STatements of BB and Sheikh Rashid show that President has decided to give up the uniform (skin) BBCUrdu.com
From some other sources, i have learnt that in order to retain “power” without uniform, he will be given the authority to appoint COAS.
The question is that will the President still have the overwhelming support of army in such setup, where he will be able to appoint COAS of his pleasure. The history of Pakistan is against this. Zia and Musharraf himslef turned against those who appointed them. General Ayub lost army’s support after he became Field Marshal.
icon the prez has always has power to appoint a new COAS, factually however the army has a tradition of getting rid of anyone above at the top, whether in or out of uniform.
the COAS's have a tendency to get rid of the president's or PM's boy by acting exactly the opposite to their demands. Happens each and every single time. The COAS has a large audience to play to and a larger ego.
the COAS's have a tendency to get rid of the president's or PM's boy by acting exactly the opposite to their demands. Happens each and every single time. The COAS has a large audience to play to and a larger ego.
If thats the problem than why not just get rid of COAS position and divide army into different commands (ie southern/eastern/western/northern/central) that are headed by diff. generals & get rid of this stupid corp command thing and make sure there are no future coups. In other words, dilute the power withing power structure of military hierarchy by appointing civilian on top of a general in each of those commands so no general can ever think of a military coup again.
BB told to kamran khan in a telephonic interview and accordin to her 80 % done , they are arguing on 20 % now , mainly on timing of presidential election .
If thats the problem than why not just get rid of COAS position and divide army into different commands (ie southern/eastern/western/northern/central) that are headed by diff. generals & get rid of this stupid corp command thing and make sure there are no future coups. In other words, dilute the power withing power structure of military hierarchy by appointing civilian on top of a general in each of those commands so no general can ever think of a military coup again.
the armed forces in pakistan has gone through several phases of evolution..from 1947-58 the C in C was not by virtue of precdence the Army. Pakistan inherited the British Armed forces structure which places the navy as the top force, Ayub Kahn resented that and his first move when he overthrew the civilian govt was to downgrade the navy. From 58-73/74 the C in C system worked, now Ayub Khan was not appointed by seniority he was appointed by a mixture of fate and because he was deemed not ambitious. So under his term anxious not to repeat the same mistake he made himself field marshall. This worked till after the 65 war when he appointed Yahya who ruled not through personal stature but through a group of generals. So when Yahya was ousted ( his supporters and him were threatened with being bombed out of office) general Gul hasan took over, after Gul Hasan brought back ZAB, he in turn was ousted by ZAB with the backing of other generals. ZAB realised Pakistans army had what he called a Bonpartist tendency so he pushed through reforms creating a joint chief and a COAS, thereby diluting the armys power and making the COAS more dependant on the corp commanders. In reality his reforms were never completed and he became dependant on the army again by needlessly taking on the opposition in Balochsitan and the frontier. From Zia onward military rule formally was decided more through the corp commander meetings and the other forces were sidelined totally. PAF, the navy, engineering and medical corp have all been kept out of the loop and generally as a result they have maintained a higher level of professionalism. After all as is unversally known, no good soldier wants to get involved in politics.
Well lets see who becomes the next COAS. He will probably be looking for his chances of becoming another great President of Islamic "Democratic" Republic of Pakistan.
Thanks for summing it up well, I had some confusion regarding the basis of the diff between C-in-C system and COAS.
Also i recall there was some issue with the post of COS or VCOAS 2001. It was suspended for many years? Why was that and what post filled the void? I think Gen Usmani became the first VCOAS after a long gap on that appointment?
If thats the problem than why not just get rid of COAS position and divide army into different commands (ie southern/eastern/western/northern/central) that are headed by diff. generals & get rid of this stupid corp command thing and make sure there are no future coups. In other words, dilute the power withing power structure of military hierarchy by appointing civilian on top of a general in each of those commands so no general can ever think of a military coup again.
The army does need to be divided into 2 or 3 separate commands like PAF, but I think it has not been implemented due to costs. You will still need a chief of army or whatever you want to call him and a HQ, although it may be a lot smaller than the present GHQ.
BB told to kamran khan in a telephonic interview and accordin to her 80 % done , they are arguing on 20 % now , mainly on timing of presidential election .
She wants the cases against her to be dropped and the limit on a person serving a third term to be lifted, so that she can aspire to lead the country again. I hope for the sake of Pakistan this does not happen. Its time for fresh faces.
The army does need to be divided into 2 or 3 separate commands like PAF, but I think it has not been implemented due to costs. You will still need a chief of army or whatever you want to call him and a HQ, although it may be a lot smaller than the present GHQ.
Any division the way Shamraz proposes might do just that, divide the army like every thing else Pakistani.
The result: Perhaps preventing further coups, and definitely preventing any ability of the Army to fight back in case of foreign aggression.
The PAF's regional commands and the Army's Corp HQs are rather similar in operational roles and are working well. In any form, the various commands have to be under one superior command.
Pakistanis can surprise everyone by not falling for this topi drama, and not vote for BB or Nawaz or any of these parties being run by the same old faces, and thei mamay, bhanjay etc..
but, its not going to happen.
And if it did happen, there will be cry from the usual suspects of elections being rigged. :)
Any division the way Shamraz proposes might do just that, divide the army like every thing else Pakistani.
The result: Perhaps preventing further coups, and definitely preventing any ability of the Army to fight back in case of foreign aggression.
The PAF's regional commands and the Army's Corp HQs are rather similar in operational roles and are working well. In any form, the various commands have to be under one superior command.
Your argument lacks any logic. Why would having 2 or 3 commands have a negative effect on the ability of the army to fight back. The involvement of the army in politics leads to wars being lost. It may be appropriate in some cases for the army to takeover but if it keeps happening over and over again, then that suggests that the dictators as just addressing the symptoms and not curing pakistan of its ills. Army intervention may be welcome initially but soon they become part of the problem rather than a solution. I suspect they would prefer the civilian setup to remain weak so that it can be more easilly controlled by them.
I think efficiency will be enhanced by having 2 or 3 separate commands. The commands will be more focused on their primary role. Some of the major powers have such a setup.
originally in the reforms of the 1970’s there was no VCOAS, it was a post created by Zia to allow him to delegate many of the responsibilities of the COAS while he involved himself in politics and without giving up his position in the army.
on side note, the poorest examples of co ordination within the pak military’s history are probably two one under Yahya Khan when he ordered the supposed pre-emptive air strike against India in 1971, (which was an utter failure)..the airforce had little co ordination with the army and the navy was almost totally out of the loop. That poor level of coordination helped the Indians with their naval raid on karachi harbour..that was under the C in C system. The second was probably kargil where the operation was launched without any involvement of the other service chiefs, it was purely an army matter and betrayed Mushs poor relationship with some of the other service chiefs. In fact amongst Musharrafs first moves in his first two years was a purge of suspected Nawaz Sharif sympathisers in the Air force, Navy and obviously the engineering corp.
Your argument lacks any logic. Why would having 2 or 3 commands have a negative effect on the ability of the army to fight back. The involvement of the army in politics leads to wars being lost. It may be appropriate in some cases for the army to takeover but if it keeps happening over and over again, then that suggests that the dictators as just addressing the symptoms and not curing pakistan of its ills. Army intervention may be welcome initially but soon they become part of the problem rather than a solution. I suspect they would prefer the civilian setup to remain weak so that it can be more easilly controlled by them.
I think efficiency will be enhanced by having 2 or 3 separate commands. The commands will be more focused on their primary role. Some of the major powers have such a setup.
And I'm afraid your response was written without properly understanding mine, which was written also referring to Shamraz Khan's post;
If thats the problem than why not** just get rid of COAS position and divide army into different commands (ie southern/eastern/western/northern/central)that are headed by diff. generals & get rid of this stupid corp command thing and make sure there are no future coups*. In other words, **dilute the power withing power structure of military hierarchy by appointing civilian on top of a general in each of those commands so no general can ever think of a military coup* again.
Any division the way Shamraz proposes might do just that, divide the army like every thing else Pakistani.
The result: Perhaps preventing further coups, and definitely preventing any ability of the Army to fight back in case of foreign aggression.
...
Your preceding post was addressed in these lines;
...
The PAF's regional commands and the Army's Corp HQs are rather similar in operational roles and are working well. In any form, the various commands have to be under one superior command.
originally in the reforms of the 1970's there was no VCOAS, it was a post created by Zia to allow him to delegate many of the responsibilities of the COAS while he involved himself in politics and without giving up his position in the army.
on side note, the poorest examples of co ordination within the pak military's history are probably two one under Yahya Khan when he ordered the supposed pre-emptive air strike against India in 1971, (which was an utter failure)..the airforce had little co ordination with the army and the navy was almost totally out of the loop. That poor level of coordination helped the Indians with their naval raid on karachi harbour..that was under the C in C system. The second was probably kargil where the operation was launched without any involvement of the other service chiefs, it was purely an army matter and betrayed Mushs poor relationship with some of the other service chiefs. In fact amongst Musharrafs first moves in his first two years was a purge of suspected Nawaz Sharif sympathisers in the Air force, Navy and obviously the engineering corp.
I think efficiency will be enhanced by having 2 or 3 separate commands. The commands will be more focused on their primary role. Some of the major powers have such a setup.
That is what I had in mind in my previous post. The US and Israel has similar command system and it hasn't undermined their ability to fight wars. Our armed forces are disciplined force and there have never been a military coup led by low ranking officers, unlike in many African countries.
In Pakistan army chiefs have been the one taking over governments. In any case, the point is military involvement in politics is never a good thing for a country, and we have find the way to keep military out of politics and under civilian control. So, the question is how?