Why an army chief as CDF fits Pakistan's strategic realities

[Blain2]

This is where most people are raising their reservations. They don't trust the intentions of FM especially after he executed that Constitutional Immunity cheatcode

I've asked it before and I'll ask again, are we resistant to an idea (CDF) because it is inherently flawed or because it is being initiated by FM

I always keep the 18th amendment in mind. It was pushed through by one government and then reversed by an act of the parliament later (for worse in my opinion).

If any of today's 27th amendment is problematic, future governments can amend.

After all, it is Pakistan's constitution, not Moses' Ten Commandments that cannot be changed.

The FM being immune to prosecution is clearly a measure put in place with PTI in mind. If PTI manages a come back and has payback in mind, they could garner sufficient support to override the immunity. It says so in the amendment itself.

 

[Blain2]

This is where most people are raising their reservations. They don't trust the intentions of FM especially after he executed that Constitutional Immunity cheatcode

I've asked it before and I'll ask again, are we resistant to an idea (CDF) because it is inherently flawed or because it is being initiated by FM

It's the latter clearly. I posted the same. The idea of CDF is a sound one in the current threat environment.

 

[hnn]

I always keep the 18th amendment in mind. It was pushed through by one government and then reversed by an act of the parliament later (for worse in my opinion).

If any of today's 27th amendment is problematic, future governments can amend.

After all, it is Pakistan's constitution, not Moses' Ten Commandments that cannot be changed.

The FM being immune to prosecution is clearly a measure put in place with PTI in mind. If PTI manages a come back and has payback in mind, they could garner sufficient support to override the immunity. It says so in the amendment itself.

Very true, didn't want to bring PTI into this thread too as it is almost in every other thread LOL. Anyhow, this is what I mean when I said earlier "Constitutional Immunity for Self Preservation" and more recently "I hope FM keeps the Politics out the Military" - the immunity booster shot is mainly to protect himself from PTI avengers but as long as that part of the move stays out of the military and other national interest I'm fine with it. It's a very thin line to walk and I don't want to bet but can only hope that FM will walk that thin line.

 

[Watandar]

I've asked it before and I'll ask again, are we resistant to an idea (CDF) because it is inherently flawed or because it is being initiated by FM

Yes , I dont trust Army leadership as they have behaved incompetently and treasonly many times in the past and remain unrepetentant and unreformed.

Just one example can be Army Chief Mr Musharraf, who launched Kargil with just 3 other buddies of his, then schemed with a larger group to coup Nawaz, before Nawaz fired him for Kargil , then completely changed Pakistani policy in Afghanistan overnight in cahoots with only his ISI chief. Then a few years later began a double game with West in bringing back Taliban to Afghanistan. Once again it was just him and the ISI chief who did this with everyone else in the army oblivious.

I used to hear nonstop complaints about "Fard-e-Wahid" Army chief Musharraf and because of that , he left behind a huge mess we are still grappling with to this day.

Now you have doubled down and greatly empowered this same office of Army Chief and removed any restraints they had in the past, including the fear of the law coming after them one day. How can this possibly be good ?

All of Pakistan now depends on the intelligence, values, courage , loyalty, judgement and vision of one man. And no man is that perfect.

 

[Blain2]

Yes , I dont trust Army leadership as they have behaved incompetently and treasonly many times in the past and remain unrepetentant and unreformed.

Just one example can be Army Chief Mr Musharraf, who launched Kargil with just 3 other buddies of his, then schemed with a larger group to coup Nawaz, before Nawaz fired him for Kargil , then completely changed Pakistani policy in Afghanistan overnight in cahoots with only his ISI chief. Then a few years later began a double game with West in bringing back Taliban to Afghanistan. Once again it was just him and the ISI chief who did this with everyone else in the army oblivious.

I used to hear nonstop complaints about "Fard-e-Wahid" Army chief Musharraf and because of that , he left behind a huge mess we are still grappling with to this day.

Now you have doubled down and greatly empowered this same office of Army Chief and removed any restraints they had in the past, including the fear of the law coming after them one day. How can this possibly be good ?

All of Pakistan now depends on the intelligence, values, courage , loyalty, judgement and vision of one man. And no man is that perfect.

Your view is a very myopic one but you are entitled to it.

Kargil was Pakistan's response to India's machinations at Siachen and to influence the Kashmir issue. I am not sure why everyone continues to harp over Kargil when it was yet another conflict in a series of conflicts for Kashmir? I don't see people complaining about the fighting we had to do in Kashmir in 1948 under Q-e-A's leadership or in 1965, 71, @Siachen etc. So why is only Kargil so problematic?

On the issue of Mr Musharraf, keep one thing in mind. Afghanistan, for good or bad, is considered our area of influence (to our great cost). Not having an Afghanistan friendly to Pakistan has always been extremely costly for Pakistan as we are finding out nowadays. If Musharraf had sat that out in 2001, the US would have relied on India and others and completely bypassed Pakistan. Instead of Afghanistan, Pakistan would have turned into the main theater of operations for the UN supported ISAF.

Musharraf not aligning with the US was akin to Zia sitting it out during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both were non-options for Pakistan then and that would be the case today.

So you have hindsight at your disposal which is always perfect, yet had you or any other Pakistani leader been in that hot seat in 2001, you would have decided the same given Pakistan's long-running conflict with India on Kashmir which shapes most of what is around us.

I have said this before, and will say it again, if you do not want this "huge mess", then sue for peace with India. Give up Pakistan's claim on the IIOK, accept the Indian hegemony which would follow, and you will see things calm down just like they did in Hasina's democratic BD.

These are the hard realities of our neighborhood.

 

[hnn]

Yes , I dont trust Army leadership as they have behaved incompetently and treasonly many times in the past and remain unrepetentant and unreformed.

Just one example can be Army Chief Mr Musharraf, who launched Kargil with just 3 other buddies of his, then schemed with a larger group to coup Nawaz, before Nawaz fired him for Kargil , then completely changed Pakistani policy in Afghanistan overnight in cahoots with only his ISI chief. Then a few years later began a double game with West in bringing back Taliban to Afghanistan. Once again it was just him and the ISI chief who did this with everyone else in the army oblivious.

I used to hear nonstop complaints about "Fard-e-Wahid" Army chief Musharraf and because of that , he left behind a huge mess we are still grappling with to this day.

Now you have doubled down and greatly empowered this same office of Army Chief and removed any restraints they had in the past, including the fear of the law coming after them one day. How can this possibly be good ?

All of Pakistan now depends on the intelligence, values, courage , loyalty, judgement and vision of one man. And no man is that perfect.

Since now you are honest about your feelings, I'll give you an honest reply.

I don't know if it's overall good, and if I don't know that then it also means I don't know if it's overall bad either.

I only know that CDF strictly from the viewpoint of military adaptation, stripped of any related/unrelated politics in pure military sense can be a good change for the institution and it's efficacy in it's primary role and that's what I have argued for thus far.

As for trusting the "office" - NGL and not going to defend the COAS office - at the same time NGL and not going to conclude that PM and President office has been any better (even from 2018-2022).

However, here is where I am able to resolve the dogma, at least for myself. Back in 2018 a new man was tried in the same office, it didn't work out. Now a same man is going to be tried in a new office. If it works out no one is going to have this argument ever again, and if it doesn't work out then we'll land back in the familiar territory of existential insecurity - something I have learnt to cope with so not really worried about it anymore.

 

[EternalMortal]

the only reason a whole new post has been created is simply to give asim munir & his gang more power otherwise you could've just empowered the CJCSC & actually shared position with PAF & PN. and of course he gives himself immunity. Politics is the actual reason & "operational considerations" (themselves debatable) is simply for rationalizing the power grab.

 

[Faani83]

1. What is happening with other post CNSC who will work under the CDF and will operationally lead PA? 2. Will CNSC a three or four star?3. Will CNSC also command PN and PAF?

 

[Xestan]

Yes, BUT with a major change.

CJCSC was a quasi-ceremonial, strategic planning post. It has no operational command over anything material. The respective chiefs held all the control over how the strategy was to be implemented by their forces.

The CDF fundamentally changes it. It reminds me of a few lines from the movie "Remember the Titans" in the following dialogue:

"Coach Boone: Let's talk football.

Assistant Coach Yoast: I run the defense--

Coach Boone: As a part of my team strategy. Now, I have never seen an assistant coach's name in the newspaper for losing a game."

Meaning the overall conduct and responsibility for military operations will rest with the CDF. This was not the case with CJCSC. It will be the former's strategy and operational planning that will be questioned if something were to happen.

Thus the relationship with the CDF role and the services chiefs. The CDF is the leader of the higher defense organization (HDO). He holds not only the final call on the overall defense strategy, but also has the ground component under his command to implement it on the land. The other services chiefs are part of his team and have their distinct commands to run but in full coordination and alignment with the CDF. I also think, under the new structure, the VCoAS will become a more prominent role within the Army.

This by the way is no different than the US Joint Chiefs and the UK CDS. There is noise about doing this because of the current political overlay with FM Munir. Minus him and the politics around him and this call is a sound one. I also do not see the CDF telling the CNS or CAS to appoint someone to a post within their respective services because it is strictly their purview. However, the higher promotions within the services may become a more centralized process as the senior officers would be expected to operate in the "joint" capacity far more.

The other benefit will come by way of a more optimized spend on the military procurement. All procurements will have to align to joint plans. They will be vetted and approved with greater transparency across the HDO so the acquisitions are more effective for combined operations.

