Pakistan's Overbearing Army

[Bilsher007]

A powerful discussion which I regret joining late.

Nat'l security requires that force mixes and missions be continuously evaluated. Any officer truly commited to his/her nation will recognize that priorities shift and must hope for an agile military/civil leadership to meet changing needs.

There are a lot of issues being discussed here from subordination of the armed forces to civil authority to nat'l defense priorities to the relative quanitative and qualitative balance necessary to meet those needs and, I suppose, whether that can be resourced.

Modern armies are becoming smaller. Management efficiencies, technological achievements with weapons and munitions, and development, procurement, and human resource costs drive that. The human investment is extraordinary in a western culture with a competing civil market to attract talent. The outlays to his grave for an eighteen year old who makes a career of the armed forces and retires a 1st Sergeant (E-8) at 38 are staggering in our army and they aren't unusual.

Pakistan faces security issues like nothing faced by America. Your eastern borders face a hostile army of immense size and technical capability. They're quite good and increasingly are becoming even more so. No doubt that the Indian Army will face a slowdown in it's growth. I suspect everybody will with a global recession. Still, their forces are large and funded from a massively larger pool of capital.

Given available resources, Pakistan must weigh priorities and then weigh proper force mixes based on any re-orientation of objectives.

You must have a conventional deterrance yet can't likely match the Indians bullet for bullet-man for man. You must also have an army capable of conducting a counter-insurgency campaign with a decided kinetic edge over it's western adversaries and yet the sophistication and nuance to effectively relate to your western citizens and assist/promote social change.

As much as a change in role to a subordinate status under civilian authority, you must trust the constitutional processes for change (to include elections) and trust your citizens to exercise good judgement for your elected leaders. Where you can't trust the man, you must trust the ability for the government to change that man by election.

You must also trust the public's judgement when they refuse to do so to your satisfaction by electoral mechanisms.

All of this requires an officer corp prepared to divest itself from it's traditional sources of power and largesse. I don't know if it's possible but I'm heartened by the institutional controls that the PRC is slowly imposing upon the PLA and hope that something similar can come to past with Pakistan.

As with too much else, all this takes time. Certainly the electoral process does. It is, btw, only through the repeated exercise of these processes that they become embedded tenets of civic behavior.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your views) the alternatives only offer more of the same. The system as constituted and previously practiced is proven dysfunctional. There's nothing behind you better than the future might offer through change and little choice but to do so wholeheartedly.

Mr yanky i know you or any non muslim like indians and israelis or british will not agree with me cause you fail to understand our islamic concepts time and again but i will state anyway just to remind you enemies of islam.


It is imperative for muslim army to possess water tight unity regardless of regional/ provincial backgrounds, to have good level of spirituality/ religiousity and thirdly to deploy military deploments to best of their abilities. What follows next is help from ALLAH in form of spiritual forces (Angels), islamic history is flooded with examples of all the above factors being in existence before ALLAH granted his help in sending spiritual forces in several battles with pagans,jews and romans. The battle of badr fought by beloved Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) against pagans of makkah was won with help from ALLAH in sending spiritual forces. Prophet Muhammed (P.b.u.h) had with him 313 strong believers who fought enemy force of about 1000 thus a difference by 1-3 ratio. Numerous other battles fought in days of prophet Muhammed(p.b.u.h) were won in similar way whilst being utnumbered by a big ratios. Battle fought by one of the best ever chief general commander khalid bin waleed (R.A) against the romans at yarmouk is another such example. He planned to take 30 men with him but his advisers told him to take 60 instead against 60,000 romans ! ( I know even muslims will doubt this fact but please check history archives you will all know the truth) . The result was romans were defeated and humiliated. 1965 war between india and pakistan is another such example where a small force defeated a much larger and better equipped indian army, air force and naval force. All the examples mentioned above are of spiritual forces intervening when factors like unity, reasonable religiousity and best possible deployment of military deployments were all present.

