DG ISI should be Civilian?

[Patriot]

Well, we all know how good FIA is..so do you guys really want ISI to be like FIA..?

 

[sparklingway]

Well, we all know how good FIA is..so do you guys really want ISI to be like FIA..?

FIA is an investigative agency not an intelligence agency. Can't you people get that?

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Patriot how come your flag chnages every now and then, your not a nomad are you ..??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

ISI is the premier spy agency of Pakistan. All across the globe all the forces directly answer the civillian governments, so why is Pakistan any different?

HI
Well having a military official as Chief of your prime intelligence agency does go against the system of checks & balances & without that democracy is a failure. No wonder some one said this " Every country has an Army, But Pakistan Army has a country"

The appointment of the DG ISI has to be approved by the Prime Minister and the DG ISI reports to the Prime Minister as well.

So technically there is civilian control over both the appointment process and the functioning of the ISI.

Now the argument being advanced here is that even with the above civilian control, the Prime Minister has little actual control over the ISI because the DG ends up being a serving Army General.

But the problem with this argument is that if the PM cannot trust or control a serving General of his choosing as DG ISI, then by extension the civilian government cannot trust the military, or specifically the Army. Since the office of the COAS is far more powerful than that of the DG ISI, this argument would then demand that the Army be 'disbanded', because so long as the Army exists and the civilian government cannot trust the Army, the Army will continue to play spoiler to the civilian government's plans, and will likely get a department/unit other than the ISI to accomplish what it wishes.

So the argument of not appointing a serving general as DG ISI really makes little sense, since it will not resolve the underlying issue of the Civilian-Army relationship.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, we all know how good FIA is..so do you guys really want ISI to be like FIA..?

I think you meant to refer to the Intelligence Bureau (IB), which is the intelligence agency under the control of the Interior Ministry.

The FIA is also under the IM, but as Sparkling pointed out, it is an investigative agency like the FBI, and not an intelligence agency.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The appointment of the DG ISI has to be approved by the Prime Minister and the DG ISI reports to the Prime Minister as well.

i believe DG ISI carries out ops with direct impunity without the interference of any other entity, DG ISI being answerable to anybody else, dosent happens ,once in a bluemoon maybe, We all know how the system works..

A very close relative of mine is serving Brig in ISI, once i shot him up with a simillar Query , well his answer was civilians are nt groomed to understand the dynamics of this whole country, A person serving his lifetime in Army onto the various posts thorough the different reagions of the country is well capable of determining the procedures to look after the National interests.

Even in US it does happens Take for eg James Jhones,though hes a civillian now but we all are aware of his Military background.And former United States Secretary of State Colin Powel.
The DG ISI cant be a civilian unless hes a retired Military Officer..!!!

 

[Hyde]

who is he to decide whether the ISI should be among the military or civilians?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i believe DG ISI carries out ops with direct impunity without the interference of any other entity, DG ISI being answerable to anybody else, dosent happens ,once in a bluemoon maybe, We all know how the system works..

A very close relative of mine is serving Brig in ISI, once i shot him up with a simillar Query , well his answer was civilians are nt groomed to understand the dynamics of this whole country, A person serving his lifetime in Army onto the various posts thorough the different reagions of the country is well capable of determining the procedures to look after the National interests.

Even in US it does happens Take for eg James Jhones,though hes a civillian now but we all are aware of his Military background.And former United States Secretary of State Colin Powel.
The DG ISI cant be a civilian unless hes a retired Military Officer..!!!

Well I doubt any Prime Minister/President is aware of every single operation carried out by their intelligence agencies, though they set overall policy.

But in any case, my point is that the argument against appointing serving military officials as DG ISI makes no sense, for reasons I mentioned above, since the larger issue is the Civilian-Military relationship.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Well I doubt any Prime Minister/President is aware of every single operation carried out by their intelligence agencies, though they set overall policy.

But in any case, my point is that the argument against appointing serving military officials as DG ISI makes no sense, for reasons I mentioned above, since the larger issue is the Civilian-Military relationship.

I think both Army and Civil getup has to play a greater roll in this,
Since the civilian government can easily be pressurized and bakoffs from some of the National interests for the sake of saving there own chair, Its the Army which has always resisted to such pressure, Like in case of US laying down sanctions onto our Missile and Nuclear Program back in the Musharaff era and the case of USForces carrying out a millitery ops in our tribal belt with impunity, and most recently the Demands in KL bill which were pretty much against the National interests and the Civilian stooges fell for that without any opposition.

