Pakistani Army asks for Respect.

[muse]

It's important for the these uniformed clowns to understand that the Pakistan army is Pakistan, and not the army's Pakistan - somewhere along the line they seem to have forgotten who the boss is - they are thinking it's them because they have guns and yet the mighty Pakistan army is worthy only of speaking coercion to it's own while it works to give it away to foreigner who pay for her keep --- It's nothing new, we have been forwarding this line of thinking in the "Dont Malign..." and Towards a New and Improved Fauj" threads --- but truth be told, the army is unconscious, they do not hear us and worst still, they have persuaded themselves that we are the enemy - again, nothing new, to the army the Islamist insurgents are not the enemy, we who insist that the army not be a institution on to itself, are instead the enemy - so be it, but lets hope the army realizes how isolated and weak it's position and perhaps this time, there may not be a "live to fight the Pakistani nation, another day", for the so called Pakistan Fauj

In the national interest
By Ejaz Haider
Published: June 12, 2011

If you want to know what the French mean by plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more it changes the more it remains the same), read the Inter-Services Public Relations press release following the 139th corps commanders’ conference, thank you.

There’s a laundry list of items in there but here’s the operative part: “Any effort to create divisions between [sic] important institutions of the Country [sic] is not in our national interest. The participants agreed that all of us should take cognisance of this unfortunate trend and put an end to it.”

When we want to do someone in, we national-interest him. By now, this unholy alliance of an adjective qualifying a noun should have made a place for itself as a verb in the OED. Perhaps it would by the time of the 140th corps commanders’ conference. In any case, our historical variation on Shelley’s maudlin “If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind” has always been “If National Interest comes, can Army be far behind”.

But lest anyone think I am being facetious. This is serious affair, ladies and gentlemen. There should be no doubt that Pakistan faces today some of the toughest challenges in its history. Never before was it more important for us to stand together because if we fall, we will fall together, those in uniform as much as those out of it. And yet, it cannot be gainsaid that at this precise moment when we need to close ranks we stand divided as never before.

A binary has been created: The civil and the military. The civilians distrust the military; the military distrusts the civilians. The positions on both sides of the divide are entrenched and deterministic; neither is prepared to appreciate the subtleties that inform the complex equation called Pakistan. Who is to blame?

Primarily the military. Its thinking that Pakistan is in danger is correct; its assessment that those who are pressing for fundamental changes to counter those dangers are a threat is, however, deeply flawed. Sure, it is cornered; it is getting frustrated, deeply so, and it would want nothing more than to get out of the bind it has got itself in. But for it to think that it can do so through an institutional response that serves, yet again, to deepen the very divide that is the biggest threat to the country is to redefine the concepts of bounded rationality and systematic stupidity.

There can be no putting an end to this by addressing the nation as if the army is conducting a darbar. And if the brass seriously thinks they can do that and everyone will fall in line, then they are adding to the threat rather than addressing it. The only way the military can attend to the current threat is by understanding clearly that they have to submit to the state and the people, not the other way round, that Pakistan is to be a state with an army.

Little does the army know that in another twist of irony its press release synced with the opening in Karachi of Pakistan’s first social media conference. While its media managers try to deal with what is emerging in the mainstream press, newspapers and tv channels, there is another kind of media evolving, taking shape and influencing the narrative. It is in an unregulated space and lack of regulation, for the most part, is built into this rough beast. For the most part it is terra incognita for the military’s media managers and they have no strategy to deal with it. It is this space where another narrative is taking shape and its shapers are totally alienated from the military.

When General Kayani took over, the army’s stock had plummeted even in the Punjab. In less than a year he turned it around. How? Simple. By being honest and forthright. The first time I interacted with him, he was DG-ISI. I noted after that meeting that he spoke little, listened carefully and asked questions that went straight to the heart of the problem. I was impressed. He evinced the same qualities in multiple interactions as army chief. And yet, he has got the baseline wrong and by doing that squandered the dividends of his own hard work.

