What's new

Army needs structural reforms too

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Army needs structural reforms too

The writer was a Ford Scholar at the Programme in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security at UIUC (1997) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's Foreign Policy Studies Programme

Try taking a vote on the toughest job in Pakistan right now, also the most frustrating. No, it’s not the president’s; neither the prime minister’s. Hmm… did you say the army chief’s? No, not even his. It is the finance minister’s.

He has the full picture on what’s happening or, more aptly, what should be and is not happening. Everybody wants money and he is supposed to perform some kind of miracle even as no one is prepared to do what he and his team proposes. It is easy to criticise him because whatever solution he gives requires taking punishment. And punishment we don’t want, despite decades of poor economic sense, bad planning and an ill-conceived list of priorities.

Let me also say upfront that I have never met Hafeez Shaikh, though I have long known Nadeem Ul Haque, one reason I know the quirky way in which he spells his name. So I asked Nadeem, he being deputy chairman planning commission, of what he thinks of the situation and where we are headed. Nadeem’s answer: the situation is bad, there is no money, and if you are looking for an engineering solution, despair thyself. That’s what Macduff had said to Macbeth before he killed the latter.

Last year, mid-December, the economic team told the prime minister that the gap between income and expenditure was fast widening. The briefing focused on the “consequences of delaying power sector reforms, the fallout of the non-implementation of General Sales Tax (GST) and the Pakistan Army’s request for additional funds”.

Power sector reforms and the GST, renamed the RGST, are in limbo because the government has failed to get even its coalition partners on board. The hike in petrol prices, recommended by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, has been taken back after the Opposition raised Cain (of course without giving a solution). And now the government has adopted the economic reforms agenda put forward by the PML-N. It remains to be seen through what magic the government will make these two mutually exclusive agendas complement each other.

Meanwhile, the United States, though less vociferous now, still wants the Pakistan Army to go into North Waziristan. That means more money for the army. Can the finance ministry generate funds for that campaign? It can’t, and has said so. So, what can be done? Firstly, it should be understood that the military budget, presented as part of the national budget, is about maintaining a military. It is the minimum required to maintain a military as it stands. It is not operational budget. Operational or war budgets are separately approved. And we are fighting a war which is everywhere, in the operational areas as well as in the cities, and the cost is increasing.

Secondly, even without going into North Waziristan, which will have its own cost, this war is becoming expensive. There is visible expenditure of increased security requirements, degradation of stocks and equipment, loss of men, officers and jawans, and there are invisible costs like exchange rate fluctuations etc. For the military, as the finance ministry also knows, there are issues of concern, the most important being that the military’s war-fighting potential is not degraded. The economy, thus, has become a major concern for the military. Economists are agreed, despite Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan’s politically-motivated fulminations, that the country needs structural reforms which are tougher to undertake when there is shrinking fiscal space but are needed more urgently precisely at that point.

Therefore, at this time of national crisis, let the military take a good, hard look at itself and see where and how it can save money from existing resources. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is deeply invested in putting a cap on the US military’s interest in toys to fight the wars of 2015 and 2020 and diverting resources to fight the current war. We can’t expect our defence minister to do any such thing but it is important for the military itself, given its concern about the economy, to see if it is spending on a potential war based on perceived rather than actual threats.

If it is, it should immediately put a cap on such projects. It may not save much but whatever it can is welcome and will help the military as well as the nation.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 17th, 2011.
Ejaz Haider

January 16, 2011
 
The bottom line is the Strategic Orientation of the Armed Forces need to be re-evaluated in the short term.

If the primary function of the armed forces for the next ten years is to go after Terrs than we should not buying big ticket items but concentrating on building capacity in both training and materials for WoT for both the regular and para military forces.

However, if our focus remains on India as the bigger threat than our plannig and expenditure outlays would be different.

On ground -- PA wants to tackle both the issues without letting up on long term procurement plans. Today, Pakistan can not afford this -- period.

We need to have a serious rethink in light of what ever iron clad (If there is such a thing) guarantees that we can garner from the US and the world community as a whole vis a vis India. Otherwise -- we will keep on writing check that can not be cashed!

My 2c
 
how much of this can be back tracked to what may be called Army Inc, the shadow business side of the PA ?
Does this not generate revenue for the PA?
 
how much of this can be back tracked to what may be called Army Inc, the shadow business side of the PA ?
Does this not generate revenue for the PA?

its not a shadow business - the fauji foundation (fauji means soldier) pays its taxes to the govt - its main idea is to supplant the welfare of retired and war veterans, their widows and children - while doing this they make a profit bcuz the organisations are efficiently run, unlike state organisations which are running in billions of losses. the money pays for building schools (from where a educated pool of students are inducted in the armed forces), hospitals, roads, cantonments, supplants pensions - if army inc is not there, it wld be a further burden on the country's exchequer - wld probably not afford a army of this size

waiting for your :sniper:
 
waiting for your :sniper:
Not going to!!

I was thinking more re an old article posted somewhere around here re the various business ventures of the PA.
Now if that business generates revenue that goes back into the PA as in your mentioned example I don't see a problem.
 
About $3 Billion a year in subsidies to support loss making Public Sector Enterprises such as Pakistan Steel, PIA and Pakistan Railways.

Privatize them already or create public-private partnerships to plug the drain on billions of dollars.

And yes to RGST.

This government has to show some spine at some point to undertake reforms on a variety of pressing socio-economic issues.
 
Pakistan Army should do investment in energy/public/transportation sector and also projects in friendly countries to support its modernization programs. Nodoubt their is niche of corruption. But strict audit can control this situation, but Pakistan army itself a country inside the country, which need huge budget.
 
Pakistan Army should do investment in energy/public/transportation sector and also projects in friendly countries to support its modernization programs. Nodoubt their is niche of corruption. But strict audit can control this situation, but Pakistan army itself a country inside the country, which need huge budget.

oh so the MILITARY should now watch its expenditure while corrupt politicans can still run around doing whatever the hell they feel mlike
 
About $3 Billion a year in subsidies to support loss making Public Sector Enterprises such as Pakistan Steel, PIA and Pakistan Railways.

Privatize them already or create public-private partnerships to plug the drain on billions of dollars.

And yes to RGST.

This government has to show some spine at some point to undertake reforms on a variety of pressing socio-economic issues.
AM,

RGST will not make any significant dent. The bottom line is that someone has to call on the agriculturists to pay up. RGST is essentially taxing the already tax paying government and private industry employees twice. These people have always paid taxes and now are being asked to pay more while the landlords sit pretty expecting our government to beg other countries to bail us out.

Anything less than GST across the board won't cut it. Its just outright shameful and gutless of successive governments as to how they have allowed the freeloading to go on all over.
 
Or go with a ten percent tax across the board on all income!!! Off course this needs to dovetail with reduction in income tax rate for salaried class.
 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom