Pakistan's Overbearing Army

[Vinod2070]

Maybe because you’re ridiculously naïve and arrogant; quite literally saying “who cares” in regards to completely authentic and binding UN RESOLUTIONS and not realizing what a dangerous and hypocritical precedent you are setting for nation that furiously dreams about getting a seat in the UN Security Council and “Superpower-hood”. I suppose you wouldn’t be too happy if Pakistan ignores UN resolutions about LeT/JuD as well eh? You (subconsciously or consciously) feel that India doesn’t need to apply any of these standards to itself, this is what sir Fatman117 meant when he said ‘glass-houses’. All this crap ^^^^^, what is it if not throwing stones? Pak, Saudis, Americans and some others supported the Taliban government, wow what a sin!!! I suppose India’s own support for the drug/war lords/equally if not more brutal human right abusers of the Northern Alliance is perfectly legitimate right? Oh of course it is, because you’re India.

This thread has become a compilation of a lot of unsubstantiated, unproven, demeaning, completely rhetorical anti-Pakistani BS.

Will come back to the rest later but AFAIK it was a non-binding resolution. Do let me know if that is wrong with a link.

Also I don't get into morality talk normally on these issues. That only came because some earlier posts by Pakistani members talked of that accusing India of not being moral and not meeting commitments to various entities. My rebuttal is just to point out that there are no "dudh ka dhulas" here. Exactly as Mr. Fatman pointed out.

 

[IceCold]

You may disagree with my opinions but if you want to accuse me of hatred based on that post, do substantiate that!

Regarding Taliban, do let me know when anyone other than Pakistan supported them. Are you confusing them with the Afghan fighters before 1989 when the Russians had left. The Taliban was born much later.

So in the light of this little fact, please restate your facts so I may reply to your charges.

Ok so now they are different taliban, wow really nice. So i should assume that just when the americans left a new breed of the talibans emerged and they suddenly started to rule afghanistan?
Let me tell you something americans supported the very same taliban that latter came to power, there wasnt anyone else, get your facts straight here. The CIA provided funds, arms while Pakistanis trained them in madrasas to wage Jihad against the soviets. latter when the USSR was defeated, the purpose of the US was achieved and they the left the area to chaos, for Pakistan the mess was too great to handle alone however unlike the americans,we could not leave them because we shared a border with them and hence did what we could to provide some degree of stability. If the US hadnt left afghainstan the way it did, we wouldnt be seeing this mess.

 

[IceCold]

I have not disregarded Pakistan's importance at all. It will remain an important country for the region and for the world.

Parity is a different issue. Even now, no one believes that we have parity. The hyphenation has been left behind for good now, never to return.

If you remember, some years (lets make it decades) back many in Pakistan believed that they could defeat India in a war. That is why you always heard of that 1:10 theory to get over the disparity in our sizes. Those People did believe in their military superiority with a passion. They did believe that being Muslims they are more warlike and militarily superior and the Hindus of India would be no match.

Then as India started coming into it's own, the talk suddenly vanished. Now it is no longer mainstream. Now most people talk of maintaining per capita parity and the military posture has also changed accordingly. Not even the most die hard general would now believe they can beat India in a war.

Just extrapolate the same trend over a decade or two and you will see a great divergence. I think it will be good for Pakistan and it will surely be good for India and the region when this obvious fact is internalized and gets translated into policies and actions.

You infact completely disregarded the importence of Pakistan when you came up with a post about parity being over and only China seems to think and that too not for long.
Now let me put it this way India has all long tried to isolate Pakistan in every manner it could, the reason this did not happen besides of the tall claims made by many Indians and that India has much to give interms of economics then Pakistan, agreed however does economy is the only thing that matters, no there are also strategic interests and for world powers, they like to keep their strategic interests at hand.
All these years and till now Pakistan maintianed some sort of parity with India and we continue to do in the coming future as well, from defence to economy as well. Infact Pakistan economy was doing very well a few years back until the economic melt down effected the whole world and not just Pakistan. No sane Pakistani says 1=10, this is BS and no matter what you believe, we are not taught this either, we are well aware that india is a bigger nation with much more resources at her disposal and that we cannot match them bullet vs bullet, but then again there comes the theory of maintaining minimum crediable deterrence in which our nuclear doctrine falls into as well.
As for a couple of years or even decades, the trend will be the same, to maintain minimum deterrence level against India, unless ofcourse all core issues get resolved (which i doubt by the way).

PS: When I said no one would believe that Pakistan can beat India in a war, that did not include Zaid Hamid and his camp followers.

That is vice versa.And please dont come up with 71. That is an altogether different story.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I interpret that as meaning that any talk of any sort of parity will become even more absurd than it is now. No one (except may be China for some more time for her own vested interests) will care for such tripe.

Where is the self-righteousness? I agree that there is no need to throw stones but I didn't throw any!

I just offered my perspective on the topic and some very self righteous posts accusing that India would do a Gaza in Pakistan or some self righteous rhetoric on Kashmir.

I may be way off the mark. Would be good to know why you think so?

I stated facts:

1. A rebuttal to S-2's oft repeated canard suggesting Indian policy makers are yoga instructors chanting 'ohm's and make love not war' - the warmongering belligerence has been evident in the aftermath of Mumbai. Public opinion and the hawks, and even some moderates have been demanding 'action', and the fact is that the only thing preventing India from doing a 'Gaza' in Pakistan is Pakistan's conventional deterrent.

To summarize, every single one of S-2's contentions has been shown to be completely inaccurate and uninformed:

• The PA has created the 'myth' of Indian hostility
• The PA has been runnign a 'scam' when it comes to a perceived theat from India
• The GoI has been 'rational' in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks
• Pakistan and Pakistanis in some way do not 'value economic growth or development'

2. On the UNSC resolutions, the fact remains that your country and your leadership has outright refused to implement the resolutions, going so far as to claim that J&K is not even disputed.

When you can show me that the UNSC resolutions have any sort of 'expiration date', or that any conditions exist, other than India's blatant violation of her obligations and commitments to the international community and the Kashmiris, is when you can say the resolutions are outdated.

Till then it is what it is - a flagrant violation of the UNSC resolutions (the US went to war over a similar attitude of violations after all, as I pointed out), a violation of the legal requirements under the Instrument of Partition and the Instrument of Accession, which required a plebiscite in any State that had a disputed accession.

That the situation turned to a proxy war only has India to blame - India and her refusal to abide by her internationla commitments. And this is the example S-2 holds up in front of us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'll stand by my thoughts and also offer a litmus test.

Your military will no longer be "overbearing" when, hat in hand, it offers itself before your parliament to justify it's budget, fully prepared to submit to the will of the government in the design of such...over and over again.

That means justifying missions, equipment, personnel actions, and all that you see U.S. armed forces officers doing daily on the well-beaten path between Capitol Hill and the Pentagon. That's civilian authority/oversight and it's utterly missing.

Oh! BTW, oversight is an acquired skill- an art if you will, and won't be effectively exercised overnight. In fact, your military may bear the implied responsibility of training your legislators on the complexities and nuances that need to be assessed. It's in your interests, of course, should you wish that intelligent decisions be rendered. It's also in your military's interests not to patronize and you'll be likely bitten if so.

As of now, the Pakistani military defines the mission, sets the discussion, and writes itself the cheque. There's a lot between those words that needs to change and I highly doubt, given conditioning, that change will come easily if at all. Failing to effect decisive functional change will be corrosively destructive.

Long embedded entitlement will be a "bear" to overcome.

DO as you wish and 'withdraw' - as I said in my last response to you - I do not have serious disagreement with the argument that the PA needs to be more accountable (relative to the dynamics in Pakistan, not a US system based Litmus test) or that the Army needs to stay out of civilian institutions.

My major disagreements with you were on the points I highlighted in my response to Vinod above points that I thought were extremely uninformed, one sided and even hopelessly naive in terms of the 'faith' you expect Pakistan to have on India 'doing the right thing', despite evidence past and present indicating the complete opposite.

