What's new

3 Year Extension for COAS Pakistan

As far as I know, there is at least one General whose promotion in Pakistani Army ranking is blocked due to Kayani's extension.
As to those who are implying that it is some American pressure for the extension, I am not so sure. The Pentagon has a long history of 'working relationship' with Pakistan's generals, going all the way back to the Ayub Khan era. True, for the sake of continuity, Americans may have whispered the 'idea' of the extension. But get out of the slave mentality: If Pakistani govt. delayed giving visas to American 'diplomats' until recently then certainly the position of the COAS is too important to be made by American 'advice' alone.
The COAS extension serves the PPP govt., the Americans, and perhaps the corps commanders just fine. Personally, I continue to think, by my gut-feeling, the decision is not eventually good for Pakistan but I am not sure at all about it.

PS. Kayani served under PM Benazir Bhutto and was also instrumental (as the DG ISI) in making the Benazir-Musharraf aggrements in 2007.
 
I am surprised at how Members here , are happy about this extension.

I would have imagined , past experience with leaders who would not respect term laws. Would have made people opposed to such decisions.

Even if the General is an respectable man , even as to set the right example would people have not have preferred him to have stepped down.

Or am i mistaken in my view that Pakistan has had bad experience's with leaders who would not step down ?

This is a legal extension, offered by the GoP, unlike 'self imposed extensions' aka Martial Law in the past.

While difference of opinion on the merits of the extension itself is expected, I fail to see why you should be surprised that one section of Pakistani opinion (at the moment, by all accounts, the majority opinion) is supportive of the move.
 
Pakistan is fighting an internal war, INTERNAL war!


I am not sure what you mean when you say it is an internal war !
Whatever name you choose to give it, it is the longest that PA has fought. The troop deployment, the casualties and it's impact are greater than any previous war that Pakistan has fought. And so are the implications. Although, i disagree that it is just an internal war. There are so many external factors involved.


Lets stay in a circle for a while. Give me some examples of generals who got extension in the U.S., India and Pakistan. Lets analyze the background in which thOSE generals were given extension.

I don't want to lecture you on military history, but there are ample examples and every one had it's own circumstances. None can be compared to another.

Keep in mind that we are fighting an internal war. If a three year extension was inevitable than I should assume that the U.S. and India were right; Pakistan is and was going in the hands of Taliban.

You bring in US and India, and still persisit that it is an internal war !


Do you really think that the new COAS would have called all his soldiers back the very next day of his appointment?

No, i don't think so. But we will never know. At least we know what Kayani managed to do when compared to Musharraf era.

Please tell me the names of the staunchest critics.

There are several. Ayesha Siddiqua for one.

So you acknowledge that there is a political aspect too?

It would be naive to say that Kayani's extension has no political implications. But, to place political aspect above the national security would be a gross misunderstanding of this development. The reasons for extension were not political, although it suits the current dispensation. That is why the political government took the decision.

PM delivering the speech at night--Gen was retiring tomorrow? No, PM had enough time to deliver that speech during the day, no? Perhaps, some boots came in and Pakistan tujhe salam!

We have always heard so many conspiracy theories. The matter of extension was in the air for months now. As far as boots are concerned, several quarters within the army have urged COAS Kayani to step in but he has held his nerve.
 
Political and strategic considerations likely played a major part.

Given the domestic rumor mill, a new COAS would have been the cause of potential political instability with the usual suspects speculating that the 'new COAS might intervene unlike Kayani'. Externally there would be speculation on the part of NATO, Afghanistan and India on the direction that the new COAS would take strategically in the region, and that might play into instability and slower implementation of policy because of a need to understand the direction the new COAS would take.

Even the TTP and allied militant groups might be tempted to initiate a spike/surge in terrorism in an attempt to warn the new COAS and possibly influence the direction he would take Pakistan's war against terrorism.

Retaining Kiyani means that all the major actors know policies are for the most part guaranteed to continue as before, and that should theoretically help, most importantly from Pakistan's perspective, in maintaining domestic political stability.
 
I have come to a conclusion...If the commanders in Pakistan Army are satisfied and they really believe that it is a good move than our opinions might not reflect the ground situation....
I hope Gen Kiyani brings positive change during his extension!
:pakistan:
 
Last edited:
"Merey Behno aur Bhaiyo" of civilian written speech -vs- "Meray Hamwatanoo" of military writer's speech...

& PM wearing glasses instead of using his typical large-font transcript...

These r the Qs raised by Shahid Masood & others agreed that this speech was made under duress...


YouTube - Dunya TV-POLICY MATTERS-23-07-2010-1
YouTube - Dunya TV-POLICY MATTERS-23-07-2010-2
YouTube - Dunya TV-POLICY MATTERS-23-07-2010-3
YouTube - Dunya TV-POLICY MATTERS-23-07-2010-4
.
Has there been any comments from American Govt. on General's extension??? If they r silent on decision then is it usual.!!!

If not,,, i would wonder if this decision was against the will of Americans!!! especially it coming just after Hillary Clinton's visit... I would presume that Hillary brought the message for political leadership to NOT extend Kiyani's term,,, But army forced(as suggested by all 3 guests in above program) Govt. to announce this thus blowing it straight into face of USA,,,! Especially duration of 3 years stretching General's tenure just beyond both Obama's term & Zardari-Govt's term, is suggestive.


P.S..I am strong believer that US wants to destablise or divide Pak before she leaves Afghan by 2015 or so,, In that attempt she would've wanted chaos within Pak by bringing Govt. against Army like she did b/w Musharaf/Nawaz... Army wisely countered this conspiracy by forcing Kayani's extension.
.
.
.
If my presumptions carry any weight then an old post deserves a second look.
I made this photo a while ago... I saw resemblence b/w Kiyani & Quaid-e-Azam.... & based on that I had a whim that Kiyani might finish what Quaid left incomplete i.e., Takmeel-e-Pakistan... I used MS-Paint so photo is bit tachy...



-
edit
-
Just found this:-
US denies reports of Hillary lobbying for Kayani's extension
The US on Wednesday denied reports in Pakistani media that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had lobbied for an extension to be granted to powerful army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani during her recent visit to the country. There have been reports that the government is mulling a proposal to
grant an extension to Kayani, who is set to retire in November.

The media reports had said Clinton had "effectively lobbied" for an extension in Kayani's tenure.

A statement issued by the US embassy said that when Clinton was questioned about her views on the matter during her visit, she had replied, "This is an internal matter for Pakistan. We have not, and will not, express an opinion."

The statement said some media reports had "deliberately misrepresented US policy" and made a "baseless claim of US interference".

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has said it is his prerogative to decide on the issue of extending the army chief's term.
 
Last edited:
I have come to a conclusion...If the commanders in Pakistan Army are satisfied and they really believe that it is a good move than our opinions might not reflect the ground situation....
I hope Gen Kiyani brings positive change during his extension!
:pakistan:

Inshallah ..I have the best wishes for Kyani and good Luck for Pak..:pakistan::pdf:
 
From what I have seen hes the best choice to run Pakistans army im not sure anyone chose him cause a few months ago Zardari was against the idea of extending his term. This was before Zardari was stripped of his powers to appoint military chiefs. Since Gilani took his powers things changed but im sure the army contacted Gilani and said Kayani will be extended or else. Gilani said yes boss. Pakistan never changes i guess.
 
General Kayani's quiet coup

By Praveen Swami

Pakistan's army hopes its chief will be able to craft a way out of the many crises the country is confronted with.

Late in April, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani stood before a solemn audience that had gathered to mark Martyrs Day.

“There is no greater honour than martyrdom”, Pakistan's army chief said, “nor any aspiration greater than it. When people are determined to achieve great objectives, they develop the faith needed to trust their lives to the care of Allah. We are well aware of the historical reality that nations must be willing to make great sacrifices for their freedom”. “I am proud”, he went on, “that the nation has never forgotten the sacrifices of its martyrs and holy warriors”.

If it hadn't been for General Kayani's impeccably-ironed military uniform, his audience might have been forgiven for believing that the speech was being made by the Islamist clerics who have exhorted insurgents to claim the lives of over 2,700 Pakistani troops in combat.

Pakistan's Prime Minister went on national television in July to give his country's army chief an unprecedented three year extension of service. The decision has won applause in some western capitals, as well as from some liberal and conservative commentators in Pakistan. In the midst of a bitter war against Islamists many believe poses the greatest existential threat Pakistan has ever faced, Kayani's supporters believe its army needs continuity of leadership.

Those propositions might be true — but casts little light on the strategic considerations which have given Kayani three more years in office. Pakistan's army hopes, in essence, that Kayani will be able to craft a way out of the crisis without compromising the power and influence of its generals.

Islamabad elites had long been discussing Kayani's plans to secure an extension; this newspaper carried an extensive discussion of the issue in March. Key politicians, though, were evidently clueless. On May 17, Pakistani Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said the government “was neither granting extension to Chief of Army Staff; nor had the general sought it.” But just a week later, media reported that a conference of corps commanders had called for an extension.

Some accounts hold that President Asif Ali Zardari, who is distrusted by the army, had little choice but to accept this fait accompli. Other commentary suggests both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani went along with decision, hoping to stave off any confrontation with the armed forces until 2013 — the year their terms in office end. Either way, as Pakistani lawyer and political commentator Asma Jehangir has noted, the extension suggests “that democracy has not taken root. The decision was taken on the basis of obvious pressure from the military”.

But just what was it that drove this pressure? Pakistan's army isn't, after all, short of competent commanders. “My advice to Kayani”, wrote the commentator Kamran Shafi days before the extension, “would be to issue his last Order of the Day on the appointed date of his retirement, receive his successor in General Head-Quarters, and after a cup of tea get into his private car and fade away.” There are good reasons, though, why that advice wasn't heeded.

The Pakistan army's agenda

Kayani is at the centre of three projects critical to the long-term power of the Pakistan army. The first is this: extricating the Pakistan army from a counter-insurgency campaign that appears unwinnable. During Kayani's visit to troops in Orakzai on June 1, the Pakistan army announced “the successful conclusion of operations in the Agency”. But, as analyst Tushar Rajan Mohanty recently pointed out, it has admitted to over a dozen engagements there since, involving the use of combat jets and helicopter gunships. Refugees displaced last year are yet to return.

Hoping to manoeuvre an exit, Kayani has escalated support to the jihadist networks of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani. Last week, Canadian diplomat Chris Alexander — who spent seven years serving his country and the United Nations in Afghanistan — charged Kayani with “sponsoring a large-scale, covert guerrilla war through Afghan proxies.” “Without Pakistani military support,” Alexander asserted “all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse”. Earlier, Harvard University's Matt Waldman quoted Islamic Emirate commanders admitting that the ISI's role was “as clear as the sun in the sky.”

Kayani, the Pakistan army hopes, will be able to secure its allies power in a future regime in Kabul — and then use their influence to scale back its conflict with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan at home. Pakistan has, notably, offered to broker a rapprochement between its jihadist allies and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime.

Linked to this objective, Kayani is working to heal President Musharraf's rupture with domestic jihadists — a constituency who were once drawn to state-backed organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, but have been increasingly supporting the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Pakistan's India policy is being reinvented by Kayani to this end: the second project he needs time to see to fruition.

In a thoughtful 2002 paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, George Perkovich cast light on Musharraf's reappraisal of Pakistani military strategy on India. Lieutenant-General Moinuddin Haider, who served as interior minister under President Musharraf, told Perkovich he argued that the long-term costs of continuing to back jihadists would be higher than the potential losses from taking them on. President Musharraf feared that confrontation would provoke a civil war. “I was the sole voice initially”, Haider said, “saying, ‘Mr. President, your economic plan will not work, people will not invest, if you don't get rid of extremists.'”

Haider gathered allies — among them Pakistan's former intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Javed Ashraf Qazi. “We must not be afraid,” General Qazi said in the wake of the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan military crisis “of admitting that the Jaish was involved in the deaths of thousands of innocent Kashmiris, bombing the Indian Parliament, [the journalist] Daniel Pearl's murder and even attempts on President Musharraf's life.”

But Musharraf did little to develop an institutional consensus around these ideas — and, as his legitimacy eroded, proved unable to make a decisive break with the past. Many in the Pakistan army blamed him for precipitating the internal crisis which developed during his term in office. Like so often in the past, the Pakistan army moved to force out a commander-turned-liability.

Ever since Kayani replaced Musharraf, there has been mounting evidence that the Pakistan army is seeking to renew hostility with India. In 2008, the United States was reported to have confronted Pakistan's army with evidence that the ISI was involved in a murderous attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul. Later that year, it is now known from the testimony of Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley, the ISI facilitated the carnage in Mumbai. Pakistan has denied its intelligence services were linked to the Mumbai attacks, but has neither questioned the officials Headley named, nor sought to interrogate him on the issue.

In February, Kayani told journalists the Pakistan army was an ‘India-centric institution', adding that this “reality will not change in any significant way until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved”.

Language like this fits well with the intellectual climate of Pakistan's armed forces. Lieutenant-General Javed Hassan — who played a key role commanding Pakistan forces during the Kargil war — was commissioned by the army's Faculty of Research and Doctrinal Studies to produce a guide to India for serving officers. In India: A Study in Profile, published by the military-owned Services Book Club in 1990, Hassan argues that is driven by “the incorrigible militarism of the Hindus.” “For those that are weak,” he goes on, “the Hindu is exploitative and domineering.”

Faced with a flailing war against jihadists at home, Kayani's anti-India platform offers the army the strategic equivalent of an escape button: precipitating a crisis with a historic adversary, secure in the knowledge that Pakistan's nuclear umbrella guarantees it protection from a large-scale war. Pakistan's military, many Indian foreign policy analysts believe, precipitated the bruising showdown between Foreign Ministers SM Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Islamabad last month, undermining the fragile dialogue between the two countries.

India and Afghanistan are just parts, though, of the third, and most important project: guaranteeing the political primacy of the Pakistan army. In the wake of President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq's assassination in 1988, Pakistan developed what the scholar Hussain Haqqani — now his country's ambassador to the United States — described as “military rule by other means.” Hasan-Askari Rizvi noted that the army chief became the “pivot” for political system. The army chief, in turn, derived his authority from the corps commanders who addressed “not only security, professional and organisational matters, but also deliberate on domestic issues”.

