Understanding Pakistan's Military / ISNOriginally Posted by S2
A old but interesting article, I particularly like the way he tackles the merits and demerits of the military budget for Pakistan.
'Voltaire remarked of Frederick the Great’s Prussia that “Where some states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state.” In view of the sheer size, effectiveness and wealth of the Pakistan military and associated institutions compared to the rest of the state, much the same could be said of Pakistan.
The Pakistani military is the only Pakistani state institution which works as it is officially meant to – which means that it repeatedly does something that it is not meant to, which is to overthrow what in Pakistan is called “democracy” and seize control of the state from other institutions. The military has therefore been seen as extremely bad for Pakistan’s progress, at least if that progress is to be defined in standard western terms.
On the other hand, it has also always been true that without a strong military, Pakistan would most probably long since have disintegrated. That is more than ever true today, as the country faces the powerful insurgency of the Pakistani Taleban and their allies. The Taleban threat makes the unity and discipline of the Army of paramount importance to Pakistan and the world – all the more so because the deep unpopularity of US strategy among the vast majority of Pakistanis has made even the limited alliance between the Pakistani military and the US extremely unpopular in Pakistani society, and among many soldiers.
The Pakistani military owes its success as a modern institution to the fact that it has to a considerable extent separated itself from the political culture of the rest of the country, which revolves around kinship, factions, and patronage – which alas all too often shades over into corruption and even kleptocracy. Of course, corruption does exist within the military, but to nothing like the same extent as in the rest of society.
The military has been able to achieve this separation because of two deeply intertwined and mutually dependent factors: a collective ethos which promotes honest service to the military as an institution; and a great deal of money. Without the resources to reward the soldiers adequately and provide them with decent services, the collective ethos of service, honesty and discipline could not be maintained. On the other hand, without this collective ethos, many of the resources given to the military would simply be stolen, as they are in the rest of the state.
To put it another way, the military’s success as an institution and its power over the state comes from its immunity to kinship interests and the corruption they bring with them; but it has only been able to achieve this immunity by turning itself into a sort of giant kinship group, extracting patronage from the state and distributing it to its members.
The scale of military spending has severely limited funds available for education, development, medical services and infrastructure. If continued, this imbalance risks eventually crippling the country and sending Pakistan the way of the Soviet Union – another country which got itself into a ruinous military race with a vastly richer power. On the other hand, the rewards of loyal military service have also helped to prevent military mutinies and coups by junior officers – something that would plunge Pakistan overnight into African chaos, and usher in civil war and Islamist revolt...'
Last edited by Kasrkin; 15 May 11, at 00:42.
kasrkin, good article though there is one aspect I'd disagree with
The Army's approach to the Talebunnies is one of torpor. They have to be prodded into action by international players, the mere death of their own population isn't enough of a casus belli.The Taleban threat makes the unity and discipline of the Army of paramount importance to Pakistan and the world –
The Pakistan Army is in no way a threat to the continued existence of the Taliban.
Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.
They should be even more scared of a CIA that no longer has to 'play nice' in order to keep those supply lines to the nth open. Being needed buys pakistan some grace.
Last edited by Bigfella; 15 May 11, at 01:31.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
What is a potential breach ? Either its is a breach or not so which is it.
You give more emphasis to people links but why do i get the impression that disputed territory is the bigger deal here. As you have those links in non-disputed areas as well. My PM was born in a village that today is in your country & Musharaf was born here.
Now about disputed territory you got 99% of what you wanted after parition so why crib over the remainder ? Actually if you were just cribbing it would be ok but you've done much more than that.
What about east pakistan, a territory that actually was part of your country for over thirty years. Why no genuine place in your psychology for that. Yet you pine for a place you never had to begin with. A small area of Kashmir, ie the valley has the most unrest, the rest of it is peaceful.
He was ousted in 2007, many years after Agra. That is why i feel he went to that summit with nothing to lose. As to why push for it as simple as saying he tried and it was no use. There was no penalty for failing is my point. You could say the same applies to my leaders as well. I was dissapointed.
For me the rationale is very simple, more wealth can be generated to benefit the majority of both countries rather than a minority in times of mistrust.
But do you agree they weren't unilateral actions, they were reactions. You were calling the shots there. I was hoping you could show beligerent actions fitting of an antagonist. By definition those would be unilateral.
Wasn't this board sceptical of it. Recall a study by Cordesman i think it was linked here doing an analaysis of the border positions, Z did lots of posts about it as well. Yes, the impression i was left was what the govt said that this is a figment of the imagination of the think tank & strategy ppl.
For me the simplest test is after mumbai, if we did not do a targeted strike then because we were unsure whether you would be able to distinguish a nuke attack from a non-nuke attack and overreact, then why would we think CSD has a better chance. CSD is a reactionary doctrine. If you do not do anything then we're not going to be knocking on your door.
But you have not shown us doing that in the last twenty years. Oh we've made plenty of noises but nothing concrete. Words by themselves are useless.
An interesting reply, hope others will take a look at it . Will try to answer it.
1. Yes, Zia said the water must be kept at the right temperature
2. Yes.
3. You've not had a single civilian leader complete their term since indepedence.
4. Am willing to concede the budget point for now, it appears the spends are similar to ours, whether we look at it in terms of budget or as a share of GDP.
Your military is the biggest institution in the country and the most powerful. That position has been built up over decades. Unelected bodies do their best to maintain that position.
The only way to say otherwise is for a civilian to tell the military what to do. But thats not happened since the 70s and only in an exceptional situation. That is not how it works elsewhere.
It would seem you are saying the military in your country enjoys its position because it successfully manages to show it is required. Its very resourceful. More resourceful than civilian leaders.
Last edited by Double Edge; 15 May 11, at 01:47.
lol. Seems to be the common folks in Karachi with hugely dented egos after the Abottabad strike. Pulled the pic from this article: As Rift Deepens, Kerry Has a Warning for PakistanSure that isn't a photo from a Pakistani Army veterans convention?
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.
Can you name the majority ethnic groups in Pakistani "Azad" Kashmir? Let me name them for you, you are free to point out where I'm wrong. The vast Majority of Pakistani Kashmiris, including Muzzafarabad, Pakistani Kashmir's main city, are people who are ethnically Dogras, Gujjars, Hindkowans, Pahari and Pothari people. All of these groups are indic groups and their languages are indic languages, anyone speaking Punjabi can understand these languages (Pothari is just a dialect of Punjabi). Indian Kashmir also has the same ethnic groups, only difference is that these groups in Indian Kashmir follow Hinduism and Sikhism as majority and a minority follows Islam. They are situated in Southern Kashmir, in the Jammu region. The Kashmir Valley, does not have these ethnic groups! The Kashmir valley people are ethnic Koshuri/Dardic people, and they have no relation to Punjabis, or Pakistani Kashmiris (who are ethnically same as the majority Hindus and Sikhs of Southern Kashmir/Jammu of India). I for one can easily pick out and understand Dogri, Gojri, Hindko or Pahari spoken in Southern Kashmir or Pakistani Kashmir, as it is close to Punjabi, but I cannot understand a word of Koshari spoken in the Kashmir valley. Koshari is similar to the languages spoken in Northern Areas of Pakistan, like the people of Chitral. It is nowhere close to Punjabi.
I guess sometimes we miss these small details.I recall one famous self acclaimed journalist on PDF a few years back started writing her posts in Hindko thinking she wouldn't be understood by other Indians; who knew ignorance could bite back?
Last edited by Tronic; 15 May 11, at 08:19.
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.
All right. I've read the article completely and now must know why you've posted it. The article appears to be less than one year old. In discussing an institution over sixty four years of age that's hardly outdated...so, IMV, likely relevant. It certainly was an excellent overview, minimally, of all the forces and influences that play into shaping the P.A.'s worldview.
The question I have is to what degree you embrace Anatol Lieven's summary?
Your perspective would be immensely helpful.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
You serve the interests of your own mission and hence are as self-serving as what you accuse us of being. Would you be in Afghanistan if your towers had not fallen? If your war is truly a global WOT, then why do we not see you equally altruistically proactive in bringing closure to the Mumbai perpetrators? And why are your forces not in Pakistan instead which is the real mother hive of global terror? You need to be more equitable in your approach towards all acts and actors of terror worldwide before you can truly lay claim to being the leader on a GLOBAL war on terror. Unless the connotation of global simply implies your reach in the furtherance of your own intersts.
I am sure you read carefully the entire post even though you choose to quote selectively. Can you deny what I have said above in terms of the US finding an able ally to fill the void when you exit? Can you deny that exit you will – sooner rather than later? The US may or may not see India in that role. Whether India reciprocates is entirely up to India, and would be a major strategic paradigm shift, which we will enter into, if at all, on our own terms or not at all. Even so, what are you regional alternatives? Making a pact with the devil may look inviting in the short term. But what would you then have to show for ten years and trillion plus dollar spend, not to mention the lives of your young men? Even a first year economics grad will tell you that it never makes sense to send good money to chase down bad money.Ah, but that's YOU suggesting we must find a regional and global partner of trusting merit and military and financial strength in "somebody else" (i.e., India)-
"...Someone they could trust, regionally and globally.
Someone militarily strong and financially sound..."
I repeat, America serves its own interests as do its allies whose interests have long being tied to its coattails. So I do not agree with your broad sweeping “international community” brush stroke sir. Lets look at it rationally shall we? Has Russia joined you in this? Has China joined you in this? Has India joined you in this? The latter two make up close to half the world population of the “international community” you allude to. Not to mention that these three also represent a significant portion of the top 5 global firepower. Has the Muslim world joined you in this? There goes another quarter of the souls residing on our planet. So help me understand here how the 40 odd allies you refer to constitute in your eyes the entire “international community”? It is also for the same reason, much as you would like to harp on NATO and the UN, the world at large sees both as primarily American in interest and control, and not truly representative of the current global matrix.America serves the interests of the internat'l community as those interests are in alignment with ours. India? That's for your government to answer but, to date, their response hasn't been sufficient in my view to become that "regional and global partner" to whom you allude.
So you basically mirror what I said in the first point of my reply to you. You were attacked. You responded. Simple. Everything else in the way of motive and benefit is window dressing at best. So please do not grumble about the cost and about others not pulling their weight - its simply not their weight to pull.Conversely we also have the burden of fighting an enemy while building a community thousands of miles from our home. It is from Afghanistan that we were attacked so nowhere is too far for our obligation of self-defense.
If on the other hand America sees others as true allies and pulls their weight with as much enthusiasm and vigor as it does its own, well then that could be the start of a true alliance and the efforts would be reciprocated, rather than the vassal-like “strategic” arrangements you have been used to in the region till now. Till that happens, self-interest will continue to be the prime motivator of all engagement. On both sides.
My reference was to a point you made in an earlier post about CAR and possible motivations thereof. India is in Afghanistan to help the Afghans. Strategic interests will no doubt also determine the level of our engagement with various parties in the days to come. And that I am sure will continue and grow whether you are in the region or not - so your piggy-backing allegation is still to pass the test of time. For CAR, short of re-opening the 100 odd km land bridge with Afghanistan, we can and probably will turn to Iran in the short and medium term.Self-serving myopia. My reference was to an Afghanistan serving a community of nations towards such. It is land-locked, if you haven't noticed, and will require connection to both Iran (remember your Zaranj-Delaram road project) AND Pakistan.
Cheers, Doc
Last edited by vsdoc; 15 May 11, at 06:41.
"You serve the interests of your own mission and hence are as self-serving as what you accuse us of being."
Bonn Accord. Have you read it?
"...Would you be in Afghanistan if your towers had not fallen?..."
If towers hadn't fallen in New York might they have fallen elsewhere?
"...If your war is truly a global WOT, then why do we not see you equally altruistically proactive in bringing closure to the Mumbai perpetrators?..."
Thank you for the vote of omnipotence but isn't that really YOUR problem? Nonetheless, are we not bringing to trial in America two men implicated in exactly such?
"...And why are your forces not in Pakistan instead which is the real mother hive of global terror?..."
Really? YOU ask America that question? Is India so helpless? If so, for what is your own rather enormous defense expenditures? Do you not have a precedent reaching far beyond 9/11? Don't tell me a few measly Pakistani nukes have upset your equilibrium now.
"...You need to be more equitable in your approach towards all acts and actors of terror worldwide before you can truly lay claim to being the leader on a GLOBAL war on terror..."
Oh, we do fine. You'll find our forces operating on virtually every continent in the world. Whether you wish to follow our stead or otherwise is your choice but we clearly aren't holding our breath.
"...Unless the connotation of global simply implies your reach in the furtherance of your own intersts..."
BTW, it is. Our interests are decidedly global. That explains our call centers in India-
We can laugh about it. Can you?
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
And if they had, Mumbai for instance, would you have done the same? That really is the basic question S2.
Exactly. It is our problem. And you have not done much else than pay lip service. Yet you claim to champion the global war on terror. So are our terrorists less than yours? Are our lives lost less than yours? We know the answer. The world does. You do. Why not verbalize and remove the ambiguity?Thank you for the vote of omnipotence but isn't that really YOUR problem? Nonetheless, are we not bringing to trial in America two men implicated in exactly such?
Yes I do, so please do not project and digress defensively. Our capability and gumption is not on question here. You claims of selfless championing of global WOT is. As is us not buying into what you're trying to sell. What stops you from doing what you say we cannot? Its not your problem? Say it S2.Really? YOU ask America that question? Is India so helpless? If so, for what is your own rather enormous defense expenditures? Do you not have a precedent reaching far beyond 9/11? Don't tell me a few measly Pakistani nukes have upset your equilibrium now.
You do fine where it serves your interests to do so. Where it does not, you make all the correct noises. But deliver little else. Not that we are holding our breath for anything otherwise either.Oh, we do fine. You'll find our forces operating on virtually every continent in the world. Whether you wish to follow our stead or otherwise is your choice but we clearly aren't holding our breath.
Sure I can. Just as soon as you also include videos of all the Indian professionals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, IT geeks who contribute to making your country what it is. No. 2 in wealth and education amongst your imports at last count as I recall. Consider it a token of our goodwill.BTW, it is. Our interests are decidedly global. That explains our call centers in India-
We can laugh about it. Can you?
P.S. And oh yes, you won't find one of them trying to blow up Manhattan anytime soon either.
Last edited by vsdoc; 15 May 11, at 09:01.
"And if they had, Mumbai for instance, would you have done the same? That really is the basic question S2."
Gone to war in Afghanistan for India? No. We'd gone to war, in all likelihood, in Afghanistan WITH India. Really, vsdoc, the basic question is whether India would have made war upon Al Qaeda and the taliban...by yourselves if necessary?
As we were quite prepared and, in fact, did.
"...And you have not done much else than pay lip service."
It's not necessary to be intentionally churlish. As indicated we're bringing to trial in Chicago two men associated with the crimes in Mumbai where America lost six of our citizens too. As for "...lip service..." you are in no position to actually KNOW what investigative help or otherwise we've provided. I say that with a very high degree of assurance.
You are, of course, welcome to help yourself in the manner I suspect you'd like America to assist you. Use our recent example with OBL as guidance if you like and consider it a freely offered signpost to the possibilities.
"...Our capability and gumption is not on question here..."
Oh really? Consider otherwise. I made plain my belief India piggybacks upon America and ISAF's efforts in Afghanistan.
"...You claims of selfless championing of global WOT is..."
I've evidently a need to list the litany of operations in which America either leads or participates from Phillippine Mindanao operations to Somalian piracy through Yemen and Libya. That doesn't include S. America or U.S. Navy operations in the Persian gulf. Hopefully that might serve as a brief refresher although I hold little hope of your appreciation for the cost in our blood and treasure.
Game, set, and match.
"...What stops you from doing what you say we cannot? Its not your problem? Say it S2..."
Probably keeping New Delhi from being radiated. That's your call. Not our's.
What stops you from participating fully in the ISAF mission for Afghanistan? Is that not in your narrow self-interests or are those interests already admirably served on India's behalf by others?
"You do fine where it serves your interests to do so. Where it does not, you make all the correct noises. But deliver little else."
Call me when India remotely approaches a similar global legacy of aid and security contribution...even if measured by narrow self-interests. Not before then, please. At present and historically there's been no comparison nor do I anticipate any sea-change in that respect anytime soon judging from you.
"Consider it a token of our goodwill."
Last I checked most are applying for citizenship.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Forget Afghanistan. Would you go to war WITH us against Pakistan?
An here you speak with the full backing of the United States government and its Armed Forces backing you as you offer us this carte blanche?You are, of course, welcome to help yourself in the manner I suspect you'd like America to assist you. Use our recent example with OBL as guidance if you like and consider it a freely offered signpost to the possibilities.
Yet you go on to say this .....
Either you are contradicting yourself or you are challenging us to get radiated.Probably keeping New Delhi from being radiated. That's your call. Not our's.
Its not our fight. Our enemies lie elsewhere. And we are justifiably reluctant in putting our money and arms behind someone who sleeps with the enemy, yet tries to court our support as well. If India's interests are furthered as a consequence of external forces, we are not complaining. You could of course ask us to pay up or butt out.What stops you from participating fully in the ISAF mission for Afghanistan? Is that not in your narrow self-interests or are those interests already admirably served on India's behalf by others?
This exchange is fast gathering confrontational momentum. Our positions have been clearly stated without mincing words. Anything more will be going around in circles. And I respect you and the American people too much for that to happen. You are a great nation. We do not grudge you that. There is a lot of good that you do and have done. So while you may call me churlish, please realise that I respect that. But on this matter and the posts discussing that, I am very clear in what I believe in so much as it reflects on and relates to my country vis-a-vis yours. It is indeed sad that all that comes between the world's largest democracies is a failed fundamental theocratic state.Call me when India remotely approaches a similar global legacy of aid and security contribution...even if measured by narrow self-interests. Not before then, please. At present and historically there's been no comparison nor do I anticipate any sea-change in that respect anytime soon judging from you.
Cheers, Doc
^^ Exactly, it is USA that has been the prime force behind Pakistan becoming the Frankenstein it has.
Someone said that USA always does the right thing.
After trying everything else.
India's Pakistan predicament is in large part due to the policies of USA as well, it has courted the enemy for too long. Still doing it.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..
To be fair, Pakistan was not always the US's enemy, and so we cannot realistically grudge them the relationship they have shared over the decades. Pakistan today is being asked to pay the price of its survival, as the US extracts its pound of flesh. Its not a bad bargain for Pakistan when you see what the US hand afforded them for this long.
True, it was not the enemy. The relations were always uneasy though, Ayub wrote "friends not masters" in the 60s about the relationship.
For the last 2 decades we have suffered terror because USA was backing Pakistan and ignoring all its atrocities as long as its narrow interests were met.
Now they see the duplicity resulting in the death of not just Indian civilians but also US and coalition soldiers.
What do we see as a result, more of the same. Still Kerry going there to mollycoddle them, more billions will be showered and the Haaqanis and Queta Shura will continue to be hosted and likely even become a part of Afghan dispensation after the drawdown.
If that happens, it is back to square one, exactly as it was on 9/10.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
56Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: