What's new

They Will Always Need Pakistan

Saudi Arabia is a holy land and this is our responsibility to protect this holy land.

No your holy land is Pakistan. Nationalism is our Asia's attitude but Saudis or Gulf Muslims thinks Islam before all. Won't work with Pakistan or Bangladesh or even indoasia.

Which gives you more pride?

PAKISTAN Ka Matlab kya. Laa hilala hillalaa

Or allau akbar? Frank question
 
.
Bhai.
You should understand why u been called for Yemen missions.
1) Gulf countries funded you heavily on defence procurement and helps you in you bad times like since you born in 1947. Population wise we Asians fuk too much and reproduction rate is higher than these guys or any guys on this planet except Chinese :P They called you because the commitment you gave to them. Man power is more in Pakistan when compared to them. Not only that you have strengthen you defence forces too. But think of it When your friends backtrack from backing you when you need them most. You don't get involved in Yemen crisis because sectarian violence will ripoff you armed forces into two. War of sunni Shia will divide your country itself.

Even if you don't go for them some one like Egypt or even US will. That's my point. Their frustration is because they think you back tracked from your words you gave them. Am not a expert in this field I will wait for Pakistani experts who can explain you in greater detail

Americans poured in billions into Indian economy to make it at par with China Plus India has been the biggest recipient of aid from 1947 and even now continues to receive aid one way or another, I dont see you fighting on behalf of americans all around the world.
 
Last edited:
.
Saudi Arabia is a holy land and this is our responsibility to protect this holy land.

O bs kro yr .... Riyadh koi holy woly land ni haiii ..

Makkah aur Madina hain and any muslim will defend it and it is our duty to protect holy lands being muslims. But this is not our duty to protect Aal e Saud or anyone in the gulf region.... Bhar mein jayen BC.
 
.
Americans poured in billions into Indian economy to make it at par with china Plus India has been the biggest recipient of aid from 1947 and even now continues to receive aid one way or another, i dont see you fighting on behalf of americans all around the world.
Well you still not answered my simple question. And I request you to know the reality of 2015 and reliability of Indian economy which is top notch among world's leading economy. Well again it's up to you what you want to see. We are well off anyway.

O bs kro yr .... Riyadh koi holy woly land ni haiii ..

Makkah aur Madina hain and any muslim will defend it and it is our duty to protect holy lands being muslims. But this is not our duty to protect Aal e Saud or anyone in the gulf region.... Bhar mein jayen BC.

Main problem is there is no clear cut history been told in Pakistan. Saudis are no way near comparable to Pakistanis. We pride about our land but they do the same in the name of Islam. No way Pakistan to even think like them more our land is precious than anything
 
.
Would anyone like to compare the Saudi casualties in Yemen with Pakistani casualties in Zarb-e-Azb before they conclude who is superior in such operations?

Stop talking like an ignorant... There is no comparison because TTP is being funded by multiple countries. And they've had big setup for years in NW which has been cleared in a year. The super power had fought in Afghanistan for a decade with heavy casualties and got humiliated.
 
.
Stop talking like an ignorant... There is no comparison because TTP is being funded by multiple countries. And they've had big setup for years in NW which has been cleared in a year. The super power had fought in Afghanistan for a decade with heavy casualties and got humiliated.

The point is simple: If the operations are not comparable, then neither are any claims about which Army would do better.
 
. .
Not claims.. But facts are. Keep your personal grudge aside, the role of Pakistan army is commendable in a war on terror which was imposed on us.

So would you like to present the facts about Pakistani casualties or not?
 
. .
If one thing has become clear to the regimes of the Middle East, it’s that without Pakistan and her Army, they can’t win wars.

During the recent onslaught on Yemen, the Saudis, as well as the rest of the Middle East, learned that they don’t have the expertise or battle-readiness to fight a real war. We have been quiet about the whole situation since the Parliament vote to stay out and the knee-jerk response from the Arab states to the democratic vote, but it’s time we take a look at the failures of the regional military strategy.

While many analysts in the West are concerned about the alliance between the Saudis and Turkey, both power players in the region, in Syria to defeat the Assad regime with rebels and al-Qaeda fighters, this should not be of any real concern. This two-nation alliance will not withstand the tests if they defeat the Assad regime. Both have their own interests in seeing that government dissolve, but neither is willing to sacrifice those interests for another’s.

Iraq

“If the Iraqis are not willing to fight for the security of their country, then we cannot do it for them,” was what Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic said, but when they invaded they decimated Saddam’s military forces.

