Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[Xeric]

A valiant effort, however for the context of the quote, see Xeric's earlier post.


Army not a police force? Interesting idea - Once again, it will be instructive to look at the kind of war the islamist insurgent has imposed on us, low intensity, long term destabilization and delegitimization of the State - Does the army need to retool and reorganize for that?? Apparently like with Xeric, we simply do not agree on the nature of the threat.

I repeat that we need to focus on the economy, you counter with tax reform , etc, -- yes, by all means, these are elements of Economic reform.

And then there is charge, posited as if an objection, that the transition from army to police force is unnecessary --- Yes, certainly, after all, no one is suggesting that the army become the police, though policing is defintely going to be something the army will be involved with (see the nature of the war the islamist insurgent has imposed on us)

Musey, i think the article was published with a bad timing.

Just for a second consider this article being published before or around the time when the Army went in Swat with zeal and zest. Ahaha...perfect timings, but not today. Why?

Well the 'change' and 'shift' that the writer suggest has already been implemented by the Army (well before the suggestions came, atleast the military had understood the requirement for change around that time period). The change that the writer suggest primarily focuses around the change from fighting a conventional conflict to an unconventional conflict. Unconventional conflict bolay tu LIC or COIN. This require (alot of) mechanization, change in SOPs, change in operational procedures, change in tactics, change in battle procedures etc. Now these are just a very few factors that i have mentioned which require a change so that a force can shift itself from a conventional fighting force to an unconventional fighting force. The main factor is the change in focus and this change was made the day it was decided that an operation is now necessary in Swat. Further, in order for a military to undergo this change, apart from emphasis on mobilization, one also needs to make changes in the equipment, not only the major equipment but also the minor equipment which ranges from uniform, helmet, signal equipment, weapons/small arms, web equipment etc.

The way today's soldier dresses is quite different from what it did in the past (atleast before Op RN), we didnt see soldiers wearing bullet proof jackets in the past, they do it now. We have synergized with the airforce, we evacuate casualties on helis now (mobility), we had heli-droped our men (again mobility), though we dont have GPS fitted watches but we make use of GPS tech quite frequently, we dont have Hummvees but we have tried to mock them, we dont have counter-IED (C-IED) vehicles but we have made arrangements to our holdings so that they can counter the effects of IEDs, we may not be employing NetCen Warfare but we have alternatives for this too by the grace of jugards etc etc, all related to 'technology'. Now if we go by suggestion of the writer, perhaps we should have withdrawn the double cabins and issued them with Humvees and other modern equipment related to spec ops and COIN, and believe me the solution that the writer presents (reducing the numbers) is/would never have been enough for cater for the funds for this modernization. Apart from this we still have Sparklingways to audit the military expenditures!!

Now it is easy to sit behind a table and tell us to 'modernize' (i.e. mechanize and air lift ONLY) and extract funds by reducing the numbers, but then actually doing it on ground is totally a different domain. It is also easy to suggest by sitting behind a table that the Fauj should undergo an ABSOLUTE change by renouncing the conventional war fighting techniques and totally shifting to a new system that only focuses around COIN and internal security, but then understanding that an enemy does exist towards our east and we need to keep a potent conventional war fighting capability to ward off this threat and at the same time also remain viable and capable to fight off insurgency is the essence of this change, which indeed we have been successful in doing though we paid a huge price for it.

The phenomenon of 'either you are with us or with them' like in this case which suggest that we should totally shift from an Army to a Policing Force at the same time considering that we are still clinging around with WW2 era tactics is wrong.

There are other changes that have been implemented at Army and strategic levels which i dont feel like discussing, which confirms that the military has changed.

So in short, the Fauj has infact changed, though not exactly as per the dictates of neo-cons.

At the most what we can do is raise a new force as already been discussed elsewhere on this forum by professionals and TTs dedicated for COIN on the line of FBI or any other ATT force. But this, as already been discussed, would require gigantic effort in terms of funds etc if the force is raised from scratch or alot of effort if we decide to raise this force out of the existing holding state.

 

[indushek]

Well atlast it is guud to know that Musey was able to word his thoughts (through this article).

Ok.

One, the article is correct in a sense that the nature of conflict has indeed changed. But how the change affect our case is the real point that needs to be discussed. With indian doctrines like Limited War and Cold Start, one needs to take the 'change' with a pinch of salt.

Two, the article talks about modernization. Well not exactly modernization but mobilization of foot elements, this includes massive air lift capabilities and emphasis on wheeled (not tracked) ordnance. Now this needs funds. The writers suggest that these funds should be generated by 'reducing' the military's size significantly. But the writers forgets that (purchasing) and maintaining an APC, Heli, F/A aircraft or a self-propelled artillery piece is more expensive then recruiting, training and 'maintaining' (both during the service and after it culminates) a soldier. You can either buy and maintain a squadron of wings or instead you can enjoy the luxuries of a Division size force for life time.

