Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[Rafi]

Don’t know why we can’t have a serious discussion without bringing in religion.

There is no way that you can get another Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), Hazrat Omar (RA), Hazrat Osman (RA) or Hazrat Ali (RA) so reference to their time is unreasonable. I don’t much care about other Khalifas (except for 4 years of Omar bin Abdul Aziz). According to Maulana Maudoodi all others were Kings in all but name, thus IMO all those believing in Khilafat are living in cuckoo land.

You can have a very good progressive Islamic state without following the Takfiri/Wahabi tyranny. I am not a very religious man but I hardly missed any Friday prayer or Ramzan fast during my 5 years stay in UAE mainly because there was always a mosque present within 5 minutes’ walk from wherever I lived. In a country (Dubai) where wine is freely available in the hotels as well as there are night clubs at every corner; women can walk alone in the middle of the night without any fear of being molested and minor crime is virtually non-existent. Everyone has freedom choice about what he wants to do in his free time. Can you say the same about Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia? Dubai is a modern Islamic state, not a dark age Afghan like Emirate that Taliban and Khilafat would like Pakistan to become.

No one can deny that Pakistan defence forces are rather large. We need them mainly to fight India. Excluding Kashmir, we have very few other disputes with India. Once Kashmir situation cools down, why do we need to spend 50% of national income on defence? I am only advocating cutting out the deadwood from the services to make them lean and deadly. May be we need more COIN forces rather than tank regiments?

Iqbal said a hundred years ago

Khuda key aashiq to hain hazaaron, banon main phertain hain marey marey
Main uska banda banoon ga jisko khuda key bandon sey piyar hog a

Meaning there are thousands of lovers of God who running around aimlessly in the deserts. I will be slave of that one who loves God’s slaves (human beings).

I am advocating that we put welfare of ordinary men of Pakistan at the top of the list. To do this we need to provide them with jobs, housing and education. We can’t achieve this without sustained growth in the economy; this in turn requires investment in infrastructure and job creating projects for which we need funds.

How else can a nation generate income if not thru taxation of some kind? It is not that Pakistan is really a very poor country; despite 1/3 of the population living below poverty line a lot of people have a lot of money and they don’t pay taxes. During a very recent visit to Karachi to attend wedding of a close family friend’s daughter, I was horrified to know that the wedding suit of the bride cost 4 lakh rupees. This is five thousand dollars!!! Enough to feed four poor families for one year. I am not suggesting to tax the poor (that every budget does) but to get everyone into the tax net to generate income to finance public sector projects.

As it is, a very large percentage of the population is without clean drinking water, public health care is non-existent; education level is going down each year and there is a sever e lack of housing.
Pakistani population is growing at the rate of about 2.5% per year. How are we ever going to educate, provide work, housing and other living facilities to future Pakistanis unless we generate funds. May be some Hon members would like to keep borrowing from IMF?

A robust economy will not only benefit common man but also with additional funds defence forces will be able to afford more modern weapons and thus defence will be strengthened in the long run. Besides a strong economy is a must for ability for sustained fighting capability. Is this not what defence is all about?

I would love to hear alternate views, but please don’t preach Khilafat to me. Give me concrete arguments relevant to present day environment. Remember I am not advocating secularism, I am only proposing ‘Defence thru strong economy’.

The state even if it had 0% defense budget would not be able to accomplish this, their should be privatization of state assets, the state has no business running air lines and banks etc. we are currently spending billions on loss making state enterprises, that went out with the dodo.

Peace is something to be desired, but at what cost.....

 

[Veeru]

Retooling militaries — changing paradigms
Shahzad Chaudhry

Translated in the Indo-Pakistani context, it means the following[/COLOR][/B]: changing borders, i.e. Kashmir, is now patently out of the question, especially on the basis of the archaic UN resolutions; if a change comes it shall be through a consensual tripartite agreement between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris who are now an inalienable part of any potential solution. War has no role now or in the future to solve the Kashmir problem. This fundamental doctrinal change in the military’s calculus will be the most significant game-changer, making it easier to think restructuring and shifting emphasis to the newer paradigms of war.

Its good if pakistani army realizes that:

1. The military don't have no role in kashmir and they have to move on kashmir.

2. The greatest threat for pakistan lies within from extremists and terrorists.

If they do that and the terrorism against India stops I don't think there will be any issue that can't be solved with mutual understanding and benefits.

And after that we can have good relations as neighbors and work for betterment of our people.

 

[Rafi]

People forget that up to 2007 we were growing at an average of 7% - large scale reforms are needed in the FBR and also privatization of the loss making enterprises. Defense is vital, we are currently fighting a war, if the takfiri win then - all is lost.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I do not hate indian's far from it, but your state is my enemy, that is a fact, and we Pakistani's will decide what our threat perception is, and what size and capability our Armed Forces should have, you as an indian have no say.

I am sorry to inform you that the Indian state is not even aware of your existence and hence is not by any stretch even of a fevered imagination your enemy. Nor is it your state's enemy, to depersonalise things a bit; our actions speak volumes and nobody needs prompting to know which I mean, except those who feign deafness and blindness for purposes of argument.

As for Pakistanis deciding your own threat perceptions, and the size and capability of your Armed Forces, nobody here, I included, is arguing that it should be anybody else. All that I have argued, if you take the trouble of reading before writing, is that wise and intelligent elements in Pakistan, elements that are able to put together a rational argument, should be given a sufficient hearing, and that their views should be treated with respect, not with vaporous and die-away airs and graces.

It was an argument for not reducing the decision-making and opinion-formation to the lowest common element; it is an argument that I use for our own internal discussions on Indian affairs as well. It is one that you might like to ponder over.

 

[Rafi]

Its good if pakistani army realizes that:

1. The military don't have no role in kashmir and they have to move on kashmir.

2. The greatest threat for pakistan lies within from extremists and terrorists.

If they do that and the terrorism against India stops I don't think there will be any issue that can't be solved with mutual understanding and benefits.

And after that we can have good relations as neighbors and work for betterment of our people.

We would still need to maintain credible minimum deterrence even if Kashmir is resolved, threat perception is calculated according to enemy deployment 80% of which is against Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A good thought process indeed, but how many buyers??

Pessimism this is no doubt but, does the benefactor turned aggressor turned machinist or plotter or whatever is enough to move the tectonic plates immovable till now ??

Patience; the existence of even one Niaz or Muse or Notorious Eagle is positive. Allow me to point out that they are in fact ahead of us in articulating these harsh truths; where is the corresponding Indian debate? I might draw your notice, or you might draw my attention to the implicit decisions made by the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, but shouldn't this be debated by civilians as well? Since it isn't, doesn't this show you that there are elements in Pakistan which are thinking out of the box and in extremely rational, logical ways? Isn't that encouraging and sustaining?

It is to me.

 

[Veeru]

We would still need to maintain credible minimum deterrence even if Kashmir is resolved, threat perception is calculated according to enemy deployment 80% of which is against Pakistan.

India have no issue about that, as a soverign nation pakistan have every right to secure itself.

We respect that.

No body is saying pakistan to disband its army, with nukes and a strong army pakistan have enough of deterrence + you have china in any case.

The point is why we poor nation who are developing keep our majority of army on stand by.

That's a crime we have huge population to look after, damn...........we are still developing or rather to say we have just starting our journey of development.

 

[Veeru]

Patience; the existence of even one Niaz or Muse or Notorious Eagle is positive. Allow me to point out that they are in fact ahead of us in articulating these harsh truths; where is the corresponding Indian debate? I might draw your notice, or you might draw my attention to the implicit decisions made by the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy, but shouldn't this be debated by civilians as well? Since it isn't, doesn't this show you that there are elements in Pakistan which are thinking out of the box and in extremely rational, logical ways? Isn't that encouraging and sustaining?

It is to me.

1. I think he is refering to PA not the members of PDF.

2. Like kiyani said to be most anti India general ever or that pasha said to be ready to pay any cost to harm India?

 

[Rafi]

I am sorry to inform you that the Indian state is not even aware of your existence and hence is not by any stretch even of a fevered imagination your enemy. Nor is it your state's enemy, to depersonalise things a bit; our actions speak volumes and nobody needs prompting to know which I mean, except those who feign deafness and blindness for purposes of argument.

Thanks for informing me of that, it's nice to know.

As for Pakistanis deciding your own threat perceptions, and the size and capability of your Armed Forces, nobody here, I included, is arguing that it should be anybody else. All that I have argued, if you take the trouble of reading before writing, is that wise and intelligent elements in Pakistan, elements that are able to put together a rational argument, should be given a sufficient hearing, and that their views should be treated with respect, not with vaporous and die-away airs and graces.

We are a democracy, I for one - think that every Pakistani has a right to question the policy and objectives, of our country, that includes dissenting views that are against orthodoxy.

It was an argument for not reducing the decision-making and opinion-formation to the lowest common element; it is an argument that I use for our own internal discussions on Indian affairs as well. It is one that you might like to ponder over.

National Security - has many facets which, are linked to perception and capability - 80% of your country's armed forces are orientated against mine, that sinks the fallacy your country is not even aware of our existence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We would still need to maintain credible minimum deterrence even if Kashmir is resolved, threat perception is calculated according to enemy deployment 80% of which is against Pakistan.

That was precisely the beauty of the original thought process, that it sacrificed nothing in terms of effectiveness, and instead visualised a lean, mean structure. If it not offensive, such a proposal was put forward - not by a Pakistani commentator - during a recent discussion on the ideal structure of the Pakistani Navy. This was not dissimilar, it was just so shockingly complete, and so logically balanced; absolutely stunning thinking.

Incidentally, if you scan the pages of Indian opinion on this subject, there is great anxiety about the defenceless situation on our borders with China, there is decreasing interest in our borders with Pakistan, which absorbs significantly less than 80%, contrary to your statement. There are reasons for this switch in Indian priorities, but suffice it to say that any organic changes in force composition in Pakistan will make compelling reason to hasten the restructuring of positions in India.

 

[Veeru]

Thanks........Muse sir for this thread.

Its shows why u r THINK TANK.

 

[Rafi]

That was precisely the beauty of the original thought process, that it sacrificed nothing in terms of effectiveness, and instead visualised a lean, mean structure. If it not offensive, such a proposal was put forward - not by a Pakistani commentator - during a recent discussion on the ideal structure of the Pakistani Navy. This was not dissimilar, it was just so shockingly complete, and so logically balanced; absolutely stunning thinking.

Incidentally, if you scan the pages of Indian opinion on this subject, there is great anxiety about the defenceless situation on our borders with China, there is decreasing interest in our borders with Pakistan, which absorbs significantly less than 80%, contrary to your statement. There are reasons for this switch in Indian priorities, but suffice it to say that any organic changes in force composition in Pakistan will make compelling reason to hasten the restructuring of positions in India.

Threat perception and deployment - is what a Commander looks at, the only way - this could occur would be to have a treaty on the deployment of forces on each other's borders and better military to military links which would ease concerns. Maybe direct hot lines between sector commander's.

 

[Joe Shearer]

1. I think he is refering to PA not the members of PDF.

2. Like kiyani said to be most anti India general ever or that pasha said to be ready to pay any cost to harm India?

Yes, he has a point there, but my point is that it is fairytale thinking to imagine that either General Kiyani or Lt. Gen. Pasha will wake up one fine morning and say, let's have peace with India. It's not going to happen. But they aren't immortal; the nuances of Pakistani policy exist, even within the military. Remember the fine succession of professional soldiers, tough and yet not riddled with the opinions and prejudices of the JCO class, that they had just a few years ago, just after the preposterous Aslam Beg? Can we rule out three COAS like that in Pakistan? For ever?

If such generals ever come to command positions, what will they hear from the civilians? Shouldn't PDF be among those bodies that throw up ideas and alternative ways of looking at things?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Threat perception and deployment - is what a Commander looks at, the only way - this could occur would be to have a treaty on the deployment of forces on each other's borders and better military to military links which would ease concerns. Maybe direct hot lines between sector commander's.

Since you mention it, just think about the threat perception of the Indian DMO when he sees a large conversion of Pakistani armoured troops to counter-insurgency troops. It is obvious that he will start wondering why he is positioning huge masses of armour against non-existent threats. He will also start wondering what he needs to stop a Pakistani thrust towards Delhi while India is tied down in battle against China; an infantry and artillery heavy force - the Pakistani Army has always had superiority in artillery ever since Pakistan joined CENTO and SEATO - doesn't need the whole damn paraphernalia that we had, and we can thin out the concentrations there and put more people into mountain brigades, more technology into heavy strategic lift, as well concentrate on the Air Force and the Navy.

It doesn't need a treaty - any Indian government signing such a treaty given the distance between Pakistani cantonments and Delhi should be thrown out of office immediately - and it doesn't need, although such a thing would be hugely helpful, hot lines between sector commanders. There is also a danger about the sector commanders idea; who is the sector commander? On the Indian side, the CinC Northern Command (the chap whose offices a Pakistani Embassy driver was caught outside) and the CinC Western Command would be the sector commanders; how would it help if some newly-joined Lt. Col. decided to announce his presence with a brisk fire-fight? Since you claim to have inside information and detailed information about what actually happens on the ground, you presumably know exactly what happens when battalion heads are changed on either side of the border. The CinC never gets to hear about these incidents, although those who have led battalions on the border know precisely what goes on.

There is already a DMO to DMO hot line.

 

[Rafi]

Since you mention it, just think about the threat perception of the Indian DMO when he sees a large conversion of Pakistani armoured troops to counter-insurgency troops. It is obvious that he will start wondering why he is positioning huge masses of armour against non-existent threats. He will also start wondering what he needs to stop a Pakistani thrust towards Delhi while India is tied down in battle against China; an infantry and artillery heavy force - the Pakistani Army has always had superiority in artillery ever since Pakistan joined CENTO and SEATO - doesn't need the whole damn paraphernalia that we had, and we can thin out the concentrations there and put more people into mountain brigades, more technology into heavy strategic lift, as well concentrate on the Air Force and the Navy.

It doesn't need a treaty - any Indian government signing such a treaty given the distance between Pakistani cantonments and Delhi should be thrown out of office immediately - and it doesn't need, although such a thing would be hugely helpful, hot lines between sector commanders. There is also a danger about the sector commanders idea; who is the sector commander? On the Indian side, the CinC Northern Command (the chap whose offices a Pakistani Embassy driver was caught outside) and the CinC Western Command would be the sector commanders; how would it help if some newly-joined Lt. Col. decided to announce his presence with a brisk fire-fight? Since you claim to have inside information and detailed information about what actually happens on the ground, you presumably know exactly what happens when battalion heads are changed on either side of the border. The CinC never gets to hear about these incidents, although those who have led battalions on the border know precisely what goes on.

There is already a DMO to DMO hot line.

Trust is also a major factor, military men do not make assumptions - they would not assume that if Pakistan was to convert it's Mechanized and Armour -ed formations into COIN forces india would reciprocate, their would have to be an agreement - on the other side, this would not be done unilaterally.