What's new

Raheel Sharif Vs Kayani: Difference in perception

.
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 was more focused on improving Army image and bringing public and Army closure. Than he had to give support to a moron Zardari because at that time there was massive support for deaf dumb democracy as Musharraf disasters were still fresh in mind, and finally he was too cool minded sort of person. Now we come to Raheel as Army image has improved he now wants to first take out TTP and BLA than focus on our beloved sweetheart India, and he is far more aggressive than Kiyani some times a lot more than required. @Horus
 
. .
The head does not really matter, its taken time but PA has understood how to fight terrorism and influence public perception by consistent and fair decisions.

Kayani's reserved approach has been the catalyst for the aggressive PA under Sharif.
 
.
Hi,

Corps commanders is a yes mans show----it a yessir yessir army---like the pakistani culture--yessir yessir----sub theek hai sir--......

---.
They may say "Yes Sir" bro

They may
But their top tier meetings are frank and open.
They may be based on wrong plan, or bad history

But they are frank and open. and the decsion taken by COAS is the result of collective agreement.



Hi,


Sir,

It is not a matter of deciding on his own----when you the leader is a coward---the others associated with you also act like one----it s all about job security---who wants to be fired from the job of a general----a good retirement and a cushy job after retirement---.

The examples are in front of you---Tommy Franks, John Abizaid, Mullen---. McCrystal ( I believe that is the right name )the best of them spoke out and got fired---and these are the generals of the largest and democratic super power---and 3 out of four were yes men---aka cowards---.

My dear bro

I have studied the commanders you talk about.

Sorry I do not agree with you because you are comparing two different cultures.

American commanders who make it to the top are as much "yes men" as most of the "English style" armies (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NewZealand, Pakistan, and India).

Happy New Year.
 
.
i dont think so there is a need to compare both of the chiefs. Mr. kiyani whatever he did that was the need of hour . no doubt he was not a aggressive person and at some issues he didnt clarify his side but he did his best to beleive people in army and he built good trust between army and nation. he also done some mitakes but cant say he was a flop. on the other hand Mr. raheel is a aggressive personality. his mind and aim is clear and he has deep concern to the security and the expectations of the nation. he is straight forwad to govt. n also his own army institute.
but i will say both have their gud ones so dont have a comparing in terms of gud or bad but finally u can say Mr. raheel is better option than Mr. kiyani .
LONG LIVE PAKISTAN
LONG LIVE PAK ARMY
 
.
I like Gen.Kiyani more, he was cautious , played by the book & kept a low profile , plus he kept the Army out of politics

gen. tikka khan ,gen. Kiyani , gen. Jahangir Karamat & gen. Kakar were amongst the best COAS in my opinion , they were professional & kept the Army out of politics
 
.
Kiyani started the elimination of the TTP with Swat ops but he didnt go after the Haqqanis and the Punjabi militant and sectarian outfits for fear of the type of blowback we have witnessed with the APS. With Raheel it is all or nothing and he has opted for all. If he is successful, history will remember and glorify him. Accusations of corruption have not been proven against Kiyani, all hearsay so far.
what Raheel has done which Kiyani couldnt do was to get the civilian leaders out of their slumber,however reluctantly and take legislative action in support of the army action against these militants.
Raheel has no previous baggage on his back. Kiyani did being DG-ISI.
 
.
Sorry for necroing this thread. I just feel that in the last 10 months, the comparison needs to be reevaluated.

In the last 10 months, the country has transformed completely. From hopelessness to overflowing optimism. What is your take on Gen. Raheel Sharif compared to Gen. Kiyani now?
 
. .
In one year everything is changed upside down in Pakistan.... No more Suicidals happening everyday... Karachi is peaceful, FATA is returning to normality.. Lawless North Waziristan is regained by Pak Army, Corroupt Politicians are being taken to the tasks, Stature of Pakistan among international arena is rising by every single day. One credit for civil govt is atlease less load shedding as compared to Zardari's Rascal Regime.Army is going after facilitators and financiers of terrorists , soon there will be complete elimination of terrorists scum from this Pak Land. Salute to only ONE MAN Gen RAHEEL SHARIF.
 
.
Hi,

There is a basic flaw in the selection of the General of Pakistan's military---and that is----no general from the ISI----or anyone dealing with intelligence should lead the military.

Their intelligence jobs---by default lead them away from quick and bold decision making capabilities-. They do not have the ability or lose the capability to think on their feet---they cannot look at the threat right in eyes and act accordingly----they cannot retaliate in an emergency situation in the spur of the moment.

For that reason---they are unfit leaders of men in combat---.

He is also a rankers son---and we know how that goes in our culture---and as I stated before---my brother told Musharraf to not promote him because he is a ranker's son---and Musharraf says to him---Mian sahib---aap ki zimindaron wali souch nahin gai abhi tak----. My brother replied to him---regardless---he will bite you in the ar-se---.

Osama strike was the telling moment---that was when the TRUE COWARD in Gen. Kiyani came out. Out of fear for his life and family's----he kept his mouth shut and did not say anything about how Pakistan helped in that mission.

Pakistan's image got smashed in the world forum but Gen. Kiyani saved his life from terrorists threats.

For 6 pages you kids have discussed this thread and not a single one of you has brought out this issue---the most damaging issue to the integrity and the name of Pakistan under gen Kiyani tenure---.

You kids are worthless in your analysis----totally and absolutely clueless to what was at stake----you kids don't give a sh-it at how badly the image of your nation has been tarnished by his non actions----because you kids are totally clueless and then you want to fight and die for Pakistan----I wonder what you kids real priorities are---I feel sorry that there is no one on the media that can give you any guidance----and that truly is the real tragedy.

And if some of you think that I chewed you guys hard---then click here #2033 and enjoy the joke.
 
Last edited:
.
some times a lot more than required
i don't know why but this last sentence gives me a vibe that you are still that Taliban apologist zarvan who didn't want zarb e azab to go forward
 
.
Kiyani was all philosophy, Raheel's all action. The former was a bit too cautious for a person who's supposed to lead
military of a state - a nuclear state. Kiyani was a bit skeptical about Army's operation against TTP fearing failure. Raheel
seems confident from the get go. Kiyani interfered in politics pretty often unlike Raheel, who had perhaps the best chance
for a coup. Kiyani was a number of times alleged of corruption via his brother. Same could not be said about Raheel.
Raheel's very aggressive when it comes to National Security unlike Kiyani.
 
.
i don't know why but this last sentence gives me a vibe that you are still that Taliban apologist zarvan who didn't want zarb e azab to go forward
You have no idea what I say or not if you are interested to know my thoughts in details contact me on facebook
 
.
Back
Top Bottom