Pakistani Army commentary

[omarali50]

Professor Christine Fair's new book "Fighting to the End; the Pakistan Army's Way of War" is out.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00..._prd_ttl_sol_0

I am only on chapter two, but hope to have a review when done and when I get some time to write one. I look forward to enlightening comments from professional/academic people on this blog.

I think the introduction pretty much nails it. I am sure I will disagree with some details as I go along, but the overall thesis seems accurate to me.
What do others think?
Interestingly the current rating on Amazon is 2 stars because there is only one review and that person appears to be unhappy that she was not harsh enough or went easy on Islam. You can't win em all..

[davidbfpo]

SitRep book report:

Christine Fair's book on the Pakistan military is out. From Amazon: Simply put, acquiescence means defeat. Fighting to the End convincingly shows that because the army is unlikely to abandon these preferences, Pakistan will remain a destabilizing force in world politics for the foreseeable future." Oxford University Press

[omarali50]

Nice discussion at the Hudson institute on that other 10 years too late book:

http://www.hudson.org/events/1146-th...otta-gall42014

(Carlotta Gall: The Wrong Enemy)

[MoorthyM]

Professor Christine Fair's new book "Fighting to the End; the Pakistan Army's Way of War" is out.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00..._prd_ttl_sol_0
Interestingly the current rating on Amazon is 2 stars because there is only one review and that person appears to be unhappy that she was not harsh enough or went easy on Islam. You can't win em all..

Well, I am the one who wrote the review and gave the rating. Here's my review: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1EQTVWSDJJN38

The explained reason why this book failed in its primary purpose is essentially this: the author failed to properly understand what drives Pakistan or why it continues to be revisionist.

Surely, Christine Fair has published extensively on Pakistan in peer-reviewed journals – in fact, far more than perhaps any other scholar. However, just about all of them address small issues with nothing putting together to identify what Pakistan is really all about. Her prolific publishing on small issues is less optimal in developing a long view, and it shows. I can say that because I have read most of her publications in intimate detail, and have referred to her work in my forthcoming scholarship.

Through my exchanges with her over the years, I have realized that she is a sectarian by nature, who tends to somewhat blindly identify with people who call themselves victims (perhaps owing to her financially-deprived family origins). I have noticed that, in the context of South Asia, she never properly understood that the claims of Muslim victimization was mostly a self-induced effect, and that it was tactic used to undermine and victimize non-Muslims (I have covered this in great detail in my book, Defeating Political Islam). For example, her constant theme with regard to India’s Muslim minorities is her emphasis of their “discrimination” in India, without understanding the situation in a wholesome manner.

With such a strong outlook and background, it is hard to see how she can be objective or produce a wholesome analysis. It showed finally, in the form of a flawed book.

[Jedburgh]

On this subject, I also recommend Haider Mullick's Pakistan's Security Paradox: Countering and Fomenting Insurgencies, published by the Joint Special Operations University in 2009.

[omarali50]

Is there any book that deals with the American end of this disaster? What is the dominant theory? Were all the American policy makers just foolish? or did they have nefarious motives of their own?

[carl]

Omar:

There is no book like that that I'm aware of. There probably won't be for years. To write one people in power right now would have to talk truthfully about their flaws or allow access to source material that demonstrated their flaws. That isn't going to happen easy.

Until then guesses are all we may have. And your guess about the 'romance of the raj' being used as the fulcrum of a grift is one of the best.

[davidbfpo]

Is there any book that deals with the American end of this disaster? What is the dominant theory? Were all the American policy makers just foolish? or did they have nefarious motives of their own?

No, not to my knowledge. Hopefully the long running thread 'The US & others working with Pakistan' may have an answer; it does have 685 posts so may take a while for you to check:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2313

Have a look elsewhere for Myra MacDonald's writing.

She has just reviewed in RUSI Journal a book by a former Pakistani Ambassador to Washington DC 'Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States and an Epic History of Misunderstanding' by Husain Haqqani.

[MoorthyM]

Is there any book that deals with the American end of this disaster? What is the dominant theory? Were all the American policy makers just foolish? or did they have nefarious motives of their own?

Omar, without first understanding why Pakistan behaves the way it does, your question may not be answered.

The policy-makers have to rely on political scientists such as the likes of Christine Fair. Not to be so hard on Fair, quite frankly, no one has yet to figure out the conundrum called Pakistan. Hence, circumstances and our belief that our Pakistani specialists are credible forced us into foolish policies initially.

Now, at least the policy-makers know that they can't trust our Pakistan experts, as a result the U.S. has no Pakistan policy

[Ray]

Pakistan crisis puts army back in the driving seat

Besieged Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been assured by the country's military there will be no coup, but in return he must "share space with the army", according to a government source who was privy to recent talks between the two sides.

Last week, as tens of thousands of protesters advanced on the Pakistani capital to demand his resignation, Sharif dispatched two emissaries to consult with the army chief.

He wanted to know if the military was quietly engineering the twin protest movements by cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan and activist cleric Tahir ul-Qadri, or if, perhaps, it was preparing to stage a coup.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/0...0QP5F720140819

Pakistan once again has lived up to its reputation as the 'sick man of Asia'.

Once again, democracy is tottering and the Army is easing itself in the saddle, but this time in a more 'gentlemanly' and benign way.

If again the Army takes control, then it will prove that there is something in the saying 'born under an unlucky star' because it will be the second time the democratically elected Nawaz Sharif getting unseated by the Army.

Nawaz Sharif has been a moderate face of Pakistan and so obviously that is not to the comfort of the Pakistan Army which has milked Pakistan dry with the handle of Kashmir and anti India rhetoric.

Pakistan conveniently forgets United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 which recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order.

Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.

Pakistan failing to honour the UN resolution on Plebiscite apart, the Anti India histrionic calmed, which Sharif tried, then where would be the raison d'etre for the pampering and molly coddling the Army at the expense of the people of Pakistan, who are wallowing under the weight of poverty, insurrection, terrorism, sectarian violence and what have you?

One wonders why democracy cannot survive in Pakistan, when it is alive and kicking in India, with the Army having no say in the running of the State?

After all, India and Pakistan have a shared lineage.

And there are good people in India and Pakistan.

Then, where does the disconnect in Pakistan emanate from?

[jcustis]

I imagine someone is going to come along and point a finger at Islam, but that' an interesting question.

I recall you making the point that Pakistan has a problem with trying to be a democracy while keeping a foot in Islam but I took that to mean a problem with global perspectives, relationships and outcomes.

Perhaps the larger issue remains its proximity to Afghanistan, where India only has "interests" but not critical concerns. Or maybe India does lay claim to critical concerns after all, and the problem runs much deeper.

[Ray]

I recall you making the point that Pakistan has a problem with trying to be a democracy while keeping a foot in Islam but I took that to mean a problem with global perspectives, relationships and outcomes.

That Islam is the engine that power Pakistan is best exemplified by the Pakistan Army motto:

Arabic:Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah
A follower of none but Allah, The fear of Allah, Jihad for Allah.

Therefore, all institution start and end with religion, it appears and extends to Pakistan's domestic and external interests.

The latest is that the Army has assured that there will be no coup, but the Army will have to be given greater 'space', which for some, means that Democracy and Nawaz Sharif will be the 'front organisation' for Army dictated policies.

Nawaz was slowly building up a greater say of democracy in the running of the Govt, but now that his existence as the Head of the Govt will depend on the Army, he will be more of a lame duck.

Unfortunate.

[omarali50]

The "ideology of Pakistan" was an incoherent mishmash prior to 1947 (mostly it was whatever Jinnah felt would work to get him the best deal...he himself seems to have had no coherent vision of the state he was demanding...and he more or less lost control of the narrative as the Aligarh boys simplified it into "Islam in danger" for the purposes of the 1946 election). What now passes for official Pakistani ideology was mostly put together AFTER partition and did not reach full flower till General Zia's time. It's creators took one strand of the original mishmash (Pakistan as Muslim Zion) and fashioned it into a millenarian fantasy about a vanguard Muslim state. Reality was never too close to the fantasy and remains impossibly distant even now, but enough people (meaning about 0.1% of the population, but maybe 25% of the educated military elite) are now part-time believers. In between normal activities like arranging tuition for their sons in American universities and buying and selling plots of lands in housing societies, these part-time believers sometimes start to believe "it can actually happen". To that extent, it matters and it is dangerous. It is easy to overestimate it's role in everyday life and in the actions of millions of ordinary people, but unfortunately the army's dominance as the "sole functioning institution" (a state of affairs they did much to create, with help from a generous and generally clueless Uncle Sam) means their vision of the national myth has undue influence...and their vision is heavily colored by this ideology.
Does that make some sort of sense?
I need more time to make this a coherent argument, but I am always hopeful that responses will lead to clarity....

[carl]

Omar:

From what I've read, a lot of it written by you, a large part of the problem is plain old fashioned bureaucratic imperative. Pakistan isn't that different culturally from India. If things simmered down the countries would naturally get close. The closer they drew the less need for a big Pak Army. That would mean less power and privilege for the Pak military. That would never do. So in order to preserve itself, the Pak Army must always make sure India is an enemy even if that means pulling a Mumbai periodically. I would guess that Pakistani civilian politicians can't be trusted to keep the pot boiling so the army has to keep them closely controlled.

All part of why I think the Pak Army poses a greater danger to the humans than any other single organization in the world.