What's new

Stop maligning the military

I think we need to lend a few ICBMs from China to sort America out... Not too many... Just a dozen would do... at least we can move on from this mindset that America will throw us into stone age if we tried to break the chains of slavery... if they did then we could threaten them with a radioactive age for a dozen of their cities... either that or our own missile tech has to advance on the "din dugni raat chogni" principle... I dont know why but everytime I think of our missile tech, I see North Koreans in my mind...

So there... we have come to an agreement... we want to break free... and for that we need a deterence against big bad badmash of the world... so he would nt threaten to shoot us coz we can threaten to shoot him and his family as well as his grandmother back... Now the Army knows where it has to invest some of its budget... I give you two years for this... make it so... God and Ummah are proud of your services...

Time for me to go to bed... Shab bakhair all... and stop maligning the Army... we shall resume in two years time if they dont get us some ICBMs in two years...

bro ..ure ideas r good ..but we got no time...we need ICBMS within next 5 to 6 months...cuz they already planned to throw us into stone age within this year ...:eek:..so dont go to sleep... u gotta be up....I in fact dont malign anybody....:undecided:..I know the real facts and figures...even the traitors over here r feared for their lives...cuz so many Ramond Davisz r running around here...:woot:
you asking too much time as 2 yearz bro ...If u gone to sleep for 2 yearz then im afraid u wont be able to wakeup after 2 yearz cuz nobody will be alive here then..bro...We could go to nice and cute sleep after we got done with the ICBMz stuff within this year...:)
 
there are elements/sections who want this perception to continue, and therefore we will continue to hear that the army is 'controlling' behind the scene. as far as the politicians go, they also want to be part of this bandwagon and state 'our hands are tied, we want to do this and that but the army wont let us' - this fits their agenda - they are 'clueless'.

when the prez addresses the joint session of parliament and basically states that 'ALL IS WELL', then who are we to complain?!

as some have suggested that the solution of our country's problem is to 'dissolve' the army - hell lets do that and then see where we stand?!.

xeric - unfortunately the problem lies in the 'perception' that the army still 'stirs the drink' in pakistan and the present civilian govt. is just a 'facade' created by the US/pak establishment (read army) and therefore the army is in 'cahoots' with the US on the drone policy, fata, afghanistan, india. if the army is 'front and center', then the US congress will not 'support' the 'un-demcratic' army but the current disposition is 'palatable' to them. - its a bloody f^^^^^g mess we are in!!!

Though the words are not interchangeable, but i am sure, people around here would still get the idea of what we meant... (isnt the modern day schooling all about graphics..??)
 
This is for those whose head doesn't hurt by reading, And those who prefer to understand rather than get emotional defend something that does not need defense:


Post-modern conflict
Shahzad Chaudhry



In this penultimate article seeking to define conflict in the here and now world — which I term as the post-modern world — and establish whether states, especially Pakistan and India where post-modern conflict is pervasive, are equipped and even more importantly conscious of the need to retool mental dispositions to the new war. As I stated in my previous two articles (Daily Times, ‘States and conflict’, March 14, 2011 and ‘Conflict in the modern era’, March 21, 2011) unfortunately both states slip badly on the matrix of both awareness and readiness to re-equip on different lines even for the neo-modern conflict, rather be prepared to change course for a post-modern conflict. Such entrenched structures, ways of war and the resulting mindset makes it impossible for them to move away from the traditional conception of both threat and war. Their structures then push them back in time forcing them to view both the threat and war within traditional paradigms, leading to familiar patterns of employment and hence entrenchment in the resident mould of perceiving each other the enemy. Preparation and additions to the way of fighting the traditional enemy thus continue unabated with the newer threats — the post-modern threats — merrily slipping into the threat-matrix unattended and unchallenged. The cycle continues.