With the fall of Ramadi, and other key cities, to ISIS, it has become clear the $25 billion invested by the US into training and equipping the armed forces has been an exercise in futility. With between 50,000 – 140,000 serving soldiers, the Iraqi armed forces are in a state of disarray, suffering from both desertion and unpreparedness for the true war.

It’s one thing to take a standing army and provide them with additional training to make them battle-ready for new challenges that a region presents. It’s a completely different thing to take untested “volunteers” and prepare them for more than police actions, which was the key operational mission after the US withdrawal. This fact is evidenced by the embarrassing defeat of 30,000 Iraqi troops tasked to protect Mosul by a few hundred ISIS fighters. Even Tikrit, which was recaptured in March, is completely desolate now three months later.

First, many of the battle-hardened commanders and generals that had served for decades with Saddam Hussain were either arrested or executed. Some of those who survived are working with ISIS, against the newly formed Iraqi Army, with a freedom to operate that was never available during Saddam’s regime. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has delegated command responsibility to his field commanders who spent 12 years moving in and out of Anbar fighting American and Shiite-led Iraqi forces. Their knowledge of the region and intelligence networks are extremely precise and personal because they grew up in these regions.

Second, the decision to disband the Iraqi army in 2003 gave ISIS a long-term advantage on the battlefield. This mistake in strategic planning not only left thousands of soldiers unemployed and angry, but also created the security vacuum within Iraqi society and helped in the fermentation of support for ISIS when it emerged. The mistake of appointing Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister meant that the armed forces were further weakened to protect against any potential coup. Maliki, like so many other tinpot democrats, removed the strong military commanders that had been appointed and trained by the US forces in favor of political pawns drawn from his Shia brethren, ending any hope of developing a merit-based system of promotion. The army and police behaved and operated as a sectarian militia, brutally silencing Sunni leadership and taking orders directly from the Prime Minister’s office.

Lastly, Iraq is no longer unified. With Kurdistan operating as an independent country, the Sunni population living in ISIS controlled territories and the Iraqi government cooperating with Iran, the military is a stark reflection of the failure of nation building, governance and nationalism.

The Unified Arab Force

We saw many states come together to fight for their own interests in Yemen against the Houthis. I have written a great deal into the rationale behind the reasons for the war, which you can read in other posts here. The most telling act of these countries was the creation of a 40,000-strong Gulf Cooperation Council’s Peninsula Shield coalition force, armed with the best American weapons that money can buy, to defend the Arab states. While many believe that this force has the ability to defend the region’s regimes, I don’t share the same belief.

Let’s understand why.

First, they are not battle tested. The Arab militaries are designed to protect the monarchies from unarmed pro-democracy activists, not fight actual wars. When they have been asked to fight other nation’s armies, they have come away with much worse than a black eye. From the 1960s when Gamal Nasser launched the Egyptian invasion into Yemen to the current Syrian Army being pushed back by nationalist rebels, al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS, the Arab armies have never been able to find the strength to defeat any enemy they have faced. Well, without foreign assistance, as we have seen with the involvement of US forces in the current Yemen campaign. And we have yet to see if they will be able to win Yemen, even with US support.

Second, they are not willing to fight for their country. To fight for a nation, you must have something, anything, invested in the success and growth of that nation. In the Middle East, the Western powers have done their best to maintain the monarchies, while giving the people no representation in the governments. The majority benefit from the flow of petrodollars is to one family, not the entire nation. This is not to say that they don’t spend on their people, but when you get used to getting an education for free, and preference in employment and facilities where you have paid little to no taxes, what mentality have you craved out from the citizens?

In the Middle East, there is such a thing as a free lunch, and the free lunch leads to a sense of entitlement.

Why the Arabs will always need Pakistan

The Arabs have always looked to Pakistan in their times of need, and while the relationship has been mutually beneficial, protecting the Arabs is not at the top of Pakistan’s priority list.

Having spent the past 12 years fighting an insurgency and terrorists within their own borders, the Pakistani military is one of the best battle-tested armed forces in the world. The commanders and soldiers have repeatedly proven their air and ground superiority against the forces that are indigenous to the battlefield regions, whether it be in FATA or Baluchistan. Had they not been, the TTP would have already overrun Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Instead, they aren’t even able to approach Peshawar with any strength.

The command of Pakistan’s armed forces has never been penetrated by the political appointees, no matter how many times the democratic governments have tried. The ability of the command to withstanding these interferences has kept the leadership and the soldiers united.