Over time, it is possible that other services chiefs will be able to land the post of CDF, however it remains to be seen. I think it is alright to get the CDF centric HDO off the ground with an army officer leading it for now.

Last point, on your question about whether this will help avoid future Kargils, yes, because at least conceptually, the inner staff of the CDF, who is also the CoAS, will include the 2 other Service Chiefs. Second, post 2019, 2025 conflicts, a Kargil like operation cannot happen without it becoming a full-scale war. This is understood on both sides now.

Makes sense. But it also sounds like the Navy and the Air Force are being made supporting arms of the army, but in our case, as the 21st century has seen, PAF is our spearhead. This also raises a question about chain of command, does the CNS and CAS now directly report to CDF or do they have the same structure as before, > SecDef>DefMin>PM.

Lets say, tomorrow, CAS wants to the Prime Minister about something, will it be a breach of chain of command?

The amendment is silent about the chain of command changes, but it does clearly states that CDF will now be the head of the Armed Forces.

 

[Xestan]

Yes , I dont trust Army leadership as they have behaved incompetently and treasonly many times in the past and remain unrepetentant and unreformed.

Just one example can be Army Chief Mr Musharraf, who launched Kargil with just 3 other buddies of his, then schemed with a larger group to coup Nawaz, before Nawaz fired him for Kargil , then completely changed Pakistani policy in Afghanistan overnight in cahoots with only his ISI chief. Then a few years later began a double game with West in bringing back Taliban to Afghanistan. Once again it was just him and the ISI chief who did this with everyone else in the army oblivious.

I used to hear nonstop complaints about "Fard-e-Wahid" Army chief Musharraf and because of that , he left behind a huge mess we are still grappling with to this day.

Now you have doubled down and greatly empowered this same office of Army Chief and removed any restraints they had in the past, including the fear of the law coming after them one day. How can this possibly be good ?

All of Pakistan now depends on the intelligence, values, courage , loyalty, judgement and vision of one man. And no man is that perfect.

It's funny how comments like these are found on a Defence Forum, it's sad that people don't like reading history. I'm not targeting you, just a general observation about most of our posters these past few years.

The examples you gave, except for Kargil perhaps, was there any other option? The answer is no.

Post 9/11, you have multiple UNSC resolutions, especially 1386 binding on all member states where you have no option but to support ISAF in Afghanistan. I don't understand how this has become a crime in Pakistan with pro-Afghan/Taliban voices just always bringing this up.

 

[S.Y.A]

How was the decision to send any sub-surface assets anywhere a GHQ call? Please elaborate.

the ghq insisted that the submarine be sent to the eastern coast. the navy knew its limitations and didnt want to. simple. what is there to elaborate?

 

[S.Y.A]

Can you elaborate please? The international consensus (including former Indian Naval Chiefs) is that it sank due to an accident. Even if one is to believe that it was sank by INS Rajput, could you explain what went wrong? And how GHQ was involved when Ghazi's operational coordination was being done with NHQ under Commander Zafar Muhammad Khan?

sinking of ghazi, due to an accident, is an eventual result of a foolish decision regarding its deployment because the ghq pressured the navy into it. the submarine was obsolete and was not fit for service.

 

[hnn]

sinking of ghazi, due to an accident, is an eventual result of a foolish decision regarding its deployment because the ghq pressured the navy into it. the submarine was obsolete and was not fit for service.

Ok, I'll just go with what you have provided, so the Sub was already Obsolete, right? It was a full scale war, right?

Now in 1971 Pakistan had 4 Subs in total, besides Ghazi, there were 3 other newer Subs i.e. PNS Hangor, PNS Shushuk, and PNS Mangro (all 3 Daphne Class). Initially all these 4 Subs were deployed on Western Front off the coast of Mumbai and later Ghazi was redeployed to Eastern Front to operate in the Bay of Bengal with Primary Mission to hunt down INS Vikrant and Secondary Mission to deploy Sea Mines for Naval Blockade for India in the Bay of Bengal.

So if you were the man in GHQ at that time, what would you have done differently, and how would that have achieved a different more successful (or at least neutral) outcome?

 

[Xestan]

the ghq insisted that the submarine be sent to the eastern coast. the navy knew its limitations and didnt want to. simple. what is there to elaborate?

Any source for this information? Navy made its own plans (or lack of) during 71, and a lot of them backfired, especially what happened to PNS Khyber.

 

[Blain2]

the ghq insisted that the submarine be sent to the eastern coast. the navy knew its limitations and didnt want to. simple. what is there to elaborate?

Hard to believe. Please provide reference(s) if any on above.

In general, military planning does not happen so haphazardly. That is, to suggest that just because some Tom, Dick or Harry in the GHQ tells Navy, HQ PN blindly follows those orders knowing better professionally.

The war plans of each service are theirs to manage. The other service does not swoop in and force others on the tactics of employment.