Raheel Sharif Vs Kayani: Difference in perception

[SipahSalar]

What do you guys think makes the two COAS different? In my opinion its where they worked and under what environment they worked.

Kayani served as DG ISI. He knew the inner workings of Pakistan not visible to others. He carried on this perception of Pakistan under constant existential threat into his COAS role. He therefore probably believed in good taliban vs bad taliban, since he probably dealt with them. He knew how much control he had over who. Who was out of control and who needed to be taken care of. Whether they had any use for Pakistan or not. He had all under a magnifying glass.

Raheel Sharif is a pure soldier. He served as IG training and evaluation. Had a major role in formulating doctrines and training to tackle terrorism. In this role he always viewed the taliban as terrorists because he was constantly devising plans against them. They were always a threat to him. He didn't know the inner workings of ISI. He carried over this perception into COAS and you can see it in his actions.

Conclusion: Both are patriots and did what they thought was best for the country.

 

[tarrar]

Gen. Kayani was corrupt, he supported the corrupt, stood by the corrupt & was part of DEMOCRAZY, he did not support democracy he supported DEMOCRAZY. PA suffered a lot in his & military was divided because of him. He did nothing against rented terrorists.

Gen. Raheel so far is doing a good job & I hope he does what is good for Pakistan & he does not walk on Gen. Kayanis foot print.

 

[SipahSalar]

Gen. Kayani was corrupt, he supported the corrupt, stood by the corrupt & was part of DEMOCRAZY

Should he have implemented Martial Law as 80% of Pakistan wanted? Should he have started the crazy cycle of military rule again? Trust me it was harder for him not to take over govt rather than taking over govt. If he had removed Zardari, all of Pakistan would have applauded him. He had to face a lot of opposition, and in the end you will see that it benefited Pakistan.

 

[airmarshal]

What do you guys think makes the two COAS different? In my opinion its where they worked and under what environment they worked.

Kayani served as DG ISI. He knew the inner workings of Pakistan not visible to others. He carried on this perception of Pakistan under constant existential threat into his COAS role. He therefore probably believed in good taliban vs bad taliban, since he probably dealt with them. He knew how much control he had over who. Who was out of control and who needed to be taken care of. Whether they had any use for Pakistan or not. He had all under a magnifying glass.

Raheel Sharif is a pure soldier. He served as IG training and evaluation. Had a major role in formulating doctrines and training to tackle terrorism. In this role he always viewed the taliban as terrorists because he was constantly devising plans against them. They were always a threat to him. He didn't know the inner workings of ISI. He carried over this perception into COAS and you can see it in his actions.

Conclusion: Both are patriots and did what they thought was best for the country.

I agree but the comparison between the two is not on patriotism so take that out of the question. The comparison is on action taken and what benfited the country and what the country needed.

 

[saiyan0321]

Well yes they both have different ways of working and its showing that both of them had different methods of dealings with things. for example raheel sharif openly told nawaz sharif that they are starting zarb-e-azb and time for talks is over while kiyani even after memogate didnt try to demean the political institution of pakistan.

Both are important in their own aspects.

Kiyani was perhaps extremely important in improving the armies image which was truly in the mud after musharraf era and he did it perfectly and reignited the love amongst the people. He also De-politicized the army which can go a long way for pakistan to enter its democratic stage and he also focused on improving the armies image in Balochistan however the operation in kiyani,s time was was not completely focused like zarb-e-azb and he was one might see too lenient in his approach with the politicians which resulted in the army operations being constraint in his time.

Raheel sharif although has not implemented the martial law or anything but he has been firm with the govt and kept the reigns on them. In his tenure pakistan has started a very successful operation zarb-e-azb which has resulted in clearing of 90 percent of waziristan and over 1200 terrorists being sent to hell.

Kiyani acted alot like how you would expect an army chief of a democratic country to act like however raheel sharif treats the army as an institution that is equivalent and away from the govt sector ( which dont get me wrong is how i want the army to approach this as i dont want them in power but i also dont want them under the control of politicians).

Like i said both were instrumental for pakistan and took steps for the better future of pakistan. Kiyani has his heroics in damage control and raheel has his heroics in confronting the terrorist menace.

 

[SipahSalar]

I agree but the comparison between the two is not on patriotism so take that out of the question. The comparison is on action taken and what benfited the country and what the country needed.

It won't be possible to make a fair comparison till Gen. Sharif finishes his 3 years. Lets not forget that at the start people showed the same support for Gen. Kayani that people show for Gen. Sharif now.

 

[Sugarcane]

Kayani was no different than politician who look for own interests only at expense of public. Thank God that new chief is capable and working hard to clear up mess which kayani created

 

[dil_dil]

Should he have implemented Martial Law as 80% of Pakistan wanted? Should he have started the crazy cycle of military rule again? Trust me it was harder for him not to take over govt rather than taking over govt. If he had removed Zardari, all of Pakistan would have applauded him. He had to face a lot of opposition, and in the end you will see that it benefited Pakistan.

Raheel proved no matter who is ruling party they always get in line when needed. So blame goes to Kayani only.

 

[SipahSalar]

Kiyani was perhaps extremely important in improving the armies image which was truly in the mud after musharraf era and he did it perfectly and reignited the love amongst the people. He also De-politicized the army which can go a long way for pakistan to enter its democratic stage and he also focused on improving the armies image in Balochistan however the operation in kiyani,s time was was not completely focused like zarb-e-azb and he was one might see too lenient in his approach with the politicians which resulted in the army operations being constraint in his time.

I agree. I don't think he was too light on terrorists. I think his policy was :let the elected politicians make all the policies as its meant to be in a democracy. And the result was PPP ended up handing over Swat to TTP.

 

[saiyan0321]

I agree. I don't think he was too light on terrorists. I think his policy was :let the elected politicians make all the policies as its meant to be in a democracy. And the result was PPP ended up handing over Swat to TTP.

That was his lightness. he allowed courts to open missing persons cases and allowed many terrorists to be free and allowed govt to make decisions which resulted in many problems in NW operations. Like i said he was extremely democratic which could be the results of the horror he saw at the end of the musharraf era where everybody had animosity for the army and thus he decided to out a crackdown on the army that they will become the army of a democratic nation.

The pro of this move was that army's image improved alot and we entered the stage of democracy even though many events like the memogate happened. His step of having a democratic army was a good step and has been effected in such a way that raheel sharif for all his hard nature has done nothing to effect N leagues rule and has worked with them albeit as equals and not under them.

I like raheels approach better and want the army to adopt this approach. The govt and army work their own workings as equal institutions and democracy runs in pakistan.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Surely Kiyani is great person, the tree he planted as COAS Gen Raheel is eating it's fruit if he would have been corrupt then surely the head lines would have been "President of Pakistan Gen AP kiyani today said blaa blaa"actually his all tenure was focused on image building of Army which is very important in COIN.

 

[rockstar08]

oh please never ever compare the Raheel Sharief to kiyani ..
Kiyani was COAS but his works were like a halwaldar ..

 

[Sage]

What do you guys think makes the two COAS different? In my opinion its where they worked and under what environment they worked.

Kayani served as DG ISI. He knew the inner workings of Pakistan not visible to others. He carried on this perception of Pakistan under constant existential threat into his COAS role. He therefore probably believed in good taliban vs bad taliban, since he probably dealt with them. He knew how much control he had over who. Who was out of control and who needed to be taken care of. Whether they had any use for Pakistan or not. He had all under a magnifying glass.

Raheel Sharif is a pure soldier. He served as IG training and evaluation. Had a major role in formulating doctrines and training to tackle terrorism. In this role he always viewed the taliban as terrorists because he was constantly devising plans against them. They were always a threat to him. He didn't know the inner workings of ISI. He carried over this perception into COAS and you can see it in his actions.

Conclusion: Both are patriots and did what they thought was best for the country.

Kiyani as COAS was never appreciated inside the intelligence circles for the reason that you have stated above ...the more fogs you create to a fight a war, the lesser becomes the chances of getting a major success ....this war could've been ended ...had Kiyani ordered the troops for South Waziristan ...Raheel can win this war....his DG ISI on the same page with him ...NS has accepted his demands ....within in 2 years ...we can achieve a very good ratio of success !

 

[Kharral]

I think Raheel Sharif sums up a typical Gujrati. Bold, not afraid of taking an initiative & never Passive

 

[SipahSalar]

Surely Kiyani is great person, the tree he planted as COAS Gen Raheel is eating it's fruit if he would have been corrupt then surely the head lines would have been "President of Pakistan Gen AP kiyani today said blaa blaa"actually his all tenure was focused on image building of Army which is very important in COIN.

Very well put. If he had been corrupt, ie desire for power and money. He would have been ruling Pakistan as President Kayani. He resisted the urge to grab power when whole nation was insisting on it, that speaks volumes for the man. As the famous saying goes:
If you want to test a man's character, give him power.