Yes, it is a complaint, but the complaint is NOT that the army didn't make the decision, but rather that they were kept out of the decision making process, which if done would have given them time to prepare, and also to plan the campaign in a different fashion, and with clearer objectives.
Thats correct. Let me put it again "Army is not supposed to be part of any political decision making. Thats the long standing code. Army is aways given directives. Cant write more clearly than this.
They did what they were supposed to do.
.
Yes, that happened for one battle. Not for the entire campaign/war. You can bet that the US president will not send in the miitary without proper consultations. They have a very evolved mechanism and chain of command for the decision making process, and not simply "When we say go, you go."
read Mark Bowden's Black Hawk down. You will have your answer. It was for entire campaign. The write is a investigative journalist and he was called by pantagon to present his reasearch before authorities.
It wasn't about asking him on whether to go or not, or about advice. It was about ongoing consultations in the months leading to the conflict. If the army brass was present with the civilian advisers for a few months prior to the campaign, then the army would have had time to plan better when it actually started.
There is no constitutional provision for that. PM can consult COAS if he think something need to be discussed with him. Its PM's call. Not burden.
And that has to change. The armed forces should be part of the whole process as well. That is the way it works in most other countries. Not just the USA, but also parliamentary democracies like UK and France and Israel. The armed forces are inolved in national security related issues. The authorization for war would of course still rest with the PM or president.
we now have National security adviser and Joint staff committe ( hoping its correct name )
Even they too are not part of decision making. What they do is threat perception and reviewing force readiness. And discuss issues reguaring forces and their solution.
Responses in red. Basically, I think you are misunderstanding what the demand here is. It is not whether the PM sould have asked the army chief's permission to go to war.
Do you see I claiming it anywhere ??? . And i didnt misunderstood the general. He wanted to be consulted before decision was taken or during decision was taken. Both are not allowed constitutionally.
It is that the decision making process (which happens for weeks or months) should include the top commanders. It is this misunderstanding that has led you and others to bring in the example of Manekshaw in '71. The question is not that the army should decide when to go to war (which is what the Sam/Indira episode was about),
No it wasnt. Decision of war was already taken and Manekshaw was there to answer the querry can IA handle the war at that time. Feel free to prove me wrong I will accept it.
but the deeper question of how much involvement the armed forces should have in crafting our geopolitical strategy. After all, warfare is a continuation of state policy, it is not apart from it. It's not like the civilian leadership does statecraft, and when they finally decide to use the military they call the army chief. That's a simplistic view of how statecraft and soldiering go hand in hand - which is not to say that geopolitical decisions should be taken by the armed forces, but simply that they should be kept in the loop all the time on matters related to national security.
I dont believe in ideal world as it dont exists. So no question of what should and what shouldnt.
My point is it doesnt happen and its good for us. Army or forces in general are consulted if that is needed to make decision.
Keeping the armed forces at arms length served the British Indian army who only needed an army to control the people. But now that we are a sovereign nation, and the military is an arm of the state, and warfare is a means of state policy, the top brass should be involved in that aspect of statecraft that pertains to national security. We have to give up this deep rooted fear that involving the armed forces in statecraft would lead down a slippery slope where they will ultimately usurp the powers of the civilian authority and we would end up like another pakistan. Let us be clear - India is no pakistan, Indian army is no pak army. If the US army and Israeli army and European armies can have a measure of involvement in crafting strategy, I don't see why we should be afraid of letting our armed forces do so as well. This distrust of the armed forces has to go. We have to start using the armed forces to project national power (which doesn't mean going on pointless wars, but simply that Indian diplomacy has to include their presence). That is how all mature democracies function. And decisions like whether to use force or not will ultimately lie in the hands of the people, through the elected representatives. And I am only advocating greater involvement of the military in matters pertaining to strategy and security, not about having them run petrol pumps and schools and businesses, like in pakistan. We have to trust our military as much as other representative democracies trust theirs.
Tell me if it happens in India. And I will accept it.
I really dont know much about US army and admin but I do believe their strategies are formed by Pentagone which is full of burocrates than army generals. Correct me if I am wrong.
Firstly the decision making process in India is very complex. If a war has to be declared.
PM and inner caninet dissuss the issue if they think its worth going forward then it is put in cabinate meeting. Mostly those things goes through as inner cabinate is stronger force. Then leader of opposition "may be" consulated. Cause PM need to show everybody is with his decision. Then all the cheifs will be called and briefed. Then they will put firward their opinion on that. Still PM wants to go ahead they have to have obey. You can call it Standard operational procedure.
