Tanks guarding a ‘jhuggi’

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So we read of a battle in Buner last February. The citizens rise. Where's the army? Many are wounded defending themselves. The local hospital has no medicine. Where's the medicine? Islamabad is sixty miles away. One hour by vehicle on road.

Where was the Army in Buner? Ask the GoP. Deployment and orders to engage were the prerogative of the GoP and GoNWFP.

As some Pakistanis, so too have you S-2 irrationally latched onto a simplistic and singular object to direct your ire at.

Balouch insurgency.

India.

Kashmir.

Envelopment from Afghanistan.

Do any of these things matter much to some family in Buner today?

Rant.

Of course these things matter.

Buneris are Pakistanis, if Pakistan does not exist then neither do they.

In any case, this is a rather hypocritical argument coming from an American whose nation's excesses from 'Manifest Destiny' to 'Star Wars' and a global 'cold war' against a nemesis thousands of miles away dwarfs any actions Pakistan may have taken in her own national interest.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The author may have been wrong there - Pakistan won't gain much by diverting money from defense to social development, but it will nevertheless gain a lot if it diverts attention from military to income distribution.

That really does not make any sense.

How is the government prevented from 'paying attention' to development and investing in socio-economic infrastructure by the military?

One way that would occur is through exorbitant defence spending, but that as I mentioned is not the case to where it places a significant enough burden on resources that the GoP cannot invest it in the necessary sectors.

The Pakistani Civil Service continues to be extremely competitive and attracts the top talent in the country (along with the military). Selection is extremely tough and largely on merit - what happens to their careers afterward is once more a function of the interests of the political elite.

So a 'hoarding of talent' is not the issue either.

How then does the military prevent the GoP from investing in the necessary sectors and introducing reforms?

Also, since India and Pakistan have so many complementary goods, they both will gain through trade if peace is achieved. But peace will also reduce the privilege and prestige of the army, so army has no intrinsic need to make peace. Look at this from a army mans' perspective - he is faced with 2 choices, either spend money buying new weapons and making his formation more powerful (and himself more prestigious) or talk to the opposition army (benefits the nation, but loses prestige for army). My guess is that for a long time the army has been choosing option 1. It is not the money that really counts, but the willingness to have peace.

Country gains from peace, army loses.Hence no peace as long as army is powerful.

This is a completely false assertion in the case of Pakistan.

It has in fact been Army led governments in Pakistan that have advanced the cause of normalization with India (the recent example of Musharraf being a case in point) far more vigorously than the civilian governments.

I personally believe that trade between India and Pakistan would be extremely one sided, though there are some areas in which complimentary trade can occur.

 

[S-2]

You rant.

I KNOW where your army was. Those unfortunates might not have in Buner, though. Further, I'm sure they watched your vehicles pull out of SWAT beforehand and depart THROUGH Buner headed east.

Thanks.

 

[Patriot]

You rant.

I KNOW where your army was. Those unfortunates might not have in Buner, though. Further, I'm sure they watched your vehicles pull out of SWAT beforehand and depart THROUGH Buner headed east.

Thanks.

We've got a insider here.Oh man you get all the info.Maybe CIA should hire you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You rant.

I KNOW where your army was. Those unfortunates might not have in Buner, though. Further, I'm sure they watched your vehicles pull out of SWAT beforehand and depart THROUGH Buner headed east.

Thanks.

Let me know when the US national guard or military is allowed to engage any criminal as they see it in the vicinity of their bases in the United States.

Was the Army ordered to engage the Taliban in Swat and surrounding areas or not during the peace deal? Was the Army ordered to adhere to the peace deal or not? Was the Army ordered to stand by even when it was clear the Taliban were taking over Buner or not?

Stop dissembling and ranting.

 

[S-2]

"In any case, this is a rather hypocritical argument coming from an American whose nation's excesses from 'Manifest Destiny' to 'Star Wars' and a global 'cold war' against a nemesis thousands of miles away dwarfs any actions Pakistan may have taken in her own national interest."

We're discussing a letter from a gentleman in Islamabad. What are you discussing, Mr. Red Herring Dissembler?

That won't change the point nor it's relevance. You're the affected party by sixty-two years of choices-nobody else. The central choice appears to be by default your armed forces as a perpetuating institution that seems immune from and rides above your national discourse.

Your reaction appears to confirm as much.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We're discussing a letter from a gentleman in Islamabad. What are you discussing, Mr. Red Herring Dissembler?

That won't change the point nor it's relevance. You're the affected party by sixty-two years of choices-nobody else. The central choice appears to be by default your armed forces as a perpetuating institution that seems immune from and rides above your national discourse.

Your reaction appears to confirm as much.

Thanks.

I have pretty well debunked the author's point, as well as yours.

I am waiting for wtf's response to my last post, since all you are capable of is your usual rants, dissembling and pejoratives directed at the Pakistani military.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

Please stop with the constitutional mumbo-jumbo. I get it. I also get that your commanding officers have not strongly advised the government to engage these militants.

I AM CERTAIN OF SUCH. Your armed forces are the shaper and promulgator of nat'l security strategy. That would naturally include internal security that affects the nation's condition.

Does not the loss of FATA and SWAT, an insurgency in Baluchistan, and a struggle developing in Buner require the best and most strenuously enforced advice of your condition? Public even to make clear and absolve your army from blame?

No. While technically fine, A.M., there's little doubt but that your army has hung this democratic gov't out to dry while distancing itself for at least two reasons (if not more) from input much less full operational responsibility for this internal civil war. In effect, a shield.

JMHO.

Thanks.

 

[blain2]

You rant.

I KNOW where your army was. Those unfortunates might not have in Buner, though. Further, I'm sure they watched your vehicles pull out of SWAT beforehand and depart THROUGH Buner headed east.

Thanks.

S-2, where was our Army in this particular case? You make it sound like the Army was sitting on its rear and purposely allowing people to get mowed down (as is the perception in the western media nowadays). You need to understand where, how and when the Army is employed. A few nights ago there was an in-depth interview of the IGFC on a local news channel. The gist of his message was that the other side rotates its axis from one area into another given even simultaneous pressure at one or a few points. As such its very difficult to be everywhere all the time. A problem starts off as an inter-tribal affair and then turns into a Lashkar vs. Taliban issue. If there are talks going on, the Army will not unilaterally step in and tell the government to lump it.

For someone who is always putting up a valiant defence of all things the US military has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, its really disappointing to see you go off on these tangents when it comes to understanding the limitations of another army. Your usual put downs are essentially unrealistic expectations (things which you certainly would not expect of the US Armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) so I think the assessment is quite unfair.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I AM CERTAIN OF SUCH.

Present the unequivocal evidence supporting your certitude then, barring which it is the usual speculative anti-PA tirade.

 

[S-2]

"you are capable of is your usual rants, dissembling and pejoratives directed at the Pakistani military."

Petulant too?

The letter is central to this discussion. It challenges the primacy of the armed forces and it's indelible stamp on your society...and it's costs-both direct and indirect.

Debunked?

You didn't even come close. His letter is only irrelevant because conditions have so deteriorated to move beyond such esotoric musings of any future restructuring. His thoughts aren't original either, meaning these concerns and questions have been heard and read elsewhere.

That would be true enough.

None of which was mentioned by you.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"you are capable of is your usual rants, dissembling and pejoratives directed at the Pakistani military."

Petulant too?

Truth hurts I see.

The letter is central to this discussion. It challenges the primacy of the armed forces and it's indelible stamp on your society...and it's costs-both direct and indirect.

Until you can actually show those costs as having been incurred in a vacuum entirely of the PA's making, you are merely continuing to dissemble and rant.

I will once more point out that you have been countered on every issue you raised on this thread, and the only thing you have offered is PA bashing tripe.

Please, do answer any of the questions posed to either you or wtf in the past few posts.

Try not ranting for a change.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The DG ISPR, in an interview a month or so ago, categorically stated that the Army was under orders not to engage the Taliban in Swat unless the Taliban first attacked the Army, once the ANP led NWFP government enacted the peace deal after coming to power in the elections.

I believe the NWFP Governor's comments below validate the DG ISPR's comments:

During the last 15 months, security forces never initiated any attack, they only acted in retaliation, he explained.

Security forces in Swat never initiated attack in last 15 months

 

[S-2]

Assertions of a unusual relationship to your society and damage derived isn't likely new to you but let's start here-

Soiled Hands: The Pakistani Army's Repression Of The Punjab Farmers Movement-HRW July 2004.

The study suggests that the army may be the nation's largest landlord to include extensive valuable urban holdings that have been used to sweeten retirements or as inticement on politicos. Is this true?

There are many more assertions that provide backdrop to this particular dispute but this, by itself, would seem a nice point-of-departure on the hidden cost thingy, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks.

 

[wtf]

That really does not make any sense.

How is the government prevented from 'paying attention' to development and investing in socio-economic infrastructure by the military?


The Pakistani Civil Service continues to be extremely competitive and attracts the top talent in the country (along with the military). Selection is extremely tough and largely on merit - what happens to their careers afterward is once more a function of the interests of the political elite.

-->
It has in fact been Army led governments in Pakistan that have advanced the cause of normalization with India (the recent example of Musharraf being a case in point) far more vigorously than the civilian governments.

An explanation of how strong defense stops economic growth.
I'll use an example: Assume only 2 parties. One of them promises higher security and winning Kashmir while the other promises economic development. Military puts Kashmir in the news more often than economy and hence on top of people's priority list. Hence people pick party 1, putting economy on priority 2. Even if military did not directly involve itself in the economy, indirectly it affects it.
It can be seen much clearly in Bangladesh where the easiest way to win votes was to find a border skirmish and claim the ruling party of being friendly with India irrespective of what they were doing good.

----->
And about military being for normalization -- Musharraf was an aberration it the recent history of Pakistan. He was a pragmatist while in power. But also note how he came to power - started a fight with India in Kargil, accused the government of being soft on India and took over the country. A textbook example of why Army uses tensions with India to grab power back home.