9/11 posted the arrival of the non-traditional threat. Not that there had not been insurgencies before, but to give terrorism a philosophy of existence, mechanisms of functioning and the operative methodologies far different than the previously known independence struggles, or revolutions within states, meant that there were entities that were ready to operate in all domains of parallel functioning to the heretofore known states system. These had ideological planks, territorial aspirations seeking bases for both existence and development, and disciplined armies which, despite remaining amorphous, brought together effects that challenged a state and its organs. The effects of such engagement remain extremely hazardous to any state; the state’s credibility in the eyes of its subjects becomes the first casualty; a state’s inability to either restrain or effectively identify and then neutralise such agents of destruction becomes almost impossible because of their shadowy existence and patterns of functioning. A state gradually loses both its writ as well as physical ground and hence bolsters the success of such a group, giving it hope and promise. People can perceive a winner, and driven by the simple dynamic of survival, tend to side with the victor. An innate decay whittles away the structures and institutions of existence and eats into the state’s foundations. That defines the vulnerability in crass terms of a post-modern conflict. Keep in mind the inter-state conflict in its neo-modern variation continues to slip along still very much as a possibility borne out of the traditional pattern of conflict between states seeking competitive interests, especially if those have not been mitigated by any smart diplomacy to seek the most important liberty of action to focus on the more threatening and toxic post-modern concoctions.

Consider the ongoing war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s FATA region. After having conceded FATA to the local contraption of the Taliban and their Afghan and al Qaeda cohorts, it is taking countless lives and resources to wrest the ceded space back; US/NATO troops have conveniently coined the need to secure the cities as a strategic measure but essentially remain driven to conserve resources and manpower, in turn handing over the remaining 70 percent of the uncontrolled Afghan territory to the Taliban. This despite the American forces being relatively more specialised in combating the grey adversary. What has been conceded is unlikely to be ever won back simply because the US/NATO conglomerate is now receding off the Afghanistan scene.

Compare India, equally vacillating in capacity and incongruence of both doctrine and structures to take on what rages as a live and unravelling insurgency in its eastern and north-eastern states — a post-modern conflict. Hear the Indian military leadership making tall claims of a capability-based force structure and counting China as its primary threat; for added pleasure they will renounce Pakistan as an irritant but an insignificant threat. And yet, their existent structures and future force development plans have none but Pakistan in their sight. What would for example the $ 10-15 billion induction of the 126 fighter aircraft serve to achieve? The SU-37s may have made better sense with their range and payload to cause offence to China, but the F-16/18 or a compatible induction will serve its role in India’s western sector. The Indian army is loaded onto the Pakistani border with heavy tank and infantry components, its mechanised column are unlikely ever to scale through the northern Himalayan ranges to mount a threat to China, ditto their tank and infantry complexes. Any innovation still centres on Pakistan whether it is Cold Start or otherwise. What can such mindset advise its political masters except what remains anchored in their known zones of comfort — read that as the familiar territory of Indo-Pak conflict and hence their mutual enemy status for each other, making it impossible for the political masters to even consider a new paradigm.

What will it take to change the legacy mindsets of military establishments on both sides? Consider: there are three constituencies of enemy ‘mindset’ on both sides. These are the military establishments that we need to push to change their anchored thinking; there are the political and bureaucratic establishments that follow what the militaries on both sides enunciate as their primary foci, and calibrate their security and foreign policies to that end; and finally, there are the people who can potentially be more objective since they remain removed from any closed-loop effort of both establishments against fed conceptions and therefore more likely to break the logjam of entrenched thinking, but in a greater paradox are also susceptible to what gets thrown at them as political hubris reflected in the media, reinforcing the net paradigm of enmity. Since the people are the most dependent of the three constituencies, it may be possible to influence them through frequent interaction through mutual visits, media exposure, cultural and academic interaction to determine their own basis of judgement. It is likely that they will find much greater similarity in common challenges and opportunities rather than what gets fed to them in what divides them. If somehow the people swell can change the mindset, the first to follow will be the political establishment most sensitive to public opinion, and under more benign operating conditions amenable to respond to their own call of conscience. If two of these constituencies of enmity can change, the third will have no option but to follow suit.

Wishful? Worth a try, especially when what we have needs to be desperately altered to the needs of a 21st century military force in each of the two countries, and especially when it is critical for them to take the other off their respective gun sights. When we have a restructured military, we will have a relevant military. A relevant military will have the right emphasis on preparedness for the relevant targets, not to fight the war of the mid-20th century. This might spare us resources to provision the essentials of socio-economic survival with greater relevance to the global trends. Clausewitz will still be important but we will need to read him differently
.




The writer is a defence and political analyst
 
nice read. Frankly i have lost total trust in our military leadership. Especially after killing of innocent tribesman in fata followed by Gen Kiyani's rare ourburst, raised the hopes that finally some solid steps will be taken to restrain the americans but it seems that those were only words meant to cool down the anger of ppl. I feel so enraged that i feel like sending bangles to the Military chiefs who took an oath to protect the ppl of pak.
if only they had enough dignity they could have done the least by resigning and let some1 else take the charge and face the challenge but alas they (military) leadership is as disappointing as our political leadership.

I guess every should remain alert at all times since our military is fast alseep.
 
^^ Army is an institution not a family political party!! use rational.

Every few years we have new chief and President choose chief of his choice.

Naval cheif is appointed by Zardari, Airforce chief is appointed by Zardari and now when military chief will be retired it will be chosen by Zardari.
And yet Zardari call him self representative of people.
 
Dedicated to the more catholic than the Pope:

When we have a restructured military, we will have a relevant military. A relevant military will have the right emphasis on preparedness for the relevant targets, not to fight the war of the mid-20th century. This might spare us resources to provision the essentials of socio-economic survival with greater relevance to the global trends. Clausewitz will still be important but we will need to read him differently.
 
has to happen with both sides!

The substance of Pakistani ability to internalize, never reconsider, instead offer equations, right the Equal of wrong, Good the Equal of Bad --- This inability to have reasoned positions, this recourse to inappropriate equations, these are symptoms of a deep malaise.
 
^^ A nice read, i still dont think it supports what Musey had been advocating so vigorously.

More ideas - Godspeed!!
 
The substance of Pakistani ability to internalize, never reconsider, instead offer equations, right the Equal of wrong, Good the Equal of Bad --- This inability to have reasoned positions, this recourse to inappropriate equations, these are symptoms of a deep malaise.
You, Sir, are quite frankly wasting your words, trying to convince people who do not want to be convinced. I'd really suggest that you start penning your thoughts, publishing them on a proper platform will be a lot more worth your while.
 
nice read. Frankly i have lost total trust in our military leadership. Especially after killing of innocent tribesman in fata followed by Gen Kiyani's rare ourburst, raised the hopes that finally some solid steps will be taken to restrain the americans but it seems that those were only words meant to cool down the anger of ppl. I feel so enraged that i feel like sending bangles to the Military chiefs who took an oath to protect the ppl of pak.
if only they had enough dignity they could have done the least by resigning and let some1 else take the charge and face the challenge but alas they (military) leadership is as disappointing as our political leadership.

I guess every should remain alert at all times since our military is fast alseep.

bro....I guess these Army pplz took oath to be loyalz to the western world (US/NATO) not Pakistani pplz ...thats why they never fights or shoot down any western fighter entering our airspace and killing innocent pplz...we are enforced as slaves(hunting targets) for these evil western bastrdz...to be targetted/killed any time.......I guess we really need a revolution to kickout these traitorz( and send them to their bastrdz masterz) enforced upon us by these western bastrdz...:woot::cheesy:
 
^^ Army is an institution not a family political party!! use rational.

Every few years we have new chief and President choose chief of his choice.

Naval cheif is appointed by Zardari, Airforce chief is appointed by Zardari and now when military chief will be retired it will be chosen by Zardari.
And yet Zardari call him self representative of people.



Brother i agree that they are appointed by the political government but they are not outsiders. they are the ppl who are professional and groomed in the most premium defense institutions and i m sure each one of them has taken an oath to defend the ppl and motherland but unfortunately they are more involved in kick backs and plots. Just look around u and u ll c almost all of the sitting and retired army generals worth billions. same is the situation with navy admirals. i havent come across with much of AVM and air chief so dnt know much about them.

Besides v all know the fact that army chief has the final say in foreign policy related matters and security issues.

v gotta be more serious and stop kidding ourselves.
 
The substance of Pakistani ability to internalize, never reconsider, instead offer equations, right the Equal of wrong, Good the Equal of Bad --- This inability to have reasoned positions, this recourse to inappropriate equations, these are symptoms of a deep malaise.

Or may be they took this to heart too much: "The open mind never acts: when we have done our utmost to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, we still - must close our minds for the moment with a snap, and act dogmatically on our conclusions”. — G.B. Shaw
 
Or may be they took this to heart too much: "The open mind never acts: when we have done our utmost to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, we still - must close our minds for the moment with a snap, and act dogmatically on our conclusions”. — G.B. Shaw

Or may be they go by this logic" We MUST something. This is something, no matter right or wrong, therefore we MUST do it! "
 
Back
Top Bottom