In January 2008 General Kayani passed a directive which ordered military officers not to maintain contacts with politicians, and followed up with orders withdrawing serving personnel from civilian institutions. The move was interpreted as evidence of Kayani's commitment to genuine civilian-led democracy. But Kayani repulsed President Zardari's early efforts to bring the ISI under civilian control, and defeated his efforts to seek a grand rapprochement with India. Pakistan's army proved willing to cede influence over the administration of the state, but not over the structure and thrust of national strategy.

“The army is the nation,” General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani said in his Martyrs Day speech, “and the nation is with the army.” Ensuring that this pithy proposition survives the crisis Pakistan is faced with is the purpose of the silent coup that has given Kayani three more years in office.

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : General Kayani's quiet coup

------------------------------

PS: I don't mean to demean your COAS, but this article seemed interesting from the Indian POV.
 
General Kayani's quiet coup

By Praveen Swami

Pakistan's army hopes its chief will be able to craft a way out of the many crises the country is confronted with.

Late in April, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani stood before a solemn audience that had gathered to mark Martyrs Day.

“There is no greater honour than martyrdom”, Pakistan's army chief said, “nor any aspiration greater than it. When people are determined to achieve great objectives, they develop the faith needed to trust their lives to the care of Allah. We are well aware of the historical reality that nations must be willing to make great sacrifices for their freedom”. “I am proud”, he went on, “that the nation has never forgotten the sacrifices of its martyrs and holy warriors”.

If it hadn't been for General Kayani's impeccably-ironed military uniform, his audience might have been forgiven for believing that the speech was being made by the Islamist clerics who have exhorted insurgents to claim the lives of over 2,700 Pakistani troops in combat.

Pakistan's Prime Minister went on national television in July to give his country's army chief an unprecedented three year extension of service. The decision has won applause in some western capitals, as well as from some liberal and conservative commentators in Pakistan. In the midst of a bitter war against Islamists many believe poses the greatest existential threat Pakistan has ever faced, Kayani's supporters believe its army needs continuity of leadership.

Those propositions might be true — but casts little light on the strategic considerations which have given Kayani three more years in office. Pakistan's army hopes, in essence, that Kayani will be able to craft a way out of the crisis without compromising the power and influence of its generals.

Islamabad elites had long been discussing Kayani's plans to secure an extension; this newspaper carried an extensive discussion of the issue in March. Key politicians, though, were evidently clueless. On May 17, Pakistani Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said the government “was neither granting extension to Chief of Army Staff; nor had the general sought it.” But just a week later, media reported that a conference of corps commanders had called for an extension.

Some accounts hold that President Asif Ali Zardari, who is distrusted by the army, had little choice but to accept this fait accompli. Other commentary suggests both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani went along with decision, hoping to stave off any confrontation with the armed forces until 2013 — the year their terms in office end. Either way, as Pakistani lawyer and political commentator Asma Jehangir has noted, the extension suggests “that democracy has not taken root. The decision was taken on the basis of obvious pressure from the military”.

But just what was it that drove this pressure? Pakistan's army isn't, after all, short of competent commanders. “My advice to Kayani”, wrote the commentator Kamran Shafi days before the extension, “would be to issue his last Order of the Day on the appointed date of his retirement, receive his successor in General Head-Quarters, and after a cup of tea get into his private car and fade away.” There are good reasons, though, why that advice wasn't heeded.

The Pakistan army's agenda

Kayani is at the centre of three projects critical to the long-term power of the Pakistan army. The first is this: extricating the Pakistan army from a counter-insurgency campaign that appears unwinnable. During Kayani's visit to troops in Orakzai on June 1, the Pakistan army announced “the successful conclusion of operations in the Agency”. But, as analyst Tushar Rajan Mohanty recently pointed out, it has admitted to over a dozen engagements there since, involving the use of combat jets and helicopter gunships. Refugees displaced last year are yet to return.

Hoping to manoeuvre an exit, Kayani has escalated support to the jihadist networks of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani. Last week, Canadian diplomat Chris Alexander — who spent seven years serving his country and the United Nations in Afghanistan — charged Kayani with “sponsoring a large-scale, covert guerrilla war through Afghan proxies.” “Without Pakistani military support,” Alexander asserted “all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse”. Earlier, Harvard University's Matt Waldman quoted Islamic Emirate commanders admitting that the ISI's role was “as clear as the sun in the sky.”

Kayani, the Pakistan army hopes, will be able to secure its allies power in a future regime in Kabul — and then use their influence to scale back its conflict with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan at home. Pakistan has, notably, offered to broker a rapprochement between its jihadist allies and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime.

Linked to this objective, Kayani is working to heal President Musharraf's rupture with domestic jihadists — a constituency who were once drawn to state-backed organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, but have been increasingly supporting the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Pakistan's India policy is being reinvented by Kayani to this end: the second project he needs time to see to fruition.

In a thoughtful 2002 paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, George Perkovich cast light on Musharraf's reappraisal of Pakistani military strategy on India. Lieutenant-General Moinuddin Haider, who served as interior minister under President Musharraf, told Perkovich he argued that the long-term costs of continuing to back jihadists would be higher than the potential losses from taking them on. President Musharraf feared that confrontation would provoke a civil war. “I was the sole voice initially”, Haider said, “saying, ‘Mr. President, your economic plan will not work, people will not invest, if you don't get rid of extremists.'”

Haider gathered allies — among them Pakistan's former intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Javed Ashraf Qazi. “We must not be afraid,” General Qazi said in the wake of the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan military crisis “of admitting that the Jaish was involved in the deaths of thousands of innocent Kashmiris, bombing the Indian Parliament, [the journalist] Daniel Pearl's murder and even attempts on President Musharraf's life.”

But Musharraf did little to develop an institutional consensus around these ideas — and, as his legitimacy eroded, proved unable to make a decisive break with the past. Many in the Pakistan army blamed him for precipitating the internal crisis which developed during his term in office. Like so often in the past, the Pakistan army moved to force out a commander-turned-liability.

Ever since Kayani replaced Musharraf, there has been mounting evidence that the Pakistan army is seeking to renew hostility with India. In 2008, the United States was reported to have confronted Pakistan's army with evidence that the ISI was involved in a murderous attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul. Later that year, it is now known from the testimony of Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley, the ISI facilitated the carnage in Mumbai. Pakistan has denied its intelligence services were linked to the Mumbai attacks, but has neither questioned the officials Headley named, nor sought to interrogate him on the issue.

In February, Kayani told journalists the Pakistan army was an ‘India-centric institution', adding that this “reality will not change in any significant way until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved”.

Language like this fits well with the intellectual climate of Pakistan's armed forces. Lieutenant-General Javed Hassan — who played a key role commanding Pakistan forces during the Kargil war — was commissioned by the army's Faculty of Research and Doctrinal Studies to produce a guide to India for serving officers. In India: A Study in Profile, published by the military-owned Services Book Club in 1990, Hassan argues that is driven by “the incorrigible militarism of the Hindus.” “For those that are weak,” he goes on, “the Hindu is exploitative and domineering.”

Faced with a flailing war against jihadists at home, Kayani's anti-India platform offers the army the strategic equivalent of an escape button: precipitating a crisis with a historic adversary, secure in the knowledge that Pakistan's nuclear umbrella guarantees it protection from a large-scale war. Pakistan's military, many Indian foreign policy analysts believe, precipitated the bruising showdown between Foreign Ministers SM Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Islamabad last month, undermining the fragile dialogue between the two countries.

India and Afghanistan are just parts, though, of the third, and most important project: guaranteeing the political primacy of the Pakistan army. In the wake of President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq's assassination in 1988, Pakistan developed what the scholar Hussain Haqqani — now his country's ambassador to the United States — described as “military rule by other means.” Hasan-Askari Rizvi noted that the army chief became the “pivot” for political system. The army chief, in turn, derived his authority from the corps commanders who addressed “not only security, professional and organisational matters, but also deliberate on domestic issues”.

In January 2008 General Kayani passed a directive which ordered military officers not to maintain contacts with politicians, and followed up with orders withdrawing serving personnel from civilian institutions. The move was interpreted as evidence of Kayani's commitment to genuine civilian-led democracy. But Kayani repulsed President Zardari's early efforts to bring the ISI under civilian control, and defeated his efforts to seek a grand rapprochement with India. Pakistan's army proved willing to cede influence over the administration of the state, but not over the structure and thrust of national strategy.

“The army is the nation,” General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani said in his Martyrs Day speech, “and the nation is with the army.” Ensuring that this pithy proposition survives the crisis Pakistan is faced with is the purpose of the silent coup that has given Kayani three more years in office.

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : General Kayani's quiet coup

------------------------------

PS: I don't mean to demean your COAS, but this article seemed interesting from the Indian POV.

A very flawed opinion with just the bashing agenda and nothing else.

What else can be expected from across the border ?? Similar crap.


By the way, the author forgets to mention the news items appearing in the media which said Kayani was not interested in getting the extension which shos he had nothing to do with any coup regarding his extension, he even appointed a possible & strong candidate to the post of CGS showing he was ready to go and had made plans for his replacement, even now it is hard to tell how much extension he will avail. His decision to not get the extension was changed by a few of his seniors due to certain reasons.

Many more factual inaccuracies but won't bother to counter them as its not worth the time for things coming across the border.
 
General Kayani's quiet coup

By Praveen Swami

Pakistan's army hopes its chief will be able to craft a way out of the many crises the country is confronted with.

Late in April, Ashfaq Pervez Kayani stood before a solemn audience that had gathered to mark Martyrs Day.

“There is no greater honour than martyrdom”, Pakistan's army chief said, “nor any aspiration greater than it. When people are determined to achieve great objectives, they develop the faith needed to trust their lives to the care of Allah. We are well aware of the historical reality that nations must be willing to make great sacrifices for their freedom”. “I am proud”, he went on, “that the nation has never forgotten the sacrifices of its martyrs and holy warriors”.

If it hadn't been for General Kayani's impeccably-ironed military uniform, his audience might have been forgiven for believing that the speech was being made by the Islamist clerics who have exhorted insurgents to claim the lives of over 2,700 Pakistani troops in combat.

Pakistan's Prime Minister went on national television in July to give his country's army chief an unprecedented three year extension of service. The decision has won applause in some western capitals, as well as from some liberal and conservative commentators in Pakistan. In the midst of a bitter war against Islamists many believe poses the greatest existential threat Pakistan has ever faced, Kayani's supporters believe its army needs continuity of leadership.

Those propositions might be true — but casts little light on the strategic considerations which have given Kayani three more years in office. Pakistan's army hopes, in essence, that Kayani will be able to craft a way out of the crisis without compromising the power and influence of its generals.

Islamabad elites had long been discussing Kayani's plans to secure an extension; this newspaper carried an extensive discussion of the issue in March. Key politicians, though, were evidently clueless. On May 17, Pakistani Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said the government “was neither granting extension to Chief of Army Staff; nor had the general sought it.” But just a week later, media reported that a conference of corps commanders had called for an extension.

Some accounts hold that President Asif Ali Zardari, who is distrusted by the army, had little choice but to accept this fait accompli. Other commentary suggests both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani went along with decision, hoping to stave off any confrontation with the armed forces until 2013 — the year their terms in office end. Either way, as Pakistani lawyer and political commentator Asma Jehangir has noted, the extension suggests “that democracy has not taken root. The decision was taken on the basis of obvious pressure from the military”.

But just what was it that drove this pressure? Pakistan's army isn't, after all, short of competent commanders. “My advice to Kayani”, wrote the commentator Kamran Shafi days before the extension, “would be to issue his last Order of the Day on the appointed date of his retirement, receive his successor in General Head-Quarters, and after a cup of tea get into his private car and fade away.” There are good reasons, though, why that advice wasn't heeded.

The Pakistan army's agenda

Kayani is at the centre of three projects critical to the long-term power of the Pakistan army. The first is this: extricating the Pakistan army from a counter-insurgency campaign that appears unwinnable. During Kayani's visit to troops in Orakzai on June 1, the Pakistan army announced “the successful conclusion of operations in the Agency”. But, as analyst Tushar Rajan Mohanty recently pointed out, it has admitted to over a dozen engagements there since, involving the use of combat jets and helicopter gunships. Refugees displaced last year are yet to return.

Hoping to manoeuvre an exit, Kayani has escalated support to the jihadist networks of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Maulana Jalaluddin Haqqani. Last week, Canadian diplomat Chris Alexander — who spent seven years serving his country and the United Nations in Afghanistan — charged Kayani with “sponsoring a large-scale, covert guerrilla war through Afghan proxies.” “Without Pakistani military support,” Alexander asserted “all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse”. Earlier, Harvard University's Matt Waldman quoted Islamic Emirate commanders admitting that the ISI's role was “as clear as the sun in the sky.”

Kayani, the Pakistan army hopes, will be able to secure its allies power in a future regime in Kabul — and then use their influence to scale back its conflict with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan at home. Pakistan has, notably, offered to broker a rapprochement between its jihadist allies and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime.

Linked to this objective, Kayani is working to heal President Musharraf's rupture with domestic jihadists — a constituency who were once drawn to state-backed organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, but have been increasingly supporting the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Pakistan's India policy is being reinvented by Kayani to this end: the second project he needs time to see to fruition.

In a thoughtful 2002 paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, George Perkovich cast light on Musharraf's reappraisal of Pakistani military strategy on India. Lieutenant-General Moinuddin Haider, who served as interior minister under President Musharraf, told Perkovich he argued that the long-term costs of continuing to back jihadists would be higher than the potential losses from taking them on. President Musharraf feared that confrontation would provoke a civil war. “I was the sole voice initially”, Haider said, “saying, ‘Mr. President, your economic plan will not work, people will not invest, if you don't get rid of extremists.'”

Haider gathered allies — among them Pakistan's former intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Javed Ashraf Qazi. “We must not be afraid,” General Qazi said in the wake of the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan military crisis “of admitting that the Jaish was involved in the deaths of thousands of innocent Kashmiris, bombing the Indian Parliament, [the journalist] Daniel Pearl's murder and even attempts on President Musharraf's life.”

But Musharraf did little to develop an institutional consensus around these ideas — and, as his legitimacy eroded, proved unable to make a decisive break with the past. Many in the Pakistan army blamed him for precipitating the internal crisis which developed during his term in office. Like so often in the past, the Pakistan army moved to force out a commander-turned-liability.

