Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[indushek]

i say this because i know things which you probably dont. Dont take me wrong, i dont mean as if i am more learned than you or something, but yes i may be more experienced when it comes to militaries of indo-Pak. i know this because i have seen you guys clinging to that INSAS of yours at borders, i say this because i have court martialed guys who have been related to RAW (so in turn i know what your Maj Tigers have been asking them), i say this that you people have a problem with a prosperous Pakistan because i have held flag meetings with my counterparts on your side, i know, to an extent, what an indian soldiers thinks while sitting across the LoC as i have exchanged cigarettes with them there etc, etc and etc. So let's not fool ourselves, and i am not letting some e-warrior (i am not indicating you) tell me that 'all ij well', coz it is NOT.


Looks like i reached the soft spot


See, no one is sharif, only Babra was.
We are not clean and you aren't either. But then we have mended our ways. You dont see Mujahdis crossing over to your sides now, except those that make news in your newspapers. You fenced the goddamn border, control the valley inside out but you still cry foul. You cry Mumbai out loud but couldnt prove (Pakistani) State's involvement in the fiasco. Same happened when your parliment was attacked, you failed to punish those behind Samjhota Express but you expect us to solve Mumbai for you.

You complain of 'loose cannons', well the simplistic reply to this can be that we didnt have control over them until now, but your COAS did have control over his tongue. But then that's not enough. How about india's stance had been a bit more mature after the Mumbai incident? Instead of blaming Pakistan in a knee-jerk reaction, how about some sense had prevailed. How about you brought those behind Samjhota Exp to justice, then your demand regarding those behind Mumbai had been more credible. Now this all doesnt at all mean as if the Pakistani State was involved in Mumbai or that the Pakistani State has linked the cooperation in Mumbai case with your cooperation in Samthota case, this is just something we outsiders or the media can talk about.

We are already stuck amidst a war, a war that has taken a toll both on our economy and the society, what assistance did we receive from your side? Yeah, yiu could have assistited us, after all it is you (in Kashmir as per your claims) these Talibunnies are behind once they are done with the goras. Most importantly, you yourself have faced insurgency and separatists for quite some time now, nobody knows it better than you how these problems can weed you out. Instead every second day we see you peoples raising support for Balochistan, over and above you have the cheeks to relate Balochistan with Kashmir. You could have kept it to yourself in case of Afg, instead you decided to go all out for their 'reconstruction'. We all know the truth, atleast we two can talk in these terms (i hope i am not arguing with the typical indian troll). Now i know, you can counter me by saying that it was Pakistan who started all this, it was us who brain child-ed 'proxy' in indo-Pak scenario etc. But then you need to realize that this no more is the case. You can consider this retraction of support to Kashmiri freedom fighter et al a guudwill move from our side or you can claim victory by saying that it was your foriegn policy that MADE Pakistan retract on this stance, both suits me so i dont care, but then you have to appreciate this fact that it's no more happening. Now what did you do in response? Did the Kashmir issue neared a solution or got aggravated when you LEAs were thrashed with stones there? Did you refrained from building dams or did you expedite it? Did you oust from Balochistan and Afg or did you expand upon your foot print there?

So in short what i want to say is that the ball is in your court now, the decision whether there would be peace between the two countries and that a unified system of mutual understanding would exist between them has to come from india NOT Pakistan. Seriously, what do you expect from us when you squeeze our neck by damming the rivers and 'building' and 'reconstructing' a hostile Afg?

As they say, it take two to clap!


And seriously, we dont like to take panga read intimidate everyone (around us). We dont gain anything by antagonizing a country three times our size in almost every term. And i am not one of those who propagate Ghazawa -i- Hind. So you take a step towards peace (provided it is a step not a fall) and you will find us following through. But then reducing forces on the borders is not really a step, minding ones own business is.


On another note, what's with you considering Pakistan an 'irritant'/'nuisance' on one side while you gear up to take on China, and crying foul about Pakistan on the other?


^^Lagta hai baat lage hai bhai ko...

Anywaz, i dont blame you for this, i know you are still a toddler on PDF.


You are free to reject my thoughts that impinge your mind, but then probably, may be, what i say is true that people get bothered?
i dont know, just a thought.

Should i keep my fingers crossed?

Ok, i'll do that, just for you. And i am counting.

Its obvious that you being the think tank should possess some realistic experience no doubt. Nobody says that all is well, atleast not me. I know it will take more than CBM's for that 'bhaichara' thing. Yes i am internet enthusiast and not a e warrior. I don't have to prove this to anybody. Taking in to account the 60+ and counting enemity the people on this side and the other will have problem with others prosperity. Don't say that u don't mind what happens across the border.

No soft spot, i readily agree all i have knowledge of is from media (orangish Indian) and some neutral sources too. I hope that it doesn't disqualify me from putting forward my views on matters.