This has, in turn, strengthened the standing army of approximately 800,000 well-trained, motivated soldiers. The Pakistan army is well-prepared for any conflict. While many within the country would like to undermine the military, it has shown its resilience during both democratic and military governments to maintain its structure, discipline and preparedness. The army continues to be the only truly merit based institution in Pakistan.

Unlike the Arab regimes, the Pakistan armed forces have continually fought to defend the nation, no matter whose government is in Islamabad. By maintaining a fluid structure of governance, Pakistan’s army has always fought for a nation, not a family or a regime. They have been involved in police actions regularly, due to the failures of the democratic governments to maintain law and order, but have also been involved in major conflicts against foreign armed forces and proxies.

This is a military that is tried, tested and battle-hardened.

Looking at these factors, it is easy to understand why the Arab reaction to Pakistan staying out of the Yemen conflict was difficult to digest. They knew then, as they are understanding with greater depth now, that their military forces are not ready to fight a war against a motivated, trained militia or rebel group, much less a foreign army.

MAY 27, 2015 — Khalid Muhammad

@WAJsal @waz @Akheilos @dexter @FaujHistorian @DESERT FIGHTER @fakhre mirpur
Great article. Patting on your own back types. At the author, a question ? What do you think, do majority of the Pakistanis believe in this ?
 
. . .
Great article. Patting on your own back types. At the author, a question ? What do you think, do majority of the Pakistanis believe in this ?

Majority of Indians won't believe in this.

So which Army has lost nearly three times more men, at least?

Qadianis in Gambia Declared Non-Muslim Minority

I have been reading your posts for a while - though cynical in attitude but always fair in their commentary.

Applaud your equanimity in face of so much criticism.

Regards

This is not a criticism... He is just being an Asshole and Indians love assholes...
 
.
Very few of the middle eastern armies fight for nationalism, i always see them shouting " allah hu akbar" rather than " glory to Iraq" or " glory to Syria " or any other state. Its not that iam saying this because iam a non muslim and it seems odd, but the other armies they are facing are also muslim, so why shout religious slogan as they are also muslims :help::help:



Just because you are fighting another Muslim army does not mean that both armies are following the will of Allah.

If both armies feel that they are fighting in the way of Allah, then both consider it a righteous war and the enemy as evil and hence Allah Ho Akbar against the EVIL PEOPLE.
 
Last edited:
.
If one thing has become clear to the regimes of the Middle East, it’s that without Pakistan and her Army, they can’t win wars.

During the recent onslaught on Yemen, the Saudis, as well as the rest of the Middle East, learned that they don’t have the expertise or battle-readiness to fight a real war. We have been quiet about the whole situation since the Parliament vote to stay out and the knee-jerk response from the Arab states to the democratic vote, but it’s time we take a look at the failures of the regional military strategy.

While many analysts in the West are concerned about the alliance between the Saudis and Turkey, both power players in the region, in Syria to defeat the Assad regime with rebels and al-Qaeda fighters, this should not be of any real concern. This two-nation alliance will not withstand the tests if they defeat the Assad regime. Both have their own interests in seeing that government dissolve, but neither is willing to sacrifice those interests for another’s.

Iraq

“If the Iraqis are not willing to fight for the security of their country, then we cannot do it for them,” was what Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic said, but when they invaded they decimated Saddam’s military forces.

With the fall of Ramadi, and other key cities, to ISIS, it has become clear the $25 billion invested by the US into training and equipping the armed forces has been an exercise in futility. With between 50,000 – 140,000 serving soldiers, the Iraqi armed forces are in a state of disarray, suffering from both desertion and unpreparedness for the true war.

It’s one thing to take a standing army and provide them with additional training to make them battle-ready for new challenges that a region presents. It’s a completely different thing to take untested “volunteers” and prepare them for more than police actions, which was the key operational mission after the US withdrawal. This fact is evidenced by the embarrassing defeat of 30,000 Iraqi troops tasked to protect Mosul by a few hundred ISIS fighters. Even Tikrit, which was recaptured in March, is completely desolate now three months later.

First, many of the battle-hardened commanders and generals that had served for decades with Saddam Hussain were either arrested or executed. Some of those who survived are working with ISIS, against the newly formed Iraqi Army, with a freedom to operate that was never available during Saddam’s regime. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has delegated command responsibility to his field commanders who spent 12 years moving in and out of Anbar fighting American and Shiite-led Iraqi forces. Their knowledge of the region and intelligence networks are extremely precise and personal because they grew up in these regions.

Second, the decision to disband the Iraqi army in 2003 gave ISIS a long-term advantage on the battlefield. This mistake in strategic planning not only left thousands of soldiers unemployed and angry, but also created the security vacuum within Iraqi society and helped in the fermentation of support for ISIS when it emerged. The mistake of appointing Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister meant that the armed forces were further weakened to protect against any potential coup. Maliki, like so many other tinpot democrats, removed the strong military commanders that had been appointed and trained by the US forces in favor of political pawns drawn from his Shia brethren, ending any hope of developing a merit-based system of promotion. The army and police behaved and operated as a sectarian militia, brutally silencing Sunni leadership and taking orders directly from the Prime Minister’s office.

Lastly, Iraq is no longer unified. With Kurdistan operating as an independent country, the Sunni population living in ISIS controlled territories and the Iraqi government cooperating with Iran, the military is a stark reflection of the failure of nation building, governance and nationalism.

The Unified Arab Force

We saw many states come together to fight for their own interests in Yemen against the Houthis. I have written a great deal into the rationale behind the reasons for the war, which you can read in other posts here. The most telling act of these countries was the creation of a 40,000-strong Gulf Cooperation Council’s Peninsula Shield coalition force, armed with the best American weapons that money can buy, to defend the Arab states. While many believe that this force has the ability to defend the region’s regimes, I don’t share the same belief.

Let’s understand why.

First, they are not battle tested. The Arab militaries are designed to protect the monarchies from unarmed pro-democracy activists, not fight actual wars. When they have been asked to fight other nation’s armies, they have come away with much worse than a black eye. From the 1960s when Gamal Nasser launched the Egyptian invasion into Yemen to the current Syrian Army being pushed back by nationalist rebels, al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS, the Arab armies have never been able to find the strength to defeat any enemy they have faced. Well, without foreign assistance, as we have seen with the involvement of US forces in the current Yemen campaign. And we have yet to see if they will be able to win Yemen, even with US support.

Second, they are not willing to fight for their country. To fight for a nation, you must have something, anything, invested in the success and growth of that nation. In the Middle East, the Western powers have done their best to maintain the monarchies, while giving the people no representation in the governments. The majority benefit from the flow of petrodollars is to one family, not the entire nation. This is not to say that they don’t spend on their people, but when you get used to getting an education for free, and preference in employment and facilities where you have paid little to no taxes, what mentality have you craved out from the citizens?

In the Middle East, there is such a thing as a free lunch, and the free lunch leads to a sense of entitlement.

Why the Arabs will always need Pakistan

The Arabs have always looked to Pakistan in their times of need, and while the relationship has been mutually beneficial, protecting the Arabs is not at the top of Pakistan’s priority list.

Having spent the past 12 years fighting an insurgency and terrorists within their own borders, the Pakistani military is one of the best battle-tested armed forces in the world. The commanders and soldiers have repeatedly proven their air and ground superiority against the forces that are indigenous to the battlefield regions, whether it be in FATA or Baluchistan. Had they not been, the TTP would have already overrun Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Instead, they aren’t even able to approach Peshawar with any strength.

The command of Pakistan’s armed forces has never been penetrated by the political appointees, no matter how many times the democratic governments have tried. The ability of the command to withstanding these interferences has kept the leadership and the soldiers united.

This has, in turn, strengthened the standing army of approximately 800,000 well-trained, motivated soldiers. The Pakistan army is well-prepared for any conflict. While many within the country would like to undermine the military, it has shown its resilience during both democratic and military governments to maintain its structure, discipline and preparedness. The army continues to be the only truly merit based institution in Pakistan.

Unlike the Arab regimes, the Pakistan armed forces have continually fought to defend the nation, no matter whose government is in Islamabad. By maintaining a fluid structure of governance, Pakistan’s army has always fought for a nation, not a family or a regime. They have been involved in police actions regularly, due to the failures of the democratic governments to maintain law and order, but have also been involved in major conflicts against foreign armed forces and proxies.

This is a military that is tried, tested and battle-hardened.

Looking at these factors, it is easy to understand why the Arab reaction to Pakistan staying out of the Yemen conflict was difficult to digest. They knew then, as they are understanding with greater depth now, that their military forces are not ready to fight a war against a motivated, trained militia or rebel group, much less a foreign army.

MAY 27, 2015 — Khalid Muhammad

@WAJsal @waz @Akheilos @dexter @FaujHistorian @DESERT FIGHTER @fakhre mirpur
what good is their needing Pakistan if Pakistan chooses to not get involved in their conflicts like in Yemen ?

can't imagine Pakistan getting involved in Syria/Iraq either.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom