Reforming Command Without Weakening It - Part 1 - A Pragmatic Approach for Systemic reform in Pakistan starting with the Army

[KingQamaR]

Problem with Pakistan, is that NOBODY inside Pakistan, wants to fix it

 

[Tomcats]

Also keep in mind that the military, despite still subparn, has greater intellectual resource in politics and nation management than a purely civilian body in Pakistan who are almost always retarded and filled with their own complexes.

Pakistan's biggest strategic defeats/setbacks came during military rule.

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Pakistan's biggest strategic defeats/setbacks came during military rule.

That only makes the civilian class look that much worse, not disprove my point in any way. I've interacted with both

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

That only makes the civilian class look that much worse, not disprove my point in any way. I've interacted with both

If you picked 100 Pakistanis at random, 50% would be mullahs advocating for a foreign policy based on the "ummah", and the 25% would be some form of ethnic extremists and remaining 25% some feudal elites like PPP.

That's the populist stance. this doesn't mean the military is some gold standard because it very evidently isn't, but it's the smaller pile of shit in comparison.

Ideally you get none, and a genine middle-class nationalist movement with good intentions, I thought PTI was that but it seems to have a strong love affair with Afghanistan. Maybe it will get another chance and redeem itself

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Ultimately, Pakistan's elites, be it military, civilian, whatever all need to want to build a nation. That at its core takes a totally different type of mentality, one that does take institutions, laws, systems, etc all seriously. That mentality is NOT there right now, anywhere.

Very true.

At the end of the day the Fauj supporters are barely marginally better than what they accuse PTI of.

Look at his cabinet, its filled with the old incompetent and corrupt faces and therefore earns hate from the public. And the performance is lacking.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

state within the state

Unless there is a ready replacement no one relinquishes a position of power... in fact the whole system recoils to preserve continuity.

Pakistanis have not built an institutional structures that systematically deliver men grounded in realities of Pakistan, it's political nature and it's ambition. Ones who further the cause of Pakistan. And NO it cannot be political parties... they do exactly as intended... distract and cosplay. While states with longterm aspirations are maintaining and have preserved continuity Pakistan keeps the musical chair running... the replacement are the kids of the current class.
Imagine the huge provinces with populations greater than many countries and being run as they are... from people that wouldn't trust to run a shop least a province of tens of millions.

And characters are created to rile the masses... to do nothing except deflate all the hot air generated. I'm not pessimistic, I'm tired... for everyone has an opinion and no less mine... but that means an actual path... invested in for the right cause... and not to create another cult of personality.

 

[MS Sandhu]

don't be an idiot, being a security state is a structural reality not something written in a constitutional clause, and now comparing it again with Bangladesh and Nepal which are homogenous nations with no security challenges after already being explained the obvious difference is just wilful stupidity

Being a security state with deep down anxiety is sick as hell.
Why not get the homogeneous states out of it then if ethnic differences are such a big problem for the state to function?
India is a heterogeneous state with countless ethnicities coexisting together and still its not a security state.
Your whole idea conveys the sense of artificial existence that can explode anyday.

 

[Cipher212]

Pakistan has survived for so long..if we survived the transition period between British Raj and Pakistan then we can survive the administrative transition between the Army getting lost to their own barracks and civilians taking back the reigns.

Will the civilians be idiots and looters? Absolutely. Will they at least be idiots and looters of OUR choice? Also yes. Now why does that matter? It's because they can be voted out. They will not be in command of an unseen army of black pickups that they can roam in the night and change election results in their favour (not to the scale of army at least)

As for the transition itself, agar aisi hi baat hay ke army ke siwai koi administration nahi karsakta. Then let's have some army officers resign and join whichever political party comes to power. That can be your transitionary phase for the first 2-3 fully civilian governments until a proper a grassroots level political scene is established in Pakistan's universities and colleges and you start getting a stream of leaders from there.


In short, sure let's be pragmatic but let's not fool ourselves for a moment that the army has any place besides war fighting. I am disgusted by all this housing society, food, agriculture, security nonsense. Leave this shit back in the era of Roman empire.

 

[Owaiz]

Being a security state with deep down anxiety is sick as hell.
Why not get the homogeneous states out of it then if ethnic differences are such a big problem for the state to function?
India is a heterogeneous state with countless ethnicities coexisting together and still its not a security state.
Your whole idea conveys the sense of artificial existence that can explode anyday.

Exactly, I didn't want to say it explicitly, but the arguments for ignoring the will of the people and allowing the fauj to run the state because of security imperatives are essentially arguments that Pakistan is an artificial state and should not exist in its present form. However, the braindead askaris don't realise that is what they are advocating for.

An even starker contrast than India is Israel. They have been in a perpetual state of war and have had to deal with powerful actors committed to their destruction. Yet, they have been a modern functional democracy despite all the chaos, at least for their Jewish citizens. They are in the middle of a multi-front war. Yet Netanyahu will get voted out, their generals won't get extensions and they will manage somehow because they have strong civilian institutions.

 

[Tomcats]

That only makes the civilian class look that much worse, not disprove my point in any way. I've interacted with both

That seems a bit contradictory can you expand upon this point?

To further highlight my point, all one needs to do is look at the data. Take all the countries of Asia, take into account all the countries that went through periods of military rule. You can see that a small minority of those that went through military rule are today, stable, economically prosperous countries. You cite the examples of Turkey, and South Korea. But there are counter-examples in the form of the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh who have only started to truly grow economically in recent times post-military rule. Having a military involved in government in not a pre-requisite for a country's viability/prosperity. Every country suffers from some sort of security angst, some more pressing than others but, on average democratic countries have been shown to be more resilient to these problems and prosperous.

Mind you, this doesn't mean that having the military as part of government will not guarantee stability/economic growth, the examples you pointed out show this to not be true. But the important thing to consider is the chance that the country will turn out to be like them is much lower. You are more likely to end up having positive outcomes under democratic governance systems rather than autocratic, that data supports this.

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Being a security state with deep down anxiety is sick as hell.
Why not get the homogeneous states out of it then if ethnic differences are such a big problem for the state to function?
India is a heterogeneous state with countless ethnicities coexisting together and still its not a security state.
Your whole idea conveys the sense of artificial existence that can explode anyday.

You can advocate for it if that's what you want. Like you said Indian ethnicities co-exist better cause they share history and are the same broader race (Indic) which isn't the case in Pakistan they are alien races that actually historically fought wars against each other.

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Exactly, I didn't want to say it explicitly, but the arguments for ignoring the will of the people and allowing the fauj to run the state because of security imperatives are essentially arguments that Pakistan is an artificial state and should not exist in its present form. However, the braindead askaris don't realise that is what they are advocating for.

An even starker contrast than India is Israel. They have been in a perpetual state of war and have had to deal with powerful actors committed to their destruction. Yet, they have been a modern functional democracy despite all the chaos, at least for their Jewish citizens. They are in the middle of a multi-front war. Yet Netanyahu will get voted out, their generals won't get extensions and they will manage somehow because they have strong civilian institutions.

There are analysts more important than you and I who have made the former claim. If that's what you feel it's okay.

About Israel, Israeli society has an almost genocidal concensus on their enemies like the Palestinians and Arabs, it's what makes their democracy function in a security state position. A feature of their society is a raging hatred against Arabs & Muslims.