PM Imran Khan appoints Lt Gen Nadeem Raza, HI ( M) as the CJCSC

[blain2]

PA is 550,000+ where as PAF and PN are in thousands. No wonder COAS takes the lead.

I do not think the numerics have a role to play here. Otherwise this would be the case in all the countries with Joint Chiefs. The US Army certainly outnumbers USAF, USN, USMC etc. The same goes for the UK etc. etc.

My own belief is that the primary issue in Pakistan is the Army's unwillingness to cede operational command of its units to officers of other sister services when they take up the CJCSC post. This is partly because of the history but perhaps it is also the reason why the post of CJCSC has become more relevant with the advent of the nuclear age in the sub-continent. These assets are going to be more evenly distributed and the strategy and employment of this strategic capability has been thought about from a "joint" lens compared to the conventional capabilities.

i think gen zubair also deserves extension if gen bajwa is given extension

Gen Bajwa should have never been given extension. For that matter, the same with any others. There are plenty of other officers who can take on the mantle and continue. When we don't do these transitions right, it actually comes across as a weakness of the institution and not the strength of the individual as it is sold to the nation.

For each CoAS, there are at least a dozen qualified souls in the Army to take on the job. Our CoAS should also move on (credit to Gen Raheel Sharif) realizing that they are not indispensable.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Gen Bajw

In my view, this was more of a political decision in that Pakistan is generally rife with rumors & speculation about ‘civilian-military rifts’ as is. Given the powers that the COAS holds and past military interventions, giving Bajwa an extensions cut down on the rumor mongering that ‘Imran Khan was Bajwa’s baby and a new COAS would withdraw support from the PTI’. Given the political turmoil of recent months, one can only imagine the degree of instability some sections of our media would have caused were a new COAS taking charge.

 

[Rank]

The CJCS has the single most important position from the standpoint of the National Command Authority. While "Jointness" in the conventional terms has taken a back seat in Pakistan on account of Army's dominance in the national security planning, in the nuclear sphere, its not the CoAS rather the JCSC, who as the principal military advisor to the Government of Pakistan, makes the final recommendations to the civilian leadership on these issues. Once there is agreement with the GoP, then via the office of the CJSC, specific orders are passed on to the units within the respective services.

As such the CJCS in Pakistan has taken up a very strategic role in the military planning of Pakistan post 1999.

I guess you're mixing too many things. I disagree with your points. If that the case then JC should be a part of all major discussions or debates which we have never seen. Chief meet PM and tell him about his preparedness, similarly PAF chief and PN chief meet separately and brief about their respective preparedness and operation details that's what we have seen.

 

[Xestan]

This "lollypop" as you mention, is a strategic command that makes decision along with PM, President, Civil command and all the chief of Staffs of their respective forces. As for "dissolving" this command post, you are suggesting to destabilize a Joint Command method which is a nucleus between all forces as well as the Government (all levels of security and defence).

Then it should be rotated between all three services, why is a General more suited to head this Command, and not an Air Marshal or an Admiral?

PAF has dealt with Country's nukes, before we even went to land based Missiles. It's beyond logic to not appoint the highest Military officer of Pakistan from other two services. Talk to any high ranking officer in both services and you'll know how they feel left out of this, especially the Navy, which had done an amazing job in 90s while holding this position.

I do not think the numerics have a role to play here. Otherwise this would be the case in all the countries with Joint Chiefs. The US Army certainly outnumbers USAF, USN, USMC etc. The same goes for the UK etc. etc.

My own belief is that the primary issue in Pakistan is the Army's unwillingness to cede operational command of its units to officers of other sister services when they take up the CJCSC post. This is partly because of the history but perhaps it is also the reason why the post of CJCSC has become more relevant with the advent of the nuclear age in the sub-continent. These assets are going to be more evenly distributed and the strategy and employment of this strategic capability has been thought about from a "joint" lens compared to the conventional capabilities.

Thank you for saying this. If having numbers in your force be the criteria of selection to the post of CJCSC, we should have never seen a Chairman from the AF or the Navy. The whole problem here is the control. It's been on record that since Musharraf, Army has been reluctant to rotate the post, because somehow this notion is in some heads that Army controls the nukes better.

 

[Signalian]

Then it should be rotated between all three services, why is a General more suited to head this Command, and not an Air Marshal or an Admiral?

PAF has dealt with Country's nukes, before we even went to land based Missiles. It's beyond logic to not appoint the highest Military officer of Pakistan from other two services. Talk to any high ranking officer in both services and you'll know how they feel left out of this, especially the Navy, which had done an amazing job in 90s while holding this position.

Post# 28. Whether you like/accept or not. Ground reality will remain. Numerical Majority branches out in many ways.

 

[S.Y.A]

PA is 550,000+ where as PAF and PN are in thousands. No wonder COAS takes the lead.

this practice must not continue any more. the chairman must come from other forces as well. army's primacy has already cost us a war in 71. and yet again, in 99 the army didnt feel the need to inform other forces.

Post# 28. Whether you like/accept or not. Ground reality will remain. Numerical Majority branches out in many ways.

no, it doesnt. all decisions need to be made in the committee. and the chairmanship must be rotated.

Our army centric approach will not allow us to evolve into a modern military where air power is the name of the game, and navy is just as important. without proper air power your army, no matter how large, is nothing. without a navy, your trade ends, your oil supply dries out, your planes dont fly, your tanks dont roll. time to give this command to other forces (as was done earlier).

 

[Xestan]

this practice must not continue any more. the chairman must come from other forces as well. army's primacy has already cost us a war in 71. and yet again, in 99 the army didnt feel the need to inform other forces.

That's a very valid point. Kargil should be an example.

Also as Blain2 mentioned, it's a silly argument that numerical advantage means the post should go to the Army, if this was the case, no Marine General would have ever been appointed the Chairman in US Military.

 

[Signalian]

this practice must not continue any more. the chairman must come from other forces as well. army's primacy has already cost us a war in 71. and yet again, in 99 the army didnt feel the need to inform other forces.


no, it doesnt. all decisions need to be made in the committee. and the chairmanship must be rotated.

Our army centric approach will not allow us to evolve into a modern military where air power is the name of the game, and navy is just as important. without proper air power your army, no matter how large, is nothing. without a navy, your trade ends, your oil supply dries out, your planes dont fly, your tanks dont roll. time to give this command to other forces (as was done earlier).

The thinking in Military HQ's is different from whats discussed on PDF, and i have mentioned the reason. Once again, whether the reason is accepted or not on PDF is immaterial. Opinions can be discussed but reality won't change.

In Pakistan Armed Forces, PA is dominant due to majority in numbers and that has an over all effect. As an example, the GSO-1(Ops/Admin or otherwise) in JSHQ is from Army; rank of a Lt Col, the GSO-2 is a Squadron Leader from PAF, equivalent to PA major rank, the GSO-3 is from PN. GSO-3 reports to GSO-2 and GSO-1 where as GSO-2 reports to GSO-1. You see its not just the top level, even at mid level, the senior position goes to Army. At junior level, the newly commissioned officer of Pakistan Navy is junior for a few months to a year to 2nd Lt of Army, although both are OF-1. The basic planning for military Ops is conducted in MO, GHQ. At some stage of planning, all PAF and PN officers involved in this planning have to report to GHQ with coordination from JSHQ. JSHQ could have been made in Karachi or elsewhere. It was constructed in vicinity of GHQ for a reason.

 

[S.Y.A]

The thinking in Military HQ's is different from whats discussed on PDF, and i have mentioned the reason. Once again, whether the reason is accepted or not on PDF is immaterial. Opinions can be discussed but reality won't change.

In Pakistan Armed Forces, PA is dominant due to majority in numbers and that has an over all effect. As an example, the GSO-1(Ops/Admin or otherwise) in JSHQ is from Army; rank of a Lt Col, the GSO-2 is a Squadron Leader from PAF, equivalent to PA major rank, the GSO-3 is from PN. GSO-3 reports to GSO-2 and GSO-1 where as GSO-2 reports to GSO-1. You see its not just the top level, even at mid level, the senior position goes to Army. At junior level, the newly commissioned officer of Pakistan Navy is junior for a few months to a year to 2nd Lt of Army, although both are OF-1. The basic planning for military Ops is conducted in MO, GHQ. At some stage of planning, all PAF and PN officers involved in this planning have to report to GHQ with coordination from JSHQ. JSHQ could have been made in Karachi or elsewhere. It was constructed in vicinity of GHQ for a reason.

then this sorry state of affairs isnt going to change. any future conflict will just be a (prolonged)repeat telecast of 71 or kargil.

There is no need to call joint chiefs committee then. just another Army dominated organization with mere morsels thrown at navy and air force.

 

[Signalian]

then this sorry state of affairs isnt going to change. any future conflict will just be a (prolonged)repeat telecast of 71 or kargil.

Just like any other member of PDF thinks: yes - the state of affairs wont change as per your liking. They would remain as the Govt and Military leadership deems fit. The repeat of '71 or Kargil is highly impossible. The trap set by India Govt, Indian Military and ant-state elements with in Pakistan, have all failed. These range from COIN wars, LOC, CPEC to Indian false flags etc. Improvement has been there as time has passed.

Related to 1971, As much as India has tried to create a Mukti Bahini out of TTP and then create a pretext (2001/2, 2008, 2016, 2019 etc) to invade Pakistan, it has failed badly. Recently, India wanted Pakistan Military Top Brass to invade Kashmir due to recent conflicts in 2019 and brutality in Kashmir (based on Pakistan's soft stance towards Kashmir), however Pakistan raised it in UN. India has also tried to catch a Pakistani military uniformed officer inside India after Yadav capture, yet failed miserably.

So kargil and 1971 won't be repeated, don't worry about it.

There is no need to call joint chiefs committee then. just another Army dominated organization with mere morsels thrown at navy and air force.

Neither of the statement is correct. The effectiveness of Joint staff Committee and JSHQ is there, i have mentioned it already. Significant acquisition and up-gradation has been carried out simultaneously in PAF and PN unlike before.

 

[S.Y.A]

So kargil and 1971 won't be repeated, don't worry about it.

not talking about internal elements of those wars. but about the ones that influenced the course of war once it had started.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Informally, they both have to agree on the appointment.

the final notification is issued from the President Office

 

[blain2]

I guess you're mixing too many things. I disagree with your points. If that the case then JC should be a part of all major discussions or debates which we have never seen. Chief meet PM and tell him about his preparedness, similarly PAF chief and PN chief meet separately and brief about their respective preparedness and operation details that's what we have seen.

I made a distinction by saying "Strategic". The routine affairs of running each respective service is definitely not on the table for the CJCSC, thus my point that in the strategic realm with the nuclear overhang, the CJCSC has come into its own now.