Retired Army Officers are Dropping Their Ranks From Social Media Profiles

[Crimson Blue]

I have recently noted that some of vocal retired army officers are dropping their ranks from their social media profiles. Major General Ijaz Awan, Lt. General Naeem Lodhi and Major Adil Raja were all using their ranks in their social media profiles till about 2 weeks ago. Now they have removed their army ranks from their names, probably in protest of how they are being treated by current leadership. It is also reported that Gen. Ijaz Awan & Naeem Lodhi have not appeared on any T.V shows as defense analysts since April 2022. I did not find any retired Airforce or Navy officers dropping their ranks. Snapshot of their media posts are attached below.

I am not familiar with how things are usually run in army so I was wondering if retired officers were treated this way during past Martial Laws regimes?

 

[blain2]

All retired officers are expected to operate with decorum when in retirement which includes not denigrating their own service and also not putting doubts on the chain of command given the association and weight of opinion of these retired personnel within the service.

There were some in the times of Bhutto/Zia who resigned their commission (as they were serving) because they did not agree with Zia as was the case in Gen Ayub's time. Gen Bajwa is not in the same situation as Zia (there's no military take-over or extra-constitutionalism at play) and he has communicated to the retired officers (I know of some cases where the CoAS has written directly to retired officers) to address their questions. This is besides having marathon sessions with serving/retired officers in major garrison towns.

The point is that the Army has very limited options (each act is looked as a pro for one side and con for the other) and senior retired officers piling on aren't helping either because they are no longer actively serving and as such don't have the full appreciation of the constraints that those currently serving (and in the know) would have. I say this having heard from someone who received a "My dear..." letter. ;-)

The CoAS is to retire in Oct and then a reset is possible as such beating their own service on political issues is not helping and thus the feedback to these individuals to tone it down.

 

[VCheng]

All retired officers are expected to operate with decorum when in retirement which includes not denigrating their own service and also not putting doubts on the chain of command given the association and weight of opinion of these retired personnel within the service.

There were some in the times of Bhutto/Zia who resigned their commission (as they were serving) because they did not agree with Zia as was the case in Gen Ayub's time. Gen Bajwa is not in the same situation as Zia (there's no military take-over or extra-constitutionalism at play) and he has communicated to the retired officers (I know of some cases where the CoAS has written directly to retired officers) to address their questions. This is besides having marathon sessions with serving/retired officers in major garrison towns.

The point is that the Army has very limited options and senior retired officers piling on aren't helping either because they are no longer actively serving and as such don't have the full appreciation of the constraints that those currently serving (and in the know) would have. The CoAS is to retire in Oct and then a reset is possible as such beating their own service on political issues is not helping and thus the feedback to these individuals to tone it down.

I bet all of them will still be collecting their pensions and benefits without a problem, except those who already lost those privileges for violating their Code of Conduct.

 

[m_ali]

All retired officers are expected to operate with decorum when in retirement which includes not denigrating their own service and also not putting doubts on the chain of command given the association and weight of opinion of these retired personnel within the service.

There were some in the times of Bhutto/Zia who resigned their commission (as they were serving) because they did not agree with Zia as was the case in Gen Ayub's time. Gen Bajwa is not in the same situation as Zia (there's no military take-over or extra-constitutionalism at play) and he has communicated to the retired officers (I know of some cases where the CoAS has written directly to retired officers) to address their questions. This is besides having marathon sessions with serving/retired officers in major garrison towns.

The point is that the Army has very limited options (each act is looked as a pro for one side and con for the other) and senior retired officers piling on aren't helping either because they are no longer actively serving and as such don't have the full appreciation of the constraints that those currently serving (and in the know) would have. I say this having heard from someone who received a "My dear..." letter. ;-)

The CoAS is to retire in Oct and then a reset is possible as such beating their own service on political issues is not helping and thus the feedback to these individuals to tone it down.

And denying pension for having a different opinion is within decoram?

 

[Solidify]

Only1 solution Remove Shabaz Sharif by hook or crook by force from Office !!!

 

[blain2]

And denying pension for having a different opinion is within decoram?

You should look up what the rules say. Yes, there are punitive implications for those deemed to be not following rules in retirement (it is not some arbitrary command from the CoAS). Factually speaking, the army has not done anything illegal, extra-constitutional so the critique of the army leadership by retired, senior officers can be deemed harmful to the service and appropriate action can be sanctioned.

This isn't the first time this has happened. There have been other officers in service and post retirement who had their benefits revoked.
One example is Maj Gen Abu Bakr Mitha whose retirement benefits were withdrawn for reasons the then military command decided were appropriate for such action.

 

[Jango]

All retired officers are expected to operate with decorum when in retirement which includes not denigrating their own service and also not putting doubts on the chain of command given the association and weight of opinion of these retired personnel within the service.

There were some in the times of Bhutto/Zia who resigned their commission (as they were serving) because they did not agree with Zia as was the case in Gen Ayub's time. Gen Bajwa is not in the same situation as Zia (there's no military take-over or extra-constitutionalism at play) and he has communicated to the retired officers (I know of some cases where the CoAS has written directly to retired officers) to address their questions. This is besides having marathon sessions with serving/retired officers in major garrison towns.

The point is that the Army has very limited options (each act is looked as a pro for one side and con for the other) and senior retired officers piling on aren't helping either because they are no longer actively serving and as such don't have the full appreciation of the constraints that those currently serving (and in the know) would have. I say this having heard from someone who received a "My dear..." letter. ;-)

The CoAS is to retire in Oct and then a reset is possible as such beating their own service on political issues is not helping and thus the feedback to these individuals to tone it down.

Respectfully sheweth,

1- Does making a tweet as simple as "Why make a deal with Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to let them back when the country was progressing" warrant a direct threat by certain someone in GHQ?

2- What were the 'constraints' that you need to be in direct contact with Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif, and Zardari, and plan to overthrow the government?

3- What sort of 'constraints' can there be that you personally invite Noor Alam Khan and Raja Riaz, among others, and have a meeting with them?

4- I have heard about the letter before, but don't know the contents, but what I do know is that the reasons that were presented in those 'marathon sessions' were superficial at best. One of them was, "Buzdar wasn't performing". What business in the name of all that is holy does the COAS have if Buzdar isn't performing? Another one was "IK wasn't taking his coalition partners along and did not listen to them". Again, what business does the COAS have with that?

 

[m_ali]

Respectfully sheweth,

1- Does making a tweet as simple as "Why make a deal with Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to let them back when the country was progressing" warrant a direct threat by certain someone in GHQ?

2- What were the 'constraints' that you need to be in direct contact with Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif, and Zardari, and plan to overthrow the government?

3- What sort of 'constraints' can there be that you personally invite Noor Alam Khan and Raja Riaz, among others, and have a meeting with them?

4- I have heard about the letter before, but don't know the contents, but what I do know is that the reasons that were presented in those 'marathon sessions' were superficial at best. One of them was, "Buzdar wasn't performing". What business in the name of all that is holy does the COAS have if Buzdar isn't performing? Another one was "IK wasn't taking his coalition partners along and did not listen to them". Again, what business does the COAS have with that?

Other reasons I heard from participants is that he wears shalwar qamiz and mentions kalma all the time...

 

[Jango]

Respectfully sheweth,

1- Does making a tweet as simple as "Why make a deal with Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to let them back when the country was progressing" warrant a direct threat by certain someone in GHQ?

2- What were the 'constraints' that you need to be in direct contact with Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif, and Zardari, and plan to overthrow the government?

3- What sort of 'constraints' can there be that you personally invite Noor Alam Khan and Raja Riaz, among others, and have a meeting with them?

4- I have heard about the letter before, but don't know the contents, but what I do know is that the reasons that were presented in those 'marathon sessions' were superficial at best. One of them was, "Buzdar wasn't performing". What business in the name of all that is holy does the COAS have if Buzdar isn't performing? Another one was "IK wasn't taking his coalition partners along and did not listen to them". Again, what business does the COAS have with that?

Supplementary question:

5- Who in the world is the COAS or the establishment at large to guarantee a return of Nawaz Sharif back to Pakistan with no repercussions? Or as a matter of fact, who are they to prevent Maryam from going abroad? Or approve the return of Ishaq Dar to the country?

 

[blain2]

Only1 solution Remove Shabaz Sharif by hook or crook by force from Office !!!

You do it by "crook" and the same will happen to IK/PTI. Set the right precedence even if you/your party don't get the dividends themselves. It will pay off in the future.
Keep in mind, everyone is learning from the unfolding situation, including the establishment. Anyone who is wearing a star on his collar is looking at the impact of the situation on their service and will be that much more careful in the future.

 

[m_ali]

Keep in mind, everyone is learning from the unfolding situation, including the establishment. Anyone who is wearing a star on his collar is looking at the impact of the situation on their service and will be that much more careful in the future.

That maybe your hope but I am not very optimistic. Didn't learn much in 70 years.

 

[blain2]

Respectfully sheweth,

1- Does making a tweet as simple as "Why make a deal with Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to let them back when the country was progressing" warrant a direct threat by certain someone in GHQ?

2- What were the 'constraints' that you need to be in direct contact with Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif, and Zardari, and plan to overthrow the government?

3- What sort of 'constraints' can there be that you personally invite Noor Alam Khan and Raja Riaz, among others, and have a meeting with them?

4- I have heard about the letter before, but don't know the contents, but what I do know is that the reasons that were presented in those 'marathon sessions' were superficial at best. One of them was, "Buzdar wasn't performing". What business in the name of all that is holy does the COAS have if Buzdar isn't performing? Another one was "IK wasn't taking his coalition partners along and did not listen to them". Again, what business does the COAS have with that?

Jango, Buzdar was a bad choice and in a province that pushes 54% of Pakistan's revenue, the performance and his governance "paralysis" was a major issue. Your question would be perfectly fine if we were talking of a government that had no dependency on the establishment for policy formulation and strategy. This, fortunately or unfortunately, was not the case with the PTI government. The much talked about "crutch" was exactly this alignment with coalition which kept PTI in power. The establishment had an interest in it continuing and when there was a breakdown in that, among other things, then the establishment too decided to abandon the ship.

As such how the PTI government performed in the nation's largest province and how it handled its relations with its coalition partners were both topics on the table with the establishment.

That maybe your hope but I am not very optimistic. Didn't learn much in 70 years.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I am optimistic but with Pakistan you just never know.

 

[Jango]

Jango, Buzdar was a bad choice and in a province that pushes 54% of Pakistan's revenue, the performance and his governance "paralysis" was a major issue. Your question would be perfectly fine if we were talking of a government that had no dependency on the military for policy formulation and strategy. This, fortunately or unfortunately, was not the case with the PTI government.

As such how the PTI government performed in the nation's largest province and how it handled its relations with its coalition partners were both topics on the table with the establishment.

Again I ask sir, What business in the name of all that is holy does the COAS have if Buzdar isn't performing?

If a CM isn't performing of a province (and that itself is arguable), it means you remove a government?

 

[m_ali]

Jango, Buzdar was a bad choice and in a province that pushes 54% of Pakistan's revenue, the performance and his governance "paralysis" was a major issue. Your question would be perfectly fine if we were talking of a government that had no dependency on the military for policy formulation and strategy. This, fortunately or unfortunately, was not the case with the PTI government.

As such how the PTI government performed in the nation's largest province and how it handled its relations with its coalition partners were both topics on the table with the establishment.


Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

OK, let's say for argument's sake that Buzdar and IK were a bad choice but Hamza and Shahbaz are a good choice? How do we make that leap of faith?

 

[blain2]

Again I ask sir, What business in the name of all that is holy does the COAS have if Buzdar isn't performing?

If a CM isn't performing of a province (and that itself is arguable), it means you remove a government?

Under normal circumstances absolutely not. But was this PTI government without its benefactors? When you take favors from people, then you have to take their feedback too.