What's new

Next Chief Of Army Staff - 2013 ?

Who will be the next Chief Of Army Staff - 2013 ?


  • Total voters
    115
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Fair lady U didnt understand my post.. Theres nothing wrong in supporting and appreciating General Tariq khan..but why defame others for this? Why do u need to put down General Haroon for supporting General Tariq khan? but the more suspicious aspect is when a group of ppl....all of a sudden come and try to put down General Haroon..And even more tht none of u here (newbies) hv talked abt any of other generals.. u newbies hv supported General Tariq khan while particular emphasis is on defaming General Haroon?How come all of u say exactly same thing?
 
.
Obviously...everyone has the right to express their opinion.. I am no one to challenge it...but where were all of you ..till few days ago? How have all of u come, all of a sudden, TOGETHER , to say exactly the same thing?
YOU MEAN TO SAYS NEW MEMBER CANT SAY ANYTHING. ARE YOU SOME KIND OF BOSS HERE.
 
.
Farah Sohail, post: 4935359, member: 137634"]@Fair lady U didnt understand my post.. Theres nothing wrong in supporting and appreciating General Tariq khan..but why defame others for this? Why do u need to put down General Haroon for supporting General Tariq khan? but the more suspicious aspect is when a group of ppl....all of a sudden come and try to put down General Haroon..And even more tht none of u here (newbies) hv talked abt any of other generals.. u newbies hv supported General Tariq khan while particular emphasis is on defaming General Haroon?How come all of u say exactly same thing?[/quote]
Well I am a new member on this fourm and i have been reading the posts but i really don't find any defaming or disgracing why are you trying to change such a heathy discussion i only see facts being discussed and some good comparison.
 
.
Dont know whats bugging farah sohail,there is no point in defaming Lt Gen Haroon,
Since he was never in the race anyway, no CLS is. These are just general discussions. Dont know why ure getting bothered.

@Fair lady U didnt understand my post.. Theres nothing wrong in supporting and appreciating General Tariq khan..but why defame others for this? Why do u need to put down General Haroon for supporting General Tariq khan? but the more suspicious aspect is when a group of ppl....all of a sudden come and try to put down General Haroon..And even more tht none of u here (newbies) hv talked abt any of other generals.. u newbies hv supported General Tariq khan while particular emphasis is on defaming General Haroon?How come all of u say exactly same thing?
 
.
@ Farah Sohail

Let me put this straight, I stated a simple fact about an organisation and you have somehow construed it to defaming an individual. woah you're smart!

I just stated a fact, let me state it again for you, there is only one MAN for the job, too bad if this fact isn't inline with your thoughts and desires!
 
.
nobody believed me...if the ganjas have their way it will still be general krishna gopalaswamy....
 
.
Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Kayani's successor faces a host of challenges

October 20, 2013


Ben Doherty
South Asia correspondent for Fairfax Media
cl-pak-kayani-20131020144205650248-620x349.jpg

Who will be next ... General Ashfaq Kayani, right, with then president Pervez Musharraf, took over command of the army in November, 2007. Photo: Reuters

Rawalpindi: Fourteen years ago, when Nawaz Sharif was last prime minister of Pakistan, he thought he had his man in uniform. He was wrong.

In 1998, over several more senior officers, Sharif chose to appoint Pervez Musharraf as his chief of army staff. It was to prove neither a happy, nor a long, union.

Sharif must choose a man he can work with ... but not so pliant he will not have the respect of his forces.

Within a year, with both men's reputations damaged by Pakistan's provocation of fighting with India in Kashmir, Sharif sought to sack his general.
wb-sharif-lead2-20131020141307480329-300x0.jpg

Nawaz Sharif arrives to cast his vote in the general election in Lahore in May 2013. Photo: Reuters/Mohsin Raza

But the general had the army, and on October 12, 1999, even as the prime minister ordered a plane carrying Musharraf to be prevented landing on Pakistani soil, his troops seized control of the airport and, by evening, the government. Musharraf was in charge.

The episode, while dramatic, was sadly unexceptional in Pakistan which, in its short independent history, has known three coups and 33 years under military rule.

In 2013, Sharif is back in residence at the Prime Minister's Secretariat, inheriting a well-regarded, apolitical, Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kayani.

But after six years in the post, Kayani will stand down next month, and Sharif must choose his replacement carefully.

Pakistan is different now. The old aphorism that the head of the army was "the most powerful man in Pakistan" is heard less often.

While Kayani wields undoubted influence, he has been praised for keeping the army "in barracks" and recognising the primacy of Pakistan's elected civilian government.

This year, for the first time since independence, a civilian government in Pakistan completed its full term, went to an election, and a new administration was voted in: a matter of routine for most democracies but a significant victory in a country where governments are generally ended by tanks in the streets, and politicians in jail or on gallows.

A coup now seems, if not an impossibility, certainly highly unlikely in Pakistan.

But a new army chief is a balancing act for Sharif. He must choose a man he feels he can work with, and control, but not one who is so pliant he will not have the respect, or command, of his forces.

The General-Secretary of the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen's Association, Brigadier Syed Masud ul-Hassan told Fairfax Media in the garrison city of Rawalpindi that by keeping the army out of politics, Kayani had established a template for whoever followed him into the post.

"This is the way it will be – and the way it should be. The first objective must be the rule of law and respect for the constitution. Whatever happens, the army should not come into politics."

The most senior lieutenant-general when Kayani retires will be Haroon Aslam, who won acclaim for leading the highly successful operation to clear the Swat Valley of the Taliban in 2009.

Lieutenant-General Rashad Mahmud is a former director of counter-terrorism for Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence, a qualification of supreme significance as Pakistan tries to quell the insurgent violence on its north-west frontier.

Other senior officers reportedly under consideration are Lieutenant-General Raheel Sharif (no relation to the Prime Minister) and Lieutenant-General Tariq Khan.

"The army is a disciplined force," Mahsud said. "Any of the lieutenant-generals who might be promoted will have experience and will be capable".

But whichever three-star general inherits the extra pip now on Kayani's shoulders will face a host of challenges.

The most immediate is the seemingly intractable battle against militant extremists who wash back and forth across the mountainous border with Afghanistan as the seasons and fighting dictate. A third of Pakistan's army has been posted there for a decade.

In a position that might seem anathema to a military man, the new head of the army will have to be willing to sit down to talk with the Taliban.

Sharif is in favour of talks (though a recent bomb attack on a church has cooled his enthusiasm), and Kayani has been similarly disposed.

The Taliban are not negotiators, and the new army chief will have a difficult time winning any concessions towards peace. The Taliban are refusing to disarm, demand their prisoners be released and say they will never recognise the constitution of the country.

Despite this, talk the new chief must.

The relationship with the US is fragile. The assassination of Osama bin Laden – only about two kilometres from Pakistan's West Point – was an immense embarrassment for Pakistan's military establishment, and comments like those of the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen that the Haqqani terrorist network is "a strategic arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency" are a demonstration of just how little trust remains between the two countries.

But new faces on both sides of the relationship bring hope. Before he became US Secretary of State, John Kerry was his country's point man on Pakistan and is well respected in Pakistan's political and military institutions.

And, of course, for Pakistan's new military chief, there remains the country's fractious relationship with fellow nuclear-armed neighbour India, the usual tensions exacerbated this year by regular outbreaks of violence on their contested border in Kashmir.

India does not believe Pakistan's efforts on terrorism are genuine.

Masud said that if the terrorist attacks could be diminished, other issues would become easier to manage.

"But fighting the terrorists is not an easy job. We are not fighting an enemy sitting in front of us. The enemy is hard to identify. They are in the mountains and in the cities, among the people."

He said the military leadership should be prepared to negotiate with the Taliban rebels it's been fighting so long.

"Everybody wants peace. If that can be achieved without further fighting, then everybody is happy. Peace will be good for all in Pakistan."
 
.
Funny to see some babies here representing one General as a ultimate choice and another General as Mr Transporter. In my views any one of the top Generals can serve best as a chief, but seniority should be given preference. But i wonder why the political leadership has kept their decision so secret yet. May be they are afraid of their past experiences. Only God knows what's going to happen. Fingers crossed. Let's hope for best for the army my friends.
 
.
In my views any one of the top Generals can serve best as a chief, but seniority should be given preferenc
Why does everyone keep on saying that
I think it should be who has a clean sheet, best record in army, has foresight to advance army technology, and is not corrupt. Regardless of his seniority or not
 
. .
After Kayani
By Arif Rafiq - Middle East Institute | Oct 18, 2013




This article originally appeared in Foreign Policy.
The evening was temperate. The skies were clear. And the general's eyes began to fill with mist. On April 30, 2011, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, now the outgoing head of the Pakistani Army, struggled to hold back his tears as he stood before the Yadgar-e-Shuhada, a memorial dedicated to Pakistani soldiers slain in the line of duty, at the Army's General Headquarters in Rawalpindi.
Kayani's hands quivered as he saluted Pakistan's fallen warriors. He blinked nervously, pressed his lips tight, and swallowed back tears. It was a rare display of emotion by this normally stoic career soldier, a man often described as having an inscrutable "poker face."
That evening marked the nation's second annual Martyrs' Day -- a commemoration inaugurated by Kayani not so much to remind Pakistanis of the sacrifices made in three wars with India but to mobilize national support for an enduring war within. It has been a decade-long war of Pakistani against Pakistani, Muslim against Muslim, and Islam against Islam. Perhaps more than anything, it has also been Ashfaq Kayani's war.
Kayani, who issued a public statement on Oct. 6 confirming his retirement, has commanded the Army in its fight against the Pakistani Taliban for the last six years. His influence was so wide-ranging that Adm. Mike Mullen, while chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with him more than two dozen times. Soon, however, he will enter private life. And barring a post-retirement appointment to a civilian post, such as national security advisor, he will retain little, if any, influence over policymaking.
In 2007, Kayani inherited a fighting force that, under his predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, struggled to counter the jihadi threat in the country's lawless tribal areas and adjoining territories in the years following the 9/11 attacks. Battles between the Army and jihadists often resulted in stalemates, followed by peace deals that militants used to strengthen and spread. The security forces, particularly the paramilitary Frontier Corps, were plagued by significant rates of desertions in the tribal areas, mainly by soldiers who opposed fighting other Muslims. Some communities, in accordance with a fatwa by radical cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi, would refuse to participate in the funeral rites of soldiers whose bodies had been brought back home, believing that the war they had died in was illegitimate and designed to further U.S. interests.
Not only was the Army that Musharraf handed over to Kayani demoralized and fatigued in battle, but it was also overleveraged in politics and business. During his tenure, Kayani distanced the Army from politics. He declared 2008 the "Year of the Soldier" and pledged to improve the living conditions of low-level and noncommissioned officers, men who could not count on the kind of kickbacks and lucrative noncombat appointments enjoyed by senior officers.
At the same time that he was depoliticizing the Army, however, the chain-smoking general was working feverishly behind the scenes to cultivate the support of the elected civilian government and key opinion shapers in the media, particularly nationalists, for a decisive confrontation with the Pakistani Taliban. By 2009, Pakistan was facing its most significant threat in decades: The Taliban had overrun the Swat region in the country's north and had advanced to within 60 miles of the capital, Islamabad. In May of that year, Kayani launched the defining counterinsurgency operation of his tenure, driving the Taliban back into the tribal areas and allowing most of the million-plus Pakistanis who had been displaced to return to their homes within three months
Keen to bolster troop morale and public support, Kayani made regular visits to the front lines in Swat, as well as to some of the six other tribal areas where he had ordered military operations. He also made a regular practice of spending the Eid holidays with deployed military personnel in Swat and South Waziristan -- a clear contrast to many of the civilian government officials who were effectively absent as the country burned.
2010 marked the apex of Kayani's domestic popularity, with his having notched a decisive victory in Swat, and 2011, the beginning of his descent. That year began with the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA security contractor and ended with an errant U.S. attack on a Pakistani border post that killed two dozen soldiers. Sandwiched in between was Kayani's greatest failing in the court of public opinion -- the Osama bin Laden raid -- not so much because of the Army's failure to find the al Qaeda leader, but from the humiliation of the unilateral U.S. military operation on Pakistani soil.
The general faced harsh criticism from young army officers and the political class, with cricket star turned politician Imran Khan calling for him to resign. The cautious Kayani helped end these crises by compromising with the United States, likely taking a page out of his graduate thesis on the Afghan mujahideen's war against the Soviet Union, a work in which he argued that Pakistan must carefully calibrate its support for the Afghans so as to avert a direct war with a superpower. Still, the army chief managed to never quite give the Americans what they wanted -- decisive action against the Haqqani network based in Pakistan's tribal areas -- literally blowing smoke in the face of senior U.S. officials and maintaining his characteristic silence as they implicitly threatened a repeat of the bin Laden raid.
Now, two years later, Kayani exits the scene against the backdrop of a historic election and with his reputation -- as indicated by plaudits in the Pakistani press -- rehabilitated to some degree. But the war goes on. As an insurgent force, the Pakistani Taliban's strength has been significantly reduced, but it still controls key segments of the tribal areas and remains an enduring terrorist threat. Last year, more terrorist attacks took place in Pakistan than in any other country. The Pakistani Taliban has adapted -- growing in urban areas like Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and commercial hub -- and its partner, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi terrorist group, has stepped up attacks against Shiite Muslims across the country.
Kayani's successor will have to work under a civilian government, led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, that lacks the will to fight against the Pakistani Taliban. Sharif has repeatedly called for talks with the terrorist organization, which has pledged to continue its bloody campaign against the state until Islamabad ceases its cooperation with Washington in the war on terror and implements a warped version of Islamic law.
Having clashed with four army chiefs during his two previous stints in office -- and having been overthrown by one of them in 1999 -- Sharif will likely appoint a general who is not only competent, but likely to stay within his constitutional boundaries. But if Sharif chooses deference over competence, he might rule out generals who are best equipped to keep the Pakistani Taliban at bay and defuse future political crises, should they arise.
Among the five front-runners to replace Kayani, at least two are highly determined to continue the fight against the Pakistani Taliban and would likely resist Sharif's push for talks. Lt. Gen. Haroon Aslam, currently the senior-most general among likely Kayani replacements, is a former commando who led Pakistani special forces into the terrorist-infested Peochar Valley in Swat in 2009. He has publicly pledged to defeat the Pakistani Taliban, saying months after the raid, "We will wipe you out. You are Pakistan's enemies and we love Pakistan."
It would be similarly difficult to imagine dark-horse candidate Lt. Gen. Tariq Khan -- who reformed the fledgling paramilitary Frontier Corps that operates in the tribal areas -- endorsing Sharif's push for talks with the Pakistani Taliban. Khan is also known to be outspoken during meetings of the Army's corps commanders and has reportedly criticized Kayani's restraint toward the civilian government.

Rounding out the list of lieutenant generals whom Sharif could choose to replace Kayani are Rashad Mahmood, Zaheer ul-Islam, and Raheel Sharif. The latter is possibly the safest choice politically for Nawaz Sharif, as Raheel Sharif enjoys a close relationship with one of the prime minister's confidants. But it's unclear whether he or any of the other potential army chiefs will truly be able to fill Kayani's shoes, especially when it comes to crisis management. Historically, the army chief of staff has played an important role in maintaining stability. For example, in 2009 when tens of thousands of protesters led by Nawaz Sharif marched on the capital to pressure President Asif Ali Zardari to restore the deposed chief justice, Kayani quietly intervened when the time was right, meeting with Zardari and helping finesse the chief justice back into his post. Two free and fair elections also took place during Kayani's tenure -- unprecedented for any Pakistani army chief.
The next army chief will have his work cut out for him. In addition to convincing the reluctant civilian government to continue the fight against the Pakistani Taliban, he will have to help manage the Afghanistan endgame as U.S. troops withdraw and a presidential election take place next year. Pakistan desperately needs the Afghan government to forge a political settlement with its own Taliban -- thereby morally weakening the Pakistani-based insurgency. But Pakistan's civilian government, which has been slow to develop a counterterrorism policy and has balked at major diplomatic appointments, lacks the machinery to handle all the moving pieces. The next army chief, like Kayani, must be able to offer the government strategic direction in pursuit of a grand bargain in Afghanistan.
In addition to completing Kayani's war, the next army chief will have to fundamentally change the way Pakistan's security services operate inside the country -- so as to avoid sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The military will have to wean itself off its dependence on jihadi proxies, as these forces have all too often grown out of control and pursued their own agendas. Many of the militant camps that the military created inside Pakistan to train forces to fight in Afghanistan and India now produce militants who want to overthrow the government in Islamabad. The military and intelligence services must also end their practice of extrajudicial killings and torture -- for example in Baluchistan, where the military has a robust targeted-killing campaign -- which only serve to harden the militants' resolve and increase the moral ambiguity between the government and the terrorists.
In his retirement message, Kayani said, "It is time for others to carry forward the mission of making Pakistan a truly democratic, prosperous and peaceful country that embodies the finest dreams our founding fathers had envisaged for us." For these dreams to become reality -- and for the war against the Pakistani Taliban and other insurgents to be won -- Pakistan's Army must move along the path of reform and abide by civil, democratic norms. Pakistan will see peace when all elements of its state work to defend the rights and lives of its citizenry -- including dissidents. In this, the Army cannot be exempt.
 
.
Funny to see some babies here representing one General as a ultimate choice and another General as Mr Transporter. In my views any one of the top Generals can serve best as a chief, but seniority should be given preference. But i wonder why the political leadership has kept their decision so secret yet. May be they are afraid of their past experiences. Only God knows what's going to happen. Fingers crossed. Let's hope for best for the army my friends.


It seems I have offended some on this forum and I would very much like to apologise to those who have been inadvertently hurt. However, I will take this opportunity in explaining my position. The discussion was about the best man for the job when picking the next Army Chief; Being a Pakistani and an interested citizen, just as you all, I too assumed the right to air my opinion on the subject. This is so because it affects us all. In the process of going through the forum I saw a lot of anomolies and felt that this forum was designed to promote an individual; I could very well be wrong but that was my perception. I do not know any one of these individauls percsonally but the unfairness of the campaign motivated me to respond. Though, just you all,I too am not an expert but my interest as well as my association with friends who are officers, juniour though they may be and the little research that I have done has led me to some conclusions. Let me lay these out for you and you can debate each and every matter that I have expressed but with reason and logic rather than an emotional outburst.


The job requires the best man and not the senior most. Its not a bank or a shopping plaza we are talking of but the 6th largest army of the world.

All lieutenant generals are equal is a silly argument, this cannot be true in any organization, heiarchies are determoned by ruthless pyramids. They are competent and capable to command coprs etc but maynot be capable to command armies. Afterall, if this were true, why are some Lieutenant generals not even given command of corps and there are many such examples in this Army too. Then these generals promoted but given corps to command should be equally fit to command an army. So I think merit will have to take precedence and this a relative matter between the ‘best’.

Seniority as a term lumps people into groups such the first 3, 4 or 5 depending on how many the Government would like to assess and it is not a blind seniority in numbers only. Anyone picked from such a group is within the seniority parameters established

Now coming to merit, without malice or prejudice towards anyone, I would strongly suggest that we simply follow whats on the net and see for ourselves. However, some pointers: when we speak of logisitics in most Armies then we must speak of the those branches which provide this service and in our Army these are Ordinance, Supply Corps, Medical Corps, Engineering etc. Officers are commissioned in these branches as in other branches as well and have career progresson just like other services. However, though logisitics remains an important component of the army, there is no slot for a lieutenant general in these branches. I hope that puts logisitcs in its right percpective. As such a general officer from the main stream is, in my percpective, ‘reduced’ to taking the post of the Chief of Logisitcs. This an appointment that cannot be compared to Chief of the General Staff, the Inspector General Training and Evaluation or a sitting Corps Commander. Now this is a fact.

On a relative basis, only two general of this lot have seen combat. One in a single operation involving a few battalions as a component of a plan and the other for 4 years who participated in policy designing, defining and execution. He is recognised by the rank and file. This too is a fact.

When we talk of the future, it is dealing with the militants, the US, the Pushtuns and the Indians, then there is only one person with experience in all fields. This too is a fact.

If we look at the back ground, then we must compare experiences and ERRA stints, short commands etc do not compare too well with sword of honours, gulf war experiences, fata operations, varied command experiences etc. etc and this can be looked up. This too is a fact.

