Should Pakistan cut down the infantry

[RockyX]

Actually Pakistan has more army strength than India as per population.

We have around 1.2 Million and Pakistan has around 0.6 Mn. But population difference is 6.5 times. So, actually we have 1/3rd compare with Pakistan as per population. But our Navy, Air force, Coastal guard, special forces are quite large.

We are going to add 0.1 Million more in next 5 years, So it would become 1.3 Mn. Out of 1.3 Mn, 0.3 million would be in N-E states and rest 1 million on north/west side. In J&K, we have around 0.2 Million.

 

[asad71]

1. In all the wars Pakistan has fought there has been shortage of infantry. In 1948, 1965 and 1971, PA used tribesmen and paramilitary to make up the shortage thus exhibiting a weakness in the ORBAT/deployment.Qabails and paramilitary are best to be employed for guarding KPIs and irregular ops in enemy territory as well as any territory over-run. But conventional employment of these elements present a weakness in the line.

2. In fact PA needs more infantry considering the ops she may have to undertake - both external and internal. It would be best to keep the color service level at 5 years devoting this time to intense training. Thus PA will be able to build a large reserve.

 

[Leader]

The bold part is the and should be the point that you should be making. With less corruption, more money would be available for modernizing the police & other para military forces. I wonder why don't we hear such views related to the police about the Rangers or Frontier Corps, reason being they are run my military officers. Thus it may give you an idea who are the ones which need more disciplining. You reduce / end corruption, billions will be with you with which you can do anything for the country without reducing the army, rather army can be modernized by having more money and the teeth to tail ratio with some restructuring and addition of force multiplier platforms.

Plus, we may not be having offensive designs as a country, but then again we have to see someone has 80% of its armed forces, all its offensive strike corps and other majority of assets pointed at us, thus you need a reasonable army to take care of such threat. yeah, if you guys come into power, ask the one pointing such huge military at us, to have CBMs and both should reduce their armies against each other, then you can achieve your dream of reducing the army size otherwise no way your wish will be granted.

But, yeah, do tell your leader, when he comes into power, reduce corruption, get more taxes from the rich and those who don't give them, get agri income taxed, reduce PSEs corruption, he will be having atleast 15B+ US$$s at his disposal, with which he can do wonders for the country. And yeah do tell him to improve the teeth to tail ratio of the army and add force multipliers, which will take less manpower.

Its a myth. though it is true we dont hear much of it. but slowly as media is strengthening, it is exposing. FEAR doesnot rule minds of PAKISTANIS anymore.

lets call it vision 2050. By then we would be strong enough Economically, Politically and Socially (InshAllah), that we would be ready to fight our battles on diplomatic front. we would not require "over sized army". its not like mr Z. says to reduce the army and it would be supported by Nation, its more like normalizing the role of nightwatchman to nightwatchman.

and dont worry about my LEADER, InshAllah he will bell the cat like Turkey did, and Egypt is likely to follow. hopefully the transaction would be peaceful.

 

[A.Muqeet khan]

i really hope you guys know what u are saying

 

[TaimiKhan]

Its a myth. though it is true we dont hear much of it. but slowly as media is strengthening, it is exposing. FEAR doesnot rule minds of PAKISTANIS anymore.

lets call it vision 2050. By then we would be strong enough Economically, Politically and Socially (InshAllah), that we would be ready to fight our battles on diplomatic front. we would not require "over sized army". its not like mr Z. says to reduce the army and it would be supported by Nation, its more like normalizing the role of nightwatchman to nightwatchman.

and dont worry about my LEADER, InshAllah he will bell the cat like Turkey did, and Egypt is likely to follow. hopefully the transaction would be peaceful.

why do i reply to kinds.

 

[American Pakistani]

Its a myth. though it is true we dont hear much of it. but slowly as media is strengthening, it is exposing. FEAR doesnot rule minds of PAKISTANIS anymore.

lets call it vision 2050. By then we would be strong enough Economically, Politically and Socially (InshAllah), that we would be ready to fight our battles on diplomatic front. we would not require "over sized army". its not like mr Z. says to reduce the army and it would be supported by Nation, its more like normalizing the role of nightwatchman to nightwatchman.

and dont worry about my LEADER, InshAllah he will bell the cat like Turkey did, and Egypt is likely to follow. hopefully the transaction would be peaceful.

If your thoughts represents IK than i will wish better IK doesn't comes to power, already i watch his interview to CNN-IBN & his thoughts were dangerously in favour to India on every issue.

 

[American Pakistani]

@ topic this is stupid to even think for cutting down military. Instead it should be increased as Pakistan faces huge border crises & two most aggressive neighbours whom Pak shares huge huge borders. And for increase in army Pakistan needs to rise economically, the only person who can do this is i think Musharraf.

 

[Leader]

If your thoughts represents IK than i will wish better IK doesn't comes to power, already i watch his interview to CNN-IBN & his thoughts were dangerously in favour to India on every issue.

what is exactly wrong in sticking to principle by saying no to military operations or militancy?? dont forget the very army we are taking about got a humiliating surrender in 1971. and it did cost State, lose of its eastern lands.

dont you want to see a developed and progressive Pakistan or do you want to keep on the nonsensical fear mantra forever?

if you follow Jinnah he wanted a USA-CANADA like model between Pakistan and India. he clearly stated he wanted peace within and peace without. kindly follow the lines of our visionary leader not of some commando generals.

 

[Ark-Angel]

India's 7.5 lakhs soldiers have been successfully tied down in occupied Kashmir by just few 100 freedom fighters.I think we can afford to cut down infantry nos.If india gets funny just increase few 100 more freedom fighters elsewhere in india.Its a successful zia doctrine to fight big country like USSR and india is the asymmetric warfare and Inshallah we have been successful against both till now.

I got your point but believe me this is NOT the way out. We can neither cut down our defence budget nor our infantary. Numerical inferiority to Indian Army is one of the biggest issues as well as challenged faced by Pak Army. We need to increase the quantity as well as quality of our soldiers the latter being regularly improved. \

Previously Pak Army only faced threat from Eastern front but today we are facing not only two-front external threat but also threat from within. Enemy has already penetrated and we can no longer "fall back to Afghanistan and then return. If we can't afford to increase our infantary then we should at least maintain the current one and the we need more Elite forces like we must establish Light-Commando Battalions and in the and "technical officers should be given a chance to be senior military commanders" (this is something off topic).

 

[Doctor09]

what is exactly wrong in sticking to principle by saying no to military operations or militancy?? dont forget the very army we are taking about got a humiliating surrender in 1971. and it did cost State, lose of its eastern lands.

dont you want to see a developed and progressive Pakistan or do you want to keep on the nonsensical fear mantra forever?

brother you may be right about your point but my point is as long as US is present in Afghanistan and presence of hostile Afghan Govt and on the other side the tension between Pakistan and India on kashmir issue we can not think of reducing infantry number ..... because if we did this now and something happened like a war then we will be outnumbered by a big margin ( we still behind from India in number ) ........ and by reducing number we will lay our guard down ...... its not about fear its about security and precaution .... but when all the issues are settled then we can think of this but not now

 

[Leader]

brother you may be right about your point but my point is as long as US is present in Afghanistan and presence of hostile Afghan Govt and on the other side the tension between Pakistan and India on kashmir issue we can not think of reducing infantry number ..... because if we did this now and something happened like a war then we will be outnumbered by a big margin ( we still behind from India in number ) ........ and by reducing number we will lay our guard down ...... its not about fear its about security and precaution .... but when all the issues are settled then we can think of this but not now

yes, I stated before its not like one day we wake up and say downsize army, and leave 2 lac men jobless. no, this is not what I am saying.

India cannot control Kashmir with 7 lac army, so get out of this FEAR (that has been created) that the day we dont feed our nightwatchman we would be attacked by wild beasts (presumably India), what I am saying is that we must be strong enough internally and internationally that no one dared to attack us. meanwhile also strengthen law enforcing agencies to maintain law and order and establish writ of the state. remember its nations that win or lose, not armies !

 

[Doctor09]

yes, I stated before its not like one day we wake up and say downsize army, and leave 2 lac men jobless. no, this is not what I am saying.

India cannot control Kashmir with 7 lac army, so get out of this FEAR (that has been created) that the day we dont feed our nightwatchman we would be attacked by wild beasts (presumably India), what I am saying is that we must be strong enough internally and internationally that no one dared to attack us. meanwhile also strengthen law enforcing agencies to maintain law and order and establish writ of the state. remember its nations that win or lose, not armies !

brother there is difference between fear and precautions ..... and we cant trust our enemy
I agree with you that nations win or loose not armies but nations need strong armies who protect the interests of nation
I agree with you that if we are internally and economically strong and have strong relations with international community then they will not dare to attack but remember that the geopolitical situation changes too quickly and todays friend may be tomorrows enemy and vice versa .... optimism is good but self deception is worse ....... so we have to progress first then modernize our army so that by reducing their number our security do not compromised

 

[Leader]

brother there is difference between fear and precautions ..... and we cant trust our enemy
I agree with you that nations win or loose not armies but nations need strong armies who protect the interests of nation
I agree with you that if we are internally and economically strong and have strong relations with international community then they will not dare to attack but remember that the geopolitical situation changes too quickly and todays friend may be tomorrows enemy and vice versa .... optimism is good but self deception is worse ....... so we have to progress first then modernize our army so that by reducing their number our security do not compromised

downsizing military doesnot mean taking off the guard. focus must shift to quality from quantity. as for self deception and precaution measure you are saying I suggested a year ago on this very forum that "should conscription be compulsory for youth?" http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...cription-made-compulsory-pakistani-youth.html

to raise infantry is no issue, ask Hitler

 

[Doctor09]

downsizing military doesnot mean taking off the guard. focus must shift to quality from quantity. as for self deception and precaution measure you are saying I suggested a year ago on this very forum that "should conscription be compulsory for youth?" http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...cription-made-compulsory-pakistani-youth.html

to raise infantry is no issue, ask Hitler

chalu bahi jaisay he quality achi hu jaey gi tab quantity kum kar dain gaey ab khush

 

[JayAtl]

The point he made was that they had a hard time occupying and controlling parts of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is that controlling and occupying part that is difficult and often expensive. And you always need enough boots on the ground coupled with local support to do so easily.

They had such a difficult time in Iraq, that in the end they had to make alliances with "former terrorists" to gang up against Al-Queda cells.

And if you are thinking that Afghanistan is in full control by NATO forces, then you are deeply mistaken. Not even after 10 years with all their technological wizardry, they still couldn't control it fully. And it'll be that way for some time to come.

former terrorists were iraqi born sunnis whom were slaughtering shias and vice versa. Ironical that it took " america" to bring muslims in that country together and stop the 99% of the mayhem. regardless- what is your point, that which I have not pointed out to in my original post? even on afghanistan... who claimed that the US controls every inch of the land with 130k troops? ...

Example: If bangladesh and India go to war and bangladesh controls the capital has all major ports, cities, states and changes India's constituion to be accepted by those states and has permanent bases in India--- would that be a " bangladesh lost the war" scenario for you?