Army Chief Vs Pakistan Armed Forces?

[imadul]

It is not that only IK is pacifist. The fact is that we, as a nation, are not ready for any revolutionary struggle, which essentially would entail bloodshed. IK is product of our society and knows his limitations and that of his supporters. So, he is compelled to devise his political strategies, accordingly.

Fully Agree we are not.
And we are not that kind of nation.

But only revolution which initiated and brought change within its timeframe was bolshevik revolution.

For that kind of revolution ingredients are hunger and oppression.

IK is doing the right thing.
Imagine PTI remains in power for next 15 years! Then the year 2022 shall be remembered as the year of revolution.

Change CANNOT BE STOPPED FOR MUCH LONGER.
All self interest parties have joined hands incld military Inc. But New CEO's of Military Inc won't act like bajwa the hyena, nadeem anjum the jackal.

 

[Ssan]

Fully Agree we are not.
And we are not that kind of nation.

But only revolution which initiated and brought change within its timeframe was bolshevik revolution.

For that kind of revolution ingredients are hunger and oppression.

IK is doing the right thing.
Imagine PTI remains in power for next 15 years! Then the year 2022 shall be remembered as the year of revolution.

Change CANNOT BE STOPPED FOR MUCH LONGER.
All self interest parties have joined hands incld military Inc. But New CEO's of Military Inc won't act like bajwa the hyena, nadeem anjum the jackal.

Guys, we cannot afford a bloody revolution. Our neighborhood demands that we be a security state. I don’t think we can afford to have a weak army at any given point.

What I am worried about is whether IK will have the stomach to confront the new COAS and force the necessary army reforms to remove them from domestic politics. Currently my bet is we will see elections within a month but that fifty fifty on whether IK will curb army power.

 

[imadul]

Guys, we cannot afford a bloody revolution. Our neighborhood demands that we be a security state. I don’t think we can afford to have a weak army at any given point.

What I am worried about is whether IK will have the stomach to confront the new COAS and force the necessary army reforms to remove them from domestic politics. Currently my bet is we will see elections within a month but that fifty fifty on whether IK will curb army power.

Reform in army after elections.
First reform:
1.Presidential system
2. Constitutional protection to city government
3. Reforms on Army

 

[SaadH]

There's an excellent discussion of this here: https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey-an-order/

All soldiers and officers must have a DUTY to disobey a superior, even/especially the COAS, if the order is in violation of (a) fundamental human rights (e.g., going through with it would be a war crime or deny the citizens of your own country a fundamental right) and/or if it's against (b) the tenets of the Constitution.

Additionally, all such illegal and/or immoral orders, especially against the citizens of one's own country, must be publicly reported to an EXTERNAL board that can sort out such officers, and even try them for treason where necessary. ONLY A POPULAR LEADER CAN DO THIS. By that I mean 2/3rd majority in the parliament + mass public support (defined by being able to get a million people into the capital fairly quickly when needed).

But what we're up against is a mafia. A group of colonial sepoys with shared vested interests. The only 'merit' that really matters is deference and loyalty (aka TC / 'yessir'). They will go to any length to preserve the unaccountable power that their mafia enjoys.

External objectives like keeping IOK on fire can go to hell. But we'll add hundreds of tanks because, you know, why not.

PS: Turkey, China, Iran, Israel, India, and obviously the West all have civilian/civilian-led main intel agencies despite very different government systems. The ISI makes no sense from an institutional design standpoint. You cannot have a powerful military AND let it head the main intel org, and then expect different results. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My 2c.

@SaadH

The inverse of Nuremberg Defense will only work if your party is the victor....otherwise disobeying unlawful order will result in swift reprimand at the hands of the powers that be...

 

[blain2]

A few general thoughts:

So you expect to have party discipline in the PTI where the party is run like an army with its chief being no different than the CoAS, and those dissenting from party leadership being kicked out etc. etc. yet you expect the army, a traditional, security minded organization that relies on sanctity of chain of command and discipline to allow dissent in its ranks? PML and PPP are worse but mimic the chain of command otherwise nothing can work.

Perhaps some introspection should go into why calling for dissent within the military is an idiotic idea because it can lead to mutiny which for a country like ours has far reaching consequences.

What gets broken over a period of time takes a while to fix, and that is if someone is willing to fix it. PTI and its supporters need to get out of their "90-day fix" mantra as was claimed by IK when he took power. Just like he ran across obstacles and limitations, the same applies to all other institutions and polities in Pakistan. Nobody in the army is oblivious to the street sentiment and the need to pull the military out of this political quagmire but it cannot happen overnight either given the situation unfolding in Pakistan today.

People often quote the need for a "bloody revolution". I hope they realize that even those bloody revolutions took decades to have an effect. It wasn't some overnight solution.

IK should stop expecting the army to step in his favor. The same goes for the others. The army should mind its business and just get back to soldiering. The question is, do the politicians have it in them to work it out amongst themselves?

For those who think the "presidential system" is a panacea for Pakistan should realize that for the better part of our history, we have had this in place. Prior to 18th amendment passing, all the power rested with the President who had no need for a parliamentary system as it was just a rubber-stamping outfit so it was used as a veneer to claim Pakistan had a parliamentary democracy. Case in point Bhutto's presidential rule (4th president) and then Zia-ul-Haq and Junejo's rubber-stamp setup. That system did not solve Pakistan's problems. There was ALWAYS dissent and actually it became worse because the smaller parties and their grievances were not given a platform (as is the case with a parliamentary system). Case in point the Baloch insurgency hitting its peak during Bhutto's term.

Perhaps you can shove your political agenda through a presidential system but it guarantees no stability for reasons mentioned above. I am not pro Presidential or Parliamentary system as they both have their flaws and benefits but people should not rush for one or the other just because someone says so specially given we have been down that path in the past. As always in Pakistan, it is not the system itself, rather its implementation and workings that are flawed.

 

[Super Falcon]

There's an excellent discussion of this here: https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey-an-order/

All soldiers and officers must have a DUTY to disobey a superior, even/especially the COAS, if the order is in violation of (a) fundamental human rights (e.g., going through with it would be a war crime or deny the citizens of your own country a fundamental right) and/or if it's against (b) the tenets of the Constitution.

Additionally, all such illegal and/or immoral orders, especially against the citizens of one's own country, must be publicly reported to an EXTERNAL board that can sort out such officers, and even try them for treason where necessary. ONLY A POPULAR LEADER CAN DO THIS. By that I mean 2/3rd majority in the parliament + mass public support (defined by being able to get a million people into the capital fairly quickly when needed).

But what we're up against is a mafia. A group of colonial sepoys with shared vested interests. The only 'merit' that really matters is deference and loyalty (aka TC / 'yessir'). They will go to any length to preserve the unaccountable power that their mafia enjoys.

External objectives like keeping IOK on fire can go to hell. But we'll add hundreds of tanks because, you know, why not.

PS: Turkey, China, Iran, Israel, India, and obviously the West all have civilian/civilian-led main intel agencies despite very different government systems. The ISI makes no sense from an institutional design standpoint. You cannot have a powerful military AND let it head the main intel org, and then expect different results. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My 2c.

@SaadH

Totally agreed

 

[Mugen]

Guys, we cannot afford a bloody revolution. Our neighborhood demands that we be a security state. I don’t think we can afford to have a weak army at any given point.

What I am worried about is whether IK will have the stomach to confront the new COAS and force the necessary army reforms to remove them from domestic politics. Currently my bet is we will see elections within a month but that fifty fifty on whether IK will curb army power.

A weak country economically leads to a weak army anyways, we are getting weaker by the day thanks to Pakistani army.