Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War

    Should make for an informative read:

    Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War

    Since Pakistan was founded in 1947, its army has dominated the state. The military establishment has locked the country in an enduring rivalry with India, with the primary aim of wresting Kashmir from it. To that end, Pakistan initiated three wars over Kashmir-in 1947, 1965, and 1999-and failed to win any of them. Today, the army continues to prosecute this dangerous policy by employing non-state actors under the security of its ever-expanding nuclear umbrella. It has sustained a proxy war in Kashmir since 1989 using Islamist militants, as well as supporting non-Islamist insurgencies throughout India and a country-wide Islamist terror campaign that have brought the two countries to the brink of war on several occasions. In addition to these territorial revisionist goals, the Pakistani army has committed itself to resisting India's slow but inevitable rise on the global stage.

    Despite Pakistan's efforts to coerce India, it has achieved only modest successes at best. Even though India vivisected Pakistan in 1971, Pakistan continues to see itself as India's equal and demands the world do the same. The dangerous methods that the army uses to enforce this self-perception have brought international opprobrium upon Pakistan and its army. And in recent years, their erstwhile proxies have turned their guns on the Pakistani state itself.

    Why does the army persist in pursuing these revisionist policies that have come to imperil the very viability of the state itself, from which the army feeds? In Fighting to the End, C. Christine Fair argues that the answer lies, at least partially, in the strategic culture of the army. Through an unprecedented analysis of decades' worth of the army's own defense publications, she concludes that from the army's distorted view of history, it is victorious as long as it can resist India's purported drive for regional hegemony as well as the territorial status quo. Simply put, acquiescence means defeat. Fighting to the End convincingly shows that because the army is unlikely to abandon these preferences, Pakistan will remain a destabilizing force in world politics for the foreseeable future.

    Editorial Reviews

    "In this painstakingly developed and brilliantly argued book, one of America's leading South Asia scholars examines Pakistan's chronic insecurities and grand ideological ambitions that generate high levels of conflict for itself, the region, and the world. Using extensive primary and secondary sources, Christine Fair shows conclusively that Pakistan is insecure not only for its inability to obtain Kashmir, but due to a civilizational notion that it ought to be a co-equal with India and that it should employ all means, including Jihadist violence, to obtain strategic parity with its larger neighbor. Her findings have far-reaching consequences and immense policy implications." --T.V. Paul, McGill University, and author of The Warrior State

    "Provocative and essential: this book will make you think seriously about one of the world's newest danger points." --Stephen P. Cohen, Brookings Institution, and author of Shooting for a Century

    "Pakistan is at an historical crossroads yet again. It needs to clearly define its future by ending the ambivalence about good and bad militancy. Either it becomes a successful democratic entity with a thriving economy or it heads into debilitating internal and external conflict. Fair's penetrating critique of its mid-level military narratives, often charged with Islamist dogma, is a must-read for both civilian and military leaders, as they seek a course correction in their domestic governance and relations with friends and foes." --Shuja Nawaz, Director, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council, and author of Crossed Swords

    "Pakistan's dominant institution, the army, has embraced an anti-Indian Islamo-nationalism that alone can explain some of its less professional institutional decisions. In her well-researched book, Fair analyzes the ideological underpinnings of the Pakistan army's strategic culture. It is a valuable addition to the literature on the subject with original material often overlooked by scholars in the past." --Husain Haqqani, former Pakistan ambassador to the US, and author of Magnificent Delusions

    "In this book, Fair combines a deep knowledge of South Asia with insights from international relations theory. It provides a compelling assessment of Pakistan's strategic behavior focused on the preferences of the most important institution in the country -- the Pakistani Army. The book is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the security environment in this important region of the world." --S. Paul Kapur, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School

    About the Author

    C. Christine Fair is an Assistant Professor in the Security Studies Program within Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She previously served as a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation, a political officer with the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan in Kabul, and a senior research associate in the Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention at the United States Institute of Peace.

    Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War: C. Christine Fair: 9780199892709: Amazon.com: Books

  • #2
    Christine is always fun to listen to at talks and discussions. Fluent in Hindi, Punjabi & Urdu.

    And a sense of humour :)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      Christine is always fun to listen to at talks and discussions. Fluent in Hindi, Punjabi & Urdu.

      And a sense of humour :)
      It seems her analysis is spot-on...

      Pakistani government feels weight of army's heavy hand
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        That was an interesting article but i did not see Fair's input in there

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          That was an interesting article but i did not see Fair's input in there
          In the case of Pakistan, the tail (government) cannot wag the dog (military)
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            A recent article of her's which touches on the theme of her latest book can be found here: Who’s Killing Pakistan’s Shia and Why?

            Comment


            • #7
              "Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War" - YouTube

              Comment


              • #8
                Did anyone else chuckle at the title? Fighting to the end.... the PA is a bunch of surrender monkeys.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Good video.

                  Ive only watched the first 30 mins so far but Christine Fair has articled so well what many of us who are not from that part of the World have come to learn and understand about Pakistan over the past several years. Its been said before on here many times and Fair has pretty much reiterated the massive inferiority complex suffered by Pakistan and its deluded self-perception of its own power and importance.

                  Pakistan clearly has no identity or purpose other than to be anti-India, which it is mostly a brake-away territory of. Its only other cause to exist seems to be to meddle in Afghanistan by sponsoring Sunni Islamist movements to pacify the Pashto population so that they do not rebel against Pakistan and become too powerful as a nationalist force in Afghanistan.

                  Fair says that Pakistan's unrealistic sense of itself goes back to before its actual creation. This seems to be true for more reasons than she has mentioned. Having read quite a bit now on this region over the past several years i have came to see that the peoples of the northwest Indian subcontinent have suffered a kind of strange and confusing psychological paradox that was imprinted onto them during their transformation under British rule.

                  It seems that the British in their typically self-serving orientalist and pseudo-anthropological 'studies' invented out of thin air what they decided was a broadly unified ethnic group they called "Punjabis", who are a actually just a collection of sub-ethnic Indian "castes" and tribes that spoke several closely related dialects and inhabited the same region. Before the British rule in India, i have not found any mention of a "Punjabi people" or a "Punjabi nation" in any historical source. They have no unique history or civilization, no unique national symbols, flags, currency, dynasties etc etc Only a brief kingdom established by a Sikh in the 19th century that survived independently a few decades. The rest of this region's history is basically apart of wider Indian history but has the distinction of always being conquered and occupied by one foreign force or another, with its name and borders changing several times (the latest name "Punjab" is itself a foreign imposed name).

                  From what i understand, British orientalists drew-up the borders of Punjab and nurtured the establishment of a unified "Punjabi" ethnic group that never existed before among the peoples that lived in that region by giving them a shared sense of "provincial" identity, despite their "caste" and religious differences. Pseudo-anthropological 'studies' by British orientalists accompanied this by trying to inflate and patronize the ego's of many of these "caste" groups in Punjab by labelling them "martial groups" with the hidden intent to recruit large numbers of Indians into the British army to help suppress against any revolts against British rule and to use as front-line soldiers and cannon fodder in other parts of the World.

                  Not surprisingly Punjabi groups, particularly Sikh and Muslim ones that had suffered centuries of occupation and humiliations by foreign Muslim invaders and discrimination from "high caste" Hindus, were more gullible and easily seduced than other Indians were by British tongue-in-cheek designations of being "martial races" and so readily joined the British army in large numbers after they had been manipulated and their ego's inflated.

                  Now, here lies a psychological paradox inherited and suffered by Pakistan. For generations while they were under British rule, they had been told by orientalist Brits that they were a "martial race" and so, were manipulated to join and serve the British army and its interests. But ironically, this "martial race" designation is in contradiction to their own history as Punjab has a bad track record of regularly having been invaded, defeated and plundered by foreign armies, many of them quite small, and having almost never offered any successful resistance. Most of the time, Indians from Punjab didnt even resist at all and suffered massive casualties, particularly against Turks and Afghans.

                  I think this legacy and confusion still plays on the minds of Pakistan's army, which it inherited from British India days. This can be seen in their inability to find any historical local hero's of their own, because they have none. They are thus forced to produce weapons and name them after, ironically, foreign kings and warlords that attacked and looted their ancestors. But still in their own minds they (Punjabis) are a "martial race" stronger than other Indians for no other reason than because the British told them so!

                  Likewise, Punjab Muslims are a comparatively recent Muslim people, having only converted to Islam long after that religion was established and flourishing in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. Their Hindu forefathers were not respected by their foreign Muslim conquerors (even after they had converted to Islam they were discriminated against), nor by their fellow "high caste" Hindus. I think this inferiority complex feeds into Pakistani ideology quite a lot as regards its anti-India fixation and its quest to be "equal" to India, dominate Afghanistan and to be the one and only Islamic "superpower".

                  Pakistanis/Punjabis whatever you want to call them seem to be trying to compensate for something they have historically never had, ie respect, security and "power".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's a bit depressing what she says. Nothing changes, continue as usual. This is a civilisational conflict, an ideological conflict, India is the bad guy, period, fullstop, end of story. It begins or ends with the PA. Make peace with India and there is no point in the PA existing any more.

                    See, Indians have been saying this for ever but the Americans would not listen. They had to get burned themselves and Fair had to stop supporting the Paks after she saw American troops getting killed and the USG was seen more or less looking the other way. Then she starts to get a little more critical of the US-Pak relationship. Say anything bad about Pakistan, lose your visa. She is PNG in Pakistan now. She doesn't care, she's visited the place often enough.

                    The last bit is quite telling. When the army is at its lowest point do the civvies try to throw it under the bus and take over ? No

                    After 1971, people continued in the PA, no court martials. They just lost half the country but hey, it's not a defeat. She recounts what the dawn headline on Dec 16 1971 said..

                    Victory on all fronts

                    This is when there were over 60k POWs and they were surrendering.

                    So the notions of defeat or victory are unique in Pakistan and have no parallels anywhere past and likely future.

                    The next time the army was at a low point was after May 2011, Abottabad. Did the civvies rise up ? they rose up and defended the army.

                    If those two incidents would not change the mentality of the people there who firmly believe the Army is the premier institution in the country then what more can we expect. How low does the PA have to be for things to change.

                    So what does India do amongst all of this ? play for status quo. Because we cannot change the game.

                    The cold war came to an end because the other side collapsed, well we can't let that happen in this case because Pakistan is too important to fail.
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jun 14,, 23:54.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      It's a bit depressing what she says. Nothing changes, continue as usual. This is a civilisational conflict, an ideological conflict, India is the bad guy, period, fullstop, end of story. It begins or ends with the PA. Make peace with India and there is no point in the PA existing any more.

                      See, Indians have been saying this for ever but the Americans would not listen. They had to get burned themselves and Fair had to stop supporting the Paks after she saw American troops getting killed and the USG was seen more or less looking the other way. Then she starts to get a little more critical of the US-Pak relationship. Say anything bad about Pakistan, lose your visa. She is PNG in Pakistan now. She doesn't care, she's visited the place often enough.

                      The last bit is quite telling. When the army is at its lowest point do the civvies try to throw it under the bus and take over ? No

                      After 1971, people continued in the PA, no court martials. They just lost half the country but hey, it's not a defeat. She recounts what the dawn headline on Dec 16 1971 said..

                      Victory on all fronts

                      This is when there were over 60k POWs and they were surrendering.

                      So the notions of defeat or victory are unique in Pakistan and have no parallels anywhere past and likely future.

                      The next time the army was at a low point was after May 2011, Abottabad. Did the civvies rise up ? they rose up and defended the army.

                      If those two incidents would not change the mentality of the people there who firmly believe the Army is the premier institution in the country then what more can we expect. How low does the PA have to be for things to change.

                      So what does India do amongst all of this ? play for status quo. Because we cannot change the game.

                      The cold war came to an end because the other side collapsed, well we can't let that happen in this case because Pakistan is too important to fail.
                      There is nothing unusual that wouldn't make sense to an Indian vis a vis her opinion on peace between both. There was another facet to the same equation which I learnt from OOE,'The China factor'.

                      We are rather one step ahead in awareness or in theory at least, about USA's strategic compulsion of leaving Afghanistan and seeing Afghanistan going to the dogs again.

                      US-Taliban Prisoner Swap: What Does it Mean for India? Video: NDTV.com.

                      Watch from 06:27 mins. Now I see a blood bath coming which was predicted by OOE some times back.

                      What attracted my eye and ear more was her opinion on Iran and an opportunity missed to develop Chabahar port to access Afghanistan. All blames to Bush who didn't recognized Iran's role post 9/11.
                      Last edited by ambidex; 02 Jun 14,, 08:27.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The bottomline : making peace with India is tantamount to surrender, capitulation for the PA

                        It does not matter how many times they lose. Its not viewed as defeat for them.

                        When military victory isn't possible then go for a PR victory. When that does not work try something else.

                        Never give up.

                        Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                        There is nothing unusual that wouldn't make sense to an Indian vis a vis her opinion on peace between both. There was another facet to the same equation which I learnt from OOE,'The China factor'.

                        We are rather one step ahead in awareness or in theory at least, about USA's strategic compulsion of leaving Afghanistan and seeing Afghanistan going to the dogs again.

                        US-Taliban Prisoner Swap: What Does it Mean for India? Video: NDTV.com.

                        Watch from 06:27 mins. Now I see a blood bath coming which was predicted by OOE some times back.

                        What attracted my eye and ear more was her opinion on Iran and an opportunity missed to develop Chabahar port to access Afghanistan. All blames to Bush who didn't recognized Iran's role post 9/11.
                        Yeah he said that. Told me this when i joined this place.

                        I'm still waiting to see how the election results go.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Jun 14,, 09:24.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          Yeah he said that. Told me this when i joined this place.

                          I'm still waiting to see how the election results go.
                          My be you missed his point, It had nothing to with change in political landscape but some thing scripted by USA, NATO et al before leaving the region. The video I posted about recent swapping/deal is a one part of that script. Did you read/watched the names, their designations and brief resume people who have been just released by USA in the video I posted.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                            My be you missed his point, It had nothing to with change in political landscape but some thing scripted by USA, NATO et al before leaving the region.
                            What script are you referring to ? Once they are out whatever script is down to regional actors.

                            By elections i mean i want to see how things turn out and the key point is funds. No funds then it all goes to pot ie blood bath.

                            whether funds arrive depends to a certain extent on whether who the Afghans elect is seen as effective in managing the situation. The 3 priorities for the Afghan president are economy, security & reconciliation.

                            Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                            The video I posted about recent swapping/deal is a one part of that script. Did you read/watched the names, their designations and brief resume people who have been just released by USA in the video I posted.
                            Important people in the Taliban, a list whittled down no doubt after intense negotiations, much like we had to do back in '99 after IC 814 got hijacked.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Jun 14,, 00:46.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              What script are you referring to ? Once they are out whatever script is down to regional actors.
                              Or the ones with the money. Najibullah was winning when he had Soviet money. He was holding his own when the USSR collapsed and he only lost when Yeltsin cut off funding.

                              In this particular scenario, Pakistan will not be allowed to run her games again. Five major powers stand against her in Afghanistan. Iran, Russia, China, the US, and India. Not one will ever allowed a Pakistan run Taliban to come to power ever again.

                              As for the Taliban, the seeds of vengeance has been sowed. It has yet to be unleashed.
                              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 03 Jun 14,, 04:28.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X