A doctrine can be defined as ‘the best way of doing a thing’. Thus reviewing a military doctrine should ideally suggest to military reviewers, the correctness of the methods and techniques employed by them to meet the threats faced by the state and not the category of the enemy and the seriousness of the threats and challenges posed by them. The entire nation knows who was hurting the Pakistan Army at the tactical and operational level of the war over the past decade or so. Why has the army taken so long to shift its prioritisation of the threat? The level and measure of the enemy’s threat is not related to its promises or intentions but to its military capability with which it threatens. Unless there is a substantial decrease in the force deployment and the military capability of the enemy on our eastern front, the Pakistan Army cannot unilaterally claim to have reassessed the threat through the pages of its Green Book; the threat perception will only change when there is change in the allocation of resources from one front to another. One does not see that happening in the near future.
Does reviewing the military doctrine mean that the Pakistan Army will shift its military strategies soon? There is obviously going to be no sudden end to the army’s erstwhile ‘India-centric’ defence policy. Such a shift can only take place under a strong, democratic government that has the will and ability to create the enabling political conditions, as well as the security environment, for the military to make such a choice.
All those who have studied military strategy know that it is all about setting priorities and not all your enemies can be your top priority. Yet, giving the right priority to the enemy helps counter it at a sustainable cost. If countering the threat posed internally by the militants is now the top priority of the army, then it should also be willing to rationalise its resource allocation. Unfortunately for us, both the political leadership, as well as the army has been unwilling to make tough decisions to carry our nation to a military victory against the militants. War against the militants was never unwinnable, so why we don’t look like winning it is because fighting and winning this war has never been a top priority of our politicians and the military. Talking and securing peace should only precede military ascendancy over the militants. We must fight and win the war first before we decide to negotiate with the militants. In the last few months, the army has shown no substantial gains against the militants. Under such circumstances, it is the militants who would participate in any dialogue from a position of strength. It is in this context that the army’s Green Book gives us hope that the army is finally ready to combat the threat that is its own creation.
I would rather have wished that the army had shown its willingness to fight militancy and the internal threat without equating it with the external threat posed by India. This because the strategy employed by the army to meet the two threats is entirely different. On the eastern front, our army employs the doctrine of ‘deterrence through denial’— designed to convince the enemy that it cannot achieve its objective, so there is hardly any point in trying. On the western front, the army does not know exactly where to find the enemy or how it is positioned. All it can do is employ the doctrine of ‘deterrence by punishment’, which is designed to persuade the enemy that it may be able to achieve its objective, yet it may suffer so much as a result that all its anticipated costs will eventually outweigh its gains. Unfortunately for the nation, this doctrine has not been effectively employed for fear of retaliation by the militants. It is only hoped that the army has been able to overcome these fears. Lastly, there is no requirement for the army to publicly declare and substitute one enemy for another for it is its job to meet the threat posed by each of them with a strategy that will guarantee success.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2013.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
A very well written based on ground realities.It is good army has revisited its doctrine, I wish they had done it much earlier that would have saved many lives of our brave soldiers.It is incorrect to suggest that we have changed the doctrine,in fact it is the priority that has been changed.Indaia shallalways remain a potent threat to Pakistan as such army being India Centric is inescapable.
Beheading of soldiers, kidnappings and shooting them openly by the militants with resolve to repeat such acts should open eyes of our rulers.Let us hope that changed doctrine brings some order in disorderly state of Pakistan
The author has covered all the essentials of military doctrines very well & rightly pointed out the necessity of internal & external threats. I agree with the author that Army should have not given its view about threat perception. Can the external threat be ruled out in the presence of many unsettled issues with India? Does India also declares Pakistan as "No threat to India' Has India shifted its resources/forces from our border to other places. If no, then how can Pakistan unilaterally change its view. If threat perception has changed then what is the stance of govt/Pak Army over Kashmir Siachin, Sarcreek, Construction of Dams on Pakistan owned Rivers? Was this change discussed in Parliament?
The mid course correction of military doctrine means nothing unless accompanied by change in political circles and public perception. According to public perception as evidenced by PEW survey India still remains main enemy.The fact of matter is present day India has no resources or wish to absorb Pakistan .It is fearful of disintegration of central authority in Pakistan and the spillage into its borders. . India is a status quo power and does not want any change in ground position including Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek. Pakistan does not have resources nor ability to change this status quo. All attempts to change status quo and involve non state actors and outside powers has failed. These attempts have also resulted in centrifugal and destabilizing tendencies in Pakistani polity . It is time for the civil society to recognize these facts and concentrate on economic nation building
Decades of indoctrination in the Pak army of the "dushman" being infidels with 15 of them equal to 1 will no doubt make the Pak army reluctant to combat the soldiers of Allah who are much more pious than them. . Consider the facts, these soldiers of Allah say namaz five times a day, want to bring shariah, etc while the opposite side indulges in playing golf. Their only crime may be that they kill innocents but they justify this by putting an end to worldly travails of such people to send them to jannat.
@Majo: " ... Does the recent unprovoked attack (last night) of the Indian Army on our Haji peer sector killing one of our soldier and seriously injuring one rings bell in anybody’s mind? ... "
Perhaps you must look at events that preceded this - there was unprovoked firing from your side to aid infiltration of militants into India.
Another possibility is that your military wants to show there is still a threat from India and has made this whole thing up ?
" ... all poised towards Pakistan and of all having a very clear intention of capturing Pakistan/disintegrating Pakistan. ... "
If Pakistan was a devoutly Secular country with the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, then the capturing part of your statement was plausible.
The Pakistani military doctrine is designed to server two aims 1) contain India and 2) position Pakistan as the leader of the Islamic world. In the case 1) PAK Army knows for sure that the "enemy" will not fight until there is an "extreme provocation" and given India's defensive military doctrine, it will be a localised fight. In case 2) the realisation is that the Muslim World is tri-polar - Sunni/Arabs (Saudia, Egypt), Sunni/Iranian and Turkey and there no leadership space for a South Asian, albeit nuclear armed "Muslim" country. Arab, non-Arab, European and South East Asian Muslims have already picked their "camps". There is no Muslim country that will want to be in Pakistan's camp and draw the ire of the Arabs/Iranians/Turks.
So, it is a lot of money spent for nothing.
@author: a good analysis, albeit a little contradictory - you say the war against terrorists was "never unwinnable" yet you later write that somehow the army refuses to act because of the fear of "retaliation by militants". I imagine there is still no consensus about the various militant groups, whether it is better to suffer a little now but retain them as "assets" for the long run, whatever that means. There is probably a timeline - US departure from Afghanistan - when the security forces will take a call ... with the belief that when push comes to shove, the militants can be handled. I hope they are right.
It has now become a established fact that decades old doctrine or strategic depth i.e perciving India as No.1 enemy has backfired,which was indeed a pretext to get major allocation of resources in the form of defence budget of the country at the cost of health and education and development of the nation resulting in and a petty underdeveloped country.
Now with the change of millitary doctrine,will the millitary be willing for reduction in defence budget or indian deterrence budget of pakistan?Will that enhanced expenditure be utilised in social sector to improve the well being of the dowtrodden people of the Counry?
As far as countering the homegrown militancy which finally the army has realized as threat to the national security, is concerned,the Millitary is already getteing the US aid,of billion of dollars and weapons,to eliminate those millitants and global jehadists,posing threats to the securtity of the entire region and west,but unfortunately,till now it has not been the priority of millitary to eliminate those millitants rather use them as proxy forces to safeguard its interest.Now it is hightime for the establishment and political leadership to be realistic,how long can we decieve our people and international community?
Looks like everyone from Zaid Hamid to this author and the jamadar's uncle is a Defense Analyst in Pakistan. How does someone get to be one? Despite being over-run by these multitudes of Defense Analysts why is it still scary to walk down the streets of Peshawar and Karachi? Doesn't seem like all this defense has made the situation any better, does it?
Good 1. However, I don't think there is shift in the threat > May be the threat in the East has very successfully convinced the Pakistan Army through its covert efforts that the real threat is not them but it is internal. One has to see whether it is a conventional Enemy or not. The internal threat gets the priority, is alright, but the conventional enemy remains. Have we analysed that it has been neutralised or defused? Big question remains; Whether an internal security issue of insurgents equalling 20,000 be a real threat as a real enemy having a regular force of more than a million plus of Well equipped Army having 5000 Armour vehicles, 1000 plus modern aircraft air force and six times larger Navy than Pakistan having two Aircraft Carriers, all poised towards Pakistan and of all having a very clear intention of capturing Pakistan/disintegrating Pakistan. Does the recent unprovoked attack (last night) of the Indian Army on our Haji peer sector killing one of our soldier and seriously injuring one rings bell in anybody's mind?
I have never heard of any country making its"Green Book"public, and telling the whole world the impending shift in its"military doctrine". Also, I don't think Pakistan has ever done it before. The "threat perception" just revealed has been known to anyone with an iota of commonsense for more than a decade. There has to be something fishy behind the latest news from the GHQ.
I think the Army is going to ask for even a bigger slice of the next National budget for some new toys to cater to the just announced new threat.
Realistically speaking the only thing that will lead to war like situation is a Terror attack in India, where the tracks lead to Pakistan.
If Pakistan defeats ALL kinds of Terror, in stead of cherry picking only anti-Pakistani Terror groups, it will gain a secure Eastern border as well.
in the last few lines "fear of retaliation" ...... this fear is not abt the retaliation against the army , the fear lies in retaliation against the population centers!! why a force which is already in hand to hand fight fear for retaliation? after determining this then one should ans where the fear lies or who fears this retaliation
"Does reviewing the military doctrine mean that the Pakistan Army will shift its military strategies soon?" No chance. Army are trying to encourage US to leave. Paris meet has made it abundantly clear that taliban are going to part of any future plans. So, the army are busy congratulating themselves saying 'told you so'. Some real bad days ahead for the region.
It takes a decade to re-orient the structure, training and equipment of the organisation after the basic doctrine is revised.
Good article. I think perception of threat and re-allocation of resources should both happen in lockstep as soon as possible since theoretically, re-allocated resources will need to go through a process & period of transformation to make them fit for the threat of militancy.
The army should accept the real world and stop pretending that there is a threat from India. In all the wars with India the aggressor was Pakistan and it lost all wars. It is a well known fact that the Indian army is much more superior then Pakistan's as shown by this independent report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1735912.stm As commonly reported in the West, India has no intention to invade the land of the pure because it is totally unmanageable. With hindsight they must be thanking their lucky stars that Jinnah wanted a separate state. Furthermore, Pakistan is virtually bankrupt today and fairly soon it will not be able to finance its military.
I think PAK has to rethink her doctrines.
TTP & Co are operating under "Deterrence by punishment " doctrine on PAK and India is operating under "deterrence by denial " on PAK and The US is operating under " deterrence by offense" on PAK
Can any one tell I am wrong on this?