fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
VIEW: Of good order and military discipline Mehboob Qadir
An armed force is not always to be used as an offensive instrument; it should be able to project its power to the adversary as a force-in-being also. That can happen when it remains within the bounds of the assigned mission with strictly maintained military discipline and well-honed professional skills.
The famous Section 55 in the Pakistan Armys Manual of Pakistan Military Law (MPML) can easily be regarded as an outstanding example of the brilliance of that unknown legal prodigy who originally conceived it. It is simple and crisp but extraordinarily comprehensive in its application to a majority of military offences. It reads: Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and of military discipline. Imagine the universal sweep of this law over all and any military offences. This is why it is a favourite tool of all military law officers when framing charges. The reason is perhaps, amongst the thousands of pages of military law and rules, this section is the only one that captures a broad military notion and not a specific offence. The other more immediate cause of its respectability is that invariably each one of us in the military may have felt the sting of this awesome piece of military jurisprudence at some stage of service. It is really the fascinating outreach of this masterly phrase that has inspired one from time to time to write about a few episodes, which I thought hovered just below the regulation markings rubbing upon the traditional notions of soldiering here and there.
In the military, one is expected and has the right to express his opinion over or, let us be more candid, dissent from a duty assigned. To ask questions of the passage is considered enthusiasm and is viewed kindly. However, the problem arises when deciding how much and how emphatically to persist upon ones differing point of view or comment on the soundness of the task assigned. Because right next is the ever-present thin red line that separates military discipline from goose pimples. One wrong step, a few extra seconds of argument and there goes a no ball.
It is not all stuffy and tight lips in the army. Todays soldier does not live under the rock. There are real constraints under which the military has to function. There is a vast conceptual and functional but respectful difference between troops in the field and the exalted hall of parliament, a plush room for panel discussion or a classy seminar hall. In the army, beyond a limited liberty, both in time and intent, there is the driving urgency to get into action, as the enemy bullets are dumb and unable to differentiate between a sublime democratic right to differ and hesitation to fight.
Having said that, how does one groom intelligent, conscientious and professional soldiers and officers? Those who are wayward are amply taken care of by Section 55. As a matter of fact there is no guidebook to it nor a short cut available except historic practices of renowned military leaders. A vibrant, responsive and upright body of troops is a primary function of erudite and selfless command, careful grooming, and hard professional training. There is no room in this exercise for the fake and the feeble, the loud and the shallow and, what is more, the callous and the insincere. There is also no substitute for ones willingness to share the same hardship and danger that your troops face. Once that happens, thereafter all arguments end and instant obedience begins, regardless of the scale of the danger.
How else do you view a soldier who in the pouring icy rain, chilling wind and a huge thunder storm is struggling to hold on to the commanding officers tent ropes to save it from being blown away in the middle of a bitterly cold and dark winter night? Soaked to his wretched frozen bones, but never letting go of the tent. That too when the officer is away. And what about that artillery subedar who, while seriously wounded by the bombardment of Soviet jets over the Paiwar Kotal ridge line in Parachinar (1984), refused to be evacuated without his commanding officers permission? That was when others had moved to safer positions on the reverse slope. Then there was this young transport officer who secured a disabled, heavy-gun-towing truck behind another one, took the wheel himself and drove this double dead weight, a virtual death trap, over Kohats treacherous old Kotal Pass during the night down to the unit lines in Kohat. He returned post-haste to be on parade in the morning at Nowshera artillery firing range along with another roadworthy truck. That morning the unit was to be put through a test exercise, where a lame truck could have caused a serious embarrassment. All this without the commanding officers permission! This plucky young man rose to become a stalwart colonel in the army (Colonel Asif).
However, these examples are to be valued at the level they have been described. Beyond that a different and a wider military paradigm has to be considered. Almost immediately above are the conceptual issues of national interest, constitutional obligations and the future of the forces in the articulation of national power. These issues need a deliberate and very well informed approach, coming out of a highly disciplined, well rounded and insightful mind. That truly is the preserve of senior commanders who are expected to be aware of all nuances of their actions and words, and be prepared to shoulder responsibility for the consequences of the same. Even more importantly, they have to have a very clear sense and accurate ongoing assessment of the political temperature in and around the country and should be able to navigate their force with consummate skill and poise. An armed force is not always to be used as an offensive instrument; it should be able to project its power to the adversary as a force-in-being also. That can happen when it remains within the bounds of the assigned mission with strictly maintained military discipline and well-honed professional skills. That also is the difference between an armed mob and a disciplined, well led force. In the end all that will largely depend on what example the commander himself sets.
At the level of high command, perceptions about and by them matter. In order to manage perceptions, conceit, counterfeit or subterfuge has never worked, not for long. Late General Zias faith-coated feigned piety or General Musharrafs pulpy bravado proved embarrassingly phoney in the end. It is transparency, courage of conviction and spotless personal and professional conduct that really matter, and must be valued like gold wherever found. Only men with the strength of superior character will stand fast in battle and contribute substantially to the national well being in peace.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
An armed force is not always to be used as an offensive instrument; it should be able to project its power to the adversary as a force-in-being also. That can happen when it remains within the bounds of the assigned mission with strictly maintained military discipline and well-honed professional skills.
The famous Section 55 in the Pakistan Armys Manual of Pakistan Military Law (MPML) can easily be regarded as an outstanding example of the brilliance of that unknown legal prodigy who originally conceived it. It is simple and crisp but extraordinarily comprehensive in its application to a majority of military offences. It reads: Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and of military discipline. Imagine the universal sweep of this law over all and any military offences. This is why it is a favourite tool of all military law officers when framing charges. The reason is perhaps, amongst the thousands of pages of military law and rules, this section is the only one that captures a broad military notion and not a specific offence. The other more immediate cause of its respectability is that invariably each one of us in the military may have felt the sting of this awesome piece of military jurisprudence at some stage of service. It is really the fascinating outreach of this masterly phrase that has inspired one from time to time to write about a few episodes, which I thought hovered just below the regulation markings rubbing upon the traditional notions of soldiering here and there.
In the military, one is expected and has the right to express his opinion over or, let us be more candid, dissent from a duty assigned. To ask questions of the passage is considered enthusiasm and is viewed kindly. However, the problem arises when deciding how much and how emphatically to persist upon ones differing point of view or comment on the soundness of the task assigned. Because right next is the ever-present thin red line that separates military discipline from goose pimples. One wrong step, a few extra seconds of argument and there goes a no ball.
It is not all stuffy and tight lips in the army. Todays soldier does not live under the rock. There are real constraints under which the military has to function. There is a vast conceptual and functional but respectful difference between troops in the field and the exalted hall of parliament, a plush room for panel discussion or a classy seminar hall. In the army, beyond a limited liberty, both in time and intent, there is the driving urgency to get into action, as the enemy bullets are dumb and unable to differentiate between a sublime democratic right to differ and hesitation to fight.
Having said that, how does one groom intelligent, conscientious and professional soldiers and officers? Those who are wayward are amply taken care of by Section 55. As a matter of fact there is no guidebook to it nor a short cut available except historic practices of renowned military leaders. A vibrant, responsive and upright body of troops is a primary function of erudite and selfless command, careful grooming, and hard professional training. There is no room in this exercise for the fake and the feeble, the loud and the shallow and, what is more, the callous and the insincere. There is also no substitute for ones willingness to share the same hardship and danger that your troops face. Once that happens, thereafter all arguments end and instant obedience begins, regardless of the scale of the danger.
How else do you view a soldier who in the pouring icy rain, chilling wind and a huge thunder storm is struggling to hold on to the commanding officers tent ropes to save it from being blown away in the middle of a bitterly cold and dark winter night? Soaked to his wretched frozen bones, but never letting go of the tent. That too when the officer is away. And what about that artillery subedar who, while seriously wounded by the bombardment of Soviet jets over the Paiwar Kotal ridge line in Parachinar (1984), refused to be evacuated without his commanding officers permission? That was when others had moved to safer positions on the reverse slope. Then there was this young transport officer who secured a disabled, heavy-gun-towing truck behind another one, took the wheel himself and drove this double dead weight, a virtual death trap, over Kohats treacherous old Kotal Pass during the night down to the unit lines in Kohat. He returned post-haste to be on parade in the morning at Nowshera artillery firing range along with another roadworthy truck. That morning the unit was to be put through a test exercise, where a lame truck could have caused a serious embarrassment. All this without the commanding officers permission! This plucky young man rose to become a stalwart colonel in the army (Colonel Asif).
However, these examples are to be valued at the level they have been described. Beyond that a different and a wider military paradigm has to be considered. Almost immediately above are the conceptual issues of national interest, constitutional obligations and the future of the forces in the articulation of national power. These issues need a deliberate and very well informed approach, coming out of a highly disciplined, well rounded and insightful mind. That truly is the preserve of senior commanders who are expected to be aware of all nuances of their actions and words, and be prepared to shoulder responsibility for the consequences of the same. Even more importantly, they have to have a very clear sense and accurate ongoing assessment of the political temperature in and around the country and should be able to navigate their force with consummate skill and poise. An armed force is not always to be used as an offensive instrument; it should be able to project its power to the adversary as a force-in-being also. That can happen when it remains within the bounds of the assigned mission with strictly maintained military discipline and well-honed professional skills. That also is the difference between an armed mob and a disciplined, well led force. In the end all that will largely depend on what example the commander himself sets.
At the level of high command, perceptions about and by them matter. In order to manage perceptions, conceit, counterfeit or subterfuge has never worked, not for long. Late General Zias faith-coated feigned piety or General Musharrafs pulpy bravado proved embarrassingly phoney in the end. It is transparency, courage of conviction and spotless personal and professional conduct that really matter, and must be valued like gold wherever found. Only men with the strength of superior character will stand fast in battle and contribute substantially to the national well being in peace.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com