The baseline is simple: The people of Pakistan are not opposed to the army; if they were, the army would not have got the support it did for its operations. But they are opposed to any institution that remains unaccountable. The army has to submit to them, not dictate to them from atop Mount GHQ, and definitely not national-interest them because nothing gets their goat as this does. Stoop and you will conquer them. Equally, the civilian side has to understand that while remaining steadfast to our demand for both glasnost and perestroika, we have to appreciate the challenges the military faces. If they go down, we will too. Criticise them we must but let that be constructive.

 

[Solomon2]

Kiyani's actions are more than enough to refute your contentions - those 'words' have proven to be inaccurate.

So let me get this straight: if I walk two steps behind you carrying a knife and muttering blood, blood, blood that doesn't mean I have hostile intentions because I haven't stabbed you yet?

As I see it, in late April Kiyani was shopping for coup-partners. Allies in the military are not enough; he'd need partners in the civil service and at least one senior politician as well. The OBL raid the next week disemboweled his efforts, at least temporarily: nobody would approach Kiyani with a ten-foot pole, not until they knew what the score was, that they wouldn't be partnering with someone who would be declared a criminal by the courts or parliament or be removed by his fellow officers.

Now the conflict between NS and Kiyani is all but open - they just haven't cited each other by name. Parliament only embarrassed the military temporarily, and as is usual in Pakistan whatever investigation takes place will either peter out or will have no impact so court action is out, too. The U.S. may have (inadvertently) saved Pakistani democracy but the effect may be only temporary, as continued terror attacks (even if inside jobs) point to powerlessness of the civilian administration to protect people. Without people power on the streets supporting democratic leaders and institutional reform, without the continued denigration of the military and its hydra-like hold on Pakistani institutions, resumption of full military rule may only be a matter of time.

 

[Pfpilot]

Oh wow the hypocrisy of our army. It was the respect that allowed the Pakistanis to support endless aggressive actions by the army against its own people, it was this respect that allowed Pakistanis to support Pakistani conflicts against India, where our brave soldiers were massacred, it was this respect that allowed Pakistanis to deal with constant suicide attacks and it was this respect that allowed the Pakistanis to deal with Army generals taking control of the country whenever their interest, not Pakistan's interest, but their interests were in trouble.
Now, when it has been proved over and over again that our Army has been operating under a cloak of competence that is not, in any way, real, nor is our army succeeding in any endeavor, it is only logical that the public has had enough...what are we supposed to respect?...the failure to defend its own high security institutions? the loss of thousands of civilians and soldiers on a war on terror fought only halfheartedly? or maybe the amazing military leadership then tends to watch for its own interest over those of the country as a whole.

 

[pakdefender]

Yes, we, the bloody civilians are with you but are you with us?

Zindabad Pakistan, nothing is more dearer to us than you. We appologize if we bloody civilians were unable to defend you from being raped and pillaged by those same people who were hired to defend you from your enemies.

There is need to have more people from the civil side know about what the armed forces do, for that we should probably develop national level program where it will become mandatory to serve at least six to three months for all registered Pakistanis Nationals, this service can be done at any time between the age of 20 to 30 years.

There is a lot that people simply don’t understand about the armed force which is real pity , I've seen this sort of stupidity being displayed elsewhere on other forums also.

If we develop a mandatory national service program and civilians do attachments with the armed forces they will have a better appreciation for the armed forces, other wise these 'drawing room' type discussions are just a poo throwing match and I just cannot relate to this mindset, maybe because I've seen life in the armed froces so up close that this thought process that I see in some of my country men is just extremely alien for me.

 

[Xeric]

Pardon my thick-headiness, but where did the Army 'plead for respect' in the article? Here:

The statement also offered an indication of the crisis now gripping Pakistan's military and the lengths its leaders are potentially willing to go to restore public respect. The statement also said the army would be willing to divert U.S. military aid to help improve the lot of ordinary Pakistanis.

?

WSJ!

 

[Xeric]

The only 'pleading' that i see is the Army telling the actualities of the CSF during the recent Corps Commanders Conference. What else propaganda, means and psyops have been deployed by the military which gives th writer the notion of the 'military pleading for respect?

Did someone started paying to tv abchors to support the military? No, they still spew venom on whatever chance they get.

How many articles, opeds etc have been published in the FAVOR of the military since the military was 'insulted'?

How many bloggers do we see supporting the military on these forums, blogs, twitter, FB etc? The only thing i see is that every dude who has a dick and two hanging balls likes to shyt about this military with very less people to counter it.

This WSJ is nothing but another bharat-rakshat, and this Solomon dude, why dont you go and get your own turd straightened here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-fo...etraeuss-captured-taliban-were-civilians.html

 

[53fd]

While the Army has not formulated a clear strategy (or any strategy) on how to overcome terrorism inside the country, the situation inside Pakistan is hugely dependent on the actions the US takes inside Afghanistan. For the most part, the actions of the US inside Afghanistan have destabilized Pakistan. It is as simple as that. The Pakistan Army feels it does not want to get "its hands dirty" as long as the country is being destabilized from the Western side, & it is looking at "damage control" right now, testing the resilience of the Pakistani people to the very brink: not a very good strategy. So it is foolhardy to blame the Army for everything, especially when there are not a lot of things under its control (in terms of the situation inside Afghanistan). But the Army has made a lot of mistakes that could have been avoided.

 

[muse]

Xeric


You are among the best of us and unlike so many of us, your experience is one of sacrifice --- But you are just plain mistaken in your stubbornness at not realizing how deep and broad is the anger at the armed forces and towards the army, in particular -- and you are, sadly, once again, mistaken in your assessment of who the enemy is and you are not alone.

Begging and pleading and asking for respect would never have been necessary if the army was good at what the army should be good at, instead the army is good at politics and bad at killing the enemies of Pakistan, the army has been short sighted and just plain incompetent in her creation of the Islamist enemy that now plagues us.

Please refer to Ejaz Haider's article above and recall that we have been pleading with the army to realize that her behavior is endangering Pakistan, and yet it seems we are getting more childish excuses and lawyerly "show me" from the "loyalists" - this is uncalled for. We had argued that unless the army positions itself in line with these transitions, it will be made to do so -- is this not happening?? Consider:

Little does the army know that in another twist of irony its press release synced with the opening in Karachi of Pakistan’s first social media conference. While its media managers try to deal with what is emerging in the mainstream press, newspapers and tv channels, there is another kind of media evolving, taking shape and influencing the narrative. It is in an unregulated space and lack of regulation, for the most part, is built into this rough beast. For the most part it is terra incognita for the military’s media managers and they have no strategy to deal with it. It is this space where another narrative is taking shape and its shapers are totally alienated from the military

Did we not point this out so many weeks ago???

then consider:

The civilians distrust the military; the military distrusts the civilians. The positions on both sides of the divide are entrenched and deterministic; neither is prepared to appreciate the subtleties that inform the complex equation called Pakistan. Who is to blame?

Primarily the military. Its thinking that Pakistan is in danger is correct; its assessment that those who are pressing for fundamental changes to counter those dangers are a threat is, however, deeply flawed. Sure, it is cornered; it is getting frustrated, deeply so, and it would want nothing more than to get out of the bind it has got itself in. But for it to think that it can do so through an institutional response that serves, yet again, to deepen the very divide that is the biggest threat to the country is to redefine the concepts of bounded rationality and systematic stupidity.

Below is a piece by General karamat, who knows a thing or two about idiot civilians and personal honor and he is a good soldier, to this day he is playing the good soldier but to this soldier the message must be that laying blame on the political dispensation is simply not acceptable, the armed forces above all, must be loyal to PAKISTAN and it's legally constituted government, not to the armed forces and her interests -- in the piece below the good general argues that the armed forces, read army, "gets it", but alas, by playing the pouting child and laying responsibility at the political dispensation, the army is once again, looking out for her interests over those of Pakistan

The Army has accepted civilian supremacy

By General (retd) Jehangir Karamat
Monday, June 13, 2011

The word ‘corps’ meaning an army formation is sometimes used interchangeably by some with the word ‘core’— so what should be done when the Corps Commander’s conference gets reported as the ‘Core Commanders’ conference — not really significant except that in our environment ‘core commanders’ could take on the connotation of some kind of inner body of what is called the ‘deep state’! Better to stick to the Corps Commanders—who held their 139th conference at General Headquarters on Thursday June 9, 2011 and subsequently the Inter Services Public Relations Directorate issued a carefully worded and detailed statement.

This statement is important and deserves analysis. The statement mentions a ‘perceptual bias’ that is driving the virulent outbursts against the armed forces thereby drawing a distinction between constructive criticism of the acknowledged lapses and the attacks intended to weaken the institution and drive wedges between institutions-something that is specifically mentioned as being undesirable and not in the interest of the country. The military’s support to democracy that has been a constant since the present government was elected but never before stated has now been spelt out and that too as support for democracy and not a political party.

This implies that the military wants no part in politics and accepts the democratic structure without reservations-as it should. The statement indicates that the military to military relations between the US and Pakistan will be within the overall ambit and context of the bilateral relationship between the two countries and not a separate facet of the country-to-country relationship.

The implication being that it is up to the government to determine the contours of this relationship. While clarifying the exact status of US military aid and the amount actually received by the military the statement indicates that such aid could be utilised for economic purposes thereby giving the government the final word on dissemination of resources to the military as well as reviewing allocations.

Going further the statement clarifies that future military operations would be conducted on the basis of political consensus—the clear implication being that political directives to the military would be translated into military strategy.

In this context there is reference to the joint parliamentary resolution of May 14 and also to the proposed national commission for investigating recent events-as something the military accepts and supports.

The military had already briefed a parliamentary committee earlier. Without specifically saying so the statement in its reference to the people signifies the military’s acknowledgement that in a democratic dispensation the center of gravity is in the people and that the military as a national institution is sensitive to public opinion and criticism.

There is more. The military has stated that on its part and staying within its sphere the military has asked for a reduction in the US training presence in the country and that its intelligence cooperation with the US would be on the basis of reciprocity and transparency and foreign intelligence agencies should not be operating in Pakistan. ]

Earlier the Corps Commander Peshawer had said that ‘intelligence cooperation (with the US) had been curtailed but not cut-off’. Here too the implication is that it is up to the government to decide the exact extent of cooperation with the US in other spheres.

This ties in with the reference to the overall relationship with the US mentioned earlier. The military has a realistic view of the relationship with the US and its importance.

Going further the ISPR statement in the context of North Waziristan states that the operation in the western border areas is being conducted as a well thought out campaign plan and no pressures could be accepted to deviate from this for a particular action at a particular time.

This is something the military has been consistently saying as it is the best judge of overstretch, balance, scale and duration of operations within the overall evolving situation. This, of course, has to be in line with any political directive by the government.

Significantly the statement urges the people of North Waziristan to evict foreigners and not allow their soil to be used for terrorism elsewhere. This when considered with the view expressed that the internal security situation is the highest priority implies that this is something that could be done on a larger scale within the country and the focus could be on those destabilising the country internally creating vulnerabilities that are being exploited externally.

The restricted tone of the statement indicates that the military does not want to overstep bounds even in an advisory capacity. Finally on drone attacks (recently stepped up by the US) the statement states without ambiguity that the policy needs reconsideration -obviously a reference to the overall negative impact of unilateral action by a foreign nation.

In conclusion it can be said that the ISPR statement has come after some game changing events within the country and have led to justified outrage. The statement itself could be considered a game changer because within its carefully constructed structure is the clear indication by the military that it considers itself to be within the overall civilian supremacy that a democratic structure demands.

The military has clearly indicated that it has a full understanding of the economic and internal security situation and their linkage with each other. It is inevitable that the military will take a hard inward look to remove weaknesses. It would be wrong to consider this statement as signal for ill considered hasty actions. It would be right to take this as a signal for a future civil military relationship in which the military can strengthen democracy, help in stabilisation and ensure that a nuclear power orchestrates the strength of all its elements of power to present the globalised world with the image of a country that has learnt from its follies and is determined to march forward.

— The writer is a former Pakistan Army Chief who resigned during the second Nawaz Sharif government.

 

[T-Faz]

Incompetence institutionalised
Javed Hussain - The writer is a retired brigadier and served in the Special Services Group​

It took two Black Hawk helicopters carrying US commandos two hours to humiliate Pakistan and alter the dynamics of the Pak-US relationship. After a series of contradictory statements, the air force finally suggested that the stealth capability of the helicopters enabled them to evade the radars.

In order to minimise these limitations of the radars, the air defence command had raised in the 1960s what were known as mobile observer units (MOUs). Deployed at prominent points along the border, the MOUs were required to report, in real time, sightings of intrusions, the number and type of aircraft, their direction of flight and the altitude and speed at which they are flying. If the intrusions were not picked up by the radars, immediate action was taken on the observers’ reports by scrambling fighters, who were then assisted by them to the extent possible. Had these been in place, the Black Hawks would surely have been sighted and intercepted. But since this did not happen, the MOUs, presumably, no longer exist.

The US raid has made the air force and ISI appear in bad light. The ISI erred by surrendering the initiative to the CIA when they passed on to them the leads they got from time to time. The fact that the CIA was not sharing with them the progress made on these leads, presumably because of the trust deficit, should have alerted them. Had they carried out a parallel investigation, they just might have got to the house near Kakul earlier than the CIA.
Since the failure of the air force and ISI is incomprehensible, the question that is agitating the minds of Pakistanis is: Is there more in this sordid affair than meets the eye?

Twenty days later, it took a handful of terrorists one hour to inflict further humiliation on Pakistan. But the man at whom the buck stops tells the world, dressed in combat fatigues, that there was no security lapse and that the terrorists were well-trained.

The vulnerable area (VA) in question has two vulnerable points (VPs) — PNS Mehran and PAF Faisal. A simple methodology for developing a tactical plan for the defence of VAs and VPs is to first establish the threat perceived, then consider all the possibilities open to the enemy. From this emerges the requirement of resources to guard against all the possibilities hypothesised. The plan is then presented to the planners’ next superior officer (NSO), who keeps his NSO, the chief, in the loop. Next, the forces that will execute the joint plan are subjected to intensive training by the VA/VP commander. Last, but not least, the efficacy of the plan is tested by inviting special forces to act as the enemy.

Surprise is the main weapon of guerrillas and commandos. They employ stealth, or deception, or both, to achieve it. In the Mehran raid, stealth was employed; in the GHQ raid; deception. But when the element of surprise is compromised, the mission almost always fails.

On that fateful night, the top minds of two services were outwitted by the terrorists and their masterminds. The blame can thus be clearly apportioned.
The Mehran raid has once again raised the question of the ‘enemy within’ — servicemen brainwashed and recruited by terrorists. Apparently, very little seems to have been done to eradicate this menace, even after it was established that they had collaborated in the attacks on Musharraf, the Tarbela SSG mess and GHQ. The presence of the ‘enemy within’ adds a dangerous dimension to national security as it makes the tasks of external intelligence services that much easier. Eliminating the fifth columnists, therefore, is one of the main challenges facing the service chiefs, their counter-intelligence and the ISI.

Their other main challenge is securing their VAs and VPs against future attacks. Only when this has been assured should they focus their minds on evolving counter-terrorism policies and strategies — create strong foundations, then build on them, else the whole edifice will crumble.

Like the crises of 1965, 1971 and 1999 (Kargil), the crises of May 2011 were also the creation of a handful of men who failed to come up to the expectations of the people. Since incompetence pervaded all fields of human activity long ago, the international community is right in thinking that, like corruption, incompetence has also become institutionalised in Pakistan.

Incompetence institutionalised – The Express Tribune

 

[Xeric]

Begging and pleading and asking for respect would never have been necessary if the army was good at what the army should be good at
That's the whole point, i fail to see any meaningful effort by this Army to reclaim it's 'respect'. What's so hard in it to understand?

Has Hamid Mir started singing laurels for the Army?

Has the likes of Ejaz Haider and Parachas started painting the Army sitting at a higher pedestal?

Has the Army started funding NGOs and groups who would come on roads every second day to show solidarity and their support for the Army?

Dont be fooled by some lines in the press, the only two (one?) things that the military has done so far is, to come clean up with the distribution of CSF; and at the max, just said that this is not the time for mud slinging but unity - and that's not a news, it's just like the old harmonium playing the same ol song.

So, there's no point of feeling 'great' by considering you and the likes have actually 'forced' the Army to beg.

The Army has accepted civilian supremacy

^^ If you still thing that the this Army had not accepted the civilian supremacy since day Gen Kiyani took over, then seriously Musey, the whole point of discussion is moot!

What else you want the Army to do (though it has been under this supremacy since Gne Musharraf left it), lick your feet?

You better come up a better (and a newer) reply this time except the same old ragini of 'improvement' and the 'Army doing just the exact amount of pushing to the govt".

It's 3 in the morning, and i gotta sleep while you do that.

 

[Xeric]

So ok now, this (thread) would be the next venue (RV) for shyting, mud slinging and hate-mongering against the military.

Guud!

 

[muse]

Xeric

Don't be that way - just Grow Up - it's not "the military", It's Pakistan's armed forces, without Pakistan, these are meaningless

 

[unicorn]

@muse

how can just one incident of may 2nd can bring a 180 degree shift in the way you think.Constantly Emphasizing on one just point is not bad but by doing it you will definitely overlook the other aspects as well and that is what others are currently avoiding.I suggest you to keep your judgement for some other time.Any drastic or wrong move and the outsiders will take advantage.You are only asking for drastic measures which is highly impractical at the current point of time.My humble suggestion is to keep your head cool

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Below is a piece by General karamat, who knows a thing or two about idiot civilians and personal honor and he is a good soldier, to this day he is playing the good soldier but to this soldier the message must be that laying blame on the political dispensation is simply not acceptable, the armed forces above all, must be loyal to PAKISTAN and it's legally constituted government, not to the armed forces and her interests -- in the piece below the good general argues that the armed forces, read army, "gets it", but alas, by playing the pouting child and laying responsibility at the political dispensation, the army is once again, looking out for her interests over those of Pakistan

The Army has accepted civilian supremacy

By General (retd) Jehangir Karamat
Monday, June 13, 2011

The word ‘corps’ meaning an army formation is sometimes used interchangeably by some with the word ‘core’— so what should be done when the Corps Commander’s conference gets reported as the ‘Core Commanders’ conference — not really significant except that in our environment ‘core commanders’ could take on the connotation of some kind of inner body of what is called the ‘deep state’! Better to stick to the Corps Commanders—who held their 139th conference at General Headquarters on Thursday June 9, 2011 and subsequently the Inter Services Public Relations Directorate issued a carefully worded and detailed statement.

This statement is important and deserves analysis. The statement mentions a ‘perceptual bias’ that is driving the virulent outbursts against the armed forces thereby drawing a distinction between constructive criticism of the acknowledged lapses and the attacks intended to weaken the institution and drive wedges between institutions-something that is specifically mentioned as being undesirable and not in the interest of the country. The military’s support to democracy that has been a constant since the present government was elected but never before stated has now been spelt out and that too as support for democracy and not a political party.

This implies that the military wants no part in politics and accepts the democratic structure without reservations-as it should. The statement indicates that the military to military relations between the US and Pakistan will be within the overall ambit and context of the bilateral relationship between the two countries and not a separate facet of the country-to-country relationship.

The implication being that it is up to the government to determine the contours of this relationship. While clarifying the exact status of US military aid and the amount actually received by the military the statement indicates that such aid could be utilised for economic purposes thereby giving the government the final word on dissemination of resources to the military as well as reviewing allocations.

Going further the statement clarifies that future military operations would be conducted on the basis of political consensus—the clear implication being that political directives to the military would be translated into military strategy.

In this context there is reference to the joint parliamentary resolution of May 14 and also to the proposed national commission for investigating recent events-as something the military accepts and supports.

The military had already briefed a parliamentary committee earlier. Without specifically saying so the statement in its reference to the people signifies the military’s acknowledgement that in a democratic dispensation the center of gravity is in the people and that the military as a national institution is sensitive to public opinion and criticism.

There is more. The military has stated that on its part and staying within its sphere the military has asked for a reduction in the US training presence in the country and that its intelligence cooperation with the US would be on the basis of reciprocity and transparency and foreign intelligence agencies should not be operating in Pakistan. ]

Earlier the Corps Commander Peshawer had said that ‘intelligence cooperation (with the US) had been curtailed but not cut-off’. Here too the implication is that it is up to the government to decide the exact extent of cooperation with the US in other spheres.

This ties in with the reference to the overall relationship with the US mentioned earlier. The military has a realistic view of the relationship with the US and its importance.

Going further the ISPR statement in the context of North Waziristan states that the operation in the western border areas is being conducted as a well thought out campaign plan and no pressures could be accepted to deviate from this for a particular action at a particular time.

This is something the military has been consistently saying as it is the best judge of overstretch, balance, scale and duration of operations within the overall evolving situation. This, of course, has to be in line with any political directive by the government.

Significantly the statement urges the people of North Waziristan to evict foreigners and not allow their soil to be used for terrorism elsewhere. This when considered with the view expressed that the internal security situation is the highest priority implies that this is something that could be done on a larger scale within the country and the focus could be on those destabilising the country internally creating vulnerabilities that are being exploited externally.

The restricted tone of the statement indicates that the military does not want to overstep bounds even in an advisory capacity. Finally on drone attacks (recently stepped up by the US) the statement states without ambiguity that the policy needs reconsideration -obviously a reference to the overall negative impact of unilateral action by a foreign nation.

In conclusion it can be said that the ISPR statement has come after some game changing events within the country and have led to justified outrage. The statement itself could be considered a game changer because within its carefully constructed structure is the clear indication by the military that it considers itself to be within the overall civilian supremacy that a democratic structure demands.

The military has clearly indicated that it has a full understanding of the economic and internal security situation and their linkage with each other. It is inevitable that the military will take a hard inward look to remove weaknesses. It would be wrong to consider this statement as signal for ill considered hasty actions. It would be right to take this as a signal for a future civil military relationship in which the military can strengthen democracy, help in stabilisation and ensure that a nuclear power orchestrates the strength of all its elements of power to present the globalised world with the image of a country that has learnt from its follies and is determined to march forward.

— The writer is a former Pakistan Army Chief who resigned during the second Nawaz Sharif government.

I become more and more convinced, through every post of yours that I read on this issue, that you and your ilk are utterly confused and running around like headless chickens.

Here you have a very respected former COAS, who resigned after differences between him and the civilian leadership arose, arguing that the Military is indeed under civilian control, and the only thing you can do is find some way to distort the issue and blame the General and the military for 'pouting' and 'laying the blame on the civilians'.

Pray tell, how exactly is the military to convince people that it is following the lead of the civilian leadership, and that it is not responsible for certain policies and decisions being made, if the military, or those aware of the thinking of its leadership, do not highlight these facts as Gen. Karamat has done?

How is the military to refute allegations of control of policy without outright refuting those allegations? And if the military denies making those policies or pushing them on the civilian government, then it does not take a genius to figure out that the only other part responsible are the elected politicians and government.

Now for some reason you find that to be a problem. Pray tell, how do you expect our elected leaders to change and be held accountable if the people of Pakistan do not hold them accountable for these policies, and pressure them through the ballot box to change?

You have been reduced to a shadow of your former self Muse - random fits and vitriol against the military, much of which, like here, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Solomon2]

Karamat's article does NOT describe an Army that accepts civilian "supremacy". It says that based upon public opinion and the Army's desire to avoid responsibility for drone strikes, etc. it is accepting civilian direction.

That, of course, could change any moment. That is not supremacy. It isnt' even accountability. But this may be the moment to seize the reigns and actually bring the Army to heel through such institutional reforms as parliament-appointed and accountable Inspector Generals, making military personnel subject to civilian courts, and even constitutional amendments removing any possible mechanism for a return to military rule.