New Doctrine of Pakistan Army

Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by DEJAVU, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. DEJAVU

    DEJAVU Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2013
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    GALAXY
    New Doctrine of Pakistan Army

    ISLAMABAD: In what appears to be a paradigm shift in its decades-old policy, Pakistan Army has described homegrown militancy as the “biggest threat” to national security.

    According to the new Army Doctrine, ongoing activities of Taliban militants in the restive tribal regions and unabated terrorist attacks on government installations in major cities are posing a real threat to Pakistan’s security. The Army Doctrine deals with operational preparedness and is reviewed on and off.

    For decades, the army considered India as its No.1 enemy but growing extremism in the country compelled the military authorities to review its strategy.

    A senior military official confirmed to The Express Tribune that a new chapter has been added to the Army Doctrine that would now also include threats posed by sub-conventional warfare.

    “Pakistan’s armed forces were trained for conventional warfare but the current security situation necessitated the change,” said the official requesting anonymity. “Forces fighting on the front-line in the tribal regions are now being trained according to the requirements of sub-conventional warfare,” he added.

    Preparation of the new doctrine started a year ago and has been adopted recently, according to the official.

    When contacted, the chief military spokesperson confirmed the development but attempted to play down the hype. “Army prepares for all forms of threats. Sub-conventional threat is a reality and is a part of a threat matrix faced by our country. But it doesn’t mean that the conventional threat has receded,” Maj-Gen Asim Saleem Bajwa, the director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) told The Express Tribune.

    According to the BBC, the new Army Doctrine talks about unidentified militant groups and their role to create unrest in the country. It also mentions that Pakistani militants have found refuge across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.

    Quoting military officials, the new Army Doctrine blames “foreign proxies” for creating unrest in some parts of the country, although it does not name any country.

    It is widely believed, however, that the army might be referring to India’s alleged role in creating disturbances in Balochistan, which has been plagued by a deadly separatist insurrection since 2004.

    Military sources told the BBC that Pakistan could not preempt the US secret raid in Abbottabad in May 2011 because of a lack of threat perception from western borders (Afghanistan) and concentration of armed forces at eastern frontiers (India).

    “It’s a fact that before the new army doctrine, India was Pakistan’s No 1 enemy. All military resources were focused on India,” Defence analyst Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood told the BBC. “For the first time it has been realised that Pakistan faces the real threat from within – a threat which is concentrated in areas along western borders.”

    The new strategy also stresses that the formulation of the defence policy was not the responsibility of the army alone. Other organs of the states will have to play their part. In an effort to elicit public support against violent extremism, the army is likely to make public its new doctrine.

    New doctrine: Army identifies ‘homegrown militancy’ as biggest threat – The Express Tribune
     
  2.  
  3. DEJAVU

    DEJAVU Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2013
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    GALAXY
    According to new media reports (here and here), the Pakistani army has revised its doctrinal handbook to give priority to the country’s burgeoning internal security challenges. The change appears, at least on the surface, to represent a fundamental shift away from the “India-centric” orientation that General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful army chief, has long used to deflect U.S. pressure for Pakistani action against jihadi groups operating from the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

    This would seem to be good news for those worried that the Pakistani military establishment’s fixation on the Indian threat has left it blind to the precarious conditions inside the country. These domestic challenges include spiraling levels of violence in two of its major cities – Karachi and Peshawar, growing Sunni-Shia conflict, and a chronic electrical power crisis that some experts suggest is more of a threat to stability than is terrorism.

    Still, a healthy skepticism about Pakistani pronouncements is always in order. After all, even U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last summer seemed to be taken in by Kayani’s promises that a long-awaited offensive into North Waziristan was just around the corner. This occurred despite the incredulity of other U.S. officials – the New York Times even quoted one as quipping that “This is the most delayed campaign in the history of modern warfare.”

    So here are two litmus tests for assaying the value of the announced doctrinal change, both of which entail fundamental departures in entrenched security calculations vis-à-vis India.

    The first test is whether the revision leads to Pakistan ending its strategy of supporting Taliban insurgents as a means of exerting influence in Afghanistan and instead playing a constructive role as NATO forces prepare to exit the country after 2014. For two decades, Islamabad has backed the Taliban out of fears of Indian strategic encirclement. Recent reports, however, suggest that the Pakistani military establishment has had an epiphany and now believes that prolonging the Afghan conflict would only blow back over the porous border, giving further energy to the domestic militants now waging war against the Pakistani state and perhaps even inflaming Pashtun separatism. Evidence for this change of heart includes stepped up efforts to bring about reconciliation between the Taliban and the government in Kabul, including releasing a number of jailed Taliban leaders as a goodwill gesture, as well as a campaign to reach out to non-Pashtun leaders in Afghanistan who are suspicious of Pakistan’s intentions.

    Ahmed Rashid, a keen observer of the AfPak scene, attributes this major shift to the army’s realization that Pakistan is in increasingly desperate straits. He notes that General Kayani “is now banking on the hope that reconciliation among the Afghans will have a knock-on positive effect on the Pakistani Taliban also – depriving them of legitimacy and recruits.” A Reuters report carries the same message, quoting a senior Pakistani military officer as saying:

    There was a time when we used to think we were the masters of Afghanistan. Now we just want them to be masters of themselves so we can concentrate on our own problems.

    It obviously bears close watching whether Islamabad follows through with these promises to be a better neighbor. (For a doubtful view, see here.) The outcome will have significant implications not only for Afghanistan but the larger region as well.

