The writer is a research scholar who is doing PhD in civil-military relations from Karachi University. He retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Pakistan Army
In the context of the game of golf — the most favourite game of our general officers — the appointment of the COAS in the army is like the ‘Kevlar driver’ in the golf bag. Other clubs are also good; they may even be used for some drives, chipping and putting. But it is the long drive in the fairway — the most important tee off, executed by the driver, without which — all golfers know — everything falls apart. The COAS thus must be selected based on his capability to execute that long straight drive that brings the ball closest to the pin. For if he lacks the professional competence to do that, then like General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, he may execute the wrong drive and thus land the ball not on the fairway but in the rough. The ball must stay on the course. That, in essence, is the responsibility of the COAS. General Ashfaq Kayani kept the army in the fairway and for that he earned the reward and acclaim of all. Never before had an army chief been given an extension of a complete tenure and never before had the purpose of extension been sold to the public as well as the previous government did.
Here we are again — the civilian bosses, all of them, putting their heads together to appoint an army chief. Like always four factors guide them to make the choice: seniority, merit, professional competence and loyalty. Any one factor may stand out when the final decision is made but one thing is certain. Appointing the COAS in Pakistan is never ‘business as usual’ and against all the forecasts and predictions, the civilian bosses may just end up doing what they do best — surprise us all with their final selection. The not so essential but relatively important element that is propelling almost all analysts to seriously consider and make a forecast about the appointment of the next COAS is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s pre-election statement. Giving an interview to an Indian news channel on May 6, he said, “I don't think he [General Kayani] will ask for any further extension or he will be interested in any further extension. I will go by the book; I will go by the merit. Whosoever is senior most, will have to occupy … the next one, the next in line”.
Going by the book, the prime minister can technically appoint any general officer regardless of his position ‘in line’. Yet, if merit is the factor by which the prime minister should go, then the line actually does not matter. The ‘next in line’, which in this case is Lieutenant-General Haroon Aslam, is posted as Chief of Logistic Staff — a relatively unimportant post from where traditionally, no officer has ever been elevated to the post of COAS. Had he been the choice candidate of General Kayani, he would not be occupying the post he is currently occupying. Appointments, postings and transfers of general officers are the sole prerogative of the COAS. In their posting and appointments, it is not the seniority of the general officers that is counted but the professional competence to do the job. Thus, a system of merit already runs in the army and the next in line to be promoted is always the chief of general staff (CGS) appointed by nobody else but his boss, the COAS.
The general officer occupying the post of CGS is actually considered army chief’s choice for his replacement on merit. Presently, Lieutenant-General Rashid Mehmood is occupying the post. Ideally, the merit posting of the CGS by the COAS should leave no doubts with the prime minister so as to whom he should appoint as the next chief. But history tells us that the last time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a choice, he did not consider merit as a factor for selection. General Gehangir Karamat had already posted General Ali Kuli Khan as CGS, thus communicating his choice of the next COAS on merit. But the civilian bosses felt that loyalty should be given more value as the determining tool for the selection for the coveted post and so they found General Musharraf and thus selected and promoted him. Who knows, had the choice been made on merit we may be living today to witness a better Pakistan.
But today, if anything, the post 9/11 environment and the complex battlefield it has thrust upon us merits that the military leader selected for the post of COAS must be able to bring about decisive effects. All generals are able and trained to maintain and lead a professional army. But when it comes to fighting internally against an enemy network spread along the length and breadth of our country, we need a military commander who carries a pedigree of routing out militancy. Belonging to Tank, Waziristan Lieutenant-General Tariq Khan, the present Corps Commander of Mangla Corps, to his credit, has the distinction of being the only officer among the aspirants for the coveted post to have led operations as a general officer in the militant strongholds on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Swat, Buner, Dir, South Waziristan, Bajur and many other places are all filled with the stories of how the myth of militants in the area was broken and how the army succeeded in establishing control under the leadership of the general. When it comes to experience in fighting the war on terror and understanding the ever-changing military dynamics on our western border, General Tariq seems to be the man.
In the context of civil-military relations, traditionally ‘loss of control over military’ is the fear that guides civilian authority in selecting the man to lead the all-powerful army. ‘Leading from behind’ is the kind of COAS that the civilian authority today wishes and desires. The civilian mindset is clear. It wants an army to implement and execute the national security policy rather than formulate ad design it. With this in mind and the review of our national security high on the civilian agenda merit, yet again, may not be the only factor to select the general officer for the post of COAS.