Three, the article completely takes away the india equation out of the context. Oh, i forgot, Musey and those he quotes dont take india as a threat. Nevertheless, considering india a cow while translating this 'paradigm shift' into actions would not be a guud idea while we see the US leaving Afg in near future, keeping in mind the water disputes and mingling by india in certain of our internal affairs. More importantly, the concept (of change) that the writer had penned down revolves primarily around the availability of an internal enemy ONLY and NO external or to be more precise an existential threat. This, my friend is false. Ok, i understand, as the writer puts it, that "the nature of war has changed; acquisition of space or destruction of force are no more valid as strategic objectives", and that the futuristic form of conflict will not be outside the borders but within the confines of our border, but then there has to be available a potent deterrent basing upon which we can inform the enemy that we have the capability to take the war to THEM, or else, any tommy, dicky or harry would feel the itch to finger us where ever feel like.

On anther note, if this article had been written prior to May 1999, i am sure it must have suggested that there's no need for Pakistan going nuclear!

Your first two arguments were excellent, no doubt you are a think tank.

However the bolded parts are what puzzling me? The first one, has the writer any where mentioned India being a cow?? ok or has he said there is no threat from India?? All he says is that better to minimize this threat by going for confidence building measure not sell outs because of other pressing threats.

The second one, so you think there is no internal enemy for Pakistan where as India is an existential threat to you? Once the war in Afghanistan is over the old brotherhood will return back??

The third one, u already have a potent deterrent the best there is on this planet with you. There are threads being created now and then of how you have outnumbered Indians in this regard. You can ruin your arch enemy over two to three times i think again and again. Even that is not giving confidence to you. Sorry to say but actually every tom, dick and harry is fingering you already daily.

The last line i don't know if u have written for a little laughter post serious discussion but looks pathetic.

I am sorry but i follow Muse's threads with great interest and your post was completely insulting his thinking. The first line of your post where you were so relieved to know his thoughts, was even more infuriating to me atleast. I haven't seen Muse return the retort to you but this kind of condescending behaviour is considered insult.

 

[Xeric]

So now you have come to Musey's rescue, believe me, he dont need any.

Anwaz...

Your first two arguments were excellent, no doubt you are a think tank.

However the bolded parts are what puzzling me? The first one, has the writer any where mentioned India being a cow?? ok or has he said there is no threat from India?? All he says is that better to minimize this threat by going for confidence building measure not sell outs because of other pressing threats.

Wrong.

The writer has suggested that FIRST we should break our Army into a smaller force which primarily focuses around internal threats (which he terms as the primary one, and rightly do so as terrorism indeed is the foremost threat that we face today) and then MAYBE india can think of lowering its guard on its western front. This aint happening buddy! Not until your COASs put a lid on their 'flowery' comments.

As for the cow thingy, well all i wanted to say was that for a moment if we actually consider that india become less hostile to Pakistan, but with the developments that would take place in future in Afg (i.e. the exodus of the US etc), we having issues as regards to waters, Kashmir still lingering and that india pokes its nose in Afg and Balochistan we CANNOT lower our guard until we see a very positive and validated similar development from the indian side. Believe me, with india striving for Two Front War capability and telling us that a possibility of war still exists under a nuclear umbrella (the Limited War shyt) we aint blinking the eye that we keep on you people. Fair and Square!

The second one, so you think there is no internal enemy for Pakistan where as India is an existential threat to you? Once the war in Afghanistan is over the old brotherhood will return back??

As i say many times, dont feed BS to me. i have never said that we dont have an internal enemy, or else we havnt employed such forces to fight it. As for the external threat, well as i said earlier, we are not waiving you off unless some credible step is taken by india to assure us that a misadventure will not unfold. Memories of 5000 targets and surgical strikes are still fresh in our minds.

The third one, u already have a potent deterrent the best there is on this planet with you.

^^ But the potent threat does not bar you guys from itching for a limited, high tempo, suicidal war, or does it? Tell this to you COAS, may be he'll explain it to you.

There are threads being created now and then of how you have outnumbered Indians in this regard. You can ruin your arch enemy over two to three times i think again and again. Even that is not giving confidence to you. Sorry to say but actually every tom, dick and harry is fingering you already daily.

Ahh.. i dont believe in 1 Pakistani equaling 10 indians, so please spare me this fantasy.

The last line i don't know if u have written for a little laughter post serious discussion but looks pathetic.

Heck yeah!

I am sorry but i follow Muse's threads with great interest

Guud for you.

and your post was completely insulting his thinking.

i will bother about it when you feel i have insulted him. Till then, tone it down, please!

The first line of your post where you were so relieved to know his thoughts, was even more infuriating to me atleast. I haven't seen Muse return the retort to you but this kind of condescending behaviour is considered insult.

Ever heard of: Shah say agay shah ka chaila..??

 

[indushek]

So now you have come to Musey's rescue, believe me, he dont need any.

Anwaz...

Wrong.

The writer has suggested that FIRST we should break our Army into a smaller force which primarily focuses around internal threats (which he terms as the primary one, and rightly do so as terrorism indeed is the foremost threat that we face today) and then MAYBE india can think of lowering its guard on its western front. This aint happening buddy! Not until your COASs put a lid on their 'flowery' comments.

As for the cow thingy, well all i wanted to say was that for a moment if we actually consider that india become less hostile to Pakistan, but with the developments that would take place in future in Afg (i.e. the exodus of the US etc), we having issues as regards to waters, Kashmir still lingering and that india pokes its nose in Afg and Balochistan we CANNOT lower our guard until we see a very positive and validated similar development from the indian side. Believe me, with india striving for Two Front War capability and telling us that a possibility of war still exists under a nuclear umbrella (the Limited War shyt) we aint blinking the eye that we keep on you people. Fair and Square!


As i say many times, dont feed BS to me. i have never said that we dont have an internal enemy, or else we havnt employed such forces to fight it. As for the external threat, well as i said earlier, we are not waiving you off unless some credible step is taken by india to assure us that a misadventure will not unfold. Memories of 5000 targets and surgical strikes are still fresh in our minds.


^^ But the potent threat does not bar you guys from itching for a limited, high tempo, suicidal war, or does it? Tell this to you COAS, may be he'll explain it to you.

Ahh.. i dont believe in 1 Pakistani equaling 10 indians, so please spare me this fantasy.


Heck yeah!


Guud for you.


i will bother about it when you feel i have insulted him. Till then, tone it down, please!

Ever heard of: Shah say agay shah ka chaila..??

Dear Mr.Xeric with all the aggressive tone of yours you have only proved yourself to be a "I hate India whatever it is" type. I don't feel anything for your comments. Neither anger for your needling, your pathetic sarcasm for me what was that "Shah say agay...." something right? and whatever

The most laughable thing u said in this post and one which warrants a nice chuckle is you telling me Muse doesn't need any one to defend him. My comment that i follow his threads is enough to say for anybody, of even normal thought process like me that i am not the think tank here. A think tank like you underlining this fact is at the least funny.

If we leave this tu tu main main aside, yes i agree the "comments" about which talked of haven't been that well articulated however please and i request you to consider this, don't consider yourself holier than us. If we are having loose tongue you are having loose cannons roaming around. Given the outcome better to talk than to do such actions. Yes the writer has suggested a CBM of the unthinkable kind to be adopted first by Pakistan, however will the COAS of yours immediately follow it and decrease the numbers etc etc at 0900 hrs tomorrow?? If they think its worth the shot they will go for some milder version of it or may be something else. The important thing is the intent to decrease hostility between our countries.

The thing is even if my country will be the first to implement and remove the excess forces from border, the memories of so and so kind will be remaining fresh in your memory.

Its reassuring when you say you are not prone to such fantasies. Makes the argument even, and it is expected of a think tank too.

And lastly something for your comment of "Shah say agay....", i think this comment applies to you more than me. The only thing is the Army being the shah and you being the chaila.

Whatever your apprehensions, and i completely understand your point as a patriotic Pakistani you are needed to air your views no doubt. However it is bad when you try to impinge your thoughts on others. The recent developments between our countries are showing signs of betterment and i am hopeful for the future.

 

[All-Green]

It all seems like a good idea to increase mobility but i have to say that based on the current situation, i would rather maintain more boots on ground.
What i have seen is that despite successful military engagements we need soldiers to hold the area for a long long time due to government's lack of commitment and zeal in restoring law and order to the liberated territory.

Till date, the police and civil government are simply not playing their part in order to restore normalcy and help the Army focus on other hot spots.
In my mind we are operating at bare minimum troops as it is since the Army is being used to open new fronts against insurgents in most difficult terrain, deny foothold to insurgents in the already cleared areas and also to maintain minimum required troops at the eastern border against a mighty Army which is as of today hostile towards Pakistan (not changing anytime soon).

Even if India and Pakistan end hostilities, it will take a decade or two for these two nations and their Armies to trust each other so much as to reduce number of troops. After all there is so much history and clash of interests here.

I would love for our Army to become more mobile but in current scenario we cannot afford the luxury of a lightning quick strike force of multiple divisions. This will be quite costly and will not improve the situation since we have to hold territory even in counter insurgency operation for a prolonged time and the less our government focuses on these areas...the longer our Army shall have to be deployed.

Best bet is to focus a lot on FC, Rangers and Police in the next 5 years and slowly train them to hold territory in face of insurgency.
If these formations accumulate enough firepower and undergo extensive training to hold their own against the insurgents, only then can we even think about increased mobility and reduced manpower for the Army.
It seems to me that we are a long way off from this stage.

The way the police and FC were rendered helpless just a few years ago in Swat, we cannot take such a gamble at this time. FC is improving a lot but it shall never be as good as the Army.
Practically speaking, even if current trend of re-equipping and extensive training of FC continues; it shall take 5-10 more years for FC to reach a stage where it can be relied upon to hold territory.

 

[toxic_pus]

As for the external threat, well as i said earlier, we are not waiving you off unless some credible step is taken by india to assure us that a misadventure will not unfold. Memories of 5000 targets and surgical strikes are still fresh in our minds.

When was the last time India went on a 'misadventure' against Pakistan, that gave you this phantom memory of '5000 targets' being attacked through 'surgical strikes'. The rest of your post is the usual shrill of machismo that we have come to expect of a Pakistani fauji of your breed.

 

[Alternative]

So, precisely as predicted, there are those, intelligent to all appearances, who think things will go back to normal, with minor perturbations, an occasional suicide bombing, a couple of girls' schools blown up, but nothing much, because Al Qaeda will lose its raison d'etre and the Pakistani Taliban will scratch around looking for causes.

Al-qaeda is not an insurgent group, it is more of a Mafia style something, and its presence and activities will be reduced to the level that we now see in Saudi Arabia and else where.
Sarcasm shown in your response is bit amusing.

If you please re-read my previous post, you will note that I have't said that Al-Qaida or TTP will vanish from scene but effectiveness will be much reduced, when US of A is out of Picture.

How delusional can you get? Do you expect the row over blasphemy laws to lessen in magnitude once the Americans go away? Do you expect a greater life expectancy for governors who speak against these laws? Or ministers, for that matter?

Politics and original sentiment of people, on matters of importance, whether have religious annotations or not, are not going anywhere, and this has no link with Al-qaeda or what ever group fighting under shady claims.
You seem to link, very conveniently, supposed militarization of Pakistani Society and intolerance for the rise of insurgency in FATA and its further branches in Pakistani cities. Not for once you have taken geopolitical realities of Area in equation of your analysis.

As of out of place 'life expectancy studies' being conducted by you, for example, Mahaatama Gandhi was murdered by Nathuram Godse, some decades ago, will not be taken as a sign of intolerant society by you.

In my view and observations, public opinion and perception sway and tilt in response to matters/challenges/pressures/threats, internal and external, etc it faces or has to endure. Individual or small group, blockheads has their own fancy thoughts and can't be clubbed with general public.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Alternative is a deep thinker me thinks

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ah, the sage responds. We must be deeply honoured.

Al-qaeda is not an insurgent group, it is more of a Mafia style something, and its presence and activities will be reduced to the level that we now see in Saudi Arabia and else where.

No doubt these fine gradations of meaning are useful to you for some purpose, perhaps for the purpose of stating that they themselves will not require counter-insurgency forces, but rather a combination of intelligence operatives and armed policemen. Perhaps. It is not clear from your cryptic remarks, at any rate.

The fact remains that they inspire and finance, when they do not actually collaborate operationally. They remain a menace for your country into the foreseeable future, notwithstanding your unreal hope of some vanishing of these menaces when the Americans themselves vanish.

Sarcasm shown in your response is bit amusing. I am delighted to have been of service. It is only regretted that these services were only a 'bit' amusing. I shall, of course, try harder in future.

If you please re-read my previous post, you will note that I have't said that Al-Qaida or TTP will vanish from scene but effectiveness will be much reduced, when US of A is out of Picture. I had read it, and read it with some scepticism. Not a single reason is adduced, and the only one implicit is that since it is an outcome you hope for, it may come to pass.

This being the case, no doubt examinations, to name a random example with no other intention, are a mere passing distraction to you, since they must inevitably turn out well, that being your wish.


Politics and original sentiment of people, on matters of importance, whether have religious annotations or not, are not going anywhere, and this has no link with Al-qaeda or what ever group fighting under shady claims.

You have misunderstood the point, massively. My point is not whether the political or original sentiment (whatever original sentiment is supposed to signify) is going north, south, east or west; it was merely that the increasing onset of religious intolerance in Pakistan, to the extent where murderers are garlanded as they are escorted to court, and ministers are killed for advocating the repeals of the blasphemy laws, is a permanent indicator that it is a one-way street; things will not get better. Even the all-powerful Army has apparently stated that pushing the soldiers, who are already committed radical Islamists, beyond a point in North Waziristan is no longer possible. This has been looked at as a possible explanation for the repeated starts and stops to military campaigns in that area. To deny that Al Qaeda had any role in this development, albeit with many other organisations involved as well, is disingenuous.

You seem to link, very conveniently, supposed militarization of Pakistani Society and intolerance for the rise of insurgency in FATA and its further branches in Pakistani cities. Not for once you have taken geopolitical realities of Area in equation of your analysis. I have, clearly and lucidly, but you have chosen not to take notice, presumably because it weakens your rebuttal. I had already mentioned the gradations between Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the TTP, and the Jehadist groups, in sequence. It is not possible to compel you to read that. It is possible, however, to refer you to my comment immediately before this one, as an illustration.

Just to remind you of the repercussions, the increasing militarisation and intolerance of the masses in central Pakistan, particularly in southern Punjab, has already had an effect. It has affected the willingness of the ordinary rank and file to oppose the supposed militant Islamists in North Waziristan; it is not clear, beyond grim speculation, how this syndrome may extend itself further in future.

As of out of place 'life expectancy studies' being conducted by you, for example, Mahaatama Gandhi was murdered by Nathuram Godse, some decades ago, will not be taken as a sign of intolerant society by you.You are to be congratulated on achieving a most satisfactory tu quoque response. It is so logical and fitting the arguments to be countered as to be a classic of the species. But then that is what we have come to expect from a master of logic and rhetoric. The small matter of this example being entirely irrelevant is, of course, neither here nor there.

In my view and observations, public opinion and perception sway and tilt in response to matters/challenges/pressures/threats, internal and external, etc it faces or has to endure. Individual or small group, blockheads has their own fancy thoughts and can't be clubbed with general public. Regrettably, your view does not go sufficiently far, and does not recognise that the foibles and follies of individuals and small groups of blockheads are being increasingly transferred to those sections of society which we all thought, within and outside Pakistan alike, would never vote for the forces of conservative and bigoted religion. That is evidently no longer true. It remains to be seen when this shows up in the ballot boxes, but from the evidence of the prevailing climate, it cannot be long.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

When was the last time India went on a 'misadventure' against Pakistan, that gave you this phantom memory of '5000 targets' being attacked through 'surgical strikes'. The rest of your post is the usual shrill of machismo that we have come to expect of a Pakistani fauji of your breed.

1. Junagadh
2. East Pakistan
3. Siachen
4. Baluchistan

On the 'surgical strikes':

5,000 Terrorist Targets = War with Pakistan | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

Netas using arms deals to settle scores: Barbora - Times Of India

Also, refrain from the personal attacks please.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Agnostic Muslim:

I have only two points to make:
Get the blessed man's name correct, at least; it's your COAS;

Thanks for the advice, but irrelevant really.

I responded to your challenge to produce any evidence that there was an element of hostility, an exceptional element of hostility, in the leadership of the Pakistan Army. If you disagree, good luck to you. The evidence is there, in front of us, and whether we wish to defend it by making judicious and carefully tailored extracts, or tear it apart using the same tactics is of sublime indifference to me. Just re-read your original post addressing this issue.

You provided no evidence that was not refuted or countered.

The rest was unsubstantiated opinion and speculation.

If you wish to cling to a concocted image of 'Kiyani the anti-peace, anti-India enemy' despite no facts supporting it, then 'good luck' to you sir. Keep your head buried in the sand and keep creating imaginary enemies to justify hostility towards Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It all seems like a good idea to increase mobility but i have to say that based on the current situation, i would rather maintain more boots on ground.
What i have seen is that despite successful military engagements we need soldiers to hold the area for a long long time due to government's lack of commitment and zeal in restoring law and order to the liberated territory.

Till date, the police and civil government are simply not playing their part in order to restore normalcy and help the Army focus on other hot spots.
In my mind we are operating at bare minimum troops as it is since the Army is being used to open new fronts against insurgents in most difficult terrain, deny foothold to insurgents in the already cleared areas and also to maintain minimum required troops at the eastern border against a mighty Army which is as of today hostile towards Pakistan (not changing anytime soon).

Even if India and Pakistan end hostilities, it will take a decade or two for these two nations and their Armies to trust each other so much as to reduce number of troops. After all there is so much history and clash of interests here.

I would love for our Army to become more mobile but in current scenario we cannot afford the luxury of a lightning quick strike force of multiple divisions. This will be quite costly and will not improve the situation since we have to hold territory even in counter insurgency operation for a prolonged time and the less our government focuses on these areas...the longer our Army shall have to be deployed.

Best bet is to focus a lot on FC, Rangers and Police in the next 5 years and slowly train them to hold territory in face of insurgency.
If these formations accumulate enough firepower and undergo extensive training to hold their own against the insurgents, only then can we even think about increased mobility and reduced manpower for the Army.
It seems to me that we are a long way off from this stage.

The way the police and FC were rendered helpless just a few years ago in Swat, we cannot take such a gamble at this time. FC is improving a lot but it shall never be as good as the Army.
Practically speaking, even if current trend of re-equipping and extensive training of FC continues; it shall take 5-10 more years for FC to reach a stage where it can be relied upon to hold territory.

You raised another important point and important flaw in the author's argument of 'reducing the size of the military'. The US military (and NATO militaries in general) are by far the most mobile and high tech on the planet. Yet even US planners have accepted that there simple is no technological substitute for 'boots on the ground' when it comes to combating an insurgency long term. Yes, with mobility and technology the US can go into any area and rout out any entrenched fighters and clear the area. But as soon as the troops leave, the insurgents are back. To actually 'hold and build' the area one needs boots on the ground - whether they be the military or local security forces.

So the argument of a 'reduced and more mobile military to fight an unconventional conflict' is a self defeating one in terms of the 'reduce' part, since the terrain and nature of the border with Afghanistan and the cross-border insurgent ties demand a significantly larger number of deployed troops than we have currently, not less.

 

[Xeric]

Dear Mr.Xeric with all the aggressive tone of yours you have only proved yourself to be a "I hate India whatever it is" type. I don't feel anything for your comments. Neither anger for your needling, your pathetic sarcasm for me what was that "Shah say agay...." something right? and whatever

i say this because i know things which you probably dont. Dont take me wrong, i dont mean as if i am more learned than you or something, but yes i may be more experienced when it comes to militaries of indo-Pak. i know this because i have seen you guys clinging to that INSAS of yours at borders, i say this because i have court martialed guys who have been related to RAW (so in turn i know what your Maj Tigers have been asking them), i say this that you people have a problem with a prosperous Pakistan because i have held flag meetings with my counterparts on your side, i know, to an extent, what an indian soldiers thinks while sitting across the LoC as i have exchanged cigarettes with them there etc, etc and etc. So let's not fool ourselves, and i am not letting some e-warrior (i am not indicating you) tell me that 'all ij well', coz it is NOT.

The most laughable thing u said in this post and one which warrants a nice chuckle is you telling me Muse doesn't need any one to defend him. My comment that i follow his threads is enough to say for anybody, of even normal thought process like me that i am not the think tank here. A think tank like you underlining this fact is at the least funny.

Looks like i reached the soft spot

If we are having loose tongue you are having loose cannons roaming around. Given the outcome better to talk than to do such actions.

See, no one is sharif, only Babra was.
We are not clean and you aren't either. But then we have mended our ways. You dont see Mujahdis crossing over to your sides now, except those that make news in your newspapers. You fenced the goddamn border, control the valley inside out but you still cry foul. You cry Mumbai out loud but couldnt prove (Pakistani) State's involvement in the fiasco. Same happened when your parliment was attacked, you failed to punish those behind Samjhota Express but you expect us to solve Mumbai for you.

You complain of 'loose cannons', well the simplistic reply to this can be that we didnt have control over them until now, but your COAS did have control over his tongue. But then that's not enough. How about india's stance had been a bit more mature after the Mumbai incident? Instead of blaming Pakistan in a knee-jerk reaction, how about some sense had prevailed. How about you brought those behind Samjhota Exp to justice, then your demand regarding those behind Mumbai had been more credible. Now this all doesnt at all mean as if the Pakistani State was involved in Mumbai or that the Pakistani State has linked the cooperation in Mumbai case with your cooperation in Samthota case, this is just something we outsiders or the media can talk about.

We are already stuck amidst a war, a war that has taken a toll both on our economy and the society, what assistance did we receive from your side? Yeah, yiu could have assistited us, after all it is you (in Kashmir as per your claims) these Talibunnies are behind once they are done with the goras. Most importantly, you yourself have faced insurgency and separatists for quite some time now, nobody knows it better than you how these problems can weed you out. Instead every second day we see you peoples raising support for Balochistan, over and above you have the cheeks to relate Balochistan with Kashmir. You could have kept it to yourself in case of Afg, instead you decided to go all out for their 'reconstruction'. We all know the truth, atleast we two can talk in these terms (i hope i am not arguing with the typical indian troll). Now i know, you can counter me by saying that it was Pakistan who started all this, it was us who brain child-ed 'proxy' in indo-Pak scenario etc. But then you need to realize that this no more is the case. You can consider this retraction of support to Kashmiri freedom fighter et al a guudwill move from our side or you can claim victory by saying that it was your foriegn policy that MADE Pakistan retract on this stance, both suits me so i dont care, but then you have to appreciate this fact that it's no more happening. Now what did you do in response? Did the Kashmir issue neared a solution or got aggravated when you LEAs were thrashed with stones there? Did you refrained from building dams or did you expedite it? Did you oust from Balochistan and Afg or did you expand upon your foot print there?

So in short what i want to say is that the ball is in your court now, the decision whether there would be peace between the two countries and that a unified system of mutual understanding would exist between them has to come from india NOT Pakistan. Seriously, what do you expect from us when you squeeze our neck by damming the rivers and 'building' and 'reconstructing' a hostile Afg?

As they say, it take two to clap!

Yes the writer has suggested a CBM of the unthinkable kind to be adopted first by Pakistan, however will the COAS of yours immediately follow it and decrease the numbers etc etc at 0900 hrs tomorrow?? If they think its worth the shot they will go for some milder version of it or may be something else. The important thing is the intent to decrease hostility between our countries.

And seriously, we dont like to take panga read intimidate everyone (around us). We dont gain anything by antagonizing a country three times our size in almost every term. And i am not one of those who propagate Ghazawa -i- Hind. So you take a step towards peace (provided it is a step not a fall) and you will find us following through. But then reducing forces on the borders is not really a step, minding ones own business is.


On another note, what's with you considering Pakistan an 'irritant'/'nuisance' on one side while you gear up to take on China, and crying foul about Pakistan on the other?

And lastly something for your comment of "Shah say agay....", i think this comment applies to you more than me. The only thing is the Army being the shah and you being the chaila.

^^Lagta hai baat lage hai bhai ko...

Anywaz, i dont blame you for this, i know you are still a toddler on PDF.

Whatever your apprehensions, and i completely understand your point as a patriotic Pakistani you are needed to air your views no doubt. However it is bad when you try to impinge your thoughts on others.

You are free to reject my thoughts that impinge your mind, but then probably, may be, what i say is true that people get bothered?
i dont know, just a thought.

The recent developments between our countries are showing signs of betterment and i am hopeful for the future.

Should i keep my fingers crossed?

Ok, i'll do that, just for you. And i am counting.

 

[Xeric]

It all seems like a good idea to increase mobility but i have to say that based on the current situation, i would rather maintain more boots on ground.
What i have seen is that despite successful military engagements we need soldiers to hold the area for a long long time due to government's lack of commitment and zeal in restoring law and order to the liberated territory.

Till date, the police and civil government are simply not playing their part in order to restore normalcy and help the Army focus on other hot spots.
In my mind we are operating at bare minimum troops as it is since the Army is being used to open new fronts against insurgents in most difficult terrain, deny foothold to insurgents in the already cleared areas and also to maintain minimum required troops at the eastern border against a mighty Army which is as of today hostile towards Pakistan (not changing anytime soon).

Even if India and Pakistan end hostilities, it will take a decade or two for these two nations and their Armies to trust each other so much as to reduce number of troops. After all there is so much history and clash of interests here.

I would love for our Army to become more mobile but in current scenario we cannot afford the luxury of a lightning quick strike force of multiple divisions. This will be quite costly and will not improve the situation since we have to hold territory even in counter insurgency operation for a prolonged time and the less our government focuses on these areas...the longer our Army shall have to be deployed.

Best bet is to focus a lot on FC, Rangers and Police in the next 5 years and slowly train them to hold territory in face of insurgency.
If these formations accumulate enough firepower and undergo extensive training to hold their own against the insurgents, only then can we even think about increased mobility and reduced manpower for the Army.
It seems to me that we are a long way off from this stage.

The way the police and FC were rendered helpless just a few years ago in Swat, we cannot take such a gamble at this time. FC is improving a lot but it shall never be as good as the Army.
Practically speaking, even if current trend of re-equipping and extensive training of FC continues; it shall take 5-10 more years for FC to reach a stage where it can be relied upon to hold territory.

To sum you up, FOOT INFANTRY would still be part of Star Wars in 3050.

A layman example; armour is best suited for ground offensive (atleast in our scenario) but is useless without infantry. At the best you can attach an MIB (mechanized infantry battalion so that the infantry can keep pace with armour) instead of foot infantry, but then soldiers holding G3s and RPGs will remain relevant for centuries to come.

Heck even Avatar had infantry in it!

You raised another important point and important flaw in the author's argument of 'reducing the size of the military'. The US military (and NATO militaries in general) are by far the most mobile and high tech on the planet. Yet even US planners have accepted that there simple is no technological substitute for 'boots on the ground' when it comes to combating an insurgency long term. Yes, with mobility and technology the US can go into any area and rout out any entrenched fighters and clear the area. But as soon as the troops leave, the insurgents are back. To actually 'hold and build' the area one needs boots on the ground - whether they be the military or local security forces.

So the argument of a 'reduced and more mobile military to fight an unconventional conflict' is a self defeating one in terms of the 'reduce' part, since the terrain and nature of the border with Afghanistan and the cross-border insurgent ties demand a significantly larger number of deployed troops than we have currently, not less.

Like some wise man once said 'when it's the line to fix bayonets, it's time to shut down the computers.'

 

[FaujHistorian]

We don't need to reduce our fauj or mess with it in any way. Rather we need to "enhance" and "increase" the number of our fauj. Don’t we realize that our fauj can recruit huge numbers of men and keep them in control.


Mobility is meaningless without the enhancement for our fauj (army, navy, air force) mainly in two areas (at least).

1. Air-supremacy
2. Naval-supremacy

Unfortunately the OP’s quoted essay doesn’t say how we are going to address these.


There are many reasons for such weaknesses. Cost perhaps is one, and perhaps the second reason is our "India-centric" philosophy of using mainly ground forces to defend against the possible attacks from our arch enemy.

Anyone who trivializes Indian threat must go and get his head examined. However we cannot be stuck with India-specific approach and thus ignore the rest of the world for possible opportunities.

What are those opportunities or challenges?

Well for that analysis we must study the history of Pak Fauj and study we must in true historical perspective without the clutches of religion or other emotional view points. Pak Fauj may have long history spanning the centuries, but modern day Fauj is the result of British era.

British era could be viewed with disdain if we simply view it as the period of colonization. However the same era is responsible for bringing to us the latest tech and education, and above all, modern systems. Such systems include roads, bridges, and cities. They also brought revolutionary changes in the system of governance including courts, bureaucrats, police, military, and the parliamentary way of running governments. Some of these changes were good and some not so good, but we have lived with these systems for 60 odd years and surely will continue living with them for a long long time.

China and Indian subcontinent were perhaps the largest chunks of British empire. But the empire included large swaths of Middle East, Africa etc. From the perspective of Britain, they could pick and choose the best of the best in any field from any part of their empire. However certain specializations were unique to China and Indian subcontinent.


1. Chinese laborers were excellent in manufacturing good quality inexpensive goods. But they were not keen on learning the English language.

2. Indian interaction with British started from Bengal, where people were very good in accountancy and really really quick in learning English and adopting British education system.

3. When British moved to the North central India, they again found people with local languages totally different from Bengali, but they too were really quick to learn English language, education system. These North Central Indians were quick to train as bureaucrats.

4. And finally the British moved to North West India where people were really quick to learn British military and police system. Off course people in this region too were quick to adopt British education, and governing systems.

Strange thing was that the characteristics listed above could not be replicated in any part of Middle East, and Asia and even Africa in large numbers. During the WWII Africa campaign, the regions now Pakistan were supplying men to fight along side Gen. Montgomery. While at the same time, Egyptians were running dance halls in Cairo, and Iraqis doing the same in Baghdad for the international troops. So you see every region of British Empire supplied whatever expertise they had.

Thus the British ended up exporting the military and police services to other parts of their empire along with professional services in the areas of education, and government. Large numbers of laborers were exported as well.

Certain regions of the British influence became known for their specific professional skills. Thus the East India Company helped outsource manufacturing services to Chinese cities like Shanghai. While office services were outsourced to Calcutta, and military and police services were outsourced to Lahore, Pindi, and Peshawar.

Dear readers you can see that service and manufacturing sector outsourcing is not a 20th century thing; it went on much earlier such as in 17th and 18th century as well.

As part of the outsourcing, policemen from modern day Pakistan were successfully used in Far East while army men provided their services all over Middle East, Far East, and Africa.

Sikhs were perhaps the most colorful and outstanding members of this outsourced military and police services. But Hindus and Muslims were equally professional and dependable. The reason was simple. These military were professional "first". Their religion always came second. They were all comfortable in fighting alongside Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs as long as the command structure was professional.

It is in this backdrop, that in the post 1947 world, Pakistani army was regularly outsourced to the Middle East especially to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Mind you this was not some blue helmet force. These guys wore Pakistani uniforms and remained under Pakistani command.

Obviously such outsourcing had the approval from the post-WWII super power the USA thanks to the good recommendation from the UK.

However in the 1990s we in Pakistan forgot that our military is "professional" first and Muslim second. We brought international politics, the Islamist politics in our ranks and thus took away our fauj’s international standing of being professional and dedicated group of soldiers.

As a result we lost our bases in Saudi Arabia and thus a big say in the affairs of the Middle East.

Not only that, the Islamist mindset has forced us to be on the wrong side of the war in Afghanistan too. We don’t even realize that Afghanistan is a tiny tiny country with a population that is not too much more than just one of our large cities.

In our corrupted minds we are pathetically fighting India in Afghanistan. While ignoring that Afghans are not Indians, not culturally, and not militarily. Thus 1000s of our troops are bogged down in FATA. It is like a lion is being victimized by a pathetic monkey and lion cannot get out of the tight spot because of its ignorance of the world at large.

Had we kicked out the Talibans from FATA and believe you me, we could do that in less than a few months. We could free up all those jawans and officers and look again at the whole world for giving help.

Here is how.

Pakistani fauj is the only Western trained, highly disciplined force that can help establish governments. Yes Sir, establish civilian order, setup courts, schools, and build roads.

Many people think of Pakistan's history of military rule as a disadvantage. Nothing could be farther form truth.

Today Somalia and Libya are failed states. Do you guys think any army in the world including Americans and British could supply from generals to officers to jawans as a complete package who have any clue of establishing governance?

The answer is NO. Why because most of the armies are trained to be fighting force. Their commanders have no clue as to how to deal with the situation once they conquer a city or country.

By shear coincidence and stroke of history, Pakistan has been able to train its officers to run the government and then at appropriate time handover the control to local civilians.

Additionally thanks to our culture we can survive with lesser amount of resources. Just remember Somalia, and black hawk down. Remember how Pak army officers loaded up American soldiers on top of the WWII armored cars and quickly brought them to safety. Such resourcefulness is extremely handy when it comes to the unexpected moments in a tough military situation.

It is an utter shame then for the intellectuals in Pakistan to think of Pakistan army as a liability and as a useless entity in Pakistan. Because it is not. We just need to resolve issues inside our borders by kicking out any international outlaws that may reside here, and then sending large quantities of our troops to the hotspots around the world. This will not only help the world peace, but our army and our foreign exchange earnings.

Mind you that Pakistan at present gets foreign currency worth $10-12 billions mostly in three different ways.

1. Expat workers (who bring in Riyals and dinars as $6 billion)
2. Military (who brings in $2-4 billions)
3. Exports of food and textiles (to bring in dollars, riyals, and dinars $2-3 billions)


If we are really smart and thus use our head and not our emotions, then we can earn 1000 times more by following the list below:

1. Military (to become member of NATO, and other international alliances)
-- This will bring 1000 times more money in direct as well as indirect channels than what we get from blue helmets and WoT work.

2. International Tourism (to Moenjodaro, taxila, and Northern areas)

3. Expats ($6 billion and decreasing over time)

4. Exports of food and textile (few billion dollars until we export higher tech stuff)

Chinese manufacturing labor has a markup of $5-$10 per hour at the most. Indian BPO worker has a markup of $15-20.

However the profit margins both long term and short term in the military services are in the range of $100-$200 an hour. And yet we are ignoring this tremendous opportunity.

Just remember that we must send out complete units with Pakistani command structure and Pakistani supplied material. Then charge the appropriate organization / country for our services to bring peace in the troubled regions. This is all the while bringing prosperity at home. With additional funds available, Pak fauj can build/buy equipment that will address its weakness in two areas i.e. air and naval superiority. It is pathetic to see Pak Fuaj living on $2-3 billions a year (out of a budget of $30+ billions). We mus think rationally to see how Pak army can be provided with $20 billion (out of a budget of $200 billion).

Thank you for reading this. It is a bit long. But hopefully it makes sense.