It does'nt matter how well equipped indians, americans and israelis are provided a muslim army, Air force and naval force of be it pakistan, iran, turkey, Afghanis fullfil the above factors then ALLAH will send his mysterious help with the spiritual forces which acts as force multiplier.

Don't worry we are aware of israeli and american grand geo strategic plans whilst using indians in our region against us. We know you americans, indians and israelis want to neutralize our nuclear arsenal and weaken the final muslim nation which threatens existence of israel . We will in the coming historic time diminish you plans to dust, defeat and humiliate all you enemies of islam . You may chose to laugh but believe me i am speaking based on evidences on coming times. These evidences are hadith " Ghazwa hind" and other numerous hadiths which indicate the destruction and humiliations of all infidels and enemies of islam. Interestingly mahtma gandhi india's founding father predicted four wars with pakistan, ( 3 have been fought 1948, 1965 and 1971) he said the fourth war which is to come will be decisive. Also interestingly nostradamus mentioned that a army with three lions logo will be defeated badly, indian army ..anyone ? . Even if you ignore gandhi and nostradamus's predictions the prophecy of ghazwa hind which mentions india being conquered by a muslim army who will then go towards middle east ( To finish Israel) and meet up with prophet Issa(Jesus)(Peace be upon him) can't be taken LIGHTLY !.

American grand geo strategic plans;

1. National Security of Israel
2. Destruction of politcal Islam
3. Securing of Fuel Assets
4. Securing of Water trading routes
5. Encirclement of China
6. Encirclement of Russia

Israel Grand plans;

1. Greater Israel

Indian Grand plan;

1. Expansionist policy

All these above plans will be turned to dust INSHALLAH...ALLAH's plan stand taller than your nefarious designs.

PAkistan is going to plan major role alongwith other muslim mujahideens to restore islamic caliphate towards end of times. Your plans to remove pakistan from world map is going to fail cause USA is collapsing everyday financially, economically, politically, socially and welfare wise.

 

[Omar1984]

Pakistan needs to be a military state because we have a very hostile neighbor to the east, who hates our very existance and a very unstable war stricken neighbor to the west who knows nothing except on how to fight. The military needs to be in control because of where Pakistan is located in the world map, if Pakistan was near Switzerland it would be a different story and we wouldn't even need a military.

 

[S-2]

"And are you so oblivious to the wardrums being beaten in New Delhi, even now?"

War? Really? I listen to lucid voices there and not those who mirror so many of the same in Pakistan. I do with Pakistanis too. Fortunately, both governments to date have displayed more rational behavior than their citizens and press.

"...blithely perpetuated to support the argument of the Pakistani military being the cause of all ills in Pakistan."

It is what it is- a military who dominates foreign policy and the internal mechanisms of governance unlike any army of a nation this size of whom I can conjure. That was again made clear this summer with the ISI's proposed re-structuring.

How's that old saying go- "Most nations have armies. The Pakistani army has a nation."? Still, there are others within your nation that have benefited from these "inefficiencies". Fellow-travellers who've contributed to your overall ills? So, no, the blame is not solely borne by your military but it's possible that Gen. Ayub Khan pointed the way in synchophantism and cronyism for others throughout your civil bureaucracy.

The questions challenge comfortable assumptions. I remind you of the title to this thread. If you're dissatisfied with your national state of affairs it may be time to question some fundamental premises of your particular methods of governance. There is X amount of money available. Can you afford your budget or finance it's cost? If so, I guess all things are possible. If not, decisions must be made to the best interests of the nation and not to the benefit of a vested interest that's tailored and skewed the system to meet it's needs first.

I see an India whose global commercial interests preclude a lasting pre-occupation with Pakistan. They're moving beyond and doing so rapidly with the intent of rendering you functionally irrelevant on day-to-day issues. I see an American public that believes Pakistan to possess odd notions of sovereign responsibility and defense- a plain eagerness to do so in Kashmir and Punjab and an absolute reluctance to do so in Pashtunistan. I know that many of us wonder if we facilitate this preference to our national detriment.

I can't choose how best to defend your nation. I can choose whether I can or should agree with my government's subsidies of your decisions-many of whom I disagree with presently.

 

[RedBaron]

...
The Indians aren't crossing the border-ever. Not with large conventional ground forces. What would they do with you- occupy Pakistan? Nothing weakens your nation's functional defense more than to stand poised on your eastern frontiers waiting for something that isn't going to come.
...

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.

Today, the situation may be different as India has a much larger military presence in Kashmir (as compared to '65) so a surprise attack in Uri/Chamb/Poonch sectors is impossible. After '99, Kargil sector has been beefed up too. And India holds most of the heights in Siachen.

India continues to maintain strike forces in the Punjab plains however, so Pakistan has to do the same...and frankly under current circumstances, I don't think IA think-tanks will recommend de-mobing in the Punjab or anywhere else in the near future.

Overall, if relations between the two improve, de-escalation can happen all across Ind/Pak border. If they don't, you can rest assured the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation will continue at 21,000 feet or underwater if necessary.

 

[S-2]

"I'm no military strat expert..."

Nor am I.

I know the history and I also know that anything is possible in war. I'm sure there's leverage to be accrued in the possession of given areas in the negotiations that inevitably follow these conflicts. That means, of course, that the Punjub or Kashmir could be seized as such.

I think that the liklihood is low, though, and becoming lower all the time. I think that it's India's ambition to dominate the conventional battlespace arms race and exploit the arena of their greatest competitive advantage-their economy.

Like the U.S.S.R., Pakistan is targeted for a reduction to irrelevancy based on economic, not military, indicators. While Pakistan is receiving 50,000 tons of American wheat, India is pledging $1.2 Billion to Afghanistan's reconstruction. That's undeniable nat'l leverage with Pakistan's western neighbor that's difficult for anybody in the region to miss. The comparative signals are obvious.

This is a three-dimensional chessboard and the strategic battlefields aren't the Punjab, Kashmir, nor FATAland. Ultimately, they're more likely the stock exchanges of each nation. India, I believe, understands this point well. I'm fairly certain that Pakistan doesn't truly measure value the same way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'm fairly certain that Pakistan doesn't truly measure value the same way.

You would be 'fairly' wrong then.

I fail to see how you can conclude that economic growth is not valued by the military, civilian government or Pakistani people.

That an economy is struggling does not mean that a nation does not value economic growth.

The two economies are not structured similarly, nor have the two faced the same sorts of 'shocks' - in Pakistan's case, over two years of terrorism and political instability, as well as the world wide commodities and food inflation shocks that in conjunction with the above mentioned factors proved devastating.

FYI, a major reason for grain shortages in Pakistan is their smuggling into Afghanistan, as well as large revenue losses through the abuse of the ATT.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

War? Really? I listen to lucid voices there and not those who mirror so many of the same in Pakistan. I do with Pakistanis too. Fortunately, both governments to date have displayed more rational behavior than their citizens and press.

You really are oblivious then - the voices I speak of are the voices of elected officials in the GoI, including some at the highest levels.

There has been nothing 'rational' about the behavior or statements of the GoI - offers of cooperation and diplomatic exchanges have been rebuffed.

It is what it is- a military who dominates foreign policy and the internal mechanisms of governance unlike any army of a nation this size of whom I can conjure. That was again made clear this summer with the ISI's proposed re-structuring.

No arguments over that - but some vacuums will have to be filled an the PA has stepped into the one in Pakistan. There was no 'proposed restructuring', only a highly flawed move to have the ISI report to the Interior Minister instead of the Prime Minister. The IM already has one intelligence agency, the Intelligence Bureau, reporting to it. The move made no sense, and was roundly criticized by defence and military analysts country wide.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the PA dictating foreign policy - there is something wrong with the PA creating 'shadows' to chase, an argument that has quite clearly been shown to be ludicrous already.

How's that old saying go- "Most nations have armies. The Pakistani army has a nation."?

Useless tripe and rhetoric.

Still, there are others within your nation that have benefited from these "inefficiencies". Fellow-travellers who've contributed to your overall ills? So, no, the blame is not solely borne by your military but it's possible that Gen. Ayub Khan pointed the way in synchophantism and cronyism for others throughout your civil bureaucracy.

The questions challenge comfortable assumptions. I remind you of the title to this thread. If you're dissatisfied with your national state of affairs it may be time to question some fundamental premises of your particular methods of governance. There is X amount of money available. Can you afford your budget or finance it's cost? If so, I guess all things are possible. If not, decisions must be made to the best interests of the nation and not to the benefit of a vested interest that's tailored and skewed the system to meet it's needs first.

You can remind me of the title of this thread, but my last response to you was regarding your patently absurd argument of the PA constructing shadows to chase - Indian hostility has manifested itself, past and present, that necessitates a strong conventional deterrent from Pakistan.

Questions regarding the interference of the PA in domestic affairs, and her usurpation of the power of civilian institutions are however very valid ones, and while the civilians may have even invited the PA interference, the fact remains that those policies of intervention have never allowed civilian institutions to develop and mature.

That is why you will not find many serious commentators supporting PA intervention in domestic policy and governance issues, a view echoed several times by Gen. Kiyani, and now Gen. Pasha as well.

They're moving beyond and doing so rapidly with the intent of rendering you functionally irrelevant on day-to-day issues.

Ah .. so we should be expecting the US to have this 'responsible' India fulfill its obligations under the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir - your nation started a war after all, over the refusal of Iraq to comply with another set of UNSC resolutions.

Pakistan and India have never been relevant to each other, so the argument is invalid. We have no significant relationship in any sphere where a lack of contact with India would make us suffer.

Militarily Pakistan will likely continue to maintain enough of a conventional and nuclear deterrent to continue to leave India emasculated, as it has done in the aftermath of Mumbai.

India and Pakistan have been 'functionally irrelevant' to each other for a long time now.

I can't choose how best to defend your nation. I can choose whether I can or should agree with my government's subsidies of your decisions-many of whom I disagree with presently.

Thats fine - you can disagree, since I there is much I find reprehensible in US foreign policy as well. However, you have not shown, at least to me, to any degree that India does not pose a military threat to Pakistan, given her past and current behavior.

Nor have you shown to me that India is the least bit interested in fulfilling her legal and moral obligations to the UN, the international community or the Kashmir people.

But because India is making money, you would wish for Pakistan to merely forget and ignore all those transgressions, past, present and likely future, and put our security in the hands of the 'diplomatic wrath of the international community' - a wrath that India has been flouting and ignoring for as long as she has chosen to dismiss the UNSC resolutions she initiated and agreed to.

 

[RedBaron]

...
Like the U.S.S.R., Pakistan is targeted for a reduction to irrelevancy based on economic, not military, indicators. While Pakistan is receiving 50,000 tons of American wheat, India is pledging $1.2 Billion to Afghanistan's reconstruction. That's undeniable nat'l leverage with Pakistan's western neighbor that's difficult for anybody in the region to miss. The comparative signals are obvious.

This is a three-dimensional chessboard and the strategic battlefields aren't the Punjab, Kashmir, nor FATAland. Ultimately, they're more likely the stock exchanges of each nation. India, I believe, understands this point well. I'm fairly certain that Pakistan doesn't truly measure value the same way.

You raise an interesting point. The comparison with USSR is a bit far-fetched, but the argument is valid in two regions, one of which you mentioned:
- The Afghan pledge no doubt is a good example of India using her economic assets as a foreign policy tool, not a first for India but definitely the largest, and maybe from Pakistan's perspective the most worrying. Could Pakistan have responded by offering comparable sops to GoA like free port access to Afghan goods via Gwadar/Karachi, by sending coal shipments, etc.? I don't know. Maybe Pak members would care to comment.

- The economic factor could prove decisive in resolving the Kashmir imbroglio. A largely violence-free election, decent 60% voter turnout in the face of militant threats and a fresh face in the CM seat have given rise to cautious optimism in Delhi. GoI would do well by urgently rebuilding the local economy through massive investment in infrastructure and services. Increasing cross-border Kashmiri trade and travel, phased reduction of federal troops, avoiding costly gaffes like the Amarnath row would help heal emotional wounds. But economic investment is where it should all begin. Militancy will truly be rendered "irrelevant".

 

[fatman17]

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.

Today, the situation may be different as India has a much larger military presence in Kashmir (as compared to '65) so a surprise attack in Uri/Chamb/Poonch sectors is impossible. After '99, Kargil sector has been beefed up too. And India holds most of the heights in Siachen.

India continues to maintain strike forces in the Punjab plains however, so Pakistan has to do the same...and frankly under current circumstances, I don't think IA think-tanks will recommend de-mobing in the Punjab or anywhere else in the near future.

Overall, if relations between the two improve, de-escalation can happen all across Ind/Pak border. If they don't, you can rest assured the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation will continue at 21,000 feet or underwater if necessary.

this is all due to a lack of trust between the two nations driven by the history between the hindus and muslims. both countries refuse to move from their traditional positions.

 

[rubyjackass]

this is all due to a lack of trust between the two nations driven by the history between the hindus and muslims. both countries refuse to move from their traditional positions.

I don't think Indian history is driven by Hindu history alone. They sure formed a part of it but.

 

[fatman17]

I'm sure my ideas don't fit a comfortable narrative but I'm not the only that's thinking this way about your military culture. fatman17, you're working the edges when you talk about life in the cantonments as a child and you know it. The calculus isn't that complex and something in the way you do business isn't adding up to an effective nation.

agreed. its starting to go in the right direction but slowly. it will take time. besides I have to live here man so cut me some slack!

 

[S-2]

"so cut me some slack!"

WILCO.

 

[Vinod2070]

I see some members again raising the same old bogeys to justify every sin.

No other countries have nuclear weapons in South Asia. Where has India gone and done a Gaza? Pakistan supported Taliban almost did that in Afghanistan in the futile quest for "strategic depth" and destroyed that country for decades. Even now that overreach is leading to the deployment of state supported terrorism as a means to get the elusive strategic balance with India.

Then the pet peeve Kashmir where despite having committed every sin in the world and made the life of the Kashmiris hell for decades by sending in terrorists of all shades and hues, one still has the gall to talk of morality and legality. The same endless raag of long defunct UN resolutions is sung again and again, to what end! It was a non binding UN resolution that could never be implemented for reasons repeated endlessly. There must be hundreds of such resolutions if not thousands. Who cares!

Just because one has convinced oneself of some assumptions by endlessly repeating some self righteous arguments in one's mind doesn't make the assumptions true. To start questioning those assumptions may seem impossible and will likely negate everything one has learnt and imbibed all his life, it may still be necessary.

The current posture of Pakistan is not sustainable. You need others to subsidize you for maintaining the posture. Not a small subsidy at all. My understanding is it is to the tune of 25% of your military budget or more. That carries costs which may be more than you may want to bear at times. The others may lose interest at other times.

If we leave all else, it may ultimately come to the capability of Pakistan to sustain that posture. I doubt they can despite all their efforts and likely causing great harm in the process. To themselves and to others in the region!

I feel Pakistan will need to change this posture. It is up to them to opt for a managed change that is less painful or one that is forced on them by circumstances beyond control. That may not be painless at all!

 

[omairhr]

Pakistan needs to be a military state because we have a very hostile neighbor to the east, who hates our very existance and a very unstable war stricken neighbor to the west who knows nothing except on how to fight. The military needs to be in control because of where Pakistan is located in the world map, if Pakistan was near Switzerland it would be a different story and we wouldn't even need a military.

In that case, we desperately need a military which concentrates on its professional duties rather than indulging in civilian institutions. I am certainly not questioning number of military personnel or military spending. I am just aking that whether military should concentrate on its core business of defending the country or indulge in running fertilizer plants!

 

[Vinod2070]

India and Pakistan have been 'functionally irrelevant' to each other for a long time now.

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.