 

[fatman17]

The Inconvinent truth is that the Pakistan Army has become an overspending organization but being a citizen of Pakistan I wouldn't mind that because our defence against our neighbours has to be strong. Yet still there are places where the military seems like a corrupt organization made to profit for itself and some officers seem to spend more than what they seem to earn but I think that is a totally different issue altogether. What we need to understand is that the current state Pakistan is in economically the army does look like an overspending organization and maybe better relations with our neighbours may lead to a cut in the military budget but I think that the top brass of the PA would never allow such a situation to be created for their importance in the power houses and fulfillment of their pockets. If they do I think people would stop casting a shadow of doubt that if the PA is even for the betterment of Pakistan or just to suck all its budget and paint a picture of defence need.

yes there is fat, that needs to be cut. on the second there are cases but it is not rampant (just like many other countries including the US). the pakistan army's civilian enterprise under the aegis of the Fauji Foundation provides for hundreds and thousands of civilian related jobs. the issue here is two-fold. 1. it creates jobs for army officers who retire from army service but some who get these jobs are not good managers, so there should be a "criteria" for selection. so if a army officers does not qualify and a civilian is better, the civilian should get the job.
2. is the accountability. this enterprise must be audited. there should be checks and balances. it should pay its full complement of taxes.

on the pockets issue, one needs to quantify with facts. generalizations do not do justice to some very good work being done by these civilian enterprises.

 

[fatman17]

Where is the self-righteousness? I agree that there is no need to throw stones but I didn't throw any!

I just offered my perspective on the topic and some very self righteous posts accusing that India would do a Gaza in Pakistan or some self righteous rhetoric on Kashmir.

I may be way off the mark. Would be good to know why you think so?

Vinod you are a good guy IMO. i like your comments and respect them and still do. what "riled" me was your assertion that what has happened in Afghanistan is the "sole" responsibility of Pakistan. invest some time in reading "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll to get a better perspective of things.

secondly the Kashmir "imbroglio" is not once again because of Pakistan. lets be mildly reasonable here.
thirdly "defunct UN resolutions" serves your country's purpose, and now your country is going to the same UN to push pakistan to implement UN resolutions. a bit hypocritical!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Back to the subject of the thread - the political system needs continuity to evolve. In fact the system needs continuity before it can even think of evolving. There are still too many who do not really believe the civilian government will last, or that the Army will let them last, or that if it does, the election process will be credible and fair.

Those doubts will likely not be removed at least till the next elections, and without a verdict on those elections that they were 'free and fair', like these past ones. That is when I believe doubts amongst Pakistanis may finally start to recede, and a 'political and democratic culture' start to cement itself.

Pakistan's civil service officers are, for the most part, extremely competent. The selection process is arduous and taxing. Because the positions under the CSS program are highly desired, the process does put through a lot of talent into the Civil Services.

Where the system needs tweaking is in making the civil services less prone to political interference, and better utilization by the elected/military leadership. Ruling out military leadership (via interference in civilian affairs) as only perpetuating the rot, we can only hope that if this government lasts through the next elections, the establishment of a 'political culture' will draw more Pakistanis to the political process, and pressure the politicians to start making the needed changes.

People have argued for more accountability and transparency from the military. Of course this is not going to be possible instantaneously, but I do think some positive movement on this front has been made in this past budget, where the tradition of presenting a mere 'one line item' was done away with, and more detail offered.

The following article in the Hindu discusses the move:

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani recently promised to “freeze” Pakistan’s defence budget to demonstrate good intentions towards India.

Indians may be interested that while the Rs. 296 billion allocation ($47.3 billion) presented in the Finance Bill earlier this week was an increase of 7.6 per cent over the previous year’s outlay in absolute terms, analysts are saying that in re al terms, it actually represents a decrease.

Factored into this conclusion are the sky-rocketing prices of oil, double digit inflation and the fall in the value of the Pakistani rupee to the dollar.

But what is exciting people in Pakistan more is that for the first time since the 1965 war with India, the country’s spending on defence — until now the holiest of the holies — is to come up for discussion before a democratically elected Parliament.

In keeping with the new mood in the country, the government has already revealed more details about the defence budget than in any previous year. The practice until now had been to present it as a one-line item in the Finance Bill. This year, it contained a breakdown under six headings.

Of the total Rs. 296 billion, Rs. 294.9 billion has been allocated to military defence and Rs. 1.17 billion to defence administration.

Of the military defence allocation, Rs. 99 billion will be spent on personnel related expenses. Operating expenses have been fixed at Rs. 82.84 billion and the cost of physical assets Rs. 87.63 billion. The army will spend Rs. 25.73 billion on civil works.

“In a major policy move government has decided to do away with the practice of presenting a single line budget for defence. All the relevant details of the defence expenditure are available for review and debate of the Parliament. This will go a long way to bring greater fiscal discipline by inducing more economical use of available resources,” Finance Minister Naveed Qamar told the National Assembly while presenting the 2008-2009 budget.
Transparency promised

Transparency in defence spending is what the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim league (N) promised in their 2006 “charter of democracy.” In addition, the PPP-led government has to live up to it commitment of “parliamentary supremacy.” But Mr. Qamar has been quick add since then that the National Assembly will discuss the budget only to the extent that it will not hurt national security.

“We all are patriotic Pakistani parliamentarians and we hope that during the debate on the defence budget no one will go to the extent that could affect national security,” he said at a post-budget press conference.

No one yet knows how much of a debate to expect, but commentators have still praised the move to open out the defence outlay for discussion as a “start.”

“Rome wasn’t built in a day,” said Ikram Sehgal, a retired major who is the publisher and editor of the monthly Defence Journal. “Our defence budget is public money, and there has to be accountability. People have a right to know where the money is being spent, and how it is spent. For too many years it has been outside the public realm, and the government is absolutely right in bringing it before Parliament.”

Writing in the Daily Times, Lt. Gen (retd) Talat Masood, a political and security analyst, said the move held “considerable merit.” Alongside, he demanded scrutiny also of US military assistance to Pakistan since 2001 amounting to over $10 billion.

“Civilian control prevents the military from turning into a separate corporate body that is capable of preserving and expanding its diverse spheres of influence,” said Lt. Gen. Masood.

In her book Military Inc published last year, Ayesha Siddiqa outlined how the military had turned into Pakistan’s biggest corporation, estimating its worth at roughly over $ 20 billion. She also argued that the Pakistan military’s predominant role in politics and governance was both propelled by and a result of its need to protect its business interests, and had affected its professionalism.

Lt. Gen. Masood, who once served as a defence secretary, said parliamentary scrutiny of the defence budget would enhance the credibility of the military in the long run. Restoring the Pakistan Army’s credibility has been number one on the agenda of the Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani after a particularly torrid year for the institution.

Most of 2007, with the unpopular President Pervez Musharraf also the army chief, the image of the Pakistan Army took an unprecedented battering in protests by political parties, lawyers and civil rights activists. One of the demands of protestors on the streets was for a cutback in the defence budget and to place it before the people for scrutiny.

The defence budget this year constitutes 14.7 per cent of the total budget outlay of Rs. 2010 billion, a decrease, though marginal, from last year’s 17. 1 per cent. Over the last four years, some military spending, such as the allocation for the Rangers, an elite paramilitary, and the estimated Rs. 40 billion ex-servicemen pension bill, are “masked” as civilian expenditure. That practice continued this year too.

Gen. Kayani, among whose first actions as army chief was to pull out several hundred serving army officers from civilian government departments, is said to have fully supported the move for transparency in the defence budget.

“What you saw in the last eight years unfortunately was only one per cent of the army. Ninety-nine per cent of the army is a good, professional soldiering unit, and interested only in soldiering. Whatever Gen. Kayani has been doing has been greeted with great enthusiasm. I am absolutely confident that a majority of the Army will also support this move. The Army, Navy and Air Force will welcome it, because this way, they can also convince the people about their requirement,” said Major(retd) Sehgal.

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Pakistan: debate on defence spending

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Since 1971 hysteria of constant threat from india is created.
which forced for larger military budget(5% or more than 5% of GDP).

Thats sort of silly - If your neighbor sponsors and supports an insurgency and destabilizes an undisputed and sovereign part of your territory, and helps break the country apart, of course the government and military will be concerned about the neighbors intentions.

This isn't 'hysteria', its pragmatism and attempting to avoid making the same mistake again.

after all these its only victory it can claim from all it existence is Taliban taking over Kabul.

The only 'loss' Pakistan has suffered was 1971.

In the 1947 war, Pakistan was arguably victorious, in that it had no Kashmiri territory, and ended up with a little less than half, and 1965 was a stalemate.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod you are a good guy IMO. i like your comments and respect them and still do. what "riled" me was your assertion that what has happened in Afghanistan is the "sole" responsibility of Pakistan. invest some time in reading "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll to get a better perspective of things.

secondly the Kashmir "imbroglio" is not once again because of Pakistan. lets be mildly reasonable here.
thirdly "defunct UN resolutions" serves your country's purpose, and now your country is going to the same UN to push pakistan to implement UN resolutions. a bit hypocritical!

This book is on my list of to-dos. I will surely read it some day.

Also, my statement was a bit rhetorical here, in response to some of the other moral rhetoric about India. I think that the morality of nations do not follow the same parameters as the morality of individuals, for better or for worse.

I agree that India may sometimes behave in a way that may seem hypocritical to others. I doubt there is any nation out there whose actions could never be defined that way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Back to the topic please.

 

[Contrarian]

I'm no military strat expert, but I'm not sure the above is true. Historically, India has opened a front on the Punjab front to relieve pressure elsewhere. E.g. when India was caught by surprise by Operation GrandSlam in Kashmir '65 (post-Gibraltor) and lost some ground there, she opened the Punjab front. I recall a Pak documentary wherein a retired PA General recalls a conversation with Gen Ayub wherein the latter believed India would not open a Punjab front in '65 and was proved wrong.

The point is not that. The important thing in what you have mentioned is that India responded by opening another front in Punjab to ease the pressure in Kashmir.

It has not unilaterally opened up theatres of war with Pakistan. The point is not that Pakistan shouldnt maintain a military or have a strike/holding corps in Punjab or even increase them in size, the point is that they have to submit to the will of the govt, which may include anything and everything from downsizing to dismantling the military. It has to be the civilian govts choice, not the military's. The military keep on propagating that India's evil and they are the sole defenders of Pakistan, and those who are the sole defenders of their land, without them calling the shots, Pakistan would be annexed by India.

 

[Vinod2070]

You infact completely disregarded the importence of Pakistan when you came up with a post about parity being over and only China seems to think and that too not for long.
Now let me put it this way India has all long tried to isolate Pakistan in every manner it could, the reason this did not happen besides of the tall claims made by many Indians and that India has much to give interms of economics then Pakistan, agreed however does economy is the only thing that matters, no there are also strategic interests and for world powers, they like to keep their strategic interests at hand.
All these years and till now Pakistan maintianed some sort of parity with India and we continue to do in the coming future as well, from defence to economy as well. Infact Pakistan economy was doing very well a few years back until the economic melt down effected the whole world and not just Pakistan. No sane Pakistani says 1=10, this is BS and no matter what you believe, we are not taught this either, we are well aware that india is a bigger nation with much more resources at her disposal and that we cannot match them bullet vs bullet, but then again there comes the theory of maintaining minimum crediable deterrence in which our nuclear doctrine falls into as well.
As for a couple of years or even decades, the trend will be the same, to maintain minimum deterrence level against India, unless ofcourse all core issues get resolved (which i doubt by the way).

That is vice versa.And please dont come up with 71. That is an altogether different story.

Well, I think parity and importance of Pakistan are two independent issues.

I also think that India neglected her military for a long period and that contributed to this semblance of parity. Now with India focusing on military modernization, it may be tough for Pakistan to maintain that.

You will still have the minimum credible deterrence. That is a given.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I also think that India neglected her military for a long period and that contributed to this semblance of parity. Now with India focusing on military modernization, it may be tough for Pakistan to maintain that.

You will still have the minimum credible deterrence. That is a given.

Pakistan's military capability was severely impacted by US sanctions, so the 'neglect' was not limited to India alone.

That India enjoys as much of an advantage as she does now is primarily due to those years of sanctions.

I highly doubt India will ever achieve military superiority to the point where she can contemplate military action against Pakistan, even limited, without suffering severe consequences.

Back to the topic please.