Re: The New Power Structure after "Deal"
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.
^We seem to agree on that.