    The second test is whether the doctrinal revisions bring about a more relaxed nuclear posture toward India. Pakistan is rapidly expanded its nuclear stockpile, especially in tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, many worry (see here and here) that South Asia is on the verge of a destabilizing nuclear arms competition. General Kayani justifies the need for battlefield nuclear options by pointing to the threat posed by the Indian army’s “Cold Start” doctrine – which emphasizes the threat of large-scale but calibrated punitive actions in order to deter Pakistani adventurism.

    In an earlier post I criticized the nuclear buildup as strategically unnecessary as well as a wasteful diversion of precious economic resources away from more pressing national priorities. So far, there are no signs that the military establishment is reversing course, though civilian leaders are at least beginning to ask tougher questions about the direction of the nuclear program. The coming year may also see a somewhat changed equilibrium in the country’s fraught civil-military dynamics, with the upcoming parliamentary elections establishing a new milestone in civilian governance coupled with Kayani’s scheduled retirement towards the end of 2013. It’s also worth noting that the army’s new doctrine acknowledges the legitimacy of civilian input into national security decision-making.

    And there might be an opportunity here for New Delhi to provide some strategic reassurance than can help nudge Pakistan’s security calculus onto a new path. It could further encourage the informal but promising dialogue by retired senior military leaders from both countries that has produced good ideas about confidence-building measures. It also can signal openness to convening an official dialogue about the posture and readiness levels of military units, including nuclear-capable missile forces, deployed along the common border. Given their lack of strategic utility as well as the perils they pose for crisis stability, one idea might be for the two countries to agree on eliminating their shortest-range ballistic missiles.

    2013 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for Pakistan and I’ll have more to say in a future post about things to watch for. But one of the key items to monitor is whether the army’s doctrinal shift leads to substantive policy changes on Afghanistan and nuclear weapons.
     
  4. Blackwater

    Blackwater Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    20,982
    Likes Received:
    11,810
    Location:
    Akhand Bharat
    new doctor in pakistan army:shocked::shocked::p:p
     
  5. arnabmit

    arnabmit Homo Communis Indus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Location:
    Kolkata
    Good News!

    I have a dream... Ind & Pak becoming like US & Canada... Mutual trade... Economic partnership... Entire unified Kashmir becoming a self governed state with future option of accedence as per voted majority wish...

    Post Afghanistan stabilisation, though India would have to keep building up military strength to balance China, at least, Pak would be able to redirect half of its defense budget towards economic development, education & health care...

    Hope to live long enough to see something like this actually happening...

    Too much to ask for? :confused: :noidea:
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2013
  6. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Kashmir is India and will remain so.
     
    lcatejas likes this.
  7. arnabmit

    arnabmit Homo Communis Indus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Location:
    Kolkata
    Legally, yes. Due to Hari Singh's accedence to India.

    Practically, no. Do you think that after 65 years, a common man from Gilgit or Mirpur would be able to connect & adapt to India?

    I will share a recent survey by an European NGO in PoK, I don't remember the exact figures, which states that only 35-40% wants to be a part of India. In Indian Kashmir, only 55-60% people wants to stay with India. Wherein 80% wants to be Independent.

    We are not conquerors, but democrats. We have to take into account the wish of the people!

    I hope I could make the point.

     
  8. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    One cannot conquer ones own land. Kashmir will be with India forever. Democracy is only within India while upholding its borders.

    European ngo can go screw themselves, they should conduct surveys across europe where people are demanding to break away from EU and even form new countries (See uk,spain,italy)
     
  9. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    6,653
    Any information on the money India spends to destabilize Pak?

    Although given current conditions, there does not seem to be any need for it.
     
  10. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ

    Mirpuris are nothing more than Punjabi settlers from Pakistan. They are not the native Kashmiris, hence why a democratic plebiscite today would be laughable. India, unlike Pakistan, has respected the right of Kashmiris to their own land and property. If we had flooded Kashmir valley with settlers from Bihar and UP at the expense of the native population, we would probably have greater control over that area and the separatist movement would be quashed, but the law does not allow this.

    Anyway, for our geo-strategic purposes we do not require Mirpur or PoK, but just Gilgit-Baltistan (Northern Areas), which would give us a direct land connection to Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor and the energy resources of Central Asia. Most Baltis are Shias and are not radicalized or anti-Indian like Mirpuris. In recent years they are having their own spats with the Paki government, which we should try to take advantage of.
     
    datguy79 likes this.
  11. arnabmit

    arnabmit Homo Communis Indus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Location:
    Kolkata
    I would love nothing better to take back entire PoK! Even Trans-Karakoram Tract, Aksai Chin, Demchok and the occupied area east of Pangong Tso, Spanggur Tso.

    IMHO we cannot reclaim them militarily. Pakistan & China are in no mood to give them back. Even if they do, they would want something in return.

    Again, IMHO, the only way Pak & China might agree if we agree to make Kashmir autonomous.

    My nationalism is fighting with my practicality...
     
  12. DEJAVU

    DEJAVU Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2013
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    GALAXY
    Junagadh should be part of Pakistan as per your theory of accedation.
     
  13. arnabmit

    arnabmit Homo Communis Indus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    5,859
    Location:
    Kolkata
    On 25 Feb 1948 Junagadh legally acceded to India. Documentation to that effect exists.

    When did Kashmir ever legally, on paper, accede to Pakistan? In Kashmir, Pakistan was, is and will remain what UN terms as an "Invasive Force".

    Out of many of Pakistan's national level delusions, one is "Kashmir is a DISPUTE, not an ISSUE OF INVASION & ILLEGAL OCCUPATION"

     

Share This Page