Towards a new & Improved Fauj

[All-Green]

OBl killing ops in pakistan army area has surely suggested a new dimension to be added to pakistan fauj for its improvement and that is dismantling all its active involvement with world leaders of terrorism. An army would not like to be called as terrorists.
A nation growth is highly depends on its relations with foreign countries which built on trust. Pakistan army wing, in current situation, doesn't allow political wing a condusive environment to look for all round and sustainable development.

That is not addition of any dimension!
No world leader of terrorism interacts with army officers and soldiers.
The world of intelligence is however entirely different from the world of open and direct war that is Army.
You have to establish links and plant moles in order to infiltrate any organization, otherwise you have no real information.

What is needed is a better structure to ensure that all agencies whether military, federal, provincial are sharing intelligence and local law enforcement agencies are not kept in the dark.
The role of police needs to be enhanced, the policeman is much more aware of his local area and can bridge the gaps in the mechanism.
The suspected terrorists are caught but let go off by the courts due to lack of evidence, this needs to be addressed.

 

[PoKeMon]

That is not addition of any dimension!
No world leader of terrorism interacts with army officers and soldiers.
The world of intelligence is however entirely different from the world of open and direct war that is Army.
You have to establish links and plant moles in order to infiltrate any organization, otherwise you have no real information.

What is needed is a better structure to ensure that all agencies whether military, federal, provincial are sharing intelligence and local law enforcement agencies are not kept in the dark.
The role of police needs to be enhanced, the policeman is much more aware of his local area and can bridge the gaps in the mechanism.
The suspected terrorists are caught but let go off by the courts due to lack of evidence, this needs to be addressed.

So are you denying the direct contact of pak army with afghan taliban establishment?
Or are you trying to say that ISI only infiltrate in terrorist organisation just to gather information and later use those information to defy any terrorist activity in the world. It has no involvement in strategically using those terrorist in its interests.

My point is simple that pak fauj sees all these terrorist organisation as an asset and its in their policy to use them in their covert operations. History suggest the same and thats what not respected by most of the world nations. The region is simple, in past only we were infected with terrorism but now the whole world is facing this menace. Monster simply gets out of the control of pakistan fauj and ISI.

 

[All-Green]

So are you denying the direct contact of pak army with afghan taliban establishment?
Or are you trying to say that ISI only infiltrate in terrorist organisation just to gather information and later use those information to defy any terrorist activity in the world. It has no involvement in strategically using those terrorist in its interests.

My point is simple that pak fauj sees all these terrorist organisation as an asset and its in their policy to use them in their covert operations. History suggest the same and thats what not respected by most of the world nations. The region is simple, in past only we were infected with terrorism but now the whole world is facing this menace. Monster simply gets out of the control of pakistan fauj and ISI.

There is a difference between terrorists of AQ and the Afghan Taliban when we dealt with them.
You need to familiarize yourself with rise of Taliban and who filled their ranks. Mostly they were Afghan Jihad veterans.
They were not a terrorist faction and Pakistan recognized their government, so nothing illegal or nefarious there at that point in time.
Was it in our strategic interest, yes it was.
Was our intent to support AQ, hell no!

Al Qaeda which is the international monster responsible for the current wave of terrorism was mostly an Arab reactionary movement which became purely terrorist.
Pakistan did not sow the seeds of Al Qaeda, its ideology was born in the middle east.
Before Al Qaeda, OBL was a hero of Afghan war and his fund raising offices were in USA as well.
Afghan Jihad was hailed as a victory of the free world, too bad it led to this point in time.

Moving forward, yes there is a need for all countries here to sit together and resolve their issues and deny space to any non state actors whether they are targeting Afghanistan, Pakistan or India.
I think we all need to let go of our past mutual disliking and start becoming real neighbors via some solid commitment towards each other, is this going to happen...lets hope so.

 

[PoKeMon]

There is a difference between terrorists of AQ and the Afghan Taliban when we dealt with them.
You need to familiarize yourself with rise of Taliban and who filled their ranks. Mostly they were Afghan Jihad veterans.
They were not a terrorist faction and Pakistan recognized their government, so nothing illegal or nefarious there at that point in time.
Was it in our strategic interest, yes it was.
Was our intent to support AQ, hell no!

Al Qaeda which is the international monster responsible for the current wave of terrorism was mostly an Arab reactionary movement which became purely terrorist.
Pakistan did not sow the seeds of Al Qaeda, its ideology was born in the middle east.
Before Al Qaeda, OBL was a hero of Afghan war and his fund raising offices were in USA as well.
Afghan Jihad was hailed as a victory of the free world, too bad it led to this point in time.

Moving forward, yes there is a need for all countries here to sit together and resolve their issues and deny space to any non state actors whether they are targeting Afghanistan, Pakistan or India.
I think we all need to let go of our past mutual disliking and start becoming real neighbors via some solid commitment towards each other, is this going to happen...lets hope so.

