Pakistani Army asks for Respect.

[pakdefender]

.... Sure govts are corrupt, bureaucrats are incomepetent, judges can be influenced and media profit seeking, but the whole premise of my argument is that these things should improve with time ....

 

[notsuperstitious]

I'm 100% certain you are a direct beneficiary of the 'only other alternative'

 

[Riseup]

Democratic process - army coups
Judiciary - army interference, Bhutto hanging to the latest one
Education - Zia's brilliant contribution
Media - only this month many reporters have narrated their own experiences of army / ISI interference

That was part of past what is the current situation is completely different after Left of Musharaf current army is totally on the point of no interference into other institutions if we looking into the last 4 years of the situation in Pakistan there are many instance could found, when army can coup and made interfere into GoP
1, The Movement of restoration of CGoP
2, The conflict between GoP and SC

Instead of that Army also help GoP to sateldown the Issues Like CGoP restoration. But eventually we watched GoP failed to handel all there business... (Reason what so ever corruption / incapability etc.)

So failing in the governance is the failing in the business of GoP how were army participate in it. But eventually we are looking that the GoP failure will also resultant into the failure of security too. Prevention of the influence of terrorist in the society is the role of GoP not the army, all the agencies including Police, IB, FIA and CID created to work for that and trained for that because they are Law enforcement agencies and Army / Rangers are border security agencies and Law enforcement agencies are under the control of government my question is that who invite army to take all those responsibility instead of relevant agencies. I personally think that this is the point that creates all culprits.

WoT started since 2001 but GoP invited security agencies into the state for the law enforcement into 90s decay, surprisingly we are seeing the 90’s were the ruling period of democracy, so why they invite and involve army into the Law enforcement role. The answer is because the actual law enforcement agencies have been failed to enforce the law because of incapability and corruption, who made them in such incapable!!! This is clearly political influence in these forces, which manipulate force to save their interests not to perform their core role of law enforcement. See what the politicians play the role to the collapse of governance infrastructure.

When the law enforcement agencies failed in their role government invited army for that role. Even I remember that they were working as Electric meter readers for WAPDA and KESC. And that was situation in the era of 90’s the democratic era PPP and PMLN still have proud on that era.

These institutions have suffered greatly, yes and Army IS responsible. How is this not crystal clear??? I mean whats there to debate here???

Sure govts are corrupt, bureaucrats are incomepetent, judges can be influenced and media profit seeking, but the whole premise of my argument is that these things should improve with time, better education etc. These institutions put together are a check on each other. But these very basic requirements have been denied.

Dear Fateh71,

I have explain some situation above if a democratic government failed to perform their role (whatever reason corruption or incapability) and invited itself army to perform government’s role so what that’s mean???? Is not inviting someone to take the control of entire state? (To democratic Rulers : Apni naahliyat ka taoq kisi aur kay gale main kion dalte ho bahi kud naahel thay tasleem karo).

We can start to find some solution when we know better the fact of culprits.

 

[Porus]

Guest


I agree with keeping out of the running govt business, what I was pointing to when I suggested that the army/armed forces can be a leader protecting and furthering the best aspirations of the Pakistani nation and state, was it's social role, for instance, gender equality is a societal value that we can all agree is universal and is particularly weak in Pakistan, however, the Pakistan armed forces have been a national leader in accepting and promoting such equality by opening themselves to greater participation of women -- and regardless of problems along the way, the way in which they may deal with such problems, can be a model for other institutions, public and private, in society -- best aspirations of the Pakistani nation and state are reflected in the societal values the nation and state OUGHT to pursue....I would argue that it is the same with policies, we simply cannot escape the issues of values and their promotion, because one way or another, we are always picking and choosing one value or set of values over others and we are ordering and reordering these values in terms of priority - again, if the armed forces regulations with regard to Law and Justice are seen as promoting a humane approach or a severe legalistic approach, to the question of punishment, this too has a huge impact on society at large because of the size of the institution and the public's perception of the institution.

Consider, had the the armed forces actually done a tremendous job at managing the economy, or at ensuring good governance or the provision of governmental services, or checking corruption in government and private sectors, or simply upholding or even voicing concern supporting the notion that all citizens should be equal before the law, would these "values" not represent the aspirations of the nation and thereby bind the armed forces to the pubic and also paint public perception of the armed forces in a positive light? (oh wait, that would have meant a "smart" army and we can't have that because we are dumb)

It's a non-starter argument Muse what you have written in the second paragraph. The army generals commit treason when they overthrow an elected government and grab reins of power and the only punishment for this crime is death under the constitution of 1973. From the day on they usurp power till the end of their "glittering career" the military dictators, as we usually call them, will keep breaking the laws and manipulating the constitution just to keep themselves in power. This is what they do and this is what they have done in Pakistan.