Under these Hostile circumstances how can a civilian be put into such a sensitive place.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Since the civilian government can easily be pressurized and bakoffs from some of the National interests for the sake of saving there own chair, Its the Army which has always resisted to such pressure, Like in case of US laying down sanctions onto our Missile and Nuclear Program back in the Musharaff era and the case of USForces carrying out a millitery ops in our tribal belt with impunity, and most recently the Demands in KL bill which were pretty much against the National interests and the Civilian stooges fell for that without any opposition.

Under these Hostile circumstances how can a civilian be put into such a sensitive place.

I think you are missing the point here, in terms of why there are demands for a civilian to be DG ISI. It is not an issue of competency, but one of perceived civilian control over the ISI.

The problem with this argument is that to argue that a serving military officer, chosen by the PM, cannot be trusted, is to argue that the military cannot be trusted, and that leads us to disbanding the military as the only surefire way of ensuring 'military loyalty to elected government'.

 

[PakSher]

ISI stands for Inter Services Intelligence (Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, Rangers, FC) etc. It should be managed by the military because it overseas military. What the hell a civilian would understand to run the ISI.

Apple was a great company and then it main architect left. Then Apple hired the CEO of Pepsi Cola to head apple. Now a guy with retail experience running a high tech company went down the drain, Apple suffered huge losses and MacIntosh almost became a dinasaur. Then they removed the Pepsi Guy and hired back the technology architect and now Apple is back with a bang.

If ISI is run by a civilian that does not understand the military that would be a disaster for Pakistan.

 

[Comet]

Arm twisting of Civilians is easy them military personnel. Perhaps that is the reason they are asking for it.

 

[PakSher]

Please close this thread because this is not even something to discuss.

 

[EjazR]

The larger issue is more about civilian (read public) - military relationship as some have mentioned above.

Just changing the head because American says so is nonsense of-course. But this dynamic has to be more transparent, particularly related to military issues. The nation should know what are the main policy objectives that are being followed by ISI and army. IF there are areas of national security that warrant secrecy then they should report to a select intelligence parliamentary committee.

For example, till now we don't have a clear idea of what the GoP policy is on drone attacks. If the Army is allowing it to happen and ISI is collaborating in providing info to the drone handlers then have a public debate to show the people WHY this is being done. Same thing goes with the various FATA operations. There is hardly and public debate on why this is being done and why this is beneficial of Pakistan herself. Another example is for example the recent "Secret" visit of the CIA head and Obama's NSA in Pakistan. We saw some reports in american papers that as per that meeting, PA has given assurance that operation will occur in N. Waziristan but at a time suitable to them. This will again create an impression that PA is going into N. Waziristan because America said so.

If the ISI/PA would be confident enough to handover policy related issues to the representatives of the nation and of course give their expert advice on the matter, the politicians should be better placed to create a stronger support base among the public. Because all the main policy issues will be out in the open. Bottom line is that the security establishment should be subordinate to the people or in other words the parliament.

This applies to India too, where although the army is fully in control under the Defence ministry, the intelligence services like RAW don't report to an intelligence committee but to the PMO alone. IF the Americans, and the British can do it with all their requirements of secrecy and what not, then I don't see why other countries can't.

 

[kallol]

After going through the thread I found some gaps in the logic that ISI should be headed by persons only from Army.

1. Possibilities might be high that ISI & Military might not be working in sync with the civilian Govt policies.

This means the insugencies and terrorism both within and outside may be supported by them. This makes sure that India / US / Afghanistan cannot becomes friends of the civilian Govt and thus Pakistan, as the vested interests in Army and ISI would be against it.

It might also be that Kargil was without the knowledge of NS in the first place

2. They might also be the king maker from behind the scene. They might use external powers to remove the govt.

3. They will have vested interest to keep the region in boiling condition to support their premier position.

4. They will have vested interest in keeping the general public against the civilian govt, so that any coup is always welcome.

I might be totally wrong but again if the other major world powers have Civilian heads then definitely there must be some reason.

It is an internal matter to Pakistan, so definitely it is upto you to decide as it will be mostly you who will be enjoying its fruits.

My thanks to Sparkling on the points of security nation and fascist nation. It was a good knowledge to have to analyse with clarity.