I am not here to defend each and every action of my country, some were overboard, some different but both of us being from societies where public posturing is more important than actions can atleast understand the intent. Again it depends on us if we have to take this importantly or not.

While i don't agree with Balochistan thing, yes we could have helped you but i don't think any Indian head with the hope of ever making back to politics could have mustered the courage for such action. Given our relations from 47 to now, it is the most impropable thing to do. WEll the Afghanistan thing is naturally and obviously for strategic depth no doubt. However i want to ask you one thing if this war didn't happen would you people have even thought of some kind of rapproachment with us ?? As you pointed out till war we have faced lot of insurgencies and know of its effects, you say the taliban will be after us but who set them on us, its not the case now but the one at receiving end would love to return some favour wouldn't he? that is what is happening.

Regarding the retraction of support and ball in our court, India could have done even more damage to you by increasing its support for these elements but did we? If we really had increased our support i don't think Mr.Kayani would have kept quiet. All we are doing is to have some say in future of Afg so that it will not come back to haunt us.

Good to know that. However these needles of yours are again playing for the public aren't they. This 'nuisance' thing is said by some military guy and we know the leash is in whose hands in my country.

Mujhe kuch nahi laga nahi sirji. I know that i am toddler and i readily accept, i am here to learn a thing or two not to tout myself as the i know it all type. Also i believe in the saying that "knowledge is an ocean, one knows only a drop of it". The day when a person thinks he knows it all he is gone as his mind will not accept any new things it is closed permanently.

No people get bothered when u want others to think what you say is true.

Either you keep your fingers crossed or apart does it make much difference?? If Mr.Kayani tomorrow does want to make peace with us and takes some unilateral action, does that mean he came to PDF and read my comments and realized things or if doesn't then he thought oh Mr.Xeric has a valid and excellent point there so let us abstain. Matter is that as individuals we don't matter much sirji.

As an 'after thought' sirji as u told me i am a toddler and i accepted, i will ask you a silly question. You say u held so many meetings at border and saw the guy with Insas and people averse with a prosperous Pakistan. Did u see in to their minds and hearts to know what they think (don't tell me they told u directly). Also as the Indian soldier with Insas was visible was the soldier from your side with flowers was present??

 

[All-Green]

You raised another important point and important flaw in the author's argument of 'reducing the size of the military'. The US military (and NATO militaries in general) are by far the most mobile and high tech on the planet. Yet even US planners have accepted that there simple is no technological substitute for 'boots on the ground' when it comes to combating an insurgency long term. Yes, with mobility and technology the US can go into any area and rout out any entrenched fighters and clear the area. But as soon as the troops leave, the insurgents are back. To actually 'hold and build' the area one needs boots on the ground - whether they be the military or local security forces.

So the argument of a 'reduced and more mobile military to fight an unconventional conflict' is a self defeating one in terms of the 'reduce' part, since the terrain and nature of the border with Afghanistan and the cross-border insurgent ties demand a significantly larger number of deployed troops than we have currently, not less.

AM,
That is the dilemma.
On one hand we see proponents of increased mobility at the cost of reduced manpower.
Both Mobility and Manpower are essential here and to reduce one at the cost of the other may backfire.

In recent times we have seen countless generals request additional boots on ground in order to deny space to the insurgents.
Even with the best mobile formations of NATO having tremendous firepower and CAS, we have seen that the commanders have repeatedly cited low number of troops as a reason why insurgency cannot be denied breathing space.

Which successful example of COIN in Afghanistan are we supposed to emulate?
Afghanistan has already become a graveyard of failed military strategy for some of the most mobile and well equipped militaries.
Whatever parameters that render Afghanistan theater of war so impossible to dominate, are also quite relevant in case of Pakistan's current war since we share a huge and extremely porous border with Afghanistan.
This area is one of the most difficult terrains to dominate and on top of it most of the insurgents seek refuge here.

When US pulls out of this area then Pakistan and Afghanistan will have to manage the situation for themselves only.
The Insurgency in Pakistan has thrived on the US presence in Afghanistan and to not admit this is a rather naive point of view.
I firmly believe that when US leaves, things can improve since the insurgency has gained a lot of support due to anti US views of an overwhelming majority in the region. When the insurgency no more has the ultimate justification for its actions, will be difficult to sustain the same momentum.

However let us for arguments sake assume that the exodus of US does not reduce the momentum of insurgency and it also retains an anti Pakistan element.
In such a scenario the entire pressure may shift from to Pak-Afghan border in a matter of year or two since i really believe that in such a case there is little chance that Kabul will be able to hold its own against the insurgents for more than 2 years. Even if this miracle happens, the area of concern for Pakistan (durand line) will definitely be in the hands of the insurgents.
If this happens and the dominant faction is hostile towards Pakistan...you need as many soldiers as you can possibly manage in order to absorb the resulting pressure.

Keeping all scenarios in mind, I believe that the only sane option Pakistan has is to keep as much boots on ground and also pursue its own dialogue with all the groups that are willing to talk to Pakistan. We do not have the luxury to leave this area as it is our homeland.
We should ensure that we are not left exposed with a bulls eye painted on our posterior, after the NATO forces pack up and leave.
We have too much at stake in this region and should be confident that dialogue can turn things around in the long run, nowhere in the world has any similar situation normalized without dialogue.
There is no pure military situation here except that of holding your own, eradicating the terrorists and trying to reach an agreement with those forces which are not interested in the terrorists agenda but are rather in pursuit of some political/social goals.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And what part of his actions do you interpret as indicating he is 'against peace'?

May I remind you that it is not Kiyani who has advocated a 'two front war' or 'limited conventional conflict under a nuclear umbrella', or for that matter exhibited any inclination to adventurism such as India's in Siachen and Pakistan's in Kargil.

I therefore fail to understand why so many in the Indian media and intelligentsia have taken to branding him as 'anti-peace'. If we are basing such analysis on their 'actions', as you indicated you are, then what 'actions' on the part of Kiyani and Pasha are we using to justify this 'anti-peace' mindset being attributed to them?

You have written a long and detailed analysis of the material forwarded, to no purpose.

Your question was, "why so many in the Indian media and intelligentsia have taken to branding him as 'anti-peace'. If we are basing such analysis on their 'actions', as you indicated you are, then what 'actions' on the part of Kiyani and Pasha are we using to justify this 'anti-peace' mindset being attributed to them?"

The material forwarded was not complete; it was partial. As it is, it attracted unfavourable notice from those who had not noticed your original query, the one cited above. It is impossible to forward both material and analysis without running into the accusation of seeking to derail the thread, to introduce elements of emotion into a rational argument, or of plain trolling. So your question cannot be answered as it ought to be answered without being criticised for wholly different reasons.

Your analysis of the material forwarded is frankly as distracting and as irrelevant to the topic as the material itself. It was forwarded to answer your insinuation that there is nothing to the scepticism of 'Indian' commentators (it has to be pointed out that this scepticism is not Indian, but rather more widespread, even to the point of being universal except within Pakistan, with a small segment of the deep state) but automatic, Pavlovian hatred. Be assured that this is not the case; there are almost always, in the comments and suggestions and opinions that some of us forward, a hard core of fact, of observed facts, and of rational analysis of these observed facts. Not all Indians are trolls.

Try to liberate your mind of some of the chains on it.

 

[Developereo]

I agree that the economy is by far the major concern and reorganizing the military, while important, is a secondary consideration.

Also, since the subject of the military is centrally tied to India, it's important to see what's happening over the fence. The way I see it, the chances for conflict are actually greater now more than ever. The reasons are as follows:

- India is a darling of the West and is generally in a far stronger position diplomatically than before.
- China is least likely to get involved in a significant way in any Indo-Pak conflict. That's because China is much more enmeshed in the international world than previously and will be wary of repercussions.
- Domestically, the Indian psyche is getting much more nationalistic and there are loud demands for a 'more robust' foreign policy.
- The conventional capabilities gap is ever widening, not to mention the economic ability to sustain conflict.

So, in the event of a major terrorist incident blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Pakistan, if India believes that Pakistan military has relaxed its vigilance towards India, they may feel emboldened to start a military operation which they feel can be time-boxed due to India's superior military and diplomatic muscle.

In short, it's the 'strong fences make good neighbors' argument.

 

[rockstarIN]

I agree that the economy is by far the major concern and reorganizing the military, while important, is a secondary consideration.

Also, since the subject of the military is centrally tied to India, it's important to see what's happening over the fence. The way I see it, the chances for conflict are actually greater now more than ever. The reasons are as follows:

- India is a darling of the West and is generally in a far stronger position diplomatically than before.
- China is least likely to get involved in a significant way in any Indo-Pak conflict. That's because China is much more enmeshed in the international world than previously and will be wary of repercussions.
- Domestically, the Indian psyche is getting much more nationalistic and there are loud demands for a 'more robust' foreign policy.
- The conventional capabilities gap is ever widening, not to mention the economic ability to sustain conflict.

So, in the event of a major terrorist incident blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Pakistan, if India believes that Pakistan military has relaxed its vigilance towards India, they may feel emboldened to start a military operation which they feel can be time-boxed due to India's superior military and diplomatic muscle.

In short, it's the 'strong fences make good neighbors' argument.

Lets share some thoughts from across the border too.

- India is a darling of the West and is generally in a far stronger position diplomatically than before.

It is not because of we sent Indian Army to Iraq and Afghanistan to help NATO and they are dear to us. It is largely because our foreign policy and emphasis on economy. I'm sure even in Pakistani society, the voice of the people whose are wealthy will listen more.

- China is least likely to get involved in a significant way in any Indo-Pak conflict. That's because China is much more enmeshed in the international world than previously and will be wary of repercussions.

They won't, apart from diplomatic front.

- The conventional capabilities gap is ever widening, not to mention the economic ability to sustain conflict.

Related to economy

So, in the event of a major terrorist incident blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Pakistan, if India believes that Pakistan military has relaxed its vigilance towards India, they may feel emboldened to start a military operation which they feel can be time-boxed due to India's superior military and diplomatic muscle.

Stop any attacks, that is the best way. dismantle the infrastructure.

 

[muse]

Friends:


What a thrilling series of posts by our distinguished and thoughful members about these important issues - they all contribute to the debate - however, I would request that responses be with regard to the piece by AVM Chaudry and as Brig. Qadir's piece relates to the AVM's. -- It's important that we not imagine we are arguing the main points, even as we open ourselves to the idea that we have moved beyond the scope of the original criticisms .

 

[Developereo]

I would request that responses be with regard to the piece by AVM Chaudry and as Brig. Qadir's piece relates to the AVM's. -- It's important that we not imagine we are arguing the main points, even as we open ourselves to the idea that we have moved beyond the scope of the original criticisms .

I thought his main criticism is that the Indian threat is overstated.

Related to economy

Agreed. I wasn't debating the causes, merely listing the effects.

Stop any attacks, that is the best way. dismantle the infrastructure.

Nothing can be 100% effective and accidents may still happen. Isn't one of the BJP's rallying cries the claim that Congress has been too weak and mishandled 26/11?

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is an elephant in the room, and unless it is acknowledged and dealt with, everybody will be talking around and around the subject.

Two countries were born in the same hour, and have developed radically differently. Until a few years earlier, it was fashionable and opportune for Pakistani commentators to point to the rapid development and to the low numbers of the absolute poor and to claim that there was no handicap faced by the state of Pakistan due to the attenuation of its democratic processes and its constant interruption by coup after coup, by one after another of a series of power-hungry military dictators, who disguised their personal ambitions as an act of self-sacrificing leadership of the country in distress.

At least that silly line of argument has stopped. At least to some extent, less rather than more in its extent, there is some acknowledgement that the failure of the civilian government and civilian institutions is a reality. But now the grounds have been shifted, and we are told that this is all due to a coterie of thoroughly corrupt individuals, or perhaps a combination of a few very rich families which have got together to plunder the country for their own selfish ends.

Two thoughts immediately cross the mind of an observer not too far detached from the state of Pakistan.

How is it that similar, if not worse, corruption in a neighbouring country has failed to slow down its progress, and how is it that the neighbour has enough money to equip itself to fight against two stubborn opponents simultaneously?

How is it that during the exact half of its history that the country of Pakistan was under military rule, nothing was done about corruption, or rather, whatever was done did not stand the test of time? One need not think very hard for the corollary question to ask itself as it were: was the country then totally inviolate in the half that it was in stewardship? Or is there some reason why there is a large segment of very rich generals on one side of the border but not the other?

Agnostic Muslim has made considerable play with the fact that it is the failure of governance, of civilian institutions, of the executive, the legislature and judiciary all failing the country without exception, that has led to the preposterous situation where the country's modest but necessary military funding cannot be found readily. He has indicated that there is no gain, no loss of precious funding due to the excessive and misdirected organisation of the military, and that there is nothing to be gained by down-rating the threat from India and configuring the Pakistan Army around more tangible dangers.

This might be true if it were not for a series of facts which need to be addressed, not by irresponsible and non-accountable outside commentators like myself, suspicious and untrustworthy as we are seen to be and treated as being, but by those who swear by their loyalty to Pakistan. It is only their confrontation of the bitter truth that will bring about change, not some mechanical wishes that by some miracle, all the elite will reform themselves, and that thereafter, there will be prosperity and all the money that is thought necessary for warlike preparation.

India does not matter; it will always be hostile; it will always jump on the country at a weak or unguarded moment and no expenditure is too much to guard against this ever-present danger. It is a question of strong fences making good neighbours.

This is not merely self-seeking and delusionary, but positively toxic. The process of guarding against India has led to huge armed forces being built up, well beyond the requirements of safety or legitimate defence, to an extent where there is parity between the forces. This is not defensive; it is a clear signal of offensive intent, and given the past history of Pakistan-Indian relations, just as Pakistani commentators swear that they will never take a chance, there is nothing, no incentive for Indian planners to reduce their watchful vigil on the Pakistan Army either. So in this arms race, millions will be diverted. And what is the tangible result for Pakistan?

First of all, basing the future on reforms that are to be inevitable and that are to take place very soon is a fairy tale. This is not going to happen. Both the civilian and, let's face it, the military establishment of Pakistan is corrupt beyond repair. Bankruptcy is not imminent; neither is growth. The day when expenses rise beyond income is inevitable, and cannot be averted by subventions.

There is going to be no short-term reform and there is no hope in banking on these to balance the budget and to enable further military spending.

Second, from the very outset, the process of Islamisation has been steady and consistent. One by one, the Objectives Resolution, the hunting down of the Ahmediyyas, the declaration of the Islamic Republic and the introduction of Sharia law have been mentioned. What has not been mentioned is the deeply-rooted use of jehadist elements as a fifth column for the Pakistan Army in places where they believed that jehadists would find favour. This has led to direct consequences to the Army and to the country. On the one hand, it has created an eco-system for terror. That is not trivial.

Extremists in Pakistan now have years of experience and training in organisation, fund-raising, training and administration of irregular forces. This has now come to a stage where with or without the explicit help of the deep state, they can work autonomously, independently. They now have started developing their individual agenda. While it is known, although to Pakistan, it is not proven that Pakistan was behind the murderous attacks on India, the rest of the world, India included, thinks so. Without quibbling, it seems to be a permanent feature of life in Pakistan.

There is reason for such a fostering of the jehadists, and that is to keep alive the tension, and ensure that the borders are always on edge. This automatically translates into Pakistan devoting funds to an ever-growing Army. If there was no jehadist movement, if there was no infiltration, in Kashmir, and in other parts thereafter, there would be no need for such military capability, there would be no more big budgets.

 

[muse]

I thought his main criticism is that the Indian threat is overstated.

That's a bit of a straw man -- While ina very general way, you are right that the position is that the Indian threat is overstated, but that is part of a larger picture, so lets deal with the entirety of the argument, because if we break the argument into small pieces, we will be responding to something that the AVM's piece is not about -- The argument is much more nuanced and broad

 

[Alternative]

Ah, the sage responds. We must be deeply honoured.

Thus, you are honored, my child.......
I smell some thing burning here......my child.
You must be tolerant and compassionate....hmmm...My Child...
---------------------------------------------------

No doubt these fine gradations of meaning are useful to you for some purpose, perhaps for the purpose of stating that they themselves will not require counter-insurgency forces, but rather a combination of intelligence operatives and armed policemen. Perhaps. It is not clear from your cryptic remarks, at any rate.

The fact remains that they inspire and finance, when they do not actually collaborate operationally. They remain a menace for your country into the foreseeable future, notwithstanding your unreal hope of some vanishing of these menaces when the Americans themselves vanish.
. I had read it, and read it with some scepticism. Not a single reason is adduced, and the only one implicit is that since it is an outcome you hope for, it may come to pass.

This being the case, no doubt examinations, to name a random example with no other intention, are a mere passing distraction to you, since they must inevitably turn out well, that being your wish.

As in your own words, Al-qaeda being "they inspire and finance, when they do not actually collaborate operationally" and fighting arm, "Afghan Taliban" will most probably be in Kabul with some sort of deal with Americans(most probable outcome), what will be the Al-qaeda's capability to run havoc? surely they (al-qaeda) will try every thing but situation will be more akin to as in Saudi Arabia than it is now.
Remember the original story of Al-qaeda targeting America and Americans everywhere. Why would it be specially targeting Pakistan out of numerous other befitting candidates with same vigor and fury?
TTP, orphaned, with its Father and Mother gone, will be dealt with (in my personal view) local lashkars and paramilitary forces with helping hand of Pakistan Army.

Politics and original sentiment of people, on matters of importance, whether have religious annotations or not, are not going anywhere, and this has no link with Al-qaeda or what ever group fighting under shady claims.

You have misunderstood the point, massively. My point is not whether the political or original sentiment (whatever original sentiment is supposed to signify) is going north, south, east or west; it was merely that the increasing onset of religious intolerance in Pakistan, to the extent where murderers are garlanded as they are escorted to court, and ministers are killed for advocating the repeals of the blasphemy laws, is a permanent indicator that it is a one-way street; things will not get better. Even the all-powerful Army has apparently stated that pushing the soldiers, who are already committed radical Islamists, beyond a point in North Waziristan is no longer possible. This has been looked at as a possible explanation for the repeated starts and stops to military campaigns in that area. To deny that Al Qaeda had any role in this development, albeit with many other organisations involved as well, is disingenuous.

From your own previous post;

The observation here is that Pakistan is getting radicalised, in the form of increasing Sunni insistence on uniform acceptance of a fixed set of norms and living principles, and that other sects and minorities are gradually coming under increasing pressure. Further, that this will not go away without a vigorous and conscious effort by the liberal segments of society to send it away, and that without such an effort, the impact of this radicalisation on day-to-day life will only increase. It is an observation that this has been the trend, gradual at first, increasing in speed and pervasiveness of late, in society at large.

Look up your own history, and look at it honestly. The first step was the Objectives Resolution; the second step was the declaration of an Islamic Republic; the third step was the parallel institution of Sharia courts.

There is not even any need to look at Maududi's persecution of Ahmediyyas, for which he was sentenced to death by a Pakistani court. Nor of the clause demanding that these Ahmediyyas declare that they are not Muslim, if they seek passports.

None of these were part of the original vision; all of these are increasingly heavy-handed acts of control and domination of the other sects and minorities.

Now, you have gone further back (from your earlier post, and may go further back is pursued..) to find intolerance and radicalization to the very beginning, many many decades back; increasing ...increasing......ever increasing; make me wonder if anyone left which is tolerate or non-radical now, according to your theological/atheistic or socio-political views.....
Hodge podge references don't serve the topic at hand, only facilitate to open Pandora box of off topic sludges.

Even the all-powerful Army has apparently stated that pushing the soldiers, who are already committed radical Islamists, beyond a point in North Waziristan is no longer possible. This has been looked at as a possible explanation for the repeated starts and stops to military campaigns in that area

This is your own (or who ever you are quoting) twist of thing to "do more''.... American excel in creating mess and leaving things for others to endure. Our 'all-powerful' army is not that 'All' powerful and already bled (their own blood) enough, but Shylock want a pound of 'heart meat'.
Reason of not attacking North Waziristan, that you are quoting have no value as evidenced by current and previous operations conducted by Army.

You seem to link, very conveniently, supposed militarization of Pakistani Society and intolerance for the rise of insurgency in FATA and its further branches in Pakistani cities. Not for once you have taken geopolitical realities of Area in equation of your analysis

.

I have, clearly and lucidly, but you have chosen not to take notice, presumably because it weakens your rebuttal. I had already mentioned the gradations between Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the TTP, and the Jehadist groups, in sequence. It is not possible to compel you to read that. It is possible, however, to refer you to my comment immediately before this one, as an illustration.

Where are the people, folks, general populace, in you analysis; you are looking and searching for "Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the TTP, and the Jehadist groups" but you fail to take notice of 'aam admi', ordinary person, what he thinks and what's his take on whole situation. Or, may be you think all are "Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the TTP, and the Jehadist groups", one way or the other, as you seem to hint in next para of your post, reproduced below;

Just to remind you of the repercussions, the increasing militarisation and intolerance of the masses in central Pakistan, particularly in southern Punjab, has already had an effect. It has affected the willingness of the ordinary rank and file to oppose the supposed militant Islamists in North Waziristan; it is not clear, beyond grim speculation, how this syndrome may extend itself further in future.

Red part speak volumes, no need to go further; But your sentiments fail miserably when put against empirical evidence; operations in Swat, Malaqand, Fata agencies etc. no public out cry was heard or noticed, just usual nut-heads did their deed.

As of out of place 'life expectancy studies' being conducted by you, for example, Mahaatama Gandhi was murdered by Nathuram Godse, some decades ago, will not be taken as a sign of intolerant society by you.

You are to be congratulated on achieving a most satisfactory tu quoque response. It is so logical and fitting the arguments to be countered as to be a classic of the species.

This "tu quoque response" is called "mahna marna" in Punjabi and instead of answering, remark is construed to be personal and offensive;
My remark simply meant that happens in every society,... and can't be used as license for smearing campaign.
--------------------------

But then that is what we have come to expect from a master of logic and rhetoric. The small matter of this example being entirely irrelevant is, of course, neither here nor there.

Sage, that is,.....my child.....
----------------------------------------

In my view and observations, public opinion and perception sway and tilt in response to matters/challenges/pressures/threats, internal and external, etc it faces or has to endure. Individual or small group, blockheads has their own fancy thoughts and can't be clubbed with general public.

Regrettably, your view does not go sufficiently far, and does not recognise that the foibles and follies of individuals and small groups of blockheads are being increasingly transferred to those sections of society which we all thought, within and outside Pakistan alike, would never vote for the forces of conservative and bigoted religion. That is evidently no longer true. It remains to be seen when this shows up in the ballot boxes, but from the evidence of the prevailing climate, it cannot be long.

Apart from your fluctuations in Red and Green; any person in Pakistan, disgruntled with America, Israel or India or anyone else is not automatically voter of religious or quasi religious parties, never was and never will be; there are lot of other issues/factors, voters have to think and decide about.
Hardly 3 to 5% of voters fall for emotional blackmail of Mullahs.

 

[FaujHistorian]

... so lets deal with the entirety of the argument, ..

The entire argument is:

--- Money to re-equip must emerge from restructuring; which really means the army will have to go smaller — and significantly smaller at that.


And this argument is deeply flawed.

SC is correct that we need to retool, but the retooling has to be done in Pakistani approach and outlook. Army will automatically adjust.

the change in approach is necessary in our intellectuals, professors, journalists, and perhaps NRPs.

We must quit living the fantasy lands of constipated conspiracy theories that somehow Mossad, CIA, MI5 are in chaoots with RAW in order to destroy us.

Or ISI has gone rogue and thus acting against Pak.

The author (SC) is wrong to say that we need whole sale changes to fight off Qaida or Talibobs.

For the might of Pakistanis army, Qaida is a mosquito
For the brains of Pakistani intellectuals, Qaida is the 20 foot tall Islamic giant that will slay the the so-called Yahoodi or Hanoodi dragons.

This fundamental difference in thinking creates chaos that we see in NW and Mohmand. the day such differnece moves in favor of Pakistan first and Islam second mentality, talibani roosters will disappear. And the only thing remaining will be the Indian threat on the Eastern border.

SC talks about posting a division each Quetta/Peshawar. heck we already have pretty large strength of jawans and officers in the said areas.

The author talks about making them mobile. We do that already.

As a I said before in post #120, Pakistan needs to increase the budget and size of our military not shrink it.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your analysis of the material forwarded is frankly as distracting and as irrelevant to the topic as the material itself. It was forwarded to answer your insinuation that there is nothing to the scepticism of 'Indian' commentators (it has to be pointed out that this scepticism is not Indian, but rather more widespread, even to the point of being universal except within Pakistan, with a small segment of the deep state) but automatic, Pavlovian hatred. Be assured that this is not the case; there are almost always, in the comments and suggestions and opinions that some of us forward, a hard core of fact, of observed facts, and of rational analysis of these observed facts. Not all Indians are trolls.

Try to liberate your mind of some of the chains on it.

My analysis of the material is simple and fact based - there is nothing to support the speculation, opinion and outlandish claims made in the material forwarded by you to justify the allegation of an 'anti-peace, anti-India mindset' on the part of Kiyani.

You can be as verbose as you want to try and obfuscate that fact - it is not I who has to 'liberate my mind of some of the chains on it', when so many are willing to cling to conspiracy theories about Kiyani and the Pakistan Army/ISI without any supporting evidence.

 

[FaujHistorian]

... cling to conspiracy theories about Kiyani and the Pakistan Army/ISI without any supporting evidence.

Conspiracy theories they are for sure.

See the following cases for a comparison.

-- when terrorists attack Dilli/Bombay - the blame goes on ISI
-- when the same terrorists attack Islamabad/Karachi - the conspiracy theorists blame it on RAW.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic Muslim has made considerable play with the fact that it is the failure of governance, of civilian institutions, of the executive, the legislature and judiciary all failing the country without exception, that has led to the preposterous situation where the country's modest but necessary military funding cannot be found readily. He has indicated that there is no gain, no loss of precious funding due to the excessive and misdirected organisation of the military, and that there is nothing to be gained by down-rating the threat from India and configuring the Pakistan Army around more tangible dangers.

Your post was a good one, but IMO went on a tangent to the issue that is being discussed. Your interpretation of my arguments, above, is also off the mark. My point is not that a reduction in military expenditure would not benefit development (that is true of any nation - India, the US etc.) but that there are far more significant resources, currently being wasted, that can be harnessed and plowed into development on the civilian side. I have already pointed out in detail what those are. A reduction in the military will only be possible in case of 'peace/normalization' with India. That itself is a very long term process, and we are in some ways just beginning that process. A reduction in the military is therefore not on the cards until some sort 'trust' in bilateral relations is built up and/or India undertakes a reduction and/or redeployment of its military. Not to mention the additional point made about the need for significant numbers of troops on the ground to combat an insurgency, which goes against the 'reduction in military size' argument. Again, none of this appears to be possible in the near future, so the need for the current size of the Pakistani military remains, as does the need for its continued modernization.

Now, Pakistan cannot wait till 'peace' is arrived at with India to invest in its development, and I have argued that it does not have to wait - the reforms and restructuring on the civilian side that I pointed out can be implemented in the near term and can start to pay dividends almost immediately. The resources generated from these reforms will be many magnitudes larger than the entire defence budget, and therefore eliminates the need to reduce the military and weaken our defence against external and internal aggressors.

Now on to the rest of your argument.

This might be true if it were not for a series of facts which need to be addressed, not by irresponsible and non-accountable outside commentators like myself, suspicious and untrustworthy as we are seen to be and treated as being, but by those who swear by their loyalty to Pakistan. It is only their confrontation of the bitter truth that will bring about change, not some mechanical wishes that by some miracle, all the elite will reform themselves, and that thereafter, there will be prosperity and all the money that is thought necessary for warlike preparation.

India does not matter; it will always be hostile; it will always jump on the country at a weak or unguarded moment and no expenditure is too much to guard against this ever-present danger. It is a question of strong fences making good neighbours.

This is not merely self-seeking and delusionary, but positively toxic. The process of guarding against India has led to huge armed forces being built up, well beyond the requirements of safety or legitimate defence, to an extent where there is parity between the forces. This is not defensive; it is a clear signal of offensive intent, and given the past history of Pakistan-Indian relations, just as Pakistani commentators swear that they will never take a chance, there is nothing, no incentive for Indian planners to reduce their watchful vigil on the Pakistan Army either. So in this arms race, millions will be diverted. And what is the tangible result for Pakistan?

First of all, basing the future on reforms that are to be inevitable and that are to take place very soon is a fairy tale. This is not going to happen. Both the civilian and, let's face it, the military establishment of Pakistan is corrupt beyond repair. Bankruptcy is not imminent; neither is growth. The day when expenses rise beyond income is inevitable, and cannot be averted by subventions.

There is going to be no short-term reform and there is no hope in banking on these to balance the budget and to enable further military spending.

If you are arguing that both the military and civilian elite are corrupt beyond repair and reforms cannot happen, then why even bother participating in this discussion? Merely state what you did above and leave it to the rest of us 'optimists' to has out which set of reforms serves Pakistan better.

But if reforms can take place, then I would argue that the statistics indicate that it is reforms on the civilian side that stand to benefit Pakistan the most, and allow for a sustainable generation of resources with room to grow, without compromising our security.

Second, from the very outset, the process of Islamisation has been steady and consistent. One by one, the Objectives Resolution, the hunting down of the Ahmediyyas, the declaration of the Islamic Republic and the introduction of Sharia law have been mentioned. What has not been mentioned is the deeply-rooted use of jehadist elements as a fifth column for the Pakistan Army in places where they believed that jehadists would find favour. This has led to direct consequences to the Army and to the country. On the one hand, it has created an eco-system for terror. That is not trivial.

Extremists in Pakistan now have years of experience and training in organisation, fund-raising, training and administration of irregular forces. This has now come to a stage where with or without the explicit help of the deep state, they can work autonomously, independently. They now have started developing their individual agenda. While it is known, although to Pakistan, it is not proven that Pakistan was behind the murderous attacks on India, the rest of the world, India included, thinks so. Without quibbling, it seems to be a permanent feature of life in Pakistan.

There is reason for such a fostering of the jehadists, and that is to keep alive the tension, and ensure that the borders are always on edge. This automatically translates into Pakistan devoting funds to an ever-growing Army. If there was no jehadist movement, if there was no infiltration, in Kashmir, and in other parts thereafter, there would be no need for such military capability, there would be no more big budgets.

I can't really see what this, as well as the initial part of your post that I omitted, has to do with the debate on the generation of more resources to invest in development, or the debate on 'retooling and reducing' the military in terms of internal Pakistani insurgent and terrorist threats.

As I said earlier, your post is good, but from a historical perspective - it does little to advance the current discussion on what path to take going forward, and the pros and cons of each.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. Pakistan's main threat is internal - Yes, the Islamist insurgency, the true scale of which remains hidden from most Pakistanis.

I agree - but this threat cannot be combated without reforms on the civilian side that I have pointed out. The Army has implemented reforms and 'retooled and retrained' its forces in COIN to the extent that is possible within its constraints. It has also delivered magnificently in multiple theaters in FATA and Swat. But now that the Army has cleared out the areas from extremists, where is the civilian component of 'reconstruct, rehabilitate and govern'? Surely you do not expect the Army to remain in these areas permanently. The Army has done exactly what the author, and you, would have it do, but it is not a police force and it cannot govern and should not govern - that job rests with the civilian administrators - local, provincial and federal.

When will they step up and why are they getting a free pass on their failure to step up and deliver now that the Army has done its job and cleared out these areas? Instead we get to hear Farhat Taj whine about how the local militias are not being provided with weapons and money. They were never supposed to be provided with any significant amount of weapons and money - the whole idea behind that was that one set of non-state actors (Taliban) not be replaced with another set of non-state actors (local tribal militias). Security and administrative functions in these areas cleared of the Taliban and their associates needs to be handled through whatever political structure exists or is planned for those areas.

Do you agree with this - or Are you in the "it's more comfortable to hate India" club??

False choice - I disagree with the argument that the Army has not already done what is necessary and expected of it (for the most part) to combat insurgents and terrorists.

2. The Pakistan Army has for more than 60 years been focused on India as the threat - this, certainly justified, has given the army much control over politics, policies and government expenditures, however, seen from the light of point number 1, the threat matrix is now substantially different, particularly since the international community will not support changing the border by force of arms, especially when it involves two and possibly three nuclear powers.

I have not argued against any of the above, but see my response to (1).

3. Given 1 and 2, Pakistan in order to prevail in the long war (see 1) ought to strengthen her economy and build regional alliances or structures of trust - read peace with India -- now, some will use this to suggest that we forget the captives of Kashmir - certainly not, we just do not pursue our aims on the backs of religious bigots cut from the same cloth as those who explode bombs, do suicide operations and fight the Paak Fauj .

Again, see my response to (1)

Your point that we can create efficiencies broadly in the economy - sure, I'm all for it.

Glad you agree - since that is really the only place we can sustainably generate resources from, resources that will continue to grow.