Now tell me how can you expect good governance from those whose careers begin with the severe violation of the constitution, considering that good governance means enacting good laws and their implementation and enforcement? Whatever they do during their rule is considered invalid, illegal and extra-constitutional anyway.

Muse, only strong and free civil institutions like legislature, judiciary and executive can guarantee us what we are striving for. I accept that we don't have a real democracy (what we have can be described at best as kleptocratic-oligarchy) in our country but we do have democratic institutions albeit weak and corrupt, all we need to strengthen these institutions is a 15 to 20 years long uninterrupted civilian rule.

 

[T-Faz]

Ignore them Xeric.

These are bhaands who will do maskhara punna even with their own women.

They are bunch of tribals who refuse to civilize and utterly refuse to see the light that Pak army has saved over and over again.

They are like fools who cut the same branch where they and their families dwell.

They tribal bhaands have no idea of Pak history, and thus do not know where our future is.

So just ignore them.

peace.

What you are stating here describes a number of Generals we have had over the years quite well.

I am not going by an assessment based on hearsay but one that is based upon old acquaintances and friendships.

What has occurred over all these years is that the worst of the worst has been selected to led the army and their blunders have been hushed aside creating further disarray.

The curse of tribalism, feudalism and Islamism has seeped into the army decades ago, a lot of appointments have been based upon tribal affiliations, support of Islamists and backing of certain feudals. We have inept Generals who have continuously undertaken actions on behalf of this nation that have backfired magnificently. Today we are standing in complete darkness and there is no one that can lead this nation out of this darkness.

The blame lies on all institutes involved and the individuals that lead them, rather than being an insulting pest, you should address the core issues and look to answer the ever increasing questions the people of this nation have.

Today we have people who have either served in the armed forces or have family members who were a part of it and they are openly challenging the army's doctrine. The army has undoubtedly played a major role in our current predicament and it is incapable of taking us out of this mess, they know it, you know it and I know it.

What should happen now is that the army should restrict its role to defending the nation and hand over governance to the elected government. No matter how bad or corrupt it is, it will mature and better over time.

 

[muse]

The army generals commit treason when they overthrow an elected government and grab reins of power and the only punishment for this crime is death under the constitution of 1973. From the day on they usurp power till the end of their "glittering career" the military dictators, as we usually call them, will keep breaking the laws and manipulating the constitution just to keep themselves in power. This is what they do and this is what they have done in Pakistan.

Now tell me how can you expect good governance from those whose careers begin with the severe violation of the constitution, considering that good governance means enacting good laws and their implementation and enforcement - and whatever they do during their rule is considered invalid, illegal and extra-constitutional anyway.

Allow me to suggest that we should be mindful that we are looking at past events with the today's morality --- A democratic dispensation is not a religion, it is merely a tool - a tool to allow us to better organize and in doing so, to give expression to citizens in the formulating of laws through which they may govern themselves.

We may understand that servicemen, well, ok, generals, do not start off wanting to overthrow governments -- it would be unfair to suggest that the entirety of fault for these military interventions is the responsibility of the armed forces - after all, is it not true that it is opposition politicians who have been forceful persuaders and enablers of military intervention.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting the civilian governments deserve to be overthrown, I'm only suggesting that we be mindful that these are complex undertakings with responsibility spread wide ---- Consider the case of our brother ally, China, it is an authoritarian regime, but it delivers - consider, would Pakistanis be reasonably satisfied with a authoritarian regime that delivered a better life, stability in the political arena, a booming economy security in the streets, more rather than less justice in courts, Education for all, jobs for all who seek them --My bet would be that Pakistanis would take such a deal.

only strong and free civil institutions like legislature, judiciary and executive can guarantee us what we are striving for...all we need to strengthen these institution is a 15 to 20 years long uninterrupted civilian rule

Honestly, we should have uninterrupted civilians rule, but it's not too much to expect these rulers to understand that the purpose of government is not some religious faith, be it Islamism or Democracy or Communism - it is rather to deliver government services and fair playing field for all.

 

[Ahmad Abdullah Ravian]

We know the resent Failures of ISI and Army , but check its over all record ,compare its 50 years with other Armies
the point of Army is very Valid
they should be respected

Well should we not see the good side first !!!!!!

you see Mosaad, RAW,CIA level of action even against there own people
why not you and me stop blaming any one and see what we can do for our Pakistan And Islam , why not Rise to the top and Change the whole
Rather then Criticizing
Because if we Pakistanis Start hating Our own Army and Forces , there is no other one Left to be believed
who is in the army who is in ISI ????????
not India not USA
just WE!!!!! our fellow citizens !!!!!
no Doubt that Bad Guys and unworthy guys are every where
see the recent Firing on a young man By RANGERS
a very very Sad Incident
but what we will say
End the Rangers
no this is not Possible
who will look after the City after them
US ????
India???
no
the only Method is a Checking System a check on every Force Personals by the Forces and by the Civilians themselves
Regular Meetings can be Conducted Between Forces and Civilians Representatives and the System can run smoothly
It is what our Enemy not want to be Done
they want us indulged in our own Fights , lesser and lesser Trust on each other
and what will Happen? who will we trust after we Stop Trusting In fellow Pakistanis, Other Muslims Or Even In ALLAH , we will be Crushed by every one easily.
MAY ALLAH Keep Us to the Right path and keep PAKISTAN SAFE !!!!!

 

[Porus]

@Muse

I beg to differ again with your stance on this subject. It is not that simple as you are putting it here.

Firstly, you can't compare China with Pakistan. Pakistan was not created by the army junta, it came into being through a democratic process and the founders of this country believed in democracy whereas China was created by that very same party that has been ruling China since the inception of that country. Secondly, we have tried and tested (of course unwillingly) the military rule and the pompous generals have miserably failed to deliver what they vigorously promised in their first TV appearance. This is why I said in my previous post that even discussing this topic is the sheer waste of time because of obvious reasons.

There are some black sheep among politicians but they would be much exiguous in number had the military dictators not bred them for their own reasons.

 

[Riseup]

@Muse

There are some black sheep among politicians but they would be much exiguous in number had the military dictators not bred them for their own reasons.

@Porus

Can you provide us list of black sheeps, that you think black sheeps in politicans..

Hope this will so difficult question for you (because you can't count them )....

so i am asking you to please provide me list of white sheeps that you think white sheeps in politicians .....

Is it a difficult question too...

 

[Xeric]

(oh wait, that would have meant a "smart" army and we can't have that because we are dumb)

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, right?

To make a smarter Army that'll serve, you need better and smarter Pakistanis. And this forms part of our (political) leadership's job description. Oh wait, that would have meant a 'smarter' Nation, Govt and Local Populace (not expats).


Re:

a smart Pakistan army, always steps ahead of events

A smart Army without a smart Nation, rulers and civilian society, right?

How is this going to work? Doesnt this supposed to work the other way round?

Nation makes/build/form an Army not vice versa, so you get (and no wonder are still getting) what exactly you deserved, why BMCing now?

 

[Xeric]

i dont get it...

Democratic process - army coups

The second last 'coup' ended in 1988 and the last one in 2007, my concern is, what did the democratic process delivered between '88 - '99 and '07 - todate?

Judiciary - army interference, Bhutto hanging to the latest one

It has been decades since such an interference was recorded, my concern again, what or should i say how much (as the judiciary did deliver something) the judiciary has delivered since then. Or did you forget that the latest interference with the judiciary was done by Zardari himself when he refused to the restoration of CJP, another glaring interference was by Nawaz himself when he stormed them with stones, this is notwithstanding the fact that Musharraf did deposed the CJP, but then he faced the music for it, did not he?

Education - Zia's brilliant contribution

Since 9/11 how many madrassas had military's patronage? Do you no know of how many (militant) organization were banned since then? Now you can question the 'effectiveness' of these actions, but then i hope you agree that this isnt an overnight process, with issues like Kashmir lying in the pending tray (i hope this doesnt derail the thread), Americans allowing (an unchecked) indian influence in Afghanistan and the yanks 'keep pushing us against the wall' attitude, seriously, these would take alot more time to settle then perceived.

Media - only this month many reporters have narrated their own experiences of army / ISI interference

Na kar fateh....

Our 'untamed' media is like a mad horse today. The kind of scrutiny they place the military under was unheard of in the past. Dont get carried away with the incidents like Shahzad, or else had the military being interfering with the media, Musey wouldnt have much to copy paste (the articles) here on PDF and this current like thread would have dried off since long.

These institutions have suffered greatly, yes and Army IS responsible.

No!

They themselves are. No one stops the govt from broadening the tax base, no one bars the govt from bring Pak Steel, Pak Rail, Pak Air etc back on track, no one stops the govt to try Musharrafs under Article 6, no one stops the govt from taking charge of the affairs and shoulder the responsibilities. Is it the military that stops the govt from ordering it to shoot down drones, or go in NWA or reduce the military budget etc?

Sure govts are corrupt, bureaucrats are incomepetent, judges can be influenced and media profit seeking, but the whole premise of my argument is that these things should improve with time, better education etc. These institutions put together are a check on each other. But these very basic requirements have been denied.

The media is freer then ever (this doesnt not need any proof)

The judiciary is competent and powerful then it ever was in the past (though this doesnt need any proof, but still the suo moto notices, raising of petitions against the govt organs, including the military, sacking of DG Rangers and IG Sindh (sarfraz killing issue), restoration of Geo Super transmission are a very few examples to quote). In short, today, no one inside Pakistan has the BALLS to confront the judiciary, it has become so 'lethal'

The military is no more interfering in govt affairs. (Operation in FATA was launched after GoP gave the military a go ahead, as opposed to what Musharraf did when he went inside Wana, the only fare and free elections in the history of Pakistan were held under the same very COAS whom all are b!!tching, moaning and complaining against, the military presented itself to the elected representatives this time like never before, if you remember Gen Kiyani called back each and every uniform (appointed by Musharraf) back from the civilian institutions the day he took charge, he has been going to the PM and President's Secretariats to brief the civilian leaders - something that is unprecedented in Pakistan etc etc). So what else do you want? G***do bun jaye kaya fauj?

So why still the BMCing?! Just because it has become a fashion and makes one look more patriotic and concerned for Pakistan?!

 

[kursed]

I've to say I like how Pakistanis, usually ones supportive of armed forces throwing away civilian governments, opt to give examples of the Chinese model of governance.

Pray tell if you have read about the four modernizations that China had gone through. And what PLA sacrificed, in order for the Chinese nation to be able to achieve its goals? Since we're talking about following the Chinese model here, let's get specific about it, shall we? After all, it will only serve the argument better if we don't pick and choose points, let's talk about the entire model of governance here.

In 1977-78 military and civilian leaders debated whether the military or the civilian economy should receive priority in allocating resources for the Four Modernizations. The military hoped for additional resources to promote its own modernization, while civilian leaders stressed the overall, balanced development of the economy, including civilian industry and science and technology. By arguing that a rapid military buildup would hinder the economy and harm the defense industrial base, civilian leaders convinced the PLA to accept the relegation of national defense to last place in the Four Modernizations. The defense budget accordingly was reduced. Nonetheless, the Chinese military and civilian leadership remained firmly committed to military modernization.

The 1979 Sino-Vietnamese border war, although only sixteen days long, revealed specific shortcomings in military capabilities and thus provided an additional impetus to the military modernization effort. The border war, the PLA's largest military operation since the Korean War, was essentially a limited, offensive, ground-force campaign. China claimed victory, but the war had mixed results militarily and politically. Although the numerically superior Chinese forces penetrated about fifty kilometers into Vietnam, the PLA sustained heavy casualties. PLA performance suffered from poor mobility, weak logistics, and outdated weaponry. Inadequate communications, an unclear chain of command, and the lack of military ranks also created confusion and adversely affected PLA combat effectiveness.

The military modernization begun in the late 1970s had three major focuses. First, under the political leadership of Deng Xiaoping, the military became disengaged from civilian politics and, for the most part, resumed the political quiescence that characterized its pre-Cultural Revolution role. Deng reestablished civilian control over the military by appointing his supporters to key military leadership positions, by reducing the scope of the PLA's domestic nonmilitary role, and by revitalizing the party political structure and ideological control system within the PLA.

Second, modernization required the reform of military organization, doctrine, education and training, and personnel policies to improve combat effectiveness in combined-arms warfare. Among the organizational reforms that were undertaken were the creation of the state Central Military Commission, the streamlining and reduction of superfluous PLA forces, civilianization of many PLA units, reorganization of military regions, formation of group armies, and enactment of the new Military Service Law in 1984. Doctrine, strategy, and tactics were revised under the rubric of "people's war under modern conditions," which envisaged a forward defense at selected locations near China's borders, to prevent attack on Chinese cities and industrial sites, and emphasized operations using combined-arms tactics. Reforms in education and training emphasized improving the military skills and raising the education levels of officers and troops and conducting combinedarms operations. New personnel policies required upgrading the quality of PLA recruits and officer candidates, improving conditions of service, changing promotion practices to stress professional competence, and providing new uniforms and insignia.

The third focus of military modernization was the transformation of the defense establishment into a system capable of independently maintaining a modern military force. As military expenditures remained relatively constant, reforms concentrated on reorganizing the defense research-and-development and industrial base to integrate civilian and military science and industry more closely. Foreign technology was used selectively to upgrade weapons. Defense industry reforms also resulted in China's entry into the international arms market and the increased production of civilian goods by defense industries. The scope of PLA economic activities was reduced, but the military continued to participate in infrastructure development projects and initiated a program to provide demobilized soldiers with skills useful in the civilian economy.

Political Role of the People's Liberation Army

Deng Xiaoping's efforts in the 1980s to reduce the political role of the military stemmed from his desire to reassert civilian control over the military and to promote military modernization. To accomplish his objectives, Deng revitalized the civilian party apparatus and leadership and built a consensus on the direction of national policy. He also established personal control over the military through personnel changes, and he reduced the scope of the PLA's domestic political, economic, and social roles. Finally, he strengthened party control over the military through institutional reforms and political and ideological education. The revitalization of the party and the establishment of a consensus on national policy assured top military leaders of political stability and a vigorous party capable of handling national and regional affairs without extensive military participation.

Deng's personal political control was established over the military through his assumption of the position of chairman of the party Central Military Commission in June 1981 and through his appointment of his supporters to key positions in the party Central Military Commission, Ministry of National Defense, and the PLA's General Staff Department, General Political Department, and General Logistics Department. Occasional replacement of military region and military district commanders also strengthened Deng's hand. Military leaders who objected to Deng's policies were replaced with more amenable personnel.

The creation of the state Central Military Commission in 1982 aimed to further strengthen civilian control over the military by stressing the PLA's role as defender of the state and by establishing another layer of supervision parallel to party supervision. The civilianization of several PLA corps and internal security units reduced the size of the PLA and the scope of its involvement in civilian affairs. The placement of defense industries under civilian control and the transfer or opening up of military facilities, such as airports and ports, to civilian authorities also limited the PLA's influence in economic and political matters. Propaganda using the PLA as a model for society also diminished, and emphasis was placed on the PLA's military rather than political role.

In addition to making personnel changes, Deng revitalized party control over the PLA and diffused the military's political power by designating provincial-level, municipal, district, and county party committee secretaries to serve concurrently as the first political commissars of their equivalent-level units in the regional PLA. The percentage of PLA personnel permitted to join the party was limited by restricting party membership to military academy graduates. Political and ideological training stressed the military rather than the social, ideological, or economic role of the PLA. Special effort was made to discredit the PLA's role in the Cultural Revolution; the PLA's support for the left was described as incorrect because it caused factionalism within the military. While emphasizing the necessity and appropriateness of reforms to modernize the military, political education also sought to guarantee military support for Deng's reform agenda. Beginning in 1983 a rectification campaign (part of the party-wide rectification campaign aimed primarily at leftists) reinforced this kind of political and ideological training.

Beginning in the late 1970s, Deng Xiaoping succeeded in decreasing military participation in national-level political bodies. Military representation on the Political Bureau fell from 52 percent in 1978 to 30 percent in 1982, and military membership in the party Central Committee declined from 30 percent in 1978 to 22 percent in 1982. Most professional military officers shared common views with the Deng leadership over military modernization and the fundamental direction of national policy, and they willingly limited their concerns to military matters. Nonetheless, some elements in the PLA continued to voice their opinions on nondefense matters and criticized the Deng reform program. Dissent centered on prestigious military leaders, notably Ye Jianying, who feared that ideological de-Maoification, cultural liberalization, and certain agricultural and industrial reforms deviated from Marxist values and ideals. The Deng leadership contained these criticisms with the help of the personnel changes, political education, and the rectification campaign just mentioned. In this way it was able to keep military dissent within bounds that did not adversely affect civil-military relations.

Source: WN

So, pray tell, if

1. Pakistan Army is ready for a substantial budgetary cut for a period of 20 years, so that money can be allocated to fields of science and technology and addressing health & social needs of the Pakistani nation.

2. Will it also agree to a particular civil-military political relationship like the one described in the excerpt quoted above (that's what PLA did in the larger interest of the Chinese nation).

3. Will the Pakistan Army allow you to enforce CCP's mode of governing?

4. If PA will follow PLA's promotion ladder program to become a member of the CMC?


Love how civilians are blamed for everything around in here. As if over 38 years of history are nothing more than just a watershed, which can be readily over come in the blink of an eye. =)

 

[muse]

Excellent advice the Army will not take:


Breaking the siege
By Syed Talat Hussain | From the Newspaper
(10 hours ago) Today

PAKISTAN`S military is under siege. Domestically, the media`s protest over the murder of Saleem Shahzad has rallied diverse forces to form a formidable front to bear down on the military high command.

Mian Nawaz Sharif`s renewal of criticism of the army`s role in politics and the puzzling delay in the formation of the judicial commission to investigate the slain journalist`s case, has kept the pot of army-bashing boiling. The PPP government has taken the convenient position of staying on the margins, and from the looks of it, is enjoying the sight of the army getting hit.

International pressure is also piling up. Reports of US information on Waziristan sanctuaries being leaked to militants have cemented the image of a mullah-military alliance. No less oppressive is the new debate in the American media about the weakening of Gen Ashfaq Kayani`s command over his own institution. New York Times

A news report last week spoke of the seething anger of top generals and junior officers. Written by Jane Perlez, the report quotes unnamed sources to rub in the point that Gen Kayani is faced with a mutiny of sorts — a coup within, as it were.

All this is happening in the backdrop of repeated violations of Pakistan`s north-western borders where hordes of militants attack villages with impunity, pillage, plunder and retreat to their hideouts in Afghanistan without inviting any punishment, causing further embarrassment to the army.

The deterioration in ties with Washington is adding to the burden of challenges. US officials are demanding more and delivering even less. They think that they have finally nailed the army, and more pressure would eventually get them closer to their goal of making Pakistan a more `manageable country`.

This is a serious situation. Unfortunately, so far the response of the military`s top brass has not been up to speed. They have been mostly silent and inward-looking at a time when they should be speaking forthrightly and engaging in the national debate about their role.

Just like the US, but far less intelligently, they are using media proxies to build a counter-narrative to the criticism they face, but without much effect. The bashing season continues unabated. The siege is still tight, the image battered.

Seeing themselves encircled and having to rely on an incompetent government for defence against mounting pressure has made the brass angrier. The controversial press release of June 9 at the end of the corps commanders meeting last week manifested this anger. It was bitter, a sign not of self-confidence but tension and nervousness.

A better, more practical response to these testing times has to focus primarily on the domestic front, which has become the slipperiest ground for the security apparatus. In order to hold firm against international schemes and to ward off blows from without, a conducive domestic environment is a must. Small steps can help build this environment.

First and foremost, the media debate can easily be turned around by candidly answering the questions surrounding Saleem Shahzad`s murder. This controversy has gone on for too long. Instead of losing steam, it has picked up momentum. Hunching up in the trenches in the hope that the storm will blow over is a vain and wasteful strategy.

If Saleem was killed by the agencies` goons then it is time to catch hold of them rather than protect them. If the accusation is false and baseless, it should be convincingly countered at the highest level, perhaps by the DG ISI or the army chief himself. Disinfecting the domestic environment of suspicion is absolutely necessary to restore public trust. And this will not happen by issuing belated press releases.

The murder of the youth at the hands of the Rangers can be cited here. The timely removal of the DG Rangers and the IG Sindh has brought to an end a controversy which at one point had started to engulf the whole institution. Saleem Shahzad`s murder case needs similar closure. It cannot be shovelled off into oblivion.

The second step the security establishment can take to soften the siege around it is to do a better job of explaining to the public and public representatives the threat scenario that Pakistan faces.

The debate on the vast array of threats is still a closely guarded secret that is only discussed at corps commanders` gatherings. Outside, in the public sphere, there is speculation, sensationalism or selective understanding of issues. This holding back of information is least helpful in establishing a connection of trust with the public.

From attacks on Pakistan`s border villages to charges that the army helped the Taliban vacate sanctuaries in Waziristan, everything is enveloped in mystery. No timely official word is ever uttered on these supremely important matters.

In this situation, how can an ill-informed public and public representatives relate to the occasional cry of `Pakistan is in danger` that official quarters let out? The security apparatus has to become news-active, no matter how bad the news is.

The third and the most important step is for the security establishment to realise the new dynamics in Pakistan. Fast information flow, through the social and mainstream media, has created a vast network of shared values, demands and grievances.

It is next to impossible for any institution to claim or enjoy a special status. No authority is beyond public challenge and scrutiny. Judges, journalists, politicians, businessmen, landlords are all under the spotlight.

Only urban terrorists and criminal groups, who kill inquiry and eliminate dissent, are escaping this examination, but that too is temporary respite. This national movement towards transparency cannot be resisted.

The army cannot afford to be an isolated island of absolute power and pelf. It must seriously revisit its corporate interests and begin to relate to the world outside cantonments. The path to breaking the siege and to dealing with international designs on Pakistan begins at home.

 

[muse]

And there is also this, whereby any resetting there is to be done is to be done by the civilians - the Horrible Hindus next door you know, we've got to keep an eye on those slippery so and so's - and in the process confuse the public and forget all about this little "tamasha" -- Oh and there is a class warfare analysis thrown in as well, you got to keep that crowd engaged:


Resetting civil-military relationship

Asif Ezdi
Monday, June 20, 2011

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service.

If there is anything positive that has resulted from the Abbottabad raid, it is that it has triggered an unprecedented nation-wide demand that the country’s armed forces be made fully accountable to the elected civilian authorities. This demand assumed the proportions of a crescendo after the daring terrorist attack on the Mehran naval base three weeks later which exposed some striking gaps in the security of the country’s defence installations. In the US military operation that killed Osama, the invading force came from the world’s only superpower. The Mehran raid was in one sense even more alarming because it made our armed forces look helpless even in the face of a handful of locally trained and equipped suicide commandos.

Even before these two disasters, the military’s public standing had been dented by its ambivalence on US drone attacks and by the mishandling of the Raymond Davis case. As if all this was not enough, the perception that the ISI was behind the murder of Saleem Shahzad finally seems to have broken the long-standing taboo that shielded the military from the oversight of the civilian authorities and the scrutiny of the media.

In response to the public demand for uncovering the truth behind these fiascos, the government has set up – or promised the setting up of – commissions of inquiry. If the purpose was to defuse the public pressure, the move is unlikely to succeed. There is a perception that the government, for its own political reasons, would like to protect the armed forces from an inquiry that exposes their failings before the whole world. The military has received support from some unlikely quarters. None other than Fazlur Rahman has come out against the Abbottabad commission, arguing that if it finds the military to be at fault, Pakistan will suffer. That may or may not be a smart political move on the part of the JUI-F leader, but the fact is that a cover-up will help neither the military, nor the country. It will only further erode the standing of the country’s defence forces in a public already angered at seeing the army and especially the ISI acting as a law unto itself.

Nevertheless, some of the debate in the wake of Abbottabad on the army’s role in national life has been characterised more by fiery rhetoric rather than the thoughtful deliberation that we need. Typical of the invective being spewed these days by some of our commentators is the outburst denounced the army generals as “political duffers” who support and encourage terrorism and the calls for saving the people of Pakistan from such an army and daring it to “win a war.”

Viewed against the background of vituperations of this kind, the statement issued by the corps commanders on 9 June expressing regret that some quarters were trying to deliberately run down the armed forces in general and the army in particular, was a model of restraint and statesmanship. The army also did well to point out that it will defer to the findings of the Abbottabad inquiry commission.

That does not of course mean that all criticism of the military is unpatriotic. The Abbottabad and Mehran raids brought to the fore some of the weaknesses but there is a lot more that needs to be fixed. These issues should be debated openly and without any taboos.

One such area is the lucrative perks accumulated over the years by the top brass, such as gifts of agricultural land, plots in urban housing estates, shares in business ventures and exclusive golf courses for the recreation of the senior officers. The taxpayer has a right to ask how these hefty rewards are contributing to the country’s defence.

But those who argue that the threat from India has been invented or exaggerated by the military to justify high defence outlays are either naïve or perverse. The Indian threat has no doubt receded since Pakistan acquired a nuclear deterrent but it has not vanished. India has responded to the nuclear environment by developing the Cold Start doctrine. Unveiled in 2004, it envisions about eight division-size armoured battle groups, backed by air power and advanced reconnaissance capabilities, carrying out lightning strikes inside Pakistani territory and holding key pockets. The Hind Shakti war exercise conducted by the Indian army last May in the plains of Indian Punjab was intended to fine-tune this proactive strategy.

The ordinary people of Pakistan have never shrunk from making the sacrifice necessary – “eating grass” in Bhutto’s words – to defend their country. The problem is with the small ruling elite which brazenly refuses to pay its due share of the taxes. It is this class and its allies that have recently become the main critics of Pakistan’s defence budget.

While playing down the Indian threat or denying its existence, this same class has declared that the primary danger facing the country is terrorism; that this problem has been created by the army’s sponsorship of militant proxies to fight the jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir; and that it is now for the army to crush them through military force. This is a line which is in tune with the current US policies in the region.

But both the diagnosis and the prescription are wrong. The breeding ground for terrorism has in reality been provided by the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. People like Ilyas Kashmiri who take up arms against the state are not suffering from some genetic defect. They have been driven to it by the attempt of the ruling class to perpetuate the current unjust and repressive economic and social order. The army is being used by the ruling class to do its dirty work. How dirty it can get was shown in a video recording of the execution by army personnel of some suspected Taliban captives in Swat last year.

Establishing civilian authority over the military will require not only a change in the military mind-set as Nawaz Sharif has been calling for in his thunderous speeches but also vastly improved performance by the civilian institutions and organs of the state. If the military has in the past been able to grab the space reserved for the civilians, the fault lies in no small measure with our politicians.

In an unusual speech in the National Assembly on 11 June, a PML-N member said that two-thirds of the 342 members of the house do not pay their taxes, though many of them use expensive luxury cars. He wondered how their preaching could be meaningful unless they themselves set an example of honesty. Not surprisingly, his words fell on deaf ears in the august house.

But outside the Parliament, questions are increasingly being put by the people why a tiny predatory class has been given the license to plunder the national wealth. Why is Pakistan probably the only country in the world where the poor man subsidises the rich man through the tax system? What business do those who themselves cheat on taxes have to impose them on others? And what right do they have to pass the budget?

If we are to establish civilian control over the military, we will also have to purge our political institutions of such people. Making the armed forces respect the red lines of the constitution will not be enough.

Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com

 

[muse]

Friends:

You are all familiar with threads seeking a reconsideration of the security paradigm and seeking reforms and innovation to deal with a security paradigm that does not have India at it's core, but the threat that seeks to destroy, to erase the Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Quaid e Azam, created - some have reacted poorly to this, others have realized that we need a far more complex notion of national security and threat evaluation - your kind consideration and comments are requested for the piece below:



‘Psy-war’ against the armed forces
Naeem Tahir



The armed forces have been put under the weather recently. It is primarily a success of the perception management strategists of the Taliban. The Taliban and al Qaeda groups faced a decisive defeat in Swat and South Waziristan. The army saved the country from near devastation and subversion by al Qaeda/Taliban militants. It hurt them. It hurt them so hard that they did not know how to react for a while. The Pakistan army’s soldiers had literally gone into a hand-to-hand fight, bullet for bullet and body for body. It was now or never. It is estimated that over 5,000 troops laid down their lives to save the country and their homeland from terrorists wearing the garb of a new ‘Islam’. They gave the ultimate sacrifice. The terror network had to scramble, hide, and then hit wherever it could. But they had lost the massive terrorist onslaught capability that had killed over 30,000 Pakistani civilians. Terrorists destroyed happy homes and left bloodstains on the walls, and deep wounds in the psyche of the nation. Such wounds take a long time to heal. The families of the shuhada (martyrs) will courageously hold their heads high in pride and honour and move on with life as time passes. Of course time is a great healer.

All that the soldiers did was in the line of duty and for their homeland. But some ‘friendly fire’ accompanied. The ‘friendly fire’ came from ‘drones’. They spotted the terror leaders with precision, mostly under protection of diehard companions, hit them and killed. In this way they eliminated most of the leadership of terror groups. But these ‘drone’ attacks by the US agency CIA had an inherent danger. It was managed and operated by a foreign power, the US, which is easily exploitable.

That the terror groups are heavily manned by foreigners should never be lost sight of. They are also funded and controlled by foreign groups. In the battle on the ground, the Pakistan Army did a great job and succeeded. Drones helped; they caused some collateral damage in life and property but caused potential damage to the terrorists in the public perception.

In this situation, the remaining terrorist and pro-Taliban groups devised an alternate strategy. What they had lost in the field, they wanted to win in perception. Very cleverly they started with the ‘drones’. American drones hurt them a lot. So the focus of huge publicity was that a ‘foreign’ power was interfering and killing ‘Pakistanis’ through drones. Since the drones were not Pakistani, the label that ‘Pakistanis’ are being killed by ‘foreigners’ stuck. The Pakistanis are an emotional people and get easily carried away in the name of ‘honour’. They kill their kith and kin and particularly their women if their ‘honour’ is perceived to be at stake. Therefore, a strong popular sentiment against drone strikes developed. The strategists of ‘psy-war’ were getting close to what they wanted. The usual gallery of rightists, plus Imran Khan and Mian sahib joined the chorus, because the rightists are part of their vote bank. The number of people ‘soft’ on the Taliban is large and if they are diverted from the memory of the killings by the terrorists, then they end up in supporting action. They feel that they are perhaps doing some ‘service’ to Islam, and in this particular case, also to the national honour.

In reality, the terrorists or no different from one another anywhere. They work for the hegemony of a group. Historically, the Aryans have done it, Christians have done it, Jews have done it and Hindus have done it, and Muslims have done it too. But all such people violated the peaceful teaching of their religion and exploited religious and national sentiments to expand their influence. Desire for money, sex, power — all human weaknesses are exploited, no holds barred.

In our case, the magic combination was ‘honour’, ‘sovereignty’, and ‘religious sentiment’. It was fully exploited and funded by mysterious sources. Everyone suddenly became patriotic and did not want ‘foreign interference’. On top of it, the Osama episode occurred. Osama was lost to the terrorists but the intrusion by American helicopters and the so-called inability of our armed forces to check them provided the ‘psy-war’ machine with a wealth of data to exploit. They used it against the army to the hilt. The Pakistan Army being the only real barrier against a terrorist onslaught is indeed the most significant of the terrorists’ targets.

The terror ‘psy-war’ specialists made the majority of Pakistanis overlook the fact that 30,000 civilians and 5,000 army men were also killed because of the interference of the ‘terrorist foreigners’. It is hard to give them a recognisable face like the ‘Americans’. The ‘terrorist foreigner’ is a combination put together and made faceless except in cases where they grow unkempt beards to camouflage themselves. In this ‘psy-war’, all the sleeper cells have been activated even within the army and the rest of the establishment. The height of their achievement is that in the Mehran terror attack, the only thing that was highlighted was the air force-navy ‘negligence’, disregarding the efficacy of the Eurasian terrorists.

It is the ‘psy-war’ that we need to fight and make a counter-attack. We can win it; it is not too late if we plan now and use the real data. We have to recognise and expose the foreign hand convincingly; no use being modest or shy. After all, it is a war. We need to watch the enemy within, even those whose minds were influenced in Zia’s regime of terror. Thinking people need to take a step back and introspect. Most importantly, politicians need to realise that this is not the time to buy votes at any price. I request them to please expose the terror framework and stop calling it somebody else’s war. It has been our blood on the soil.

The writer is a culture and media management specialist, a researcher, author, director and actor