The army's present authority...where does it come from?

[Arsalan]

To the Army's credit, it has not taken power overtly. The soft coup engineered by the dharnas was enough for the time being. Good strategy, at least.

Conspiracy theories,,,, all i see in the last three four pages are claims based on personal assumptions, from BOTH sides.


The article you refereed to in the starting posts is not some ISPR statement, it is a news article and nothing more, you will find thousands bashing the army and thousands in support of them, not only in Pakistan!! Citing the things from that article as OFFICIAL STANCE of army was wrong in first place.


Secondly, as MANY have pointed, the army under this new leadership is performing impressively, the seemed to have learned a lot from there mistakes of past, we do not see them direct interfering wit the government and that is great. Things take time to go perfect, but one cannot deny that they are improving. As far as military involvement is concerned at least. However government taking stupid steps that seem like they are meant to be provocations are not helping to get the system (democratic system) firmly on track. Hiring a few court martial officers from air force and army at key posts, making a person with ABSOLUTELY no sense of defense and military matters the minister just because he had a strained past with the military, trying to show who is the boss. Thankfully army this time around didn't got involved is not unconstitutional actions and have kept themselves out of the 5hit!! Now even if it is ONLY for the sake of themselves (that absolutely is not the case) it is still commendable.

Edit: TO ALL MEMBER, most of you operating here in this thread are senior members and thing tanks, please check your words, abusive tone, personal insults DO NOT MAKE your argument weight more. Please refrain from personal attacks and abuses, if someone if just ignoring your constant abusive posts it do not means he cannot go done the same road. you are all senior members so please check what you are posting.

 

[VCheng]

Conspiracy theories,,,, all i see in the last three four pages are claims based on personal assumptions, from BOTH sides.


The article you refereed to in the starting posts is not some ISPR statement, it is a news article and nothing more, you will find thousands bashing the army and thousands in support of them, not only in Pakistan!! Citing the things from that article as OFFICIAL STANCE of army was wrong in first place.


Secondly, as MANY have pointed, the army under this new leadership is performing impressively, the seemed to have learned a lot from there mistakes of past, we do not see them direct interfering wit the government and that is great. Things take time to go perfect, but one cannot deny that they are improving. As far as military involvement is concerned at least. However government taking stupid steps that seem like they are meant to be provocations are not helping to get the system (democratic system) firmly on track. Hiring a few court martial officers from air force and army at key posts, making a person with ABSOLUTELY no sense of defense and military matters the minister just because he had a strained past with the military, trying to show who is the boss. Thankfully army this time around didn't got involved is not unconstitutional actions and have kept themselves out of the 5hit!! Now even if it is ONLY for the sake of themselves (that absolutely is not the case) it is still commendable.

It is not whether the new leadership of the Army is performing impressively (which it indeed is), or whether security is improving (which indeed it is), but whether the Army has the legal authority to do what it is doing under Constitutional law (which it does not).

 

[Arsalan]

It is not whether the new leadership of the Army is performing impressively (which it indeed is), or whether security is improving (which indeed it is),

if the last part of your sentence read as below i would have agreed with the whole point:

but whether the Army had the legal authority to do what it had done under Constitutional law (which it does not).

Perhaps you also meant to say so,, i can just hope!!

However Implying that the current leadership is still making the same old interferences is not justified, we all see a massive difference, massive improvement compared to past trends. THAT is what is to be appreciated. Saying that there is no difference of the current army leader ship is involved is the exact same follies of the past is wrong and cannot be agreed with.

 

[VCheng]

if the last part of your sentence read as below i would have agreed with the whole point:

Perhaps you also meant to say so,, i can just hope!!

However Implying that the current leadership is still making the same old interferences is not justified, we all see a massive difference, massive improvement compared to past trends. THAT is what is to be appreciated. Saying that there is no difference of the current army leader ship is involved is the exact same follies of the past is wrong and cannot be agreed with.

I have clearly agreed that the current leadership is much better than in the past, and I will also appreciate it for what it is, but please forgive me for not believing the old "this time it is different" mantra just yet. If the Army can let the democratic process take proper root with a few regular election cycles, then I will be happy to agree with you. Who knows, may be one day foreign, defence and economic policies will not be run by the GHQ?

 

[Arsalan]

I have clearly agreed that the current leadership is much better than in the past, and I will also appreciate it for what it is, but please forgive me for not believing the old "this time it is different" mantra just yet. If the Army can let the democratic process take proper root with a few regular election cycles, then I will be happy to agree with you. Who knows, may be one day foreign, defence and economic policies will not be run by the GHQ?

Agreed!
Things are shaping up nicely but will need some time. I however am quite optimistic about the future, this time! Not saying that things are perfect already but am confident that they are moving in the right direction and will keep on doing so. It will take a few democratic cycles for the political junk to be thrown out gradually (like the case of Hanif Abassi and his Efedrin team mates) and good people to come forward. We need to give time to this process, and , the army seem to have grasped that as well. Anyway, lets hope for the best!!

 

[VCheng]

Agreed!
Things are shaping up nicely but will need some time. I however am quite optimistic about the future, this time! Not saying that things are perfect already but am confident that they are moving in the right direction and will keep on doing so. It will take a few democratic cycles for the political junk to be thrown out gradually (like the case of Hanif Abassi and his Efedrin team mates) and good people to come forward. We need to give time to this process, and , the army seem to have grasped that as well. Anyway, lets hope for the best!!

I will agree with your post wholeheartedly, and echo your hopes for the best future possible. Until that happens, can you agree that the Army's present hold on defence, foreign and economic policies has no proper legal basis, or at least offer a counter-point?

 

[TankMan]

It could be interesting, but more likely it will lead to strident proclamations of "pathetic, shameful attempt at maligning the Army". Who cares about the Constitution? We all know what the answer is as written in that document.

As long as you do not quote these answers to back your claims, your argument will remain nothing more than a pathetic, shameful attempt at maligning the Army, and will therefore lead to such ''strident proclamations'' as a response.

where the hell in constitution do the Armed Forces derive their authority in national matters not pertaining to defense from external forces. Please quote the exact laws and references so that I can put forward the same questions to the experts.

''245: Functions of Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government, defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and, subject to law, act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so.''

http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1333523681_951.pdf

Everything the current Army leadership has done is in compliance with the law.

Edit: Yes, I admit that my argument has no merit and you are correct. There, happy now? I will end here.

Thank you for admitting that.

 

[VCheng]

Everything the current Army leadership has done is in compliance with the law.

Yes of course. After all, the civil authorities have "asked" the military to run the foreign, defense and economic policies for all of Pakistan, as we can clearly see from the article of law quoted. I am glad that my admission makes you happy. Khush raho bhaijan!

 

[TankMan]

After all, the civil authorities have "asked" the military to run the foreign, defense and economic policies for all of Pakistan,

And here's where I tell you to back your claims.

The foreign and economic policy is under total control of the civilian government. Why else do you think there was such a big drama about the budget in the assemblies? The defense policy is being led by the Army, but the civilian government still has the authority over it.

Again, I'll repeat that the fact that the civilian government and most of the politicians are suffering from mental constipation and verbal diarrhea does not, in absolutely any way, detract from the legitimacy of the military's actions.

 

[VCheng]

The defense policy is being led by the Army, but the civilian government still has the authority over it.

The contradiction so evident in your statement only proves my point. What I have said remains correct, but let us agree to disagree here as well. After all, discussion is the reason we are here, not unanimity.

 

[TankMan]

The contradiction so evident in your statement only proves my point. What I have said remains correct.

There is no contradiction. It is being led by the Army and the civilian government endorses it. This is as per the statements of the civilian government itself.

What you have said has been completely and utterly debunked, and all you could do was cling onto one ''contradiction''. Where is your proof that the military controls the economic policy? Where is your proof that the Army controls the foreign policy? And where is your proof that the Army controls, and not just leads, the defense policy?

 

[VCheng]

Where is your proof that the military controls the economic policy? Where is your proof that the Army controls the foreign policy? And where is your proof that the Army controls, and not just leads, the defense policy?

Let's look at the figures for defence expenditure, or policy with Pakistan's most important neighbors. Or let us ignore the fact the a leader of anything is the one who controls the direction. Yes, we can ignore your admission here. It's alright. I can accept your point of view without agreeing with it, very easily.

 

[TankMan]

Let's look at the figures for defence expenditure

Which are perfectly reasonable for Pakistan's current situation and are still among the lowest in the region.

Even if they were the highest in the world, it wouldn't be proof of any illegal actions on part of the military - considering that you never apply the same arguments to the US Army.

or policy with Pakistan's most important neighbors

China? Ties remain strong, as they have remained so consistently for decades.
India? Modi's government doesn't want any close ties. Any sane civilian government would maintain the same stance towards such hostilities from India.
Afghanistan? Relations are at the best they have been in decades.

Of course, nothing short of opening all our borders and disbanding the Army will satisfy people like you.

Or let us ignore the fact the a leader of anything is the one who controls the direction.

Let me explain this with an analogy.
A platoon leader leads a platoon. Does that mean he's in absolute control? No, because there is a senior hierarchy that has authority over him. This hierarchy may endorse his actions, but that doesn't mean he is in control.

The same idea of a hierarchy applies to this situation.

Now, I must take a moment to admire how laughable your argument is - based purely on semantics, at this point.

Yes, we can ignore your admission here.

The only admission here is that the military handles the defense of the nation, which is its job.

 

[VCheng]

The only admission here is that the military handles the defense of the nation, which is its job.

Actually, Sir, the job of the military is to defend the geographical boundary only by law and one specific and limited proviso that you have mentioned before. That is an important distinction, but I am sure it will escape you, as expected..

 

[TankMan]

Actually, Sir, the job of the military is to defend the geographical boundary only by law and one specific and limited proviso that you have mentioned before. That is an important distinction, but I am sure it will escape you, as expected..

Actually, Sir, the specific provision I mentioned is the one that gives the military mandate beyond just the geographical borders.

Therefore, simply claiming that they are transgressing the law is insufficient and the onus is onto you to prove that what the Army is doing is in violation of the Law.

Since you clearly consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than the Supreme Court and Civilian Government, this should be a very easy task for you.

But I am sure you will be unable to do so, as expected.

If you want to continue running in circles around the same facile, unsubstantiated argument, you are welcome to do so. But know that you'll only be wasting your time.