I agree with most of your post but the fact I would like to put is that pakistani army has created its own definition to term an organisation as terrorist depending upon its own interest and organisation capability to act for its purpose. You can't distinguish terrorism good and bad depending on its use. Its a glitch in the policy and need some serious thinking.

Bolded part is something to die for.
Hope it comes true.

 

[PoKeMon]

There is a difference between terrorists of AQ and the Afghan Taliban when we dealt with them.
You need to familiarize yourself with rise of Taliban and who filled their ranks. Mostly they were Afghan Jihad veterans.
They were not a terrorist faction and Pakistan recognized their government, so nothing illegal or nefarious there at that point in time.
Was it in our strategic interest, yes it was.
Was our intent to support AQ, hell no!

Al Qaeda which is the international monster responsible for the current wave of terrorism was mostly an Arab reactionary movement which became purely terrorist.
Pakistan did not sow the seeds of Al Qaeda, its ideology was born in the middle east.
Before Al Qaeda, OBL was a hero of Afghan war and his fund raising offices were in USA as well.
Afghan Jihad was hailed as a victory of the free world, too bad it led to this point in time.

Moving forward, yes there is a need for all countries here to sit together and resolve their issues and deny space to any non state actors whether they are targeting Afghanistan, Pakistan or India.
I think we all need to let go of our past mutual disliking and start becoming real neighbors via some solid commitment towards each other, is this going to happen...lets hope so.

I agree with most of your post but the fact I would like to put is that pakistani army has created its own definition to term an organisation as terrorist depending upon its own interest and organisation capability to act for its purpose. You can't distinguish terrorism good and bad depending on its use. Its a glitch in the policy and need some serious thinking.

Bolded part is something to die for.
Hope it comes true.

 

[muse]

That glitch may be the loss of plausible deniability - Pakistanis were never big the need to have the local or regional or world audiences on their side and squandered away whatever deniablity they once maintained -- so now they can only be assaulted by the narratives of their adversaries

 

[All-Green]

Now, when we said events will speak for themselves and this army will be made to change, if it does not do it herself and in doing so positions herself as a genuine power broker for future scenario, we had the more Muslim than the Mullah, types create all kinds of ruckus and create disingenuous arguments - Well, how now??

Hello Muse,

We discussed the technicality of the matter and the need for boots on ground exceeds the need to mobilize additional divisions for airborne/air assault operations.
SSG has been increased to division strength so we have enough mobile operators when needed and certainly in Swat we used a lot of SSG to attack peochar before the regular infantry grunts had any chance to get anywhere near it.

The change in overall strategy does not require a change in army's formations in my opinion, we have enough dimensions in our military to adapt to most of the feasible strategies and that is what i have been saying.
We need the numbers to deny space to terrorists and i do not agree with reducing numbers to increase mobility.

Now what is the relevance of OBL's death with the proposed reorganization of our fighting formations in a certain way?
Would the Government/ISI/Army need to reassess their performance in this scenario, yes they do and it may not be a bad thing for them or us in the long run.
Mind you we captured/killed more Al Qaeda than any other Army so it is not like we did nothing, however this particular episode has given cause of concern and maybe that will provide the necessary impetus to invigorate and coordinate the operations on another level.

However coming to the reorganization, my concerns are still valid since we need the numbers and combat experience of military in field as opposed to any other formation.

I think some of us will not see any thing they don't wish to -- anyway the larger point - once again - is to position the Fauj for the future, NOW - because the changes, the transition, not just for the army but the state, are only going to gain strength

Muse,

Once again i fail to see the light and once again you try little to clarify what i am missing.
I have looked at a piece or two in this thread and commented on the non viability of reorienting 2-3 divisions of our infantry towards more mobile role, while in parallel reducing the number of troops.
I have emphasized the need for ample boots on ground to hold territory and control the flow of events, if we are to take on every god damn militant group in the Pakistan Afghanistan belt.

We have increased SSG strength from one brigade to one division and have more actively deployed them in recent years than ever before.
Peochar operation was an air assault carried on by a whole battalion of SSG while the regular infantry was miles and miles away.
We also deployed SSG extensively in SWA where we landed our air assault troops on mountain tops and did not let the buggers ambush us.

My issue with the proposed reorientation of military is why should we propose to reduce the numbers when we have ample mobility as it is and need the numbers not just to deal with traditional rival armies but with these terrorists/insurgents as well.

If the reorientation required is with respect to the low intensity conflict, then there are extensive retraining programs active in Army and even in PMA such courses are in place now.

My argument is based on the military non viability of the reorientation as envisioned in the original article pertaining to the doctrine of more mobility with lesser numbers.
I am of the view that we have enough mobility to handle these buggers and also need a lot of troops to choke this insurgency to death.

I am in no way saying that our national security policy does not need a major revamp.
Clearly we should strive more and more in order to improve the counter terrorism network.
We need to work on how we are processing the information received from all avenues into a clear and concise strategy whereby there are very quantifiable objectives given to all the organs of state including the bureaucracy, police, paramilitary, military and agencies.
There should be a national security council which has both civilian and military presence and it should be directly fed in the bits and pieces of information being available to all the agencies.
This shall ensure more visibility, cross questioning, accountability as well as ensuring that everyone is in the same boat.
The PM, COAS, Chief Justice, Foreign minister and interior minister should be on this NSC-National Security Council.
The NSC should have direct access to all the agencies heads and IGs of each province.

I am all for improvement in how we are approaching this war but to me in this post OBL scenario, the area to focus on is our agencies and the police.
The police needs to be taken off their bodyguard duty and be given much more authority, if we are to deny breathing space to these buggers.
We need criminal cases and proper evidence to eradicate the support structure, army action is only effective against the armed terrorists/militants.
Many a bugger has been caught by Army and released due to lack of evidence, only to strike again.
We need the police here as well.
Maybe the trend of drastic changes and interference in police appointments needs to end.
These changes should only be made by the DIGs/IGs and the political pressure on our police should be lifted completely in order to make them professional and fearless of any political fallout of their interrogations and investigations.

Dear Muse,
Still waiting for a more elaborate and clear reply on your part here to carry this critical discussion forward.
thanks.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I agree with most of your post but the fact I would like to put is that pakistani army has created its own definition to term an organisation as terrorist depending upon its own interest and organisation capability to act for its purpose. You can't distinguish terrorism good and bad depending on its use. Its a glitch in the policy and need some serious thinking.

Bolded part is something to die for.
Hope it comes true.

See the problem is that it is nt just national interest that is defining Pakistan's (or for that matter the majority of the world's population's opinion)... Are Afghan Taliban engaged in vicious acts of terrrorism against innocent people? Have they bombed civilians anywhere in the world? As a forewarning to those who dislike the Taliban dont drag this issue into what the Taliban did to their own people and the stupid laws they were making in the name of Islam... we are all on the same side here... I m strictly talking about issues of senseless violence... there is no evidence that Afghan Taliban have done that... up until now they have been opposing the Kharaji groups inside Pakistan i.e the TTP et al from attacking Pakistani people and Army... You cant just declare a resisting force against an invasion as a terrorist organization... Indians would however love just that...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think characterizing only the politicians as nepotistic and corrupt is a little harsh..
When the military itself is not secure from it.

Al right then - contrast the performance of the largest military run foundations and companies with the performance of the largest Public Sector Enterprizes.

Fauji Foundation along paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, while the largest PSE's lose around $3 billion annually.

Military run benefit, education and residential programs function largely without major corruption scandals and accusations of inept administration.

This is not to suggest that the military does no have its flaws, scandals and performance issues, but that compared to the civilian leadership and institutions, it performs much, much better at what it does.

Room for improvement in the military? Absolutely, but there is significantly more room for improvement on the civilian side, and it is far more necessary.

 

[T-Faz]

Al right then - contrast the performance of the largest military run foundations and companies with the performance of the largest Public Sector Enterprizes.

Fauji Foundation along paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, while the largest PSE's lose around $3 billion annually.

Military run benefit, education and residential programs function largely without major corruption scandals and accusations of inept administration.

This is not to suggest that the military does no have its flaws, scandals and performance issues, but that compared to the civilian leadership and institutions, it performs much, much better at what it does.

Room for improvement in the military? Absolutely, but there is significantly more room for improvement on the civilian side, and it is far more necessary.

Why must you compare military run foundations to their civilian counterparts?

If the civilian enterprises/companies are corrupt, does that mean that the military have a free hand in being corrupt as well.

All this deflection only allows the military to continue with their corrupt ways and because of a lack of any accountability, they get away with large scale corruption that does not even get heard of.

Just because they have kept their corrupt ways out of the news does not mean they are not involved in perhaps the largest corruption scandals in the history of this nation.

I could tell you of grand corruption scandals that do not even get a mention in the press because of our armies involvement in them.

This whole mindset has allowed the army to function the way it does and look where we stand today.

 

[SQ8]

Why must you compare military run foundations to their civilian counterparts?

If the civilian enterprises/companies are corrupt, does that mean that the military have a free hand in being corrupt as well.

All this deflection only allows the military to continue with their corrupt ways and because of a lack of any accountability, they get away with large scale corruption that does not even get heard of.

Just because they have kept their corrupt ways out of the news does not mean they are not involved in perhaps the largest corruption scandals in the history of this nation.

I could tell you of grand corruption scandals that do not even get a mention in the press because of our armies involvement in them.

This whole mindset has allowed the army to function the way it does and look where we stand today.

Which makes you wonder if the oft used tagline "bloody civilians" came from...
perhaps to cover their own tracks??

 

[muse]

Sorry for the duplicate post

 

[muse]

We have consistently argued here and in private that Pakistan must "transition" - that this "transition" has a State (institutions) and society level elements to it and as far as institutions such as the Pak Fauj and ISI are concerned, it would be beneficial, as in smart, to be ahead of these transitions and in doing so be able to be retain and even increase, their influential -- Yet the reactionary amongst us have found this a bitter pill - it is incredible, that these reactionaries are as far removed from reality as they are; we have argued that these transitions are necessary and that if resistance to these is offered in an unsophisticated and objectionable manner, these institutions will find that the transitions will have a coercive quality to these reactionaries and the institutions they influence.


Today, the US wants a list of all ISI who had dealings with Osama and Al-Qaida, tomorrow what will seek, as they dismantle (simply by examining in public) organizations that are heavily influenced by the character and values of those who lead these organizations (Fauj and ISI)

 

[All-Green]

We have consistently argued here and in private that Pakistan must "transition" - that this "transition" has a State (institutions) and society level elements to it and as far as institutions such as the Pak Fauj and ISI are concerned, it would be beneficial, as in smart, to be ahead of these transitions and in doing so be able to be retain and even increase, their influential -- Yet the reactionary amongst us have found this a bitter pill - it is incredible, that these reactionaries are as far removed from reality as they are; we have argued that these transitions are necessary and that if resistance to these is offered in an unsophisticated and objectionable manner, these institutions will find that the transitions will have a coercive quality to these reactionaries and the institutions they influence.


Today, the US wants a list of all ISI who had dealings with Osama and Al-Qaida, tomorrow what will seek, as they dismantle (simply by examining in public) organizations that are heavily influenced by the character and values of those who lead these organizations (Fauj and ISI)

Muse,
Can you please quantify what needs to be done in this transition?
I have spent a good deal of time on this thread and still have had no real answer as to what is being proposed in terms of enhancing the COIN capability of our state.
I am not too sure about reducing manpower at this stage, simply because we need troops in numbers to deny space to insurgents and to assist with the reconstruction and infrastructure development.
High Mobility is already achieved through SSG which has been increased in numbers to provide the air assault capability in various theaters of war.

Coming to the nation narrative and strategic vision, the need for this is not just confined to the military and hence we need a broader forum for this in which the different stakeholders need to contribute to build something multidimensional and in tune with the reality.

To me, the need to restructure ourselves in order to ensure across the board visibility for all the key players in this COIN is essential and of far more consequence than retooling a few divisions towards more mobility.
We can modernize the military in the long term but in short term we can handle it with current forces, provided the strategy is clear and execution is coordinated and not just limited to military.

I have proposed a National Security Council in this regards which will not just improve the COIN effort, but also pave way for a greater and much more stable Pakistan which does not suffer the policy hiccups and strategic brain freeze it has suffered from in the past.

We cannot have isolated strategy for agencies, military, police, judiciary, legislation and interior/foreign ministries...they all need to have clarity in vision and coherence in functionality!
All these tools of the state have to tread a uniform strategy.

A national security council should be created so that any and all shortcomings are addressed in a transparent manner...
At least transparent to the key heads who have better understanding of their domains and the various bottlenecks, shortcomings and procedural issues that plague them.

To develop a national narrative and to ensure that it is enforced/followed in true essence, we need all these divisions to work together on one forum.

 

[muse]

Can you please quantify what needs to be done in this transition?

Actually I am offering only what the lead piece suggests, I have nothing specific other than that -- To me, what's important is that these "transitions" are part of a overall direction change and they hand in hand with killing the islamist insurgency and deeper relations with India, among others .

AG, India maintain capabilities, and these we must be sober about, however, we need to realize that those who may actually be involved with us in a hostile manner, are more than likely, not the Indian. The Indian after centuries, now enjoys 10% growth rates, and we are to believe the Indian is eager to have us evaporate them and this achievement to hell ??

On the other hand, there are others who like to work in the form of "coalitions" - these are structurally unable to have any kind of meaningful relations with any Muslim majority country -- that Muslim bit is a spoiler, they simply will not get past that and nor will will we - it's time we just internalize and accept that and plan our security with that in mind - does not mean we can't work together, but it does mean our friend and allies are elsewhere, and not with "coalitions".

About the national narrative -- What is Pakistan? Who are friends and who are enemies, why are friends friends and enemies enemies? What is good in the world of material achievement, the Duniya and how this achievement rests on the ideas of Deen - what are the limits, demarcation line between Deen and Duniya? Alas, yes, back to values. In this question of values, I invite you to consider the subject of material achievement because we are not all thinkers and or spiritual, but we all understand material achievement, especially in the pursuit of dignity.