Ever since Kayani replaced Musharraf, there has been mounting evidence that the Pakistan army is seeking to renew hostility with India. In 2008, the United States was reported to have confronted Pakistan's army with evidence that the ISI was involved in a murderous attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul. Later that year, it is now known from the testimony of Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley, the ISI facilitated the carnage in Mumbai. Pakistan has denied its intelligence services were linked to the Mumbai attacks, but has neither questioned the officials Headley named, nor sought to interrogate him on the issue.

In February, Kayani told journalists the Pakistan army was an ‘India-centric institution', adding that this “reality will not change in any significant way until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved”.

Language like this fits well with the intellectual climate of Pakistan's armed forces. Lieutenant-General Javed Hassan — who played a key role commanding Pakistan forces during the Kargil war — was commissioned by the army's Faculty of Research and Doctrinal Studies to produce a guide to India for serving officers. In India: A Study in Profile, published by the military-owned Services Book Club in 1990, Hassan argues that is driven by “the incorrigible militarism of the Hindus.” “For those that are weak,” he goes on, “the Hindu is exploitative and domineering.”

Faced with a flailing war against jihadists at home, Kayani's anti-India platform offers the army the strategic equivalent of an escape button: precipitating a crisis with a historic adversary, secure in the knowledge that Pakistan's nuclear umbrella guarantees it protection from a large-scale war. Pakistan's military, many Indian foreign policy analysts believe, precipitated the bruising showdown between Foreign Ministers SM Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Islamabad last month, undermining the fragile dialogue between the two countries.

India and Afghanistan are just parts, though, of the third, and most important project: guaranteeing the political primacy of the Pakistan army. In the wake of President Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq's assassination in 1988, Pakistan developed what the scholar Hussain Haqqani — now his country's ambassador to the United States — described as “military rule by other means.” Hasan-Askari Rizvi noted that the army chief became the “pivot” for political system. The army chief, in turn, derived his authority from the corps commanders who addressed “not only security, professional and organisational matters, but also deliberate on domestic issues”.

In January 2008 General Kayani passed a directive which ordered military officers not to maintain contacts with politicians, and followed up with orders withdrawing serving personnel from civilian institutions. The move was interpreted as evidence of Kayani's commitment to genuine civilian-led democracy. But Kayani repulsed President Zardari's early efforts to bring the ISI under civilian control, and defeated his efforts to seek a grand rapprochement with India. Pakistan's army proved willing to cede influence over the administration of the state, but not over the structure and thrust of national strategy.

“The army is the nation,” General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani said in his Martyrs Day speech, “and the nation is with the army.” Ensuring that this pithy proposition survives the crisis Pakistan is faced with is the purpose of the silent coup that has given Kayani three more years in office.

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : General Kayani's quiet coup

------------------------------

PS: I don't mean to demean your COAS, but this article seemed interesting from the Indian POV.

Sadly the arguments put forth inform us that Indians do not understand Pakistan at all. Indian punditry is spinning the same circular, incomplete logic. Incredulously we are told that this Army(pak) cannot win its own war with local taliban, but it(Army) is the sole reason why the Afghan Taliban are able to challenge the Superpower US/NATO. Then the Afghan Taliban will help it win/befriend local Taliban !! What a fantastic web of crock? And that is how the current General is going to stage a coup and occupy islamabad. And quite ridiculously this army is willing to risk an unnecessary nuclear war with India in order to not fight the taliban? If we are to believe this guy, then Pak Army is the sole reason why Taliban are wining. Otherwise they would "collapse". The obvious next logical assumption in this brilliant reductive theory has to be then Soviet defeat can entirely be ascribed to pakistan Army. Then Obama is correct in befriending the most powerful agent of change in Central Asia- ie PAKISTAN ARMY!!!!
Per this article without pakistan's support no body wins in Central Asia. Right?

Funny part is i knew it will be posed on PDF! I would like to say please stop posting Indian Newspapers on this forum coz they are totally bias and absalute trash for Pakistani members ON PAKISTANI FORUM
 
A very flawed opinion with just the bashing agenda and nothing else.

What else can be expected from across the border ?? Similar crap.


By the way, the author forgets to mention the news items appearing in the media which said Kayani was not interested in getting the extension which shos he had nothing to do with any coup regarding his extension, he even appointed a possible & strong candidate to the post of CGS showing he was ready to go and had made plans for his replacement, even now it is hard to tell how much extension he will avail. His decision to not get the extension was changed by a few of his seniors due to certain reasons.

Many more factual inaccuracies but won't bother to counter them as its not worth the time for things coming across the border.

Sadly the arguments put forth inform us that Indians do not understand Pakistan at all. Indian punditry is spinning the same circular, incomplete logic. Incredulously we are told that this Army(pak) cannot win its own war with local taliban, but it(Army) is the sole reason why the Afghan Taliban are able to challenge the Superpower US/NATO. Then the Afghan Taliban will help it win/befriend local Taliban !! What a fantastic web of crock? And that is how the current General is going to stage a coup and occupy islamabad. And quite ridiculously this army is willing to risk an unnecessary nuclear war with India in order to not fight the taliban? If we are to believe this guy, then Pak Army is the sole reason why Taliban are wining. Otherwise they would "collapse". The obvious next logical assumption in this brilliant reductive theory has to be then Soviet defeat can entirely be ascribed to pakistan Army. Then Obama is correct in befriending the most powerful agent of change in Central Asia- ie PAKISTAN ARMY!!!!
Per this article without pakistan's support no body wins in Central Asia. Right?

Funny part is i knew it will be posed on PDF! I would like to say please stop posting Indian Newspapers on this forum coz they are totally bias and absalute trash for Pakistani members ON PAKISTANI FORUM

Hi,

I posted this article because 'The Hindu' is a very respectable paper in India. During Qureshi's recent outburst against Indian bureaucrats, this paper had asked Indian politicians to understand Pakistan's POV. But i understand that some opinions will not go down well. Same will be the case for adverse India opinions from Pakistan's respectable media outlets.

We Indians are of the opinion that the Pakistani Army is an incredibly powerful institution. The comments of many senior members of the forum lend credence to this opinion.

No powerful institution - good or bad - lets go of its power so easily.
 
Hi,

I posted this article because 'The Hindu' is a very respectable paper in India. During Qureshi's recent outburst against Indian bureaucrats, this paper had asked Indian politicians to understand Pakistan's POV. But i understand that some opinions will not go down well. Same will be the case for adverse India opinions from Pakistan's respectable media outlets.

We Indians are of the opinion that the Pakistani Army is an incredibly powerful institution. The comments of many senior members of the forum lend credence to this opinion.

No powerful institution - good or bad - lets go of its power so easily.

What ever the Indians / Americans / NATO and rest think, or publish is what they deem fit to explain the situation;
This reasons that "The Hindu" publishes for Kiyani's extension may never be what went on the Core Commanders @ Pakistan.

So given that benefit I wouldn't comment further on the article.

While on cigar night with some friends back in Pakistan I was told another interesting side.

Basically they argued that Kiyani's positioning was Musharraf's plan.
Neither the Pakistan Army nor the ISI wanted any change in how
business was being done prior to Musharraf.

They based their argument on following premises:

1. Gen Kiyani was Musharraf's MOST trusted general.
2. Gen Kiyani was DG MO during Kargil and thus was more than capable of dealing with India.
3. Gen Kiyani was DG ISI, and thus was capable of handling USA.
4. Gen Kiyani was DG ISI and thus was capable of handling politicians.

Given the above 4 ; and knowing his close relationship with Musharraf he must have been party to his selection and projection before his appointment as COAS.

This in turn means that he must have been in knowledge of the complete war plan before hand and he is ensuring it's execution.
 
Hi,

I posted this article because 'The Hindu' is a very respectable paper in India. During Qureshi's recent outburst against Indian bureaucrats, this paper had asked Indian politicians to understand Pakistan's POV. But i understand that some opinions will not go down well. Same will be the case for adverse India opinions from Pakistan's respectable media outlets.

We Indians are of the opinion that the Pakistani Army is an incredibly powerful institution. The comments of many senior members of the forum lend credence to this opinion.

No powerful institution - good or bad - lets go of its power so easily.

No one doubts about how powerful Pakistan Army is, that is due to the historic nature of it having ruled the country as well as due to the stupidity shown by the Oligarchs who run this country which gives room and excuse for the Army to come in.

But this article had twisted facts and molded things as per its own liking.

I just mentioned how Kayani was not interested in getting the extension, but was made to on the insistence of his seniors for the good of the country over all, but this article as well as many others have made it into something of a coup by Kayani, even though it isn't nor did he made plans for such thing to happen.

Similarly, the end of operations was announced for Lower Orakzai, not Upper One, but the article gives the impression as if the end of operations was done for the whole Orakzai.

On one side it accuses the Chief of flaming the insurgency in Afghanistan, while neglects the part that if that had been the case, then US would not have allowed him extension or not shown pleasure on him getting the extension, contrary to that the western military leaders as well as others showed their pleasure in him getting the extension, as they find it easy to be working with him.

So as said, no matter how respectable the newspaper is, the article is full of bashing stuff engineered to give wrong impression contrary to the truth.
 
While there are many other issues with the article, i would like to point out just one.

Language like this fits well with the intellectual climate of Pakistan's armed forces. Lieutenant-General Javed Hassan — who played a key role commanding Pakistan forces during the Kargil war — was commissioned by the army's Faculty of Research and Doctrinal Studies to produce a guide to India for serving officers. In India: A Study in Profile, published by the military-owned Services Book Club in 1990, Hassan argues that is driven by “the incorrigible militarism of the Hindus.” “For those that are weak,” he goes on, “the Hindu is exploitative and domineering.”

While this paper was indeed written by Gen Javed, he wrote this while at the Staff College Quetta as a Col i think. And, he wasn't specifically asked to write on this subject. So, these are views of one man, not a policy paper for the entire Army.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom