Pakistan's Overbearing Army
- Thread starter fatman17
- Start date
Captain03
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,244
- Reaction score
- 0
ur list was very long so i didnt read it fully but i'd like to state this:
democracy is very dangerous and can cause a nation to fall very quickly [it almost happened to the u.s. in their early stages but unlike us they had no interference in their affairs] so to keep the nation alive the army has to step in
that's what kayani has said and it makes a whole lotta sense
democracy is very dangerous and can cause a nation to fall very quickly [it almost happened to the u.s. in their early stages but unlike us they had no interference in their affairs] so to keep the nation alive the army has to step in
that's what kayani has said and it makes a whole lotta sense
Patriot
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2008
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 0
Please...The previous Pak Army Chief was not a Punjabi so i don't how Punjabi's can dominate Pakistan Army..
omairhr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 0
I am not anti-military. I am anti-military-running-country. I love and respect the jawaans protecting us, but the top brass of military gets which it does not deserve. Thats about it. I knew I would be accused of writing on false assumptions, that is exactly why I have provided credible references.
Only Railways, Wapda and District Administration gets banglows but that too built during the British time.
Doctrine of necessity point was a mistake of mine. Please delete that.
I am not saying that the $6 billion odd aid has been expropriated. I am just saying that Pakistan should say to the west that we have spent billions more protecting their interests in Pakistan.
What about the other points?
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Hon Sir,
To give a more lucid example as to why I accused you of being naïve.
Quote
4. Why is that when we travel from Lahore to Rawalpindi on GT Road, we can cross at least 5 major cantonment areas and if we travel from Delhi to Jaipur (almost the same distance) we do not see any cantonment area?
Unquote
Kindly look at the Pakistan map. We have no strategic depth. Therefore we can’t adopt the policy of letting the enemy come in and then cut off his supply lines. We therefore need to respond quickly. It takes time to move men and material to the front line. Pakistan has constructed cantonments close to the border and LOC. GT road runs practically parallel to LOC. Delhi to Jaipur road is a misguided comparison. Travel along the LOC in the Occupied Kashmir and you would see Indian Army everywhere. There are more troops in Occupied Kashmir that the total strength of PA.
I don’t have time to justify and rebut each and every point. You only read anti PA writers and refer to them. I hoped that you would analyse anti state and anti PA writings more closely and then decide what to believe. No one is entirely right and no one is entirely wrong, however facts can be twisted/ words taken out of contest by clever writers to prove their point. The motive is therefore far more important. Just to illustrate how mischievous writers can use references;
I read the book by Maulana Farooqi called “Shia’s are Muslim or kafir, you decide”. In this the evil writer gives references to one aalim each century who issue fatwa that Shias are waajib ul qatal. In any given century there must have been thousands of Muslin aalims who taught otherwise, however, all of those are ignored but only some unknown bigot selected for reference. Gullible readers could believe that every century Shias have been declared waajibul qatal by ulemas. This is far from the truth. IMO your references are similar in nature. There are many writers who hold different views to the ones you quote.
You are however welcome to your views. I have nothing more to say on this subject.
omairhr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 0
The cantonment areas I am talking about are mostly residential areas with a lot of civilians living in them. I have no issues with Army barracks or units stationed along GT Road.
I did not give any statement which is anti PA. I am asking questions and not making any judgment. If anyone can help me answer these questions, I would be glad to accept that help.
The people I quoted are well know and respected historians. And I am desperate to find references which rebut them.
Please keep your mind open about this issue.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Not that I support military dictators, an article published in todays' The News make a worth while read.
Why I miss Musharraf
Part I
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Salman K Chima
When General Musharraf seized power, I was not among those who welcomed him although with Justice Tarrar as the President and Shariat Amendment Bill to the Constitution awaiting approval by the Senate, Pakistan was on the verge of being a theocratic state. Why did I oppose Musharraf? Because his rule was undemocratic and unconstitutional.
Yet, today I willingly acknowledge Musharraf. The choice of his successor in the Presidency is reason enough to remember him. But I praise him for the freedom Pakistan breathed under him; for the fact that he did not feel entitled to extra reward for his services. Even his worst detractors do not accuse him of personal corruption. This in a country where rulers have chosen to place their hard earned money in Swiss accounts.
Despite my initial opposition, I would have set the following agenda for the general: 1 . Cleanse the army of the jihadi elements inducted by General Zia. 2. Free the media. 3. Initiate meaningful steps to emancipate women. 4. Bring the minorities into the mainstream of politics. 5. Implement balanced and across the board accountability.
Before we address whether the general delivered, there is an important preliminary matter that needs to be sorted out.
My initial opposition to Musharraf was based on his takeover being unconstitutional and undemocratic. These are of course compelling arguments to oppose a regime, but one must not forget that even Adolph Hitler was popularly elected and had a constitution of sorts. So there is surely a higher principle by which to judge a government - constitution and democracy cannot be the decisive benchmarks.
The decisive benchmark to me is the freedom a regime is prepared to extend to its subjects. Constitutions and democracies represent good forms of government only insofar as they are able to preserve the inherent right of all citizens to be free.
It is against this yardstick that 19th century America fails; as does Hitler's Third Reich - despite being blessed with constitutional and democratic rule. Paradoxically, it is against this higher principle that Musharraf wins.
Reverting to his performance, my first agenda point was the cleansing of the Pakistan Army of jihadi elements. While the 'war on terror' was not visible in 1999, however Pakistanis were acutely aware of the growing Talibanisation around them. The Taliban were ruling Afghanistan and one could predict that a war would have to be fought with their way of thinking within Pakistan.
This war against Talibanisation could scarcely be fought without Pakistan Army. It is also axiomatic that the Pakistan Army inherited from General Zia and his successors was ill equipped to fight this war. So, the first agenda item: to rinse out the Taliban elements from the institution. This may sound an easy task, but remember that the generals who brought Musharraf to power were differently inclined.
Was the task accomplished? Consider: From the first day of Musharraf's rule, General Hameed Gul has been his most vocal critic. Could this be attributed to Gul's love for democracy and constitution or simply resentment at the restructuring of Pakistan Army -- contrary to Gul's desire? Could the present fighting in Bajaur and elsewhere have been possible without deep structural changes in the army? Do not the terrorist attacks afflicting Pakistan indicate the Taliban elements are no longer reacting to Musharraf but to the restructuring put in place by him? The profile of the Pakistan Army's top leadership has been reformed in the last nine years but, the restructuring has virtually gone unappreciated since it took shape away from public eye.
Moving on to freedom of media, one should not have to recount evidence to establish how truly free media was under Musharraf. So let me address some unfair commentaries offered by the General's critics. First, that he did not have a choice; with the advent of satellite TV (which can be beamed from outside the jurisdiction) Musharraf could not have shielded himself from media scrutiny. True, but why is the same freedom not witnessed in Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar, Iran etc. The government has many ways of curbing media freedom, for instance, not only is the government an important client of all the media houses in terms of advertisement but also runs its own TV channels which can make lucrative offers to the more vocal critics.
Second, the aftermath of Nov 3, 2007: Critics allege if Musharraf believed in media freedom, he would not have curbed it after Nov 3. The argument is fair, but needs to be put in perspective. The period between November 3 and 13, 2007 is admittedly the 'darkest period' of Musharraf's regime from the media freedom perspective. It would perhaps be unfair to judge Musharraf by reference to this period alone.
But how bad was this period really? Let us do a litmus test. Pick a day and newspaper of our choice during this period. Go through this newspaper and select one article which we feel is most critical of Musharraf. Now go through every publication in Pakistan between August 14, 1947 and October 12, 1999 to ascertain how many articles in this period match up to the one we just identified. What are the odds we will find even one?! Does that tell us something about Musharraf's 'darkest period'?
Coming next to emancipation of women, unlike media freedom it must be acknowledged that this did not witness any giant leaps during Musharraf's time. But this task is going to require many generations such being the state of affairs. Yet, one was entitled to ask for some acts (even if symbolic) to set the direction right. It is in this perspective that the following steps may be recounted.
There was a substantial increase in women's representation in the assemblies. Women not only add value in the assemblies but also their representation gradually changes the society's mindset. The 'Sword of Honor' was awarded by the Pakistan Air Force Academy to a lady cadet. The Women's Protection Act - a long overdue amendment to soften a retrogressive law legislated by Zia- was passed as well.
One does regret the General's statement before the American press regarding Mukhtar Mai case. But even here one must not be cruel in judging him.
A detailed study of the LHC judgement reveals that there is indeed another side to the story: Mukhtar Mai may have willingly married the main accused. She at least admitted before the court that she would have been prepared to marry him, in exchange for the main accused's sister marrying her own brother. According to the defense version, this is exactly what happened and she only recorded the FIR once the main accused's sister (contrary to the agreement) was married to someone else. The record also shows that no visible injuries (except a relatively minor abrasion) were seen on Mukhtar Mai during medical examination which took place about eight days after the alleged incident. Mukhtar Mai also admitted that the accused were financially weaker than her own family. Fortunately the matter is before the Supreme Court, and they will put this controversy to rest.
Was not Musharraf advised that the defence version was not entirely baseless? As the country's president, he may have felt agitated by the adverse publicity this case was getting outside Pakistan.
The next agenda point, the minorities: They have been relegated to second class citizenship, particularly since the times of General Zia. Musharraf introduced joint and yet separate electorates for minorities - giving them two votes, one in the general election and one for their own reserved seats. However, after the 17th Amendment, the minorities now only vote in the general election, and their reserved seats are filled by political parties according to their representation in the assembly.
Minorities are also particularly hard done by the Blasphemy Law. A person convicted of blasphemy must suffer (often the death penalty) because he has hurt the deepest feelings of the Muslim majority. But how can people's feelings take priority over a man's right to life or liberty. Musharraf only considered amending the procedural aspects of the law. He backtracked but only a person with the right orientation would even begin to conceive such a move. The other mentionable change (though subsequently reversed) was the removal of the religious column on the passport. He backtracked on this but who else even made an effort.
(To be continued)
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer.
Why I miss Musharraf
Why I miss Musharraf
Part I
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Salman K Chima
When General Musharraf seized power, I was not among those who welcomed him although with Justice Tarrar as the President and Shariat Amendment Bill to the Constitution awaiting approval by the Senate, Pakistan was on the verge of being a theocratic state. Why did I oppose Musharraf? Because his rule was undemocratic and unconstitutional.
Yet, today I willingly acknowledge Musharraf. The choice of his successor in the Presidency is reason enough to remember him. But I praise him for the freedom Pakistan breathed under him; for the fact that he did not feel entitled to extra reward for his services. Even his worst detractors do not accuse him of personal corruption. This in a country where rulers have chosen to place their hard earned money in Swiss accounts.
Despite my initial opposition, I would have set the following agenda for the general: 1 . Cleanse the army of the jihadi elements inducted by General Zia. 2. Free the media. 3. Initiate meaningful steps to emancipate women. 4. Bring the minorities into the mainstream of politics. 5. Implement balanced and across the board accountability.
Before we address whether the general delivered, there is an important preliminary matter that needs to be sorted out.
My initial opposition to Musharraf was based on his takeover being unconstitutional and undemocratic. These are of course compelling arguments to oppose a regime, but one must not forget that even Adolph Hitler was popularly elected and had a constitution of sorts. So there is surely a higher principle by which to judge a government - constitution and democracy cannot be the decisive benchmarks.
The decisive benchmark to me is the freedom a regime is prepared to extend to its subjects. Constitutions and democracies represent good forms of government only insofar as they are able to preserve the inherent right of all citizens to be free.
It is against this yardstick that 19th century America fails; as does Hitler's Third Reich - despite being blessed with constitutional and democratic rule. Paradoxically, it is against this higher principle that Musharraf wins.