So, without causing hurt, and with full knowledge that this forum is not the deciding factor, with respect to all our senior general officers with my confidence in our army, all I am saying is let the best man win and I truly do not care who that is. We in Pakistan also deserve the best and should not find justification where the best is always overlooked. Can we at least agree on this????
 
.
No internal hint at new CJCSC, COAS

November 19, 2013
SIKANDER SHAHEEN

ISLAMABAD - Perhaps for the first time, under normal circumstances, in the army’s history, the internal announcements on disclosing the names of the two top incoming bosses are not being made beforehand in an apparent bid to maintain maximum secrecy concerning the matter.
The practice of making prior internal announcements within the relevant military circles regarding the appointments at the top army positions have regularly been followed during General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s stint as Chief of Army Staff (COAS). In several cases, such kind of announcements were made over a month before the related appointments were actually made, military sources informed on Monday.
Following this practice, intimations were issued to the military authorities concerned as well the media men ahead of the important military and defence appointments such as corps commanders, principal staff officers (PSO), general officers commanding (GOCs) director generals of military, defence and strategic establishments and defence attaches’.
However, the scenario involving the upcoming appointments at the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee (CJCSC) and COAS positions, according to the military sources, makes an ‘extremely extraordinary’ scenario whereby the prior intimations are withheld following the government’s decision to ‘consume maximum time,’ on this count. Lieutenant General Haroon Aslam and Lieutenant General Rashad Mehmood, the two senior most military men after General Kayani, who are, although, believed to be the expected candidates for the CJCSC and COAS posts, internal announcements in Pakistan Army to confirm their elevations have been reportedly withheld following the government’s decision to announce the new CJCSC and COAS next Thursday, just ahead of General Kayani’s retirement the next day (November 29).
“It’s unusual but you can’t say it’s unprecedented,” said a senior army officer with reference to the mystery shrouding, even in the relevant military circles, the two top appointments. “Internal announcements have not been made in pursuance of the government’s policy. When the placements on CJCSC and COAS positions will be in place, intimations will be issued accordingly.”
On the other hand, the military insiders believe, the prior intimations regarding appointments on senior military slots are not issued only in the emergency situations or unforeseen happenings involving the sudden resignations or deaths of the officers concerned.
“With just ten days remaining for Pakistan’s longest serving military chief in the civilian rule to retire, his replacement not being announced even internally (in the army) is something that never happened under ordinary circumstances.”
Also, the prior intimations are not made about the postings where the army officers are to be appointed after the grant of promotions, it was further learnt. “Because you never know who would be promoted and who would be superseded. Sometimes, senior most aspirants for the positions of two-star and three-star generals get superseded and officers who are bottom in the respective seniority lists get elevated to the next rank,” officials commented.
In a recent conversation with this correspondent, Lieutenant General (r) Abdul Qadir Baloch said, the practice of announcing beforehand (internally) the appointee for any given slot was actively followed in the military but with certain exceptions. “I think it also depends on the circumstances or conditions. At times, the circumstances do not allow to make prior intimations on account of secrecy involving the matter. It is the discretion of army’s high command to internally announce any decision or not. Usually, there are no prior intimations for intelligence appointments.”
On the CJCSC and COAS appointments, the former general said, “The army has followed the government’s policy, which is good. It augurs well for democracy that Armed Forces act in line with the policies of political leadership.”
Since the appointment of Pakistan’s first army chief General Sir Frank Messervy in 1947 till General Kayani, the outgoing COAS, it purportedly happened only on two occasions when military authorities were not intimated beforehand about the army chief’s appointment; during the respective deaths of General Zia-ul-Haq and General Asif Nawaz.
Haq had died in an air crash in August 1988 whereas Nawaz died of heart attack in January 1993. General Jehangir Karamat, another former army chief, had although resigned but the move was not sudden. He is said to have taken his close associates including the corps commanders and PSOs into confidence before deciding to call it quits in October 1998.
In case of General Zia-ud-Din Butt, the military authorities were not informed beforehand about his short-lived elevation to the COAS-ship, which is not recognised by the Pakistan Army. Shortly before his ouster on October 12, 1999, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had appointed General Butt as COAS before other generals refused to serve under his command and had him removed and detained to hand Pakistan’s reign to General Pervaiz Musharraf.
No internal hint at new CJCSC, COAS
 
.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Pakistan
Pakistan Looks For The Military Man Who Can Fill Kayani's Shoes

Pakistan's Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani is stepping down after six years in the job.

By Abubakar Siddique
November 19, 2013

Pakistan has cast the mold it wants for its top military commander, now the government just needs to fill it.

With General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani leaving his post as Army chief, the country's civilian leaders are seeking a successor who can mirror his style as a military man who took the fight to the militants and generally kept out of the political arena.

Islamabad is tight-lipped about who will replace Kayani, who steps down on November 29, but the choice reportedly comes down to four contenders.

Two made names for themselves fighting the Pakistani Taliban; the other two rose through the ranks by successfully navigating the military's entrenched bureaucracy.

Retired General Talat Masood says that the new Army chief must be able to lead combat operations, maintain morale and discipline, and show a commitment to working with the civilian government in power.

Ultimately, it is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who will decide who takes the reins. But the recommendations of top military brass, including the outgoing military chief, will carry significant weight.

Ignoring the military's endorsement comes at a great risk, as evidenced by coups d'etat that followed government decisions to handpick the Army chief in the 1970s and 1990s. Sharif himself was ousted as prime minister in 1999 after his unsuccessful attempt to appoint a protege to replace former General Pervez Musharraf as Army chief.

Political Considerations

According to Masood, a number of pressing political considerations will play a role in the decision.

"How is he disposed toward promoting democracy, on keeping distance [between] the army and civilian [affairs]? And to what extent has he had experience in [fighting] the insurgency will be one of the important criteria in this selection," Masood says. "Of course, the chief also has to have diplomatic skills...to negotiate with foreign armies like the U.S. Army and NATO."

The four men who are believed to be in the running to replace Kayani are all lieutenant generals.

Haroon Aslam, a former leader of Pakistan's Special Forces, led commando missions during the government's push to end the Taliban's control of the country's northwestern Swat Valley in 2009.

Tariq Khan has similar credentials, having helped defeat the Taliban in the tribal districts of South Waziristan in 2008 and Bajaur in 2009.

Rashad Mahmood and Raheel Sharif each built promising bureaucratic careers and have served in both command and staff positions, although it has been reported that neither has led troops against the Taliban.

Seniority Could Count

In Masood's view, Aslam's seniority, owing to his 38 years of service, gives him an advantage over the other three.

"Haroon Aslam is the senior-most," he says. "I don't see any reason why he should be passed over, because he has also got a very good record of service."

But Hamid Hussain, a New York-based writer on Pakistani military affairs, says seniority is a loosely applied rule of thumb and won't necessarily determine who becomes the next Army chief.

Hussain predicts that Aslam is more likely to be handed the largely ceremonial post of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff committee. In theory, this would make him the most powerful military officer in Pakistan, but it is not a command post and the holder has no power to appoint senior officers.

Such a scenario would open the door for Mahmood to be named the new Army chief, according to Hussain, who suggests that there are signs Kayani was grooming the lieutenant general to be his successor.

Hussain says Mahmood has developed a good working relationship with the prime minister's brother, Shahbaz Sharif, while serving as the corps commander in Lahore in recent years.

Lahore is the capital of the eastern province of Punjab, where Shahbaz Sharif has been chief minister since 2008.

"He [Mahmood] is more formal in terms of career and his personality," says Hussain. "He is not a vocal or aggressive type of person. He just follows the norms and the routines, so the Sharifs may feel comfortable and not threatened because he may not be assertive and won't be pushing them around too much."

Dark-Horse Candidate

According to Hussain, there is little chance of Lieutenant General Raheel Sharif being appointed, because he is not seen as a strong enough commander.

Tariq Khan, on the other hand, could be considered a dark-horse candidate.

Over the course of his 36-year military career, he has commanded successful missions against militants and is reportedly an outspoken advocate of eliminating terrorists on Pakistani soil.

"The person who is clear in his mind that this [terrorism] is an existential threat is General Tariq Khan," says Hussain. "He is clear in his mind about what to do about it. So, in that capacity, among all the four, he will be the best choice. For the next three-year tenure of the Army chief, proactive military action will most likely be needed. And for that reason he will probably be the right person."
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom