muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan's counter-insurgency commitments, he insisted, raised an “issue of legitimacy.” “If a section of society,” he wrote, “is not convinced about the moral standing of the task and a general perception on the similar lines also exists among the masses, it seriously erodes the performance of the military, which gets affected by the societal pressures. Military operations inside one's own country make it fundamental that the troops feel just and fair with regards to the operations being undertaken and popular support of the masses exists. Unless it happens, no amount of training, motivation and technology differential will deliver.”
Pakistan's army simply could not, this line of argument suggested, engage in a war against jihadist militia it had fathered without undermining the foundations of its own legitimacy.
Excellent Exposition - this explain so well, the sheepishness, the lack of body count, the lack of pride the Pakistan army experiences in it's battle against the islamist enemy - not just the army but society itself does not know whether it is noble or not to suffer suicide bombings, attacks on the GHQ, attacks on the Mehran naval station, attacks on Shiah, attacks on Ahmadi, attacks on Christians, attacks on doctors, the muder of a leading member of the Ulema for speaking against suicide bombing. the cold blooded mrder of a sitting governor, the assassination of a Christian federal minister - indeed this excellent explanation should allow Pakistanis to consider why it is that they have become divided, such that questions are now raised, "Which islam", "which Shariah", "Which sect", "which sub-sect".
Of course none of this was planned, but when enemy making and enemy seeking is the mission, it ultimately comes back to haunt the very same forces which created and unleashed these forces to begin with.