Reverting to his performance, my first agenda point was the cleansing of the Pakistan Army of jihadi elements. While the 'war on terror' was not visible in 1999, however Pakistanis were acutely aware of the growing Talibanisation around them. The Taliban were ruling Afghanistan and one could predict that a war would have to be fought with their way of thinking within Pakistan.
This war against Talibanisation could scarcely be fought without Pakistan Army. It is also axiomatic that the Pakistan Army inherited from General Zia and his successors was ill equipped to fight this war. So, the first agenda item: to rinse out the Taliban elements from the institution. This may sound an easy task, but remember that the generals who brought Musharraf to power were differently inclined.
Was the task accomplished? Consider: From the first day of Musharraf's rule, General Hameed Gul has been his most vocal critic. Could this be attributed to Gul's love for democracy and constitution or simply resentment at the restructuring of Pakistan Army -- contrary to Gul's desire? Could the present fighting in Bajaur and elsewhere have been possible without deep structural changes in the army? Do not the terrorist attacks afflicting Pakistan indicate the Taliban elements are no longer reacting to Musharraf but to the restructuring put in place by him? The profile of the Pakistan Army's top leadership has been reformed in the last nine years but, the restructuring has virtually gone unappreciated since it took shape away from public eye.
Moving on to freedom of media, one should not have to recount evidence to establish how truly free media was under Musharraf. So let me address some unfair commentaries offered by the General's critics. First, that he did not have a choice; with the advent of satellite TV (which can be beamed from outside the jurisdiction) Musharraf could not have shielded himself from media scrutiny. True, but why is the same freedom not witnessed in Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar, Iran etc. The government has many ways of curbing media freedom, for instance, not only is the government an important client of all the media houses in terms of advertisement but also runs its own TV channels which can make lucrative offers to the more vocal critics.
Second, the aftermath of Nov 3, 2007: Critics allege if Musharraf believed in media freedom, he would not have curbed it after Nov 3. The argument is fair, but needs to be put in perspective. The period between November 3 and 13, 2007 is admittedly the 'darkest period' of Musharraf's regime from the media freedom perspective. It would perhaps be unfair to judge Musharraf by reference to this period alone.
But how bad was this period really? Let us do a litmus test. Pick a day and newspaper of our choice during this period. Go through this newspaper and select one article which we feel is most critical of Musharraf. Now go through every publication in Pakistan between August 14, 1947 and October 12, 1999 to ascertain how many articles in this period match up to the one we just identified. What are the odds we will find even one?! Does that tell us something about Musharraf's 'darkest period'?
Coming next to emancipation of women, unlike media freedom it must be acknowledged that this did not witness any giant leaps during Musharraf's time. But this task is going to require many generations such being the state of affairs. Yet, one was entitled to ask for some acts (even if symbolic) to set the direction right. It is in this perspective that the following steps may be recounted.
There was a substantial increase in women's representation in the assemblies. Women not only add value in the assemblies but also their representation gradually changes the society's mindset. The 'Sword of Honor' was awarded by the Pakistan Air Force Academy to a lady cadet. The Women's Protection Act - a long overdue amendment to soften a retrogressive law legislated by Zia- was passed as well.
One does regret the General's statement before the American press regarding Mukhtar Mai case. But even here one must not be cruel in judging him.
A detailed study of the LHC judgement reveals that there is indeed another side to the story: Mukhtar Mai may have willingly married the main accused. She at least admitted before the court that she would have been prepared to marry him, in exchange for the main accused's sister marrying her own brother. According to the defense version, this is exactly what happened and she only recorded the FIR once the main accused's sister (contrary to the agreement) was married to someone else. The record also shows that no visible injuries (except a relatively minor abrasion) were seen on Mukhtar Mai during medical examination which took place about eight days after the alleged incident. Mukhtar Mai also admitted that the accused were financially weaker than her own family. Fortunately the matter is before the Supreme Court, and they will put this controversy to rest.
Was not Musharraf advised that the defence version was not entirely baseless? As the country's president, he may have felt agitated by the adverse publicity this case was getting outside Pakistan.
The next agenda point, the minorities: They have been relegated to second class citizenship, particularly since the times of General Zia. Musharraf introduced joint and yet separate electorates for minorities - giving them two votes, one in the general election and one for their own reserved seats. However, after the 17th Amendment, the minorities now only vote in the general election, and their reserved seats are filled by political parties according to their representation in the assembly.
Minorities are also particularly hard done by the Blasphemy Law. A person convicted of blasphemy must suffer (often the death penalty) because he has hurt the deepest feelings of the Muslim majority. But how can people's feelings take priority over a man's right to life or liberty. Musharraf only considered amending the procedural aspects of the law. He backtracked but only a person with the right orientation would even begin to conceive such a move. The other mentionable change (though subsequently reversed) was the removal of the religious column on the passport. He backtracked on this but who else even made an effort.
(To be continued)
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer.
Why I miss Musharraf
notorious_eagle
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,666
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
With the sort of politicans we have, there is a reason why people of Pakistan trust the army more than the politicans.
rubyjackass
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
You don't have to be afraid of getting banned aslong you follow the forum rules...unless Neo is reading your post, then your in a unchartered territory.
Besides, if I'm not banned yet, your safe here.
I think Neo is the most tolerant of mods here.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
to the first, I swore allegiance to the constitution of pakistan (sounds corny but its true, and the way Gen.Zia treated a elected PM - I guess it was about principles and alot of my mates felt the same way. it not about western influence at all.)
to the second I think Mark Sein has replied adequately in his post!
Last edited by a moderator:
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
A powerful discussion which I regret joining late.
Nat'l security requires that force mixes and missions be continuously evaluated. Any officer truly commited to his/her nation will recognize that priorities shift and must hope for an agile military/civil leadership to meet changing needs.
There are a lot of issues being discussed here from subordination of the armed forces to civil authority to nat'l defense priorities to the relative quanitative and qualitative balance necessary to meet those needs and, I suppose, whether that can be resourced.
Modern armies are becoming smaller. Management efficiencies, technological achievements with weapons and munitions, and development, procurement, and human resource costs drive that. The human investment is extraordinary in a western culture with a competing civil market to attract talent. The outlays to his grave for an eighteen year old who makes a career of the armed forces and retires a 1st Sergeant (E-8) at 38 are staggering in our army and they aren't unusual.
Pakistan faces security issues like nothing faced by America. Your eastern borders face a hostile army of immense size and technical capability. They're quite good and increasingly are becoming even more so. No doubt that the Indian Army will face a slowdown in it's growth. I suspect everybody will with a global recession. Still, their forces are large and funded from a massively larger pool of capital.
Given available resources, Pakistan must weigh priorities and then weigh proper force mixes based on any re-orientation of objectives.
You must have a conventional deterrance yet can't likely match the Indians bullet for bullet-man for man. You must also have an army capable of conducting a counter-insurgency campaign with a decided kinetic edge over it's western adversaries and yet the sophistication and nuance to effectively relate to your western citizens and assist/promote social change.
As much as a change in role to a subordinate status under civilian authority, you must trust the constitutional processes for change (to include elections) and trust your citizens to exercise good judgement for your elected leaders. Where you can't trust the man, you must trust the ability for the government to change that man by election.
You must also trust the public's judgement when they refuse to do so to your satisfaction by electoral mechanisms.
All of this requires an officer corp prepared to divest itself from it's traditional sources of power and largesse. I don't know if it's possible but I'm heartened by the institutional controls that the PRC is slowly imposing upon the PLA and hope that something similar can come to past with Pakistan.
As with too much else, all this takes time. Certainly the electoral process does. It is, btw, only through the repeated exercise of these processes that they become embedded tenets of civic behavior.
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your views) the alternatives only offer more of the same. The system as constituted and previously practiced is proven dysfunctional. There's nothing behind you better than the future might offer through change and little choice but to do so wholeheartedly.
Nat'l security requires that force mixes and missions be continuously evaluated. Any officer truly commited to his/her nation will recognize that priorities shift and must hope for an agile military/civil leadership to meet changing needs.
There are a lot of issues being discussed here from subordination of the armed forces to civil authority to nat'l defense priorities to the relative quanitative and qualitative balance necessary to meet those needs and, I suppose, whether that can be resourced.
Modern armies are becoming smaller. Management efficiencies, technological achievements with weapons and munitions, and development, procurement, and human resource costs drive that. The human investment is extraordinary in a western culture with a competing civil market to attract talent. The outlays to his grave for an eighteen year old who makes a career of the armed forces and retires a 1st Sergeant (E-8) at 38 are staggering in our army and they aren't unusual.
Pakistan faces security issues like nothing faced by America. Your eastern borders face a hostile army of immense size and technical capability. They're quite good and increasingly are becoming even more so. No doubt that the Indian Army will face a slowdown in it's growth. I suspect everybody will with a global recession. Still, their forces are large and funded from a massively larger pool of capital.
Given available resources, Pakistan must weigh priorities and then weigh proper force mixes based on any re-orientation of objectives.
You must have a conventional deterrance yet can't likely match the Indians bullet for bullet-man for man. You must also have an army capable of conducting a counter-insurgency campaign with a decided kinetic edge over it's western adversaries and yet the sophistication and nuance to effectively relate to your western citizens and assist/promote social change.
As much as a change in role to a subordinate status under civilian authority, you must trust the constitutional processes for change (to include elections) and trust your citizens to exercise good judgement for your elected leaders. Where you can't trust the man, you must trust the ability for the government to change that man by election.
You must also trust the public's judgement when they refuse to do so to your satisfaction by electoral mechanisms.
All of this requires an officer corp prepared to divest itself from it's traditional sources of power and largesse. I don't know if it's possible but I'm heartened by the institutional controls that the PRC is slowly imposing upon the PLA and hope that something similar can come to past with Pakistan.
As with too much else, all this takes time. Certainly the electoral process does. It is, btw, only through the repeated exercise of these processes that they become embedded tenets of civic behavior.
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your views) the alternatives only offer more of the same. The system as constituted and previously practiced is proven dysfunctional. There's nothing behind you better than the future might offer through change and little choice but to do so wholeheartedly.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan's enemies see the armed forces as the crucial element that must be undermined if Pakistan is to be defanged.
Will reducing the size or reorganizing the armed forces or "sharing" power among 4 star generals offer a solution?? But what is the problem we must first articulate this clearly, before attempting any possible trial solution, we will be mindful that any trial solution or posible solution to problems will only lead to the creation of new problems, perhaps less dangerous, perhaps more dangerous.
Are Pakistan's problems other than a problem of it's klepto political class? Is it other than an enending fascination with socialist economics in the name of the "Awam"??
The Patriotic armed forces did this and they did that and they ruined this and that - rubbish!!! The Fauj were are and will continue to be the spine which allows Paistan to stand as a nation. So long as the these idiot politicians are not dealt with so long as the constitution cals fro a West Minster style of governance so long as economics are not seperated from emotional populism (read utopian) Pakistan's Patriotic Fauj will have to do double duty.
I would second Mark's comment with regard to a single party authoritarian (benevolent) system.
The Fauj is fat, of that there is little doubt, it is not as technically proficient as it ought to be, no doubt, it lacks training and firepower for the kind(s) of conflict forced upon it, no doubt - the source of Pakistan's woes? only to Pakistan's enemies. How disgusting, how obscene! that those whose life is a saga of sacrifice and service should now be tarred for at least trying to solve Pakistan's problems.
Will reducing the size or reorganizing the armed forces or "sharing" power among 4 star generals offer a solution?? But what is the problem we must first articulate this clearly, before attempting any possible trial solution, we will be mindful that any trial solution or posible solution to problems will only lead to the creation of new problems, perhaps less dangerous, perhaps more dangerous.
Are Pakistan's problems other than a problem of it's klepto political class? Is it other than an enending fascination with socialist economics in the name of the "Awam"??
