(CDF / COAS)'s Desk

[Khansaheeb]

Excuse me, but this is NOT his effing job!

He is the true President of Pakistan and deservingly so.

 

[hnn]

For the simple reason, the entire conflict is over land, territory which is the purview of "boots on the ground", i.e., the Army.

is what many fail to grasp entirely. I'll build upon this further down below.

Our entire posture is for defending the territorial integrity of Pakistan and that means holding ground and relying on sister services to check the pressure from the other side and blunt it.

This does not relegate the PAF/PN to a secondary role, it would allow them to maintain their own operational independence but in pursuit of joint, national defense missions and goals.

Use of "drones, missiles, air assets" is all to complement the defense of the homeland. They are not going to be used in a vacuum, or in expeditionary strikes, but to deliver on the strategy that deters the adversary from wanting to take land/territory so they can exploit us in negotiations.

I'm going to add and confirm your above premise but using the Russia-Ukraine war.

So, building further on the Russia-Ukraine war - despite drones, missiles and long-range strikes dominating the news we consume, the decisive domain was and still remains land. Territory is still the "currency of war", and only ground forces seize and hold it. Modern tech and tactics may shape the battlefield, but they don’t replace the fundamental reality that campaigns/wars are won through land control. It is after all, the territory that is at the centre of the conflict between the two.

The "tempo" of war is still set by ground forces. Air and naval assets act as enablers, not tempo-setters. Russia’s VKS mostly carried out stand-off strikes to support ground advances, and avoiding aircraft losses (despite having superior Air Force to Ukraine). Ukraine used drones to harass and create openings for counterattacks - but the success or failure of these tactics ultimately gets measured where land brigades moved, held, or broke.

Attrition and recovery rate drives this reality. Both sides have lost thousands of drones but continued to preserve aircraft as much as possible. The heaviest, most sustained attrition has been experienced by infantry, armor, artillery, and ground logistics. Compared to air and naval forces, ground forces have far more depth to absorb and regenerate losses, e.g. production time and money required for an armoured vehicles vs an aircraft/warship. This deeper "resistance to attrition" keeps the ground forces in the tactical and operational tiers for longer compared to air and naval forces that move to strategic tier faster when attrition is experienced.

Note: Most militaries still only train their senior ranking officers in inter-services "strategic planning and ops" and not in "operational/tactical planning and ops"

Even today, military campaigns hinge on sustaining land attrition and converting it into meaningful territorial outcomes. This is a major reason why operational command is generally preferred onto an officer who is trained and understands land-centric operational art. That’s a major reason (if not the only) both Ukraine and Russia have ground forces generals leading their wars, and in the past army generals led US's campaigns (even those involving initial naval and aeriel invasions).

Even in multi-domain conflicts of today, the land remains the decisive anchor. Pertinent to mention here is that territory is considered a "recoverable loss" unlike military assets which can only be replenished and not recovered. Until other domains can replace the ability to seize, hold, and regenerate on the ground, joint operational command will continue to favor those generals who are trained in land warfare - be it from any service - though currently not even in the most modern militaries that level of training integration has been achieved (This is why I stated in the beginning that Army only CDF is a narrow approach in the longer run but much needed in shorter term).

In the end, it’s not about service prestige - it’s about who is trained and which force can manage the level of attrition and sustained operational depth that modern large-scale war demands. Today, that force is still ground forces (hence army generals still leading wars) - once the mutli-domain integration and training has evolved further we may see more generals from air and naval forces leading wars - esp if the depth of attrition for these forces is increased and alternative domains to seize and hold territory are also established.

 

[VCheng]

He is the true President of Pakistan and deservingly so.

Even as CDF, it is still NOT his effin job to do such activities.

 

[VCheng]

Even if Ukraine is provided with a Tier A Air Force - their Air Force is still under the unified strategic/operational command of their C-in-C who is a Ground Forces General (I mentioned the command structure of Ukraine and Russia in my earlier post)

Of course every nation decides its Command and Control structures to best suit its own particular needs. While it is important to study other models, what works elsewhere may or may not be the best model for Pakistan.

 

[hasssanali8998]

Why else have they been allowed to swallow the bulk of the budget last 70 plus years in Islamic Republic of Pakistan ?

gee almost like our neighbors hate us and want a genocidal war with us

 

[hnn]

Of course every nation decides its Command and Control structures to best suit its own particular needs. While it is important to study other models, what works elsewhere may or may not be the best model for Pakistan.

Yes but C2 structures are dependent on "warfare center of gravity" - which for Pakistan is similar to other continental (more land locked borders) countries such as Ukraine and Russia.

 

[VCheng]

Yes but C2 structures are dependent on "warfare center of gravity" - which for Pakistan is similar to other continental (more land locked borders) countries such as Ukraine and Russia.

Yes, that is why they are to be studied - and then adapted for Pakistan as and where suitable.

 

[Blain2]

Can we all agree to not post any articles of anytype on the COAS here ?!?



Imagine being a USA Scholar, and being forced to listen to "him" because your boss told you that you "had to go or else" ...

In most cases, he can probably run circles around many of these so-called scholars given his extensive hands-on experience with a force-on-force engagement and CI experience. So most of those that are present probably see value in listening in.

All chiefs engage with think tanks when visiting overseas. We accord the same to foreign visitors at our NDU/affiliated think tanks.

 

[ghazi52]

PM explaining some technical details. Look FM face.

 

[Oscar]

View attachment 164734

PM explaining some technical details. Look FM face.

Maybe he is thinking “i thought it was just me but this guy is truly a first class sycophant”

 

[rafale]

Maybe he is thinking “i thought it was just me but this guy is truly a first class sycophant”

the problem is......in that picture there are a lot of sycophants........

 

[Khansaheeb]

Even as CDF, it is still NOT his effin job to do such activities.

Are you going to argue with his guns?

 

[VCheng]

Are you going to argue with his guns?

Outside Pakistan, he is just another tinpot dictator of a banana republic, albeit with nuclear weapons. Not much else.

 

[Khansaheeb]

Outside Pakistan, he is just another tinpot dictator of a banana republic, albeit with nuclear weapons. Not much else.

No, he is defender of Pakistan, he has proved his credentials for Pakistan, have you?

 

[VCheng]

No, he is defender of Pakistan, he has proved his credentials for Pakistan, have you?

Yes, he is a defender inside Pakistan. Globally, he is just another tinpot dictator with a big firecracker.

Your comment about what I may or may not have done for the nation is off topic and ad hominem, so I will just ignore it as another failed attempt at whattabootery. FAIL.