Daily Times

Pakistan is at war. The Pakistan armed forces are fighting against terrorists. Based upon reports from the Inter Services Public Relations, the army operation is going well. However, it is clear from what has happened in Balochistan and elsewhere recently, the war is not over yet. During an ongoing war that seems to be going well for our side, I would presume that the army hierarchy that has been doing a good job should continue intact until such time that the war is won. This then in my opinion is not the right time to change the commander who has led the forces successfully so far.

In Pakistan, the position of the chief of the army staff (COAS) has considerable political significance. After all, Pakistan has lived through four episodes when an army chief took over from an elected government. Here I am including Ayub Khan as a sort of elected president replaced by Yahya Khan, a serving general. Serving chiefs of the army have also interfered in the working of democratic governments in the past. So the choice of a COAS does carry possible political consequences for civilian prime ministers. Our present prime minister (PM) has personally gone through the “trials and tribulations” of being the victim of an army coup d’état during his previous tenure as PM. Having said that, the present COAS has shown little interest in replacing the civilian setup even during a period of considerable political instability.

Also, the COAS has shown no interest in getting an extension. If the PM takes the COAS at his word then a new COAS will take over in a few months. That exactly is my point. During “war” when the present COAS is doing a good job then he should not be relieved of his command. Frankly, in my opinion, considering the political ramifications and the uncertainties implicit in the choice of a new person for the job, I would rather see the present COAS continue in his position. There are many good reasons to have a new COAS after the present COAS has completed his three years in this position, but this is the first time in the history of Pakistan that such a change will come during a time of active military conflict.

Everybody is fixated on the question of an extension of service for the COAS. The idea that an extension is a “problem” is based on the example of the previous COAS who spent six years in that position, and perhaps spent more time playing a political role than functioning as an effective commander of a fighting force. Perhaps it is time to take a chance in the interests of national security. I also realise that no single person is truly indispensable, but still why change things that are going well. I say this as a concerned citizen and profess no expertise in matters pertaining to national defence and army hierarchies.

Here I have a suggestion to counter the reluctance the present COAS has demonstrated about staying on in his position beyond his present tenure. Instead of a time-limited extension the COAS should be offered an open-ended extension with the understanding that the COAS will voluntarily retire when he thinks his job is done as well as could be expected. The job expected is of course the effective extermination of all terrorists including the “good” ones. Or the COAS can resign if he thinks that he is no longer capable of performing that job effectively. And if the PM as the “appointing” authority determines that the COAS is no longer performing his duties as expected then the PM can replace the COAS.

So far it seems that the present COAS is a professional soldier who does not have any interest in assuming responsibilities beyond those that are appropriate for his present position. Of course, who knows what tomorrow might bring, but so far the COAS has accepted the authority of the civilian government, though some may say it has been the other way around. Either way, bringing a new COAS at this time could definitely upset the present equilibrium. A new COAS might be more inclined to intervene aggressively if things don’t go as he expects, or if the political situation becomes relatively unstable. And the new COAS could also turn out to be not very effective as a commander in the war against terrorism. I do realise that any general that replaces the present COAS could also in comparison turn out to be a better commander, and at the same be more amenable to appropriate civilian oversight.

No, I am not at all suggesting a full three-year extension for the present COAS, and I am not recommending that the tenure of a COAS should be increased to four years starting from the present COAS. My only suggestion is that considering the present state of active military action going on against terrorists, the COAS should be offered an open-ended extension with the limits I have suggested above. Also if the PM feels that the present COAS is not doing a good job presently, the PM should replace the COAS and bring another, “more capable” general in his position.

I strongly believe that besides being a professional soldier, the COAS is also an honourable man. As such if the COAS thinks that another general can continue the present army action with comparable ability and zeal the COAS will most likely refuse any extension and retire at the end of his tenure. And the PM must also make sure that the choice of the next COAS is based on ability and merit, and not political acceptability. If the PM decides to play politics in his choice of a new COAS, the new COAS might at some point in his tenure decide to play politics with the PM. That is a lesson from the past.

The author is a former editor of the Journal of Association of Pakistani descent Physicians of North America (APPNA)