The Patriotic armed forces did this and they did that and they ruined this and that - rubbish!!! The Fauj were are and will continue to be the spine which allows Paistan to stand as a nation. So long as the these idiot politicians are not dealt with so long as the constitution cals fro a West Minster style of governance so long as economics are not seperated from emotional populism (read utopian) Pakistan's Patriotic Fauj will have to do double duty.
I would second Mark's comment with regard to a single party authoritarian (benevolent) system.
The Fauj is fat, of that there is little doubt, it is not as technically proficient as it ought to be, no doubt, it lacks training and firepower for the kind(s) of conflict forced upon it, no doubt - the source of Pakistan's woes? only to Pakistan's enemies. How disgusting, how obscene! that those whose life is a saga of sacrifice and service should now be tarred for at least trying to solve Pakistan's problems.
omairhr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 0
Which of the politicians are in power in Pakistan is also at times 'directed' by the military. Remember IJI?
And if I do agree that Army is more trustworthy and efficient in governing Pakistan, what about the other points? Why is Army into businesses?
rubyjackass
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Please give more details about what aspects of Pakistan does its military control?
Pakistan must never reduce the quantity nor the quality of its armed forces, and it must never even think of giving up or reducing it's nuclear weapons. In that two week period that India was a declared nuclear weapons state and Pakistan wasn't, the whole world saw the kind of belligerent war-mongering that came out of India.
The fact of the matter is nuclear weapons in today's world act as the ultimate deterrent and political negotiating card and in the international arena they let you be taken seriously.
There's a lot of propaganda out there today to malign the armed forces of Pakistan, and the ISI, and the nuclear program and it's hero A Q Khan. Today we can see the whole world is slowly but surely politically allying against Pakistan, with the US and India leading the charge. This is because the military and the nuclear assets of Pakistan keep Pakistan from falling to Indian and US interests completely, and the US and India would not like to see a Pakistan capable of resisting Indian and US pressure in the region.
No doubt there is corruption and misuse and abuse among the generals in the military, and the politicians along with a lack of leadership. But let's not blame the entire military for the corruption and hypocrisy of a powerful few. The soldiers, pilots, sailors, scientists, technicians, mechanics, doctors, nurses, and analysts in our armed forces and the ISI are our first line of defense against the warmongering of foreign troops in Afghanistan and attacks on Pakistani soil in the northwest, and the Indians to our east, as well as the Israelis.
Those of us that can take action, take action, those of us that can speak, speak, and those of us that can only make dua, make dua, that Allah has Mercy on us and helps us to get better leaders and generals, sincere and honest, and true to their people and their country and to Allah. Ameen.
As someone once told me: "The best army in the world would have American weapons, Indian generals, and Pakistani soldiers."
The fact of the matter is nuclear weapons in today's world act as the ultimate deterrent and political negotiating card and in the international arena they let you be taken seriously.
There's a lot of propaganda out there today to malign the armed forces of Pakistan, and the ISI, and the nuclear program and it's hero A Q Khan. Today we can see the whole world is slowly but surely politically allying against Pakistan, with the US and India leading the charge. This is because the military and the nuclear assets of Pakistan keep Pakistan from falling to Indian and US interests completely, and the US and India would not like to see a Pakistan capable of resisting Indian and US pressure in the region.
No doubt there is corruption and misuse and abuse among the generals in the military, and the politicians along with a lack of leadership. But let's not blame the entire military for the corruption and hypocrisy of a powerful few. The soldiers, pilots, sailors, scientists, technicians, mechanics, doctors, nurses, and analysts in our armed forces and the ISI are our first line of defense against the warmongering of foreign troops in Afghanistan and attacks on Pakistani soil in the northwest, and the Indians to our east, as well as the Israelis.
Those of us that can take action, take action, those of us that can speak, speak, and those of us that can only make dua, make dua, that Allah has Mercy on us and helps us to get better leaders and generals, sincere and honest, and true to their people and their country and to Allah. Ameen.
As someone once told me: "The best army in the world would have American weapons, Indian generals, and Pakistani soldiers."
Similar threads
