It is very unfortunate that both the government and the military seem not to be on the same page on the matters related to national security. Why else the memo would have become a scandal? PM’s remarks in the parliament pointed out the presence of a state within a state. Who is responsible for the state security? Is it the government or the army? How can the people of Pakistan feel secure when both the army and ruling elite have differences that have become public? The civil-military confrontation poses a greater threat to the wellbeing of people of this country than any other threat posed by the enemies of the state.
Has the army really created a state within a state? Does the army deserve the treatment it is getting from the democratically elected leadership? Will it be possible for the army and its officer corps to sustain the traditional values of selflessness, discipline, duty, honour, responsibility and sacrifice when those who order them to battle become their biggest critic?
If one-third of our army is deployed on the eastern border (including Kashmir and Siachen), one-third deployed on the western border and the remaining one-third is training and preparing (as part of rotational policy) to replace the deployed units on these borders, then even a blind man can see that this army has its hands full and is too over-occupied and overstretched in guarding the physical frontiers of the state rather than doing anything closer to creating a state within the state.
Officers that lead men on the borders are not ‘commercial managers’ but leaders. When confronted with combat situations they ‘lead’ and not ‘manage’ their men to deaths. Officers (battle leaders) work hard in maintaining high degree of morale amongst their fighting units. It is maintained and sustained not by ‘reminders of the material benefits’ (highlighted by PM in his speech in the parliament) but by recognition of their services by the civilian leadership for the national cause.
The reality is that non-combatant (civilian leadership) by virtue of its superior position in the authority structure has the right and power to order military leadership to war. But should it criticise it as well when the only motive seems to be to promote and propagate ‘civilian control’ of the military. Criticism of any army by its civil leadership only shows aimlessness. No army with a blurred aim can be battle ready and battle worthy. An army that is criticised by its own government cannot be expected to maintain cohesiveness and morale under the conditions of high combat stress.
Army is a proud institution of Pakistan. Majority of its officer corps and men are performing their sacred duties under extreme conditions of combat stress. These men are least concerned with the power politics. They deserve our support and not criticism.
LT COL (R) MUHAMMAD ALI EHSAN
Karachi