In the last ten days its has become obvious that even the super powers of the world can not run over an army (that quickly) which is ill-equipped, had no air power and had been constantly under attack for the last 12 years. And most importantly it has no WMD’s (nobody has a clueJ). Nationalism and the fear of being occupied after just 45 years of limited freedom has been few reasons for the army to fight so furiously (at least this is what the US army says). So all this would change how to control other countries in the area in the future. With all of its military & technological might the powers will resort to other tactics which gives you control of the country with out putting a single foot soldier there.
So when you look at Pakistan its has a well equipped army, WMD’s and nationalism imbedded with religion. So any super power will hesitate to go for an all out assault as they did in Iraq. The easiest way would be to get hold of the power base and control the whole country. The power base in Pakistan is not just vested into any single institution or the people but and is being controlled by just one man, who is also the COAS and the president of Pakistan. So my question is are we more vulnerable?
Please, dont think of it as a busharaf-bashing question. The leadership structure in Pakistan has not changed, it’s the same, but do you think this level of vulnerability is there? Because in the coming years this might become the reason for our demise (na’ozo bilah).
Vulnerable to control? It depends on how you define control. Does control mean following a put-Pakistan's-interests-before-everything-else approach, or does it mean literally bowing down before every instruction from Washington?
And power is not concentrated in just one man - in Pakistan, power is concentrated in the army. Just because there has never been a successful coup in Pakistani history by the army against its own, doesn't mean that it can't happen, and the President and COAS knows that.
In short, he's aware that if makes decisions that don't please the army, he risks being out of a job fast.
Pakistan's army, which you praise so much in your original post, is the guarantor against foreign control. There is no one man in the country who can confidently go against the wishes of the army. Not even the Chief of Army Staff can do that confidently.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
I think you are wrong, the people of Pakistan are the guarantor against foreign control.
[/QUOTE]
Realistically, the people of Pakistan have no power. Our country is too apolitical and sadly too fractuous for a majority of people to ever form together to take action against a government.
Only the army has the discipline and ability to unite on an aim to take action against the government.
Mad_scientist: A country or a state has an Army, an Army does not have a state. Considering the Armed forces recent successes in WAPDA and Cricket. You are not going to insist that the Army is the only effective force in Pakistan?
I think what I meant was the bowing down before every instruction from out side, and that is a clear vulnerability.
Zakk, I agree that the Amry shouldn't be the one with that much power, but the reality is totally opposite. For that we have look at the popular behavior in the last 50 some years. only once there has been a popular uprising by the people of Pakistan and that was in the late 60's, and that it. So even though the people should have power, but actually they don’t.
In the near future that has to change keeping in mind the geopolitical situation in the region.
I disagree. The power to do radical political action other than elect the leadership every so often should be with the armed forces rather than with the people. An uprising by the people will always run the risk of greater instability, and deaths, than one by the armed forces. The armed forces have greater discipline - an uprising by the people is rarely so well organised, and runs the risk of being used as cover for bloody reprisals.
A military uprising is always more focused in its objective, and always has much greater control over those participating in the uprising. For example, I am sure that if in 1999 there had been an uprising by the people, it would have involved physical attacks on unpopular PML politicians.
And MiniMi, my point is that the army is the guarantor of resisting bowing down before every instruction from out side, which I agree is a clear vulnerability.
For example, when Clinton ordered Nawaz Sharif to withdraw from Kargil, And Sharif followed the order, the army acted to remove someone who had clearly become a liability to the country - someone who would act against Pakistan's interests if requested to do so by the White House.
Pakistan's people had just mumbled about Nawaz Sharif's bowing down to the WHite House, but were not, or were unable, to act. Only the army had the willpower, unity, motivation and capacity for revolution to remove such a vulnerability.
the army acted to remove someone who had clearly become a liability to the country - someone who would act against Pakistan's interests if requested to do so by the White House.
Hmm I would disagree, the Army actedbecause of Nawaz Sharif's general stupidity in breaking his agreement with Pervaiz Musharraf. If he hadn't made the order ordering his dismissal and appoiting Ziauddin instead. I think Nawaz Sharif might well have continued as prime Minister (as horrible as that sounds). While Musharraf and Nawaz fell out over Kargil, his removal wasn't because of his acting a liability. If that was so, he would have been removed when the Supreme Court was attacked.
My point is another, politicians have not been in power during some of the most crucial moments in PAkistans history. The 1971 defeat was an Army governments achievement, as was the loss of Siachen and the siding with the US against the USSR in 1979. While the Armed forces training is not in question, but their assumed superiority over Civilians is.
For that we have look at the popular behavior in the last 50 some years. only once there has been a popular uprising by the people of Pakistan and that was in the late 60's, and that it.
Some would say the 1977 PNA agitation was close to a National agitation.?
Minime, that's a very interesting question. Firstly no one in his right mind would try to invade/overpower a country as diverse and as fragmented as Pakistan while it is on a self-destruction path to begin with. Pakistan more closely resembles Yugoslavia than it does Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a multi-cultural society with different ethnic groups having nothing in common with one another. When the country start breaking into pieces, some regional powers (India, China) or other Superpowers might come to rescue the broken country.
Secondly, our Armed forces have sold the country time and again. They are a very unprofessional military. They do not have any real power, and their only power is the guns that they hold over people's head. So at the time of the civil war, they will resort to what they do best (similar to what they did in Bangladesh), and in the process, will become weaker and most possibly disintegrate, like the German SS.
Thirdly, India will never let USA come anywhere near its borders.
Lastly, we don’t have Oil.. So we are safe.
These are my optimistic possibilities as to what might happen in case of an invasion.
So my question is are we more vulnerable? <<<<<
Absolutely. But not from what you think.
Minime, what I am trying to say is that our enemy is within. We need not worry about the outsiders.
Firstly no one in his right mind would try to invade/overpower a country as diverse and as fragmented as Pakistan while it is on a self-destruction path to begin with.
That's pretty much an untruth NY, fragmented countries are more at risk of being invaded. And the words diverse and fragmented apply to countless countries. Again that's no reason for a country to collapse.
Realistically, the people of Pakistan have no power. Our country is too apolitical and sadly too fractuous for a majority of people to ever form together to take action against a government.
Only the army has the discipline and ability to unite on an aim to take action against the government.
[/QUOTE]
If you only lived and witnessed what does on in Pakistan, you will know what hes talking about... The army just takes orders like puppets from their chief... They really dont have minds of their own... Their mentality, like the beurocratic mentality are the two constants in this universe.
It is very true that the people of Pakistan are the gaurantors against foriegn occupution and the threat to our soveriegnty. It is true that the present regime is acting on foreign strings, but the moment it gets too bad, you cant expect the people to stay quiet anymore.
salamzz
well one thing i have noticed around here is that u ppl r so pessimistic!..
okay so y wud america attack pakistan?
She attacked Afgahnistan cuz of osama
attacked iraq cuz of saddam...well didnt catch either of them is a different story
now in pakistan i dont think any of us is being tortured by musharraf....the only thing wich america can takeup as a reason is infiltration by so called pakistani terrorists in kashmir. And as india has very good relations with US...this can happen. So the need of the hr is not bash our govt or other things, but to unite, i mean i dont think govt can do anything if the whole nation unites...but the sad part is most of us think it is impossible..though i dont..it is very very possible, if we can unite for getting pakistan, y cant we unite now to save it?
the funny thing is that we ppl are waiting fr others to unite so that wen they do we'll join them...y cant we take the first step?