blackmail the army has engaged in, that is to say the threat it hold over the Pakistani nation and state, that it will not act with out "political consensus" as opposed to carrying out the lawful orders of the government - is sobering --- this army seems determined to risk the very existence of Pakistan to maintain her privileges and perks -- and perhaps people will have ot decide for themselves if it will be enough to simply reform this organization or a complete restructuring is called for.
All armies are, by nature, conservative organizations, for their personnel look to their superiors or standing orders before acting. Military juntas, having only the legitimacy of their uniform, strike out in new directions only with the consensus of the high command. (The Argentine 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands demonstrates this very well, as the C.I.C. consulted with his lower-ranking colleagues for every change in policy as well as strategy.)

Naturally, through force of their own habitual thinking that has been repeatedly drilled in their brains since basic training, officers graft these expectations onto civilian leaders. That is an error; civilian leaders in a democracy reach their position by election, not consensus; only the Constitution is consensual, following it the executive expects obedience from the military and bureaucracy and the legislature expects to be able to pass laws by simple majority, even if that alienates nearly half the country's representatives.
 
Exactly as predicted, the squeeze, the blackmail is on, will it succeed? No it won't, this army doesn't get it, it's not about Waziristan or any one thing, this army will fall in line or else:


In rare meeting, military brass seeks president, PM’s support

By Irfan Ghauri
Published: June 14, 2011

Armed forces’ delegation includes all three service chiefs, CJCSC and defence secretary. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:

Amid increasing domestic and international pressure on the armed forces, Pakistan’s top political and entire military leadership huddled in Islamabad on Monday for a rare, and unannounced, gathering – in which the armed forces are said to have sought the government’s support on a number of issues.

The Presidency only issued a terse one-line statement following the meeting, saying that “the security situation was discussed”, while the Inter-Services Public Relations – the media wing of the armed forces – refrained from commenting on the high-profile meeting.

Given its timing and profile, the meeting was far from routine.

Sources claimed that the political and security implications of a possible North Waziristan military operation, which is being demanded by the US, came under discussion.

According to sources, the chiefs of the armed forces have asked the civilian leadership to take up the North Waziristan operation in parliament, similar to the time they launched a military operation in Swat two years back. They also discussed the political, monetary and security implications of such an operation, they added.

Some security analysts believe that Pakistan might opt to go for a ‘targeted’ operation in North Waziristan instead of an all-out assault, but only after the armed forces reach general consensus and political backing from the civilian leadership.

In the aftermath of the Abbottabad operation, back to back visits by US civilian and military leaders started to build pressure on Pakistan to launch a decisive operation in North Waziristan Agency, believed to be a bastion of militants hurting the international forces in Afghanistan.

CIA Director Leon Panetta’s brief visit to Pakistan over the weekend followed yet another sharp downturn in US and Pakistan relations when he shared ‘evidence of suspected collusion with pro-Afghan Taliban militants in the tribal areas’ with Pakistan’s senior military leaders, according to Time magazine.

Criticism of armed forces

Also discussed were measures to curtail the growing criticism of the armed forces by different quarters internally.

Political forces, most prominently the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) and its chief Nawaz Sharif, as well as civil society have launched scathing criticism of the security forces inside and outside parliament.

Monday’s meeting came on the heels of an unusually extensive statement issued after a military commanders meeting last week, calling for an end to a ‘slander campaign’ against the country’s armed forces by ‘unidentified elements’.

The security establishment is also concerned about the growing criticism by some political forces, media and civil society to defame the armed forces and wants the civilian government to come forward to defend them against this criticism
.

The Osama bin Laden debacle, the attack on PNS Mehran in Karachi and the killing of some innocent civilians at the hands of paramilitary forces served as a catalyst for criticism against the armed forces internally.

Those attending the meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani included Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman and Secretary Defence Lt Gen (retd) Syed Athar Ali.
 
It has become crucial for Pakistan to reign in the Army, for once, the public opinion has, itself, turned against the armed forces and chances like this dont come often. The civilian leadership has a chance to do something drastic that would not be opposed by the people and would, more importantly, allow the country follow a path of economic development over military spending...investing money in an institution that provides no monitory return for a poor country is a terrible waste in my opinion. Our conflicts exist to prop up the military, to give legitimacy to which ever General is in power, allow him to justify his acts, no matter how outrageous in the face of threats...ironically, the real threats were all created by the army to begin with.
It is important to move away from our militaristic nature and direction because history has shown us, nothing good can ever come out of it. We will not beat India by spending money on weapons, because over the long term the economic gap will widen...and having military generals play crucial parts in any peace process is a road to failure, we cannot kill every man on the western border of Pakistan, instead the way forward is investment in education...far more affective than guns on both sides of the border.
 

The Army has accepted civilian supremacy


By General (retd) Jehangir Karamat
Monday, June 13, 2011

The word ‘corps’ meaning an army formation is sometimes used interchangeably by some with the word ‘core’— so what should be done when the Corps Commander’s conference gets reported as the ‘Core Commanders’ conference — not really significant except that in our environment ‘core commanders’ could take on the connotation of some kind of inner body of what is called the ‘deep state’! Better to stick to the Corps Commanders—who held their 139th conference at General Headquarters on Thursday June 9, 2011 and subsequently the Inter Services Public Relations Directorate issued a carefully worded and detailed statement.

This statement is important and deserves analysis. The statement mentions a ‘perceptual bias’ that is driving the virulent outbursts against the armed forces thereby drawing a distinction between constructive criticism of the acknowledged lapses and the attacks intended to weaken the institution and drive wedges between institutions-something that is specifically mentioned as being undesirable and not in the interest of the country. The military’s support to democracy that has been a constant since the present government was elected but never before stated has now been spelt out and that too as support for democracy and not a political party.

This implies that the military wants no part in politics and accepts the democratic structure without reservations-as it should. The statement indicates that the military to military relations between the US and Pakistan will be within the overall ambit and context of the bilateral relationship between the two countries and not a separate facet of the country-to-country relationship.

The implication being that it is up to the government to determine the contours of this relationship. While clarifying the exact status of US military aid and the amount actually received by the military the statement indicates that such aid could be utilised for economic purposes thereby giving the government the final word on dissemination of resources to the military as well as reviewing allocations.

Going further the statement clarifies that future military operations would be conducted on the basis of political consensus—the clear implication being that political directives to the military would be translated into military strategy.

In this context there is reference to the joint parliamentary resolution of May 14 and also to the proposed national commission for investigating recent events-as something the military accepts and supports.

The military had already briefed a parliamentary committee earlier. Without specifically saying so the statement in its reference to the people signifies the military’s acknowledgement that in a democratic dispensation the center of gravity is in the people and that the military as a national institution is sensitive to public opinion and criticism.

There is more. The military has stated that on its part and staying within its sphere the military has asked for a reduction in the US training presence in the country and that its intelligence cooperation with the US would be on the basis of reciprocity and transparency and foreign intelligence agencies should not be operating in Pakistan. ]

Earlier the Corps Commander Peshawer had said that ‘intelligence cooperation (with the US) had been curtailed but not cut-off’. Here too the implication is that it is up to the government to decide the exact extent of cooperation with the US in other spheres.

This ties in with the reference to the overall relationship with the US mentioned earlier. The military has a realistic view of the relationship with the US and its importance.

Going further the ISPR statement in the context of North Waziristan states that the operation in the western border areas is being conducted as a well thought out campaign plan and no pressures could be accepted to deviate from this for a particular action at a particular time.

This is something the military has been consistently saying as it is the best judge of overstretch, balance, scale and duration of operations within the overall evolving situation. This, of course, has to be in line with any political directive by the government.


Significantly the statement urges the people of North Waziristan to evict foreigners and not allow their soil to be used for terrorism elsewhere. This when considered with the view expressed that the internal security situation is the highest priority implies that this is something that could be done on a larger scale within the country and the focus could be on those destabilising the country internally creating vulnerabilities that are being exploited externally.

The restricted tone of the statement indicates that the military does not want to overstep bounds even in an advisory capacity. Finally on drone attacks (recently stepped up by the US) the statement states without ambiguity that the policy needs reconsideration -obviously a reference to the overall negative impact of unilateral action by a foreign nation.

In conclusion it can be said that the ISPR statement has come after some game changing events within the country and have led to justified outrage. The statement itself could be considered a game changer because within its carefully constructed structure is the clear indication by the military that it considers itself to be within the overall civilian supremacy that a democratic structure demands.


The military has clearly indicated that it has a full understanding of the economic and internal security situation and their linkage with each other. It is inevitable that the military will take a hard inward look to remove weaknesses. It would be wrong to consider this statement as signal for ill considered hasty actions. It would be right to take this as a signal for a future civil military relationship in which the military can strengthen democracy, help in stabilisation and ensure that a nuclear power orchestrates the strength of all its elements of power to present the globalised world with the image of a country that has learnt from its follies and is determined to march forward.


— The writer is a former Pakistan Army Chief who resigned during the second Nawaz Sharif government.

After this, the hate-mongers should shut up or die!
 
After this, the hate-mongers should shut up or die!

i must read article; the author have nicely summed up the situation. i totally agree with him.

Pakistanis dumped between hard rock and deep sea

Shaheen Sehbai
Tuesday, June 14, 2011

DUBAI: The Pakistan Army corps commanders have pushed the hapless and helpless Pakistani nation between a rock and a deep ditch. The rock is the Army itself, armed with guns and a lot of arrogance. The ditch is the corrupt sea of vision-less politicians who cannot see beyond their stolen billions and rightly or wrongly have acquired power and perks they will not let go of.

In an almost defeatist and vengeful tone the 1,032-word political statement coming out of their meeting tells the people that from now on Pakistanis will be at the mercy of the politicians, who the commanders, in their heart of their hearts believe are corrupt and incapable of handling these life and death matters of state. So they want to wash their hands off matters and let the people and their leaders drown fighting each other. They will watch from the sidelines and when a collapse becomes inevitable they will step in and take over, blaming everybody else.

This is almost a political strategy to bring down the system, instead of supporting the system, as the commanders have pledged in their statement. It is like pulling out all the fire engines from a burning house and telling the inmates to fight the fire with their hands and empty buckets.

I have seen many comments on the corps commanders’ statement but none has addressed the real issue in a free, frank and candid manner. Some former army officers, generals and captains alike, even bureaucrats who were part of the military regimes have soft pedalled issues and have defended the Army position, without hinting at their share of responsibility to fix things, if they are so sincere.

The Army leadership has taken a highly defensive position after the repeated debacles, which were not engineered by the politicians but were self-inflicted because of either incompetence or sheer carelessness. The politicians have taken extra sadistic pleasure at the pathetic plight of the security establishment and have rubbed more dirt into its face. It is this attitude, which has forced the Army leadership to talk back, and lecture everybody on how to handle the disasters caused by lapses on their part.

But lapses can be forgiven and prevented with better security management. What cannot be forgiven is the failure of the Army to clean up the mess it has left in the political arena and by refusing to stand by national institutions, which if strengthened could have provided some hope and direction to the country and generated confidence in the systems, both democratic, judicial and civil.

For instance the present Army leadership was part and parcel, in fact the spearhead of the dubious political arrangements which were forged by the falling dictator Pervez Musharraf to protect his power. These were arrangements, like the NRO, which were extremely toxic for the country, but were pushed with vigour and enthusiasm. Until Musharraf was around, there may have been a justification, or a de facto compulsion, to continue.

But once he was gone, the Army leadership failed to undo those dirty deals although privately all the top generals would express extreme repulsion at the leadership which grabbed power and deliberately tried to demolish all crucial institutions, including the parliament, the judiciary, the media and the bureaucracy. Was it incompetence or complicity?

An even greater incompetence or complicity was not to back the judiciary against blackmailing by politicians who continued to destroy the economy, implode state-owned enterprises with crunching cronyism, looting billions and whenever challenged by the judges or the media, hurled this card or that card and pushed the complicit Army to back off. They did, ever so willingly. These politicians also easily coerced the executive and almost rendered political parties impotent by keeping critical powers with unelected and/or incompetent party heads. No one raised a finger.

Knowing that the politicians were corrupt and had no intention of correcting their course, the Pakistan Army, as the guardian of internal security, had to provide firm and unflinching support to corrective mechanisms within the system, if they really wanted democracy to take hold and get going in the right direction. They never bothered.

Instead, they allowed corruption by not only looking the other way but strengthened the impression that they were partners in crimes by getting extensions in their tenures and condoning every atrocity that was unleashed by the power-drunk politicians in the name of democracy. What was so undemocratic about creating independent accountability forums or properly investigating white-collar crimes? No one interfered because that would have been politically incorrect.

While this lack of support to institutions and the democratic system strengthened the undeserving and visionless political mafias, security lapses and blunders suddenly brought the Army, navy and the air force under tremendous pressure, thus taking away from them whatever will and potential there was to stop the rapid implosion of the system.

The politicians, who always felt threatened by the Army, got repeated God-given opportunities in shape of Abbottabad, PNS Mehran, Kharotabad, Saleem Shahzad and Clifton episodes to blast the khakis, bringing them almost to their knees, almost to this point when they are publicly pleading their case in long and unnecessary explanations in their defence.

It is a known fact, and the politicians, the civil society, the judiciary, the media and even the Army, admit that repeated martial laws and dictatorships have brought Pakistan to this sorry state. It was then the duty of all of these institutions to help in picking up the pieces and rebuild. If one or more of these institutions resisted this process of improvement, others should have forced them in the larger national interest.

Sadly only the judiciary, parts of the media and portions of civil society joined hands while the major players, led by corrupt politicians continued to resist. They were helped by some apologists who laughed and applauded the fraudulent politics and trickery that was perpetuated on the nation, as if playing tricks and succeeding was a great national service. The Army unfortunately took the side of these corrupt tricksters.

Now when the chips are down and there is tremendous pressure from within the ranks of the Army on its leadership to change course, there is little goodwill left to forgive and forget. The trick brigade is laughing its heart out.

The demand of the corps commanders that the nation should stand by it at this critical time is basically reasonable and should be supported but when the commanders accuse people and parties of ‘perceptual biases’ they are ignoring some bitter realities and condoning their own share in making and perpetuating these perceptions.

What has the Army done after all to undo the wrongs done by General Musharraf against all the political parties and leaders? Was the NRO a deal to undo the wrongs done to PPP or was it a deal by Musharraf to save his own skin by joining the loot brigade? What did General Kayani do to remove fears and concerns of Mian Nawaz Sharif so that he could play his due political role without fear of another military takeover?

The Zardari-led PPP was so tainted and corrupt that it had no legs to stand or assert its will on the Army after it was surreptitiously allowed back into the corridors of powers. That was easily done by the Army leaders but have they accepted the civilian supremacy in reality or is it not just a smokescreen that Army wants to support the system?

Was it not the Army responsibility to clean the dirty mess it had left over the years and when the courageous judiciary took up this cause why did the GHQ drag its feet and not assure the unarmed judges that their moral and legal authority would be upheld by those who have the powers to implement their orders. Why did they allow shameless and mindless politicians to defy the law, mock justice and act like mafias, prolonging the agony of the nation? It was the extreme of the insult of apex court as dozens of its decisions were not implemented by the government.

These and many such questions remain unanswered despite the 1,032-word communique of the corps commanders. Their stance on the Pak-US policy is also a big question mark and reflects a growing schism within their ranks as it is now towing the populist line while for the last many years they have been doing what Washington has been asking. Now when the public mood is changing they have shifted the burden on the civilians to devise a policy, issue orders and they will do whatever they are told. It is almost certain, these orders will not be implemented and if so done, blame of any failures will be easy to pin on civilians.

Still not all has been lost. The security lapses are a professional hazard which every army, intelligence agency and institution has to face and can be forgiven. To gain the trust and the confidence of the people and the nation, the Army has to play its role in building up of critically important institutions like the judiciary, the media, civil society, the parliament and the bureaucracy. It has to be either with the corrupt or against them. If mafias and gangs take over everything, in the name of democracy, what needs to be done?

The answer is strong institutional checks. Anyone who attacks or tries to undermine these institutions should be condemned and declared an outcast, through the existing legal and political systems. If political blackmail in the name of the Sindh or Punjab card is attempted, it should be crushed by all legal and constitutional means. And the army should stand behind these decisions, with force, without being apologetic. Only then it will get back respect of the nation.

In one of my meetings with a top general sometime back, I asked about the Sindh Card and what it meant to the Army. The answer was a dismissive sweep of the hand accompanied with the words: “What Sindh Card? If we act not a soul will move carrying the Sindh Card. We know how big this bluff is”.

But ultimately the general sb. and his team surrendered to the bluff, became the butt of jokes and are now offering apologies seeking our support. Support they will get but where should the 180 million people caught between the bluff and the bluffers go?
Pakistanis dumped between hard rock and deep sea

Accepting civilan supremacy should not mean that the military is not going to do anything even if it is obvious that the parlimant or any other institution is doing harm to the country, and then conside themselves justified. this will be considered as a coward act of trying to keep themselves clean.

military's role is to safeguard the national pride and ideology and this is not only to be done at border (by they way they are not even putting a great show at borders at the moment)

Arsalan Aslam
 
not going to do anything even if it is obvious that the parlimant or any other institution is doing harm to the country,
In my personal opinion, they might do it after chaar-panch ghootay lag chukay hongay aap ko..you know, nearly drowned...
 
Well, fair enough, however, I would say that your basic propositions are not applicable

The problem with the complex minds are they tend to start things complex.I have made that basic proposition in contrast to your solution of taking drastic (aka complex) measures with in the institution and that is the extermination of radicalizing Islam.Now that is not only a huge ask but what you are actually asking is the extermination of an Ideology with in the system which cannot be filtered.But my problem or my question with you is never about your ask but the facts on the basis of which you are asking such measures.

- My point of view has not changed since may 02, however, the Osama at Kakul and followed by the Mehran episodes (and here I am referring not just to the failure of security but the cover ups), highlight the reality of the armed forces failing to see the change in public perception about what exactly is the competency or the role of the armed forces - people are convinced that the armed forces seem cut off from Pakistan, that their interests are other than those of Pakistan.
Now since you have take an initiative and become more elaborative in terms of your thoughts now I can easily assess and share my thoughts with you.I was indeed correct that the transition in your thinking actually occurs after the May 2nd incident.If I am also correct than this whole transition of your thoughts is actually based on the cover-ups you are referring to.We are specifically dealing with the two incidents the may 2nd and the Mehran Base incident.Now common logic says is to Lets first start with the facts which cannot be neglected by both parties.What facts actually suggest to you that in both the incidents that their is a cover up.As far as I am concerned I hardly find not even a single fact that goes to show that their is a cover-up inside the Army.If you agree with this than your assumption of cover-ups is based purely on speculation which I disagree.And even lets say if your speculation is true than in that case we have no such way of finding out that it is true.


I can also appreciate the concerns of many who find the inability of the armed forces to "connect" with Pakistan, to be of great concern - allow me add, that it is not people who ask questions of the armed forces who have created this "disconnect", it is the behavior and attitude of the armed forces and only they can reform their attitude and behavior.

I assure you I appreciate your post and will remain open to refining the positions I have taken.

I am also grateful that you pointed out the so called disconnect.Now I want to remind you the Chief Justice incident in which if you remember when the long march was about to turn into a hells march it was army who took the initiative and put the final pressure on the president to reform CJ.This one incident in the past shows us that this so called disconnect will never exists if the situation gets out the hand in the future.In my opinion what really went wrong in the current times is that the Army has completely lifted it hands from the political government despite knowing the fact that it is them who carry the big stick with them.The main reason for this to happen is the public opinion which they want to turn against the government.I ask them why not pressurize them from back door on certain issues in which the public does not have the strength to raise their voice.Why allowing the public to disappoint by putting all the trash on the government.The best example of this claim of mine is the recent in camera session of the parliament in which Rao Qamar pointed his finger to PM that if he will give orders we will shot down right away.I think that is the only root cause of the problem that the Army not realizing that they carry the big stick.I suggest them to start showing it on certain issues.
 
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk How the mighty have fallen -- Well, they have fallen and they have been humbled - but they refuse to learn - today they indulge in blackmailing the Pakistani nation and state, they threaten that they will not carry out the legal orders of the lawfully constituted government and instead threaten it with their willingness to play politics - It's a very difficult situation, without a Pakistani system, the army's threat to the elected, legal government will only compound the army's predicament and it will fall even lower not just in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of it's own rank and file, recall the blunt questions put to the COAS by Officers and enlisted.

But what is this so called predicament that the army finds so difficult?? The army has gotten used to making policy, it has gotten used to power and it has gotten used to the money and it's not going to let go of these without a fight - now the politicians have no stomach for a fight, their offer to the armed forces has always been, there's plenty of money for all of us -- but what the army seems not to get is that this isn't about politicians, it's not politicians who are bad mouthing the army, it's not politicians who pose questions which seek the justification of an army that refuses to fight Pakistan's enemies and instead kills those who shine a light on the ties between the armed forces and the Islamist militants that the army itself created -- no, it has nothing to do with politicians - and it has everything to do with ordinary Pakistanis who are sick and tired of being lied to by this army, who are sick and tired of the lack of accountability of the army, sick and tired of this army siphoning off huge chunks of the budget, even as more Pakistanis are killed without this army bothering to protect them or their property.

Friends, there is a lot of play left, before this army learns that it MUST be PAKISTAN's ARMY, and not just an army -- now this reality bothers some here (shut up or die crowd) but everyday, the ranks of those who wonder why we need the army we have, grows and will continue to grow till, either the army learns or we have what will be be a last gasp for this army as it gorges itself on more power, more, repression and ultimately, it will crack from inside, finally allowing Pakistan to be free.
 
Back
Top Bottom