Pakistan to deploy more troops on Iran border

[Icarus]

Please explain the difference?

Does an army soldier fight better than say an Afghan or Vietcong fighter?

To put it very roughly:

Military: Full-time soldiers, thoroughly trained, strong hierarchy, division of responsibilities, self-contained and self-sustaining.

Militia: Not professional soldiers, only stop-gaps, basic (or less) training, loose hierarchy based on social status/charisma rather than competence, responsibilities assigned arbitrarily, not-self sustaining, needs patron for fiscal support, training, armament, etc.

As for whether a conventional Army fights better than the Afghan Taliban or the Vietcong? The answer is, they may and may not, depends on what you mean by fighting better. The Afghan Taliban or the Vietcong have been successful in their campaign because of a variety of reasons, arguably most significant was their understanding of a very unforgiving terrain. Then there was the ready supply of man power, little to no cost of maintaining fighting forces, the use of guerrilla tactics and also the inability of the French, US, NATO , ISAF and ANA to adapt to their enemy's style of fighting.

So in a nutshell, does an Army soldier fight better than a militiaman? Yes, but that does not mean he will always win. That being said, he will probably be able to put up a valiant fight in both the ragged hills of Afghanistan and the dense jungles of Vietnam but the same can probably not be said if the Afghan Taliban and the Vietcong had to exchange positions. Their fighting styles are effective only in the confines of the system in which they were developed. The Vietcong's human waves would be seen at distance and mowed down before they even get close in Afghanistan whereas the Talib suicide bomber would probably never reach his target in Vietnam.

I hope I have been able to offer some insight into the matter.

 

[adil_minhas]

To put it very roughly:

Military: Full-time soldiers, thoroughly trained, strong hierarchy, division of responsibilities, self-contained and self-sustaining.

Militia: Not professional soldiers, only stop-gaps, basic (or less) training, losse hierarchy based on social status/charisma rather than competence, responsibilities assigned arbitrarily, not-self sustaining, needs patron for fiscal support, training, armament, etc.

As for whether a conventional Army fights better than the Afghan Taliban or the Vietcong? The answer is, they may and may not, depends on what you mean by fighting better. The Afghan Taliban or the Vietcong have been successful in their campaign because of a variety of reasons, arguably most significant was their understanding of a very unforgiving terrain. Then there was the ready supply of man power, little to no cost of maintaining fighting forces, the use of guerrilla tactics and also the inability of the French, US, NATO , ISAF and ANA to adapt to their enemy's style of fighting.

So in a nutshell, does an Army soldier fight better than a militiaman? Yes, but that does not mean he will always win. That being said, he will probably be able to put up a valiant fight in both the ragged hills of Afghanistan and the dense jungles of Vietnam but the same can probably not be said if the Afghan Taliban and the Vietcong had to exchange positions. Their fighting styles are effective only in the confines of the system in which they were developed. The Vietcong's human waves would be seen at distance and mowed down before they even get close in Afghanistan whereas the Talib suicide bomber would probably never reach his target in Vietnam.

I hope I have been able to offer some insight into the matter.

Thanks sir. You definitely have.

But I'll take your permission to persist just a tad longer.

For Pakistan, or any country, with a manpower crunch (trained, professional manpower), wouldn't what you call militia (I differ in that I was proposing first level soldiers under army chain if command) at the borders be better than not having anything at all, or having to juggle from one border to another, and leave some part potentially exposed?

 

[Icarus]

Thanks sir. You definitely have.

But I'll take your permission to persist just a tad longer.

For Pakistan, or any country, with a manpower crunch (trained, professional manpower), wouldn't what you call militia (I differ in that I was proposing first level soldiers under army chain if command) at the borders be better than not having anything at all, or having to juggle from one border to another, and leave some part potentially exposed?