Lastly, the prime minister would do well to decide and announce the appointment of the COAS. This would put to rest the unnecessary media speculations and also allow the designated chief enough time to make preparations for the long haul ahead. Transition in Afghanistan and the military challenges that this transition may pose on our western border is one of the biggest challenges besides many others that the new chief will face on assumption of his duties.
No matter whom the prime minister appoints as the army chief, he and his batch of civilian advisers may do well to understand that it does not matter who the person that heads our army is but it does matter that the civilian leadership must succeed and provide good governance. Else, matters of national security would continue to propel the army to do what Michael Corleone lamented in The God Father Part III: “Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in”.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 30th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
we may write lengthy article on these type of irrelevant issues. as a common man , we need basic necessities of life . who so ever becomes "king" , am not concerned . i am only worried who can guarantee me , my family the "security" , "food" , "dignified existence" and education.i would request the author to write for the "growth" and "well being " of poor.
It should be noted that a person in power likes to surround himself/herself with like minded individuals. This applies to COAS or PM. To me Gen A Kayani is not a man of accomplishments but rather a man who survived only because of USA's support. His term was extended at a time when USA did not want a Gen who could potentially topple the (fragile) government of Pak.
If Gen Kayani knew how to make a choice then it is only with USA's help. The state of the country in terms of internal security for the common man is worth taking a note of and asking any General what will they will ever do about it if they become the next COAS. If we don't then the country will collapse on itself at some point.
Hamza khan please have appropriate language please
@Nadir:
The four conditions of making it to the top of the Army : could not agree more
Ironic that the author makes a reference to the Godfather trilogy, for I have come to view our Army as nothing other than a Mafia organized for its own interests - extra-constitutional interests - such as keeping a lock on political power, or building an economic empire, or creating a Brahmin-like status in society for its own members. He subtly warns us that if good governance does not come down the pike, the Army will reluctantly have to take over once again - nicely glossing over the well-known fact that the Army dreads the day when well-governing civilians, as in Turkey, will kick it out of policy-making, out of business enterprises, strip it of outrageous service perks, and tell it to go stand at the border where it belongs. Again, from Godfather, we the civilians - the rightful owners of Pakistan - will make the Army 'anna offer it cannot refuse' if it ever again usurps our fundamental rights.
@hamza khan: It burns alot to know about the blunders of your leader (Musharraf) doesn't it?
To avoid all controversy, the senior most Lt Gen should be selected as the CoAS. If even at the rank of Lt. Gen, issues of "competence" and "the best man for the job" are being discussed then its either politics playing a role or the Army's promotion process has to be revamped. Every single time, "the best man for the job" is picked, it causes resentment, leads to many senior officers getting superseded and then opting out of service. It also leads to Lt Gens to maneuver through back-channels to become a candidate or the favourite in the running. All these are issues that are harmful to the discipline and morale of the Army. Cliques form supporting one officer or another and in turn this impacts the cohesion of the senior echelons of the Army. As such, its much better to push senior officers through the ranks of Lt. Gen solely on the basis of merit. Once there, the senior most Lt Gen should be made the CoAS. This will do away with all political meddling, speculation in the media and public and will bode well for both the Army and the nation in the long run.
If there is a serious character or professional blemish on the record of the senior most Lt Gen, then the next Lt Gen in line should be made the CoAS. In Pakistan, given the role of military in governance, such things need to be simplified and not made subject to controversy.
@hamza khan: The stupidest is your response because you don't even care to show respect to someone who has done the research to write something which is fairly clued up.
The selection of the next COASC has to be part of a well thought out startegy to restore civlian control over the Army +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Seniority or even competence are secondary.
What needs to be addressed is the system in the armed forces that is responsible for producing three star and above officers so that officers of the highest quality are produced and irrespective of whom the PM chooses, that officer would be true to himself and his country.
History shows whenever a military coup was enforced, it is always enforced by the COAS appointed by a political and civilian heads of state. On the other side all COASs appointed by their predecessors kept away from getting hold of the country.
A good analysis. SELECTION OF ARMY CHIEF IS not business as usual. It is a very important decision to make by tje pm.hope he uses his prudence.
An interesting system! When the civilian govt fails the Army takes over; and when the Army fails the civilians take over. I suppose that is one way to manage national affairs - the baton is passed to the less incompetent on the day. If the civilians stayed put, and the Army confined itself to what it was raised for, perhaps both would get better at their jobs in time. The current record is that, when head of govt., Ayub Khan led Pakistan into 1965, Yahya Khan into 1971, and Musharraf into Kargil. And civilians in the same position have reportedly emptied the nation's coffers into foreign bank accounts. Of course, there is always the third way but, as many countries have discovered through history, the Almighty prefers not to interfere in politics. Just a thought.
