Why not a civilian head of ISI?

[VCheng]

...................
We would love to have a civilian head of the ISI, but with the supreme commander of the armed forces a person like Zardari and with his ilks filling the Cabinet and characters of doubtful character leading national ministries (R.Malik et al), i doubt that a civilian DG would be able to sustain the pressures. With the cases like that of memogate, i am sure the story would have been buried long ago had the military not taken a stand.

You choose.

As if the "bloody civilians" have a choice! Who listens to them anyway?

 

[Xeric]

BTW, waht's Kamran Shafi's obsession with the phrase 'Bloody Civilians'? i do follow the media reports of all sorts (i am sure all of us do), but his EVERY article contains a reference to this phrase, and then people ask me why do i have beef with this guy?

Sick mentality, perhaps?

Or maybe he wants that the civilians should again be treated like bloody civilians since it's been decades that the armed forces of this country considered themselves superior to the civilians

He plays with sarcasm and expects balanced replies to his comments, strange.

 

[mikkix]

Civilian can control the ISI but they should have a repo, intelligence and knowledge to carry on the task.
peolple like Gillani, Zardari, Sharif, Moulana Faza; urehman and even Imran Khan dont have the intelligence, repo, knowledge ans skills to run an organization.
Looking at the above Kiani is better than above politicians.
I even agree Chief of the army staff also lacks these qualities.
In the end a man of all those qualities should control ISI.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the only time i've EVER heard this term ''bloody civilian'' was civilians using it in a self-hating and guilt fashion --because those with dirty track records know they are bloody civilians and know that this is how they are looked at (not just by khakis but by everyone)



e.g. ''Dr.Rehman Malik'' or ''Jardari'' himself



Kamran Shafi suffers from various psycho-ill-logical disorders and complexes for which there are no cures or remedies

 

[Xeric]

Why a

Why a ‘bloody civilian’ cannot be at the ISI?
By Shahzad Chaudhry
Published: January 1, 2012


This article is clearly inspired by Mr Kamran Shafi’s piece titled “Wanted: a ‘bloody civilian’ at the ISI” http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...25-why-not-civilian-head-isi.html#post2441121 , carried on these pages on December 30. The use of the words ‘bloody civilian’ and the connotation that comes with that is his, not mine.

Now, why cannot a civilian head the ISI — because simply the ISI abbreviates ‘Inter-Services’ Intelligence. No, the ISI was not a devious conception to be used to upstage sitting political governments, and neither is it there to assist the military governments support nervy politicians to seek legitimacy and political support. It was meant to assist the military — yes, the military, and hence the Inter-Services nomenclature — in providing intelligence about perceived threats to the mission in war. As for Mr Shafi’s mentioning of MI5 (counter-intelligence), MI6 (intelligence), the BND, the DGSE, the CIA and the RAW all are arms of their respective civilian political governments and hence have civilian bosses. Mossad is a different kettle of fish — a halfway house in its mission; part military, part civilian — and that is why it is mostly commanded by military men. The ISI is only military but a twist of fate brought it under the Cabinet Division of the Government of Pakistan, meaning the prime minister.

The ISI, formed in the 1950s, was initially commanded by a colonel with the mission and objective to assist the armed forces in their war mission by providing them intelligence on the enemy. The colonel became a brigadier under Ayub Khan and its mission stayed the same. Around this time, despite martial law, which was first imposed in 1958, the dirty political legwork was restricted to the Intelligence Bureau and before it to the Special Branch, both civilian entities with officers mostly pulled out of the Police Service of Pakistan.

Come 1973; along with the birth of a new Constitution came the repositioning of the ISI under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. That is also when its political wing was set up. Prime Minister Bhutto did some more restructuring, too, to the military system and the military adjusted well to these changes.

Between 1972 and March 1973, there was a major mutiny in the armed forces that rebelled against the leadership, both political and military, whom the rebels held responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan. The rebellion, fairly advanced into its planning stages, was infiltrated and exposed, and all culprits held and punished with long banishment. Raja Nadir Parvez, a former military man and a current politician was a part of this largely popular group. This is when the military intelligence agencies acted to save a political government.

Since the ISI is an inter-services department, it is heavily populated by uniformed people. A small percentage, probably much lower than 30 per cent, is civilian and that too because they provide the essential elements of continuity to very essential work in support of the military mission — most others are on rotational assignments except in the past few decades where a core uniformed group has come into place for the sake of continuity. The ISI, as its prime mission, supports the offensive operational role of the Pakistani military that remains crucial to its overall mission. How the ISI gets introduced, however, to our people is as the ‘deep state’. Why one may ask and that will always remain a million-dollar question.

Two military men have also contributed to bringing the ISI into disrepute — Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf — when both tended to use the agency to bolster their political standing through manipulation of the political environment. Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s case, pending in the Supreme Court, has enough fat on it to prove such a contention.

What then is the solution? The answer: disassociate the ISI from any political work. That will mean moving it back to the military in an organisational correction and tasking it only with its original foundational purpose. Under the current structure, it could easily move under the chairman joint chiefs as an inter-service entity. As for the political leadership, if it still needs to manipulate the political environment, the task can be given to the Intelligence Bureau. A ‘bloody civilian’ may still not be able to head the ISI.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2012.

 

[Xeric]

Needed: a

Needed: a ‘bloody civilian’ at the ISI
By Kamran Shafi
Published: December 29, 2011

This is Why Not:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...es/150552-why-bloody-civilian-cannot-isi.html

 

[Thorough Pro]

Why not a civilian head of ISI?

because ISI means "Inter Services Intelligence" you moron.

 

[Donatello]

Even the so called purveyors of democracy, i.e. USA chose David Patraeus to head CIA....(though he retired from Army before assuming the post at CIA....but still....) because people with real battle experience are best suited for intelligence agencies....who know what is at stake and that lives will be lost if there are any mistakes.

 

[ziaulislam]

civilians have FIA..
ISI is military organisation..its just like to say.."why not civilians to be there instead of generals to command the army!"

 

[Bang Galore]

^^^^ valid point.

 

[ziaulislam]

ISIshouldnt be compare to CIA or other institutes that were not build by the army but by the central govt..
ISI sole purpose was to give military intelligence..the lack of civilian organization made ISI on top list..its the poor performance of civilian govt to be blamed today for they have been unable to build up FIA and other organizations

 

[GOD OF WAR]

Unfortunately Pakistan's political history is rife with examples when the PM mistook the ISI and other members intel community as his own 'karaey ke ghunday' and in such cases we would rather prefer to go off course and protect our country and its security instead of 'protecting democracy'. While the constitution must be up held, but certainly not at the expense of traitors like ZA, NS and or AH trying to damn hard to sell the country to the highest bider.

Pakistan's IB predates the ISI, i think but in the last 3 years 3500 kutta5 & billas have been inducted in IB WITHOUT any qualifications or exams. Now its no more than a News paper agency, albeit the US is investing a bucket load of $$$ to bring it at par to the ISI.

Our Indian members know this which is why they are advocating that 'democrazy' must be up held... sure... coz under the present set up, your goals seem closer to realization.

Btw who is the new cheif of the CIA and is he from the banking industry?

And there have also been instances when senior officials of the KGB and Mossad have occupied the apex office of their countries. (hint hint can we have one of those pleeeeeze!)



P.S. somehow I found Cicero's adage quite befitting this discussion and I deicate it to our dear politicians:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

 

[DV RULES]

With a very preplanned agenda efforts are underway to bring ISI under civilian control and answerable to parliament/senate committees and moreover supreme court. ISI shouldn't directly answerable to civilian structure but through JCOSC office or ISPR. ISI should be closed organization even for civil establishment, PM & Presidential bodies.

ISI's direct involvement on on going issues also give positive signal to open it for civilian government which could be death of security of national interests.

It looks like ISI's headquarter turns into Koffe club where you can entertain politicians on national issues and DG ISI turns into head of excursion who every where giving briefings and answerable to our Parliamentarian morons. In fact US's strategy is running well to drag ISI into public no matter through which issues and scandals where once US failed to bring ISI under Interior minister(civilian) GOON.

 

[Jango]

^^^^ valid point.

That is the whole dang point.

Army people run the organization responsible for coordination between the three services.

Why dont we have a Army man running FIA or IB?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Even the so called purveyors of democracy, i.e. USA chose David Patraeus to head CIA....(though he retired from Army before assuming the post at CIA....but still....) because people with real battle experience are best suited for intelligence agencies....who know what is at stake and that lives will be lost if there are any mistakes.

and we are in a very hostile neighbourhood....