There is no doubt that a civilian elected government should exercise absolute control on the military of any state. So why is it that the successive elected civilian governments have failed to control the military and take back from them the ownership of state security?
Effectively asserting authority over the army does not require increasing and enlarging operational and administrative control over it. Nor is the dismissal of army generals (both serving and retired) from positions of authority an effective method of pursuing civilian supremacy. What, then, is the course of action that a civilian government must follow that ensures civilian supremacy like in all other democratic and welfare states of the world and that the army acts as just any other organ of the state and is used by the civilians as an instrument of state policy?
The ‘centre of gravity’ of the ownership of state security lies in the control of nuclear weapons in the country. The army continues to retain the ownership of nuclear weapons because they are a vital component and the final defensive measure against foreign aggression. Can the army trust a civilian administration to steer the country’s nuclear course? Can the army allow anyone else to have the final say in an area considered to be vital to national security?
Can the supreme commander of our armed forces unilaterally decide to issue a statement on ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons to reassure our adversary? Does this help army to trust civilian leadership that seems completely aloof from Pakistan’s adopted first-strike nuclear doctrine. Can the civilian leadership understand the implication of three Indian strike Corps capability of rolling across the international borders within 72 to 96 hours of issue of orders of full scale mobilisation? Is Pakistan’s first strike nuclear doctrine not necessitated by the capability of the Indian Army that cannot be matched in its entirety only through Pakistan army’s conventional means and capability? Does the civilian leadership understand this?
The civilian leadership finds answers to all the social, economic, political and military worries of Pakistan in mending its relationship with India. The military and civilian leadership needs to together understand the dynamics and extent of relationship that Pakistan needs to pursue with India. Unless both are on one page in understanding the manner and conditions under which Pakistan can coexist with India, the ‘red line’ that divides the ownership of nuclear weapons will continue to exist.
Nuclear weapons are not weapons of ‘war fighting’ but ‘political weapons’ and hence they should be owned and controlled by the politicians (head of the governments). But can the civilian and military leadership bridge their gaps in matters of understanding national security? The army will eventually give up the ownership of nuclear weapons to the civilian leadership, but for that to happen the ‘civilian leadership’ has to be seen and acknowledged by the complete nation as men and women of esteemed political ability, courage and vision who can understand, evolve and implement our national security policy. Those who cannot ably govern in peace time are less likely to stand up and take difficult decisions in times of crisis/war.
LT COL (Retd) MUHAMMAD ALI EHSAN
Karachi