"General Ashfaq Kayani kept the army in the fairway and for that he earned the reward and acclaim of all". It might be true to some extent but may I remind Col.Ehsan about the incompetence of Pakistani security forces in regard to the killings of 26 Pakistani soldiers near Afghanistan's border and above all the Abottabad attack which is deep in Pakistan's territory. The border attack went on for 2 hours way inside Pakistani territory but no reaction from Air Force or Army, the second one went on for more than 2 hours and the attack was tweeted live by a neighbor but no reaction from any security forces. My question is where does the buck stops? No one in the military or civilian leadership resigned, it is not in our culture or genes. By the way did you read the latest special report published by the New York Times in regard to the over throw of Dr.Mussadaq the former Prime Minister of Iran by CIA, it is an eye opener for all of us and see how people sell out their country for money and power. Here is the link for it.http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html.
Good analysis on selection of new army chief.Unfortunately in Pakistan when ever new army chief is appointed a debate starts on non issue.Appointment of new army,navy air force chief is a routine affair but since army has dominated country's politics for over 32 years directly and remaining period indirectly that' s why it has gained importance. In India a three liner statement appears in the press 3 months in advance that so and so will be the next army chief and tha's all. This is just a coincidence that Nawaz Sharif is going to select the third army chief.The fact of the matter is he never enjoyed cordial relations with army chief and that is one factor he should guard while selecting new army chief Let it be known that from major upward rank is a selection post.Traditionally all corps commanders from fighting arms ( Armor,Artillery,Infantry) are picked up as new army chief.the writer says that if we go by the book Lt Gen Haroon is the senior most but it remains the prerogative of the PM to pick up any chief.Since now the authority of appointment is the domain of PM he has to exercise caution.Selection of president has become controversil, so let us not repeat the same mistake.Pick up person who has fought battle with remarkable results irrespective of seniority.Large no of very competent brigadiers dont make generals likewise seniority should be considered but other factors must dominat
Very good article.
@FaiselH: Couldn't agree more!! Our political mafia doesn't understand democracy beyond voting. I doubt that 90% would even know the root of the word democracy, let alone the responsibilities it carries with it.
So what of all the people that Musharaf never promoted as he wanted his own sycophants go up the ranks? Does that mean that those people who were not promoted as they did not serve Musharaf's personal agenda, were not worthy of promotion? How can an Army Chief who felt that there was no one else who could lead the Army and demanded an extension now set about who should be the next COAS and then claim the choice is based on "merit".
Stop these pretensions. The Army like any other institution is a bureaucracy that seeks power. At the top, merit counts less than social ties, such as the perception of loyalty. In the old boys club everyone is scratching each others back. The Army's choice will be the person who a) keeps the civilians on their toes b) keeps up the pretentions of looking Amreeka in the eye c) perpetuates perpetual animosity with India and most importantly d) maintains and expands the military commercial empire.
The current COAS's choice is a person who can do all of the above. History is bound to repeat itself as whoever is chosen, has been conditioned by 25 years of institutional propaganda that he is superior than everyone else, and the "so called PM" is unworthy of his time of day.
@asim: pls go to sleep...
Seems like a well researched article , and almost the last line, ........."it does not matter who the person that heads our army is but it does matter that the civilian leadership must succeed and provide good governance." sums up the article very well. But sadly, our "democrats" do not have any such genetic make up. All they are good at is Incompetence, Corruption, Loot & Plunder.
As per law the current PM can not elect/select a new PM because he himself is a convicted and criminal. He can not hold any public office. So a convicted person can not appoint a new COAS
what kind of stupid article is this by this second class army officer? we all know that merit alone does not factor into chosing COAS. what nawaz sharif did in appointing musharraf was not unjustified. yes, his seniority was less, but the man had a stellar professional and military career. this illusion that had ali kuli khan become COAS we would have avoided what happened is a farce. the problem was not with musharraf, but with nawaz sharif. and president musharraf did not launch a coup, but a countercoup after nawaz sharif foolishly fired him without the proper procedure in place. the army responded. the 9 years of musharraf were the golden period of this country. we dont need idiots like mr ehsan telling us that pakistan could have been in a better state had musharraf come. pakistan was doing just fine under PM. it is our jaahil politicians who ruined things.