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

[third eye]

BJP comes to power, they redo all of what Congress did.....do they really need to?

What has BJP undone ?

 

[Arsalan]

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?

Well army's supposed hold on these matters DO NOT have a legal base, how can i offer some counter argument? what is wrong is wrong. HOWEVER, as i suggested, things will need time to improve right? You seriously think that if establishment back off and leave everything at the mercy of these current lot of politicians (all parties have there share of goons so need for any PTI or PML or PPP supporter to start crying, i am talking about ALL ) what will come of this country? the democratic process, as we both agreed will need some time to get firmly on track. After a few turns the garbage of each party will eventually be thrown out (i hope) and then we can trust our politicians to do something for betterment of Pakistan. What army is doing is helping streamline the process, the current leadership that is.

Besides, it is not that military of other countries do not have any say in matters other than FIGHTING enemies... What equipment is to be sold to what nation, what country we want to befriend with and who is our enemy, every military force have a SAY in these matters, not HOLD but a say. In our part the it is a more then a mere SAY but things are improving, even saying that the current army leadership HOLD the foreign and economic policy is wrong, not true!! Now if civilian is not capable enough to declare who our foreign minister is than that is not wrong on part of army. Anyway, as stated, the democratic process cycle have started and a few more revolution the politicians will get a bit purified and establishment can back off and start doing there constitutional job, the load of other matters will ease off, still, they will have a say and that is how it happens.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

If they already have the legal backing, why is an article claiming legitimacy need at all? Think about that for a second.

stealthy , diplomatically coded words of the bitter Truth , i couldn't have said it any better my self , you nailed it sir

Respect


from "Chang" borgza

& proud of it

 

[VCheng]

Well army's supposed hold on these matters DO NOT have a legal base, how can i offer some counter argument? what is wrong is wrong. HOWEVER, as i suggested, things will need time to improve right? You seriously think that if establishment back off and leave everything at the mercy of these current lot of politicians (all parties have there share of goons so need for any PTI or PML or PPP supporter to start crying, i am talking about ALL ) what will come of this country? the democratic process, as we both agreed will need some time to get firmly on track. After a few turns the garbage of each party will eventually be thrown out (i hope) and then we can trust our politicians to do something for betterment of Pakistan. What army is doing is helping streamline the process, the current leadership that is.

Besides, it is not that military of other countries do not have any say in matters other than FIGHTING enemies... What equipment is to be sold to what nation, what country we want to befriend with and who is our enemy, every military force have a SAY in these matters, not HOLD but a say. In our part the it is a more then a mere SAY but things are improving, even saying that the current army leadership HOLD the foreign and economic policy is wrong, not true!! Now if civilian is not capable enough to declare who our foreign minister is than that is not wrong on part of army. Anyway, as stated, the democratic process cycle have started and a few more revolution the politicians will get a bit purified and establishment can back off and start doing there constitutional job, the load of other matters will ease off, still, they will have a say and that is how it happens.

I can accept these counterpoints of necessity on the basis of political incompetence and corruption, and "Everybody else is doing too, Mom!" with undertones of "Army knows what is best for the country", since you clearly accept the lack of a legal basis for the Army's hold. We understand each other here, Sir.

And yes, things are indeed getting better, if they continue as they are for now.

 

[Arsalan]

stealthy , diplomatically coded words of the bitter Truth , i couldn't have said any better my self you nailed it sir

Respect


from "Chang" borgza

& proud of it

Only that the article is not some official claim or statement!

I can accept these counterpoints of necessity on the basis of political incompetence and corruption, and "Everybody else is doing too, Mom!" with undertones of "Army knows what is best for the country", since you clearly accept the lack of a legal basis for the Army's hold. We understand each other here, Sir.

And yes, things are indeed getting better, if they continue as they are for now.

So that sums it up. We are in agreement that the current leadership is slow but surely letting things fall into place. there have been mistakes in the past but things are improving. A few more years and the diplomatic process ins process refined and army will hopefully leave the remaining bit of there Hold on policies they are not meant to be part of, still, will have a say in these matters as do everyone and that is how it is. You cannot keep the men who will fight and die out of the decision making of who they are to fight, will have a SAY in that. and that is justified!

 

[VCheng]

So that sums it up. We are in agreement that the current leadership is slow but surely letting things fall into place. there have been mistakes in the past but things are improving. A few more years and the diplomatic process ins process refined and army will hopefully leave the remaining bit of there Hold on policies they are not meant to be part of, still, will have a say in these matters as do everyone and that is how it is. You cannot keep the men who will fight and die out of the decision making of who they are to fight, will have a SAY in that. and that is justified!

That summary is at least honest since it tries to justify without claiming legality. How real is the hope that the Army will give up its hold on authority and compromise its position of privilege it has made for itself remains to be seen, if indeed things go on progressing as they are.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Only that the article is not some official claim or statement!

Oh Sorry , sir' but i think you missed my sail for the wrong boat !

So that sums it up. We are in agreement that the current leadership is slow but surely letting things fall into place. there have been mistakes in the past but things are improving. A few more years and the diplomatic process ins process refined and army will hopefully leave the remaining bit of there Hold on policies they are not meant to be part of, still, will have a say in these matters as do everyone and that is how it is. You cannot keep the men who will fight and die out of the decision making of who they are to fight, will have a SAY in that. and that is justified!

oops Sorry again sir' to you maybe , to me "NO"

to you sir' your opinion , to me mine

 

[Arsalan]

Oh Sorry , sir' but i think you missed my sail for the wrong boat !


oops Sorry again sir' to you maybe , to me "NO"

to you sir' your opinion , to me mine

everyone have a right to have there own opinion, it is just good to have some reasons to adhere to that opinion
To me, a person open to change and corrections will go a long way. May be "NO" to you in this case as well, as said, you are entitled to have a personal opinion.

That summary is at least honest since it tries to justify without claiming legality. How real is the hope that the Army will give up its hold on authority and compromise its position of privilege it has made for itself remains to be seen, if indeed things go on progressing as they are.

Just like this post is honest in at least appreciating the good work that is being done and not only criticizing for the sake of it. Stating army's HOLD on economic and foreign policy as legal is not correct, debating if there is an actual HOLD is justified, arguing about to what extent army interfere in these matters (current leadership) and if they are progressing in right direction was what i was doing and seems we are in agreement on most of the points for now, the ones we dont agree on are the ones we will have to wait and see how they turn out to be.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

everyone have a right to have there own opinion, it is just good to have some reasons to adhere to that opinion
To me, a person open to change and corrections will go a long way. May be "NO" to you in this case as well, as said, you are entitled to have a personal opinion.

see i am a Canadian & my country is one of most the respected democracies , liberal & multicultural societies in the world , as well as a member of the strongest military alliance like the prestigious "NATO" that's a lot of power militarily , no big talking sir' but we fly the F-35 with pride ! but still , put this question of justifying military interference in the foreign policy matter of the civilian authority can get even the chief of army staff fired ! in the west that's how the civilian authorities is govern , & we are Damn Proud of this

here is a glaring example i quote

olling Stone article and resignation[edit]

Wikinews has related news:

• Obama 'angry' with Afghanistan general Stanley McChrystal
• US military commander in Afghanistan dismissed by President Obama

In an article written by freelance journalist Michael Hastings, ("The Runaway General", appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, July 8–22, 2010 issue),[9] McChrystal and his staff mocked civilian government officials, including Joe Biden, National Security Advisor James L. Jones, US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke.[45] McChrystal was not quoted as being directly critical of the president or the president's policies, but several comments from his aides in the article reflected their perception of McChrystal's disappointment with Obama on the first two occasions of their meeting.[46] According to Rolling Stone, McChrystal's staff was contacted prior to release of the article and did not deny the validity of the article,[47] though senior members of his staff dispute this, and have accused Hastings in "Army Times" of exaggerating the seniority of aides quoted and breaking the "off the record" trust of private conversations.[48] Hastings told Newsweek that he was quite clearly a reporter gathering material, and actually bemused at the degree to which soldiers were free when speaking to him.[49]

The statements attributed to McChrystal and members of his staff drew the attention of the White House when McChrystal called Biden to apologize.[50] McChrystal issued a written statement, saying:

I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.[51]

Biden's call to tell him of the apology prompted Obama to request a copy of the profile and then to summon McChrystal to attend in person the president's monthly security team meeting at the White House in lieu of attending via secure video teleconference. During a brief (less than 20 minutes)[52] meeting with Obama on June 23, two days before the article was released to newsstands and only one day after it was released online, McChrystal tendered his resignation, which the president accepted.[10] Shortly thereafter, Obama nominated General David Petraeus to replace McChrystal in his role as top commander in Afghanistan.[53]

Obama's statement on the topic began as follows: "Today I accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country."[54]

Later that day McChrystal released the following statement:

This morning the president accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the president's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment—and a desire to see the mission succeed—that I tendered my resignation. It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation's finest.[11][
Stanley A. McChrystal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so sir what i had written is Not my mere opinion but the reality of how democracies work in the civilized world

sorry sir but we admire our civilian leaders & not our chief of the army staffs , it doesn't work like that , from i am coming

so sir here once again with respect , lets agree to disagree

@Arsalan sir' i respect you among the members here, & i read your posts ,yes we have different views & ethos

i also find you one of the tolerant members around here whom i respect

 

[VCheng]

Just like this post is honest in at least appreciating the good work that is being done and not only criticizing for the sake of it. Stating army's HOLD on economic and foreign policy as legal is not correct, debating if there is an actual HOLD is justified, arguing about to what extent army interfere in these matters (current leadership) and if they are progressing in right direction was what i was doing and seems we are in agreement on most of the points for now, the ones we dont agree on are the ones we will have to wait and see how they turn out to be.

Hallelujah! Finally, somebody sane!

Yes, I can agree with what you have said. Our agreement is honest where it matters, and our disagreements are polite where the views oppose. And we have not called each other names or killed each other. Imagine that!

Gentlemen (and Ladies, if any), this is called a teaching moment.

put this question of justifying military interference in the foreign policy matter of the civilian authority can get even the chief of army staff fired

That is because the military can only operate it its own legally permitted space of authority and is not allowed to breach it. This is what rule of law means in a civilized country.

(except that Canada is too damn cold to be civilized! )

 

[Arsalan]

see i am a Canadian my country is one of most respected democracies , liberal & multicultural societies in the world , as well as a member of the strongest military alliance like the prestigious "NATO" that how much about power it has militarily , no big talking sir' but we fly the F-35 with pride ! but still , put this question of justifying military interference in the foreign policy matter of the civilian authority can get even the chief of army staff fired ! in the west that's how the civilian authorities is govern , & we are Damn Proud of this

here is a glaring example i quote

so sir what i had written is Not my mere opinion but the reality of how democracies work in the civilized world

sorry sir but we admire our civilian leaders & not our chief of the army staffs , it doesn't work like that , from i am coming

so sir here once again with respect , lets agree to disagree

@Arsalan sir' i respect you among the members here, & i read your posts ,yes we have different views & ethos

i also find you one of the tolerant members around here whom i respect

No dear friend, i do not even think we have different views, the only difference i see in the way we expressed our views. I will say that we are on the same track, the only difference is we are trailing one another and not together on that same track.

The things you said are true to democracy, that is how democracy should be, hell that is what democracy IS!!

The problem in our part is that the democracy have failed us time and time again, this is no justification for the army to get involved but still is the reason. The point i was trying to present was that things are moving ahead in the right direction, despite numerous issues on which army could have walked in during the current and last democratic regime, the chose not too. What that did was that we saw some refining of democratic process, there was a HUGE scam here in Pakistan and when we allowed the democratic cycle to run a full circle, those involved in that scandal were voted out of our parliament, that is just the first step. The process will have to be refined to such an extent, would have to be improved to such level that the parties wont even dare give such people tickets again, this process need so be taken to a level where only REPORTS of involvement will mean end of political Career of the involved person. Only then we will see a group of honest and dedicated politicians. This will happen only if the democratic cycle is allowed to run for some time, after three four elections much of the garbage will be thrown out. Luckily, the current army leadership is doing exactly that.

As for there say in economic and foreign policy, the thing is that they do have a say, here at least, considering the current status of our Democratic establishment, that SAY is required for us, when eventually things will improve on that front the military establishment will also back off hopefully. As i said, this is one thing we will have to wait and see.

 

[OrionHunter]

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.

But guess who voted them to power? You guys did! So why crib?

 

[TankMan]

But guess who voted them to power? You guys did! So why crib?

I never voted them to power. Why shouldn't I criticize them? There's a reason we've been crying about rigging. Because we didn't want these people in power. But even if we did vote them in power, we'd still have the right to criticize them. That's how democracies work.

 

[TankMan]

BTW, what the Army does may be of debatable necessity, but of certain illegality. Undoubtedly

Clearly not the case. If it was so undoubted, how come you are having such a hard time substantiating these claims?

the lack of a legal basis for the Army's hold.

Which hold? It's obvious that the Army has influence on the civilian government. But that influence is not illegal. For something to be illegal, it needs to be in violation of the law.

There is no law that says the civilian government shouldn't listen to the Army's recommendations, just like there is no law that says Nawaz Sharif can't listen to Raheel Sharif's advice. Even if we were to argue that the PM is being indirectly coerced by the threat of a coup, that holds no legal weight.

 

[VCheng]

But guess who voted them to power? You guys did! So why crib?

That holds true only if the elections were free and fair. The best way to get revenge is the next elections. And so on.