In a sense, the Pakistani Military does operate in a way similar to what you are proposing. The LOC and some "hot" sectors along the working boundary are manned by the Mujahid Battalions (Border specific units), the rest is manned by Punjab/Sindh Rangers. Towards Afghanistan/Iran, its the FC. Save for the Mjd Bns, the rest are paramilitary forces much like the BSF is in India. However, these forces are suited for peacetime border management only, when things escalate, the military will have to bolster their strength and probably take the lead in resisting enemy aggression.

For Pakistan, further expanding the military is not limited by a manpower crunch. The Army can easily expand its ranks within a year or two by over a few hundred thousand, the installed training capacity far outpaces the number of inductees. However, expanding the military will stress the national kitty further (no pun intended) which will in turn hinder the capacity of the military to function effectively. Thus the question arises, what is better. A fairly sized, well equipped, trained and motivated military or a large force with cumbersome structures, command, communication, logistical and support shortfalls? Pakistan opts for the former.

BTW, Tribal Lashkars and Hurr Mujahideen are militias that are activated as full fledged units in war time.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Iran and Pakistan need to implement some sort of very fluid cooperative border management. Lots of intelligence sharing against groups like Jundullah and Jaish ul Adl. Possibly even fluid military borders that would mean Iranian and Pakistani forces could pursue terrorists across the border if need be.

 

[H!TchHiker]

Do we have a joint patrol mechanism at the border ?with the areas prone to create problem from either side ..This will give confidence to both sides i believe..Nether Pakistan nor Iran can afford to be hostile at each other

 

[Icebreak]

Well done. Appreciated

The project name ::
Shahed 216. Will be happy to see Pakistan in this military project.

Sending soldiers to control the boundaries is not a sign of weakness Jahel mate!. I don't know Nawaz but seemingly the guy wants to ensure Pakistan's safety. And if you work with us, everyone of those filthy spies will come to their end. As you already know, we cannot send our troops into your lands to control and kill anti-Pakistan spies, so your presence in that boundary is a sign of Pak's sovereignty and i am happy with that.
Use your gray cells inside your brain, useful way of raising wisdom. Strong and safe Pakistan is our old desire since that idiot Shah, we want a independent and safe Pakistan.

Why would we join "Shahed 216"? You must be high on heroin. Pakistan has no need to join any attempts at refurbishing old 70's technology with a heavily sanctioned state with primitive indigenous technology.

Instead of giving advice here I suggest you work on strengthening Iran's sovereignty and getting rid of anti-Pakistan elements and anti-Pakistan Irani government activities like giving visa to Uzair baloch and hiring/brainwashing people in Pakistan to go to Syria

 

[imadul]

This is diplomatic rupture.
Two CoAS' acted ill in non diplomatic way, putting it mildly. One related to Iran, other internal matter but shows lack of finesse.
1. RS openly embarrassed Iranian president Roohani during his visit to Pak on kulbhushan.
2. ISPR tweet, read Gen Bajwa, rejecting Govt notification on Dawn leaks.
2nd is internal matter, but 1st was quiet a blunder. RS was correct to raise that with Roohani, but it was a huge blunder to leak the news. Iran felt humilated and has gotten quiet rude sincd then.
IMA could be a factor too, but I think it is former.
Issue has to be resolved diplomatically, and since it was created byan Army chief, it has to be resolved by an army chief. Bajwa should visit Iran after some time. Resolution is must.

 

[Fledgingwings]

Lets Support and pray for our brave Men.

 

[CHI RULES]

This is diplomatic rupture.
Two CoAS' acted ill in non diplomatic way, putting it mildly. One related to Iran, other internal matter but shows lack of finesse.
1. RS openly embarrassed Iranian president Roohani during his visit to Pak on kulbhushan.
2. ISPR tweet, read Gen Bajwa, rejecting Govt notification on Dawn leaks.
2nd is internal matter, but 1st was quiet a blunder. RS was correct to raise that with Roohani, but it was a huge blunder to leak the news. Iran felt humilated and has gotten quiet rude sincd then.
IMA could be a factor too, but I think it is former.
Issue has to be resolved diplomatically, and since it was created byan Army chief, it has to be resolved by an army chief. Bajwa should visit Iran after some time. Resolution is must.

Why Pak should be diplomatic it is no hidden fact that Iran cooperated with India in almost every field and even become hostile in attempts to stop CPEC project. When it was not happened now they are trying to be partner in Gawadar project.

Pakistan should have a capable foreign minister and a team of diplomats to design an aggressive foreign policy. If Iran or any country shows hostile attitude in same manner response should be. The groups like Jaish Al Adal or Jandullah are operating in Iran due to domestic support. Iran should analyse causes whatever they are and try to resolve internal issues. Pak now have enough evidence prove what is happening. At least two to three hi profile terroists along with Uzair Baloch are in Pak custody. On other side today we got a gift from so called Islamic country Iran in shape of open threat by their Chief that they shall cross Pak border in pursuit of their so called terrorists. Then what about or criminals and separatists. Pak should also be ready to counter such threats and on the other hand Iran should not lose a sincere friend in Islamic world.

 

[imadul]

Why Pak shoue diplomatic it is no hidden fact that Iran cooperated with India in almost every field and even become hostile in attempts to stop CPEC project. When it was not happened now they are trying to be partner in Gawadar project.

Pakistan should have a capable foreign minister and a team of diplomats to design an aggressive foreign policy. If Iran or any country shows hostile attitude in same manner response should be. The groups like Jaish Al Adal or Jandullah are operating in Iran due to domestic support. Iran should analyse causes whatever they are and try to resolve internal issues. Pak now have enough evidence prove what is happening. At least two to three hi profile terroists along with Uzair Baloch are in Pak custody. On other side today we got a gift from so called Islamic country Iran in shape of open threat by their Chief that they shall cross Pak border in pursuit of their so called terrorists. Then what about or criminals and separatists. Pak should also be ready to counter such threats and on the other hand Iran should not lose a sincere friend in Islamic world.

Dont have much lost love with Iran, but All the same, Two hostile countries, afg and india enough to keep Pak entangled and hinder progress. Iran issue is more diplomatic and can be addresed as such. Accept that embarrassing a president on state visit was very bad thing, diplomacy 101. it was a slap.
Pak Iran had had god relations, those times should be searched again.

I wrote this oped after statement of their military chief statement. It is ill advised to have so many hostile pr unfriendly countries on your borders. Diplomacy is must.

 

[Baby Leone]

Well done. Appreciated

The project name ::
Shahed 216. Will be happy to see Pakistan in this military project.

Sending soldiers to control the boundaries is not a sign of weakness Jahel mate!. I don't know Nawaz but seemingly the guy wants to ensure Pakistan's safety. And if you work with us, everyone of those filthy spies will come to their end. As you already know, we cannot send our troops into your lands to control and kill anti-Pakistan spies, so your presence in that boundary is a sign of Pak's sovereignty and i am happy with that.
Use your gray cells inside your brain, useful way of raising wisdom. Strong and safe Pakistan is our old desire since that idiot Shah, we want a independent and safe Pakistan.

Nothing strange if a noon leagi idiot showing his family background and abusing every single person who argue his policies. For jerKS like u I don't give a shit nor reply to your kinds as its below my level.

 

[Muhammed45]

Nothing strange if a noon leagi idiot showing his family background and abusing every single person who argue his policies. For jerKS like u I don't give a shit nor reply to your kinds as its below my level.

Oh really?
You just replied to me. Don't quote me again kid. Try to drink water, you are getting suffocated.
Then Visit a psychologist for sure

 

[Baby Leone]

Oh really?
You just replied to me. Don't quote me again kid. Try to drink water, you are getting suffocated.
Then Visit a psychologist for sure

I don't quote idiots like you until I feel that your kinds need some proper feeding. Anyways enjoy as ur caliber is to low for me to have a discussion with u. Lol seriously next time don't quote me with ur farting if u don't want to get more humiliation hahha. First learn how to reply and then quote me next time.