Readers’ Responses to Our Question (56)

I agree with D Hodara's appreciation of the Janbek analysis (see sept/21 post by Janbek on this question). When this question was first posed I was really sad about it--and of course I am still sad. A strong military is necessary to a strong democratic state for a variety of reasons. Ideally for a nation to make a change within itself and move toward democracy the people must move with the forces of change (underpinning traditions, military, etc. which are driving the change). In fact there really can be no change unless the base of society is willing to move. But even supposing change is effected, still democratic society requires a strong military because it is precisely the type of society to want to do the opposite and "move on a higher plane" of economics, peace, human rights, etc. (which is to say it is too likely to fight for democracy and then put arms to rest. Of course I am speaking of modern liberal democracy and not primitive democratic movements which are just excuses to elevate a demogogue, etc.).

In short democracy as we ideally envision is a beautiful dream only unless there is a constant ladder of military leading upward and guarding the base of this ladder toward the cloud of ideal democracy. Where Pakistan stands with respect to this movement is a ladder of military aiming toward not a cloud but rather being pulled down by antidemocratic forces. In fact the ladder is on its side and it is difficult to tell if it will be erected or pulled down completely.

If another image is required, when I read that Bhutto believes she can establish a democracy between Musharraf and extremists I thought of someone telling me he will flip a coin and it will be neither heads or tails but rather stand up on its side...

My belief about the world in general is that we are entering a worldwide Pakistan situation in the sense that outposts of democracy will require strong militaries to keep democracies from being pulled down by forces of various types. Ideally democracies would like basic law and order only, but the situation now is becoming one of democracies becoming increasingly militaristic to prevent reactionary forces from taking over.

It really is becoming a worldwide situation where we will be hearing increasingly about the "Bhutto solution" as democracies simply refuse to believe their way of life will ever be compromised. Astonishing that even in a situation as bad as Pakistan's people seriously consider a middle course between Musharraf and extremists...

Of course I could be totally wrong,--and it would be nice to receive some exact measurements, the psychology of Pakistan, etc.--to determine exactly what ground there is between extremism and Musharraf, but it seems to me a pretty stark either/or situation.

I just take the skeptical line because WMD are involved...There seems to be no choice but to err on the side of being safe. I certainly cannot entertain a Bhutto solution--things seem too far gone for that. But I suppose one must hope...

* Special note: a complete non-expert is making this analysis. A simple citizen reading newspapers, etc, only and with no access to information of any other sort.

Your view of what the military is has in large part to do how you see the ideals of the french revolution. In the revolution the army becamethe "nation in arms", if that is the case then the army is the nation even if it is not always right. In countries like Pakistan whose people are torn betwen viewing themselves as a nation or as part of a religion it gets even more complex. They even because of their colonial past see armies as oppressors for the regime as America did very strongly after our revolution and still do to some degree. This isn't really a clear cut question.

Re Victoria

Thanks for the clarification; much appreciated.

A few clarifications on my part ...

1. Turkey is not a Muslim country, it is just populated by a majority of Muslims. When the Republic was founded it was decided, out of respect for religious minorities, not to establish an official state religion. Whether 99% of the Turkish people is Muslim remains to be seen. The Alevi minority, making up approximately 15% of the Turkish population, has brought before the European Court of Human Rights a case asserting that Alevism is not a branch of Islam; instead, they claim that Alevism is a separate religion.

2. It is just a matter of fact that the Turkish generals return to the barracks shortly after staging a coup and restoring the rule of law and public order.

3. Whether Atatürk was a bad or a good Muslim, or whether he was a Muslim at all, is not for us, mortals, to say. With a view to getting back to the topic of this conversation: Atatürk was a member of the military before facilitating the replacement of the Ottoman Empire under the Sultanate by a Republic governed by Representatives chosen by the Turkish people. He even attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to introduce a multi-party electoral system.

Re Victoria

Thanks for the clarification; much appreciated.

A few clarifications on my part ...

1. Turkey is not a Muslim country, it is just populated by a majority of Muslims. When the Republic was founded it was decided, out of respect for religious minorities, not to establish an official state religion. Whether 99% of the Turkish people is Muslim remains to be seen. The Alevi minority, making up approximately 15% of the Turkish population, has brought before the European Court of Human Rights a case asserting that Alevism is not a branch of Islam; instead, they claim that Alevism is a separate religion.

2. It is just a matter of fact that the Turkish generals return to the barracks shortly after staging a coup and restoring the rule of law and public order.

3. Whether Atatürk wass a bad or a good Muslim, or whether he was a Muslim at all, is not for us, mortals, to say. With a view to getting back to the topic of this conversation: Atatürk was a member of the military before facilitating the replacement of the Ottoman Empire under the Sultanate by a Republic governed by Representatives chosen by the Turkish people. He even attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to introduce a multi-party electoral system.

Khairi Janbek

Your analysis on Pakistant is excellent.

mr grotius- just to be clear- im not advocating the installation of any right (well in turkey, left)wing religious authority.
just thought id make that clear

well, actually turkey is not mostly a muslim coy=untry- it has one of the highest percentage of muslim populations in the world- its listed at 99% right now, even above saudi araba-

thomas l. friedman has been wrong about alot of things- and saying that the generals leave when they do their job is -deluded at best.
and sneaky poliitcs at worst.
(if the secualrists are the good guys then the muslims are bad guys- simple deduction based on a wrong conclusion to begin with).

mustapha kemal wasnt a bad muslim, he wasnt a muslim at all.
hids intention was to disconnect turkey from its islamic (not islamist- thats a made up word with ugly connotations, at least in america)
history.

he even changed the alphabet so the next generation was cut off from the (islamic) viewopoints of) their forefathers.

and while the young turks abolished the caliphate and replaced it with a questionably coercive secualr state (well it ossified into one thats for sure) the people of turkey never erased their religion form their hearts.

we sit back and watch turkey with decided interest- the anti-muslim facton hoping for failure (even inventing it if it doesnt exist) waiting for the triumphant AHA moment when they can tell the world, "see? we were right! muslims cant be civilized in a democratic society!")
and the muslims watching with some apprehension because the whole world is waiting to see the present government go down in flames.

but it hasnt, turks want the same liberties and securities as anyone else in the world- the present pm could just as easily have turned out to be an ineffective economic leader- but he hasnt.

it really seems to be the craw in the throat of the anti-muslims right now -(not implying anything to anyone here) that turkey is succeeding with some moderation.

despite people like thomas friedman who expect us to stretch our credibility and accept that the mercy and graciousness of the generals -who counterintuitively discreetly disappear into the background when their mission is accomplished-

or we can give some credit where it is due, and point out that at least this admin is merging into a democracy of some credibilty.

just some thoughts
peace

Democracy, and the way thereto, requires public order. The military are part of the security forces that are responsible for bringing about and/or restoring public order.

Moreover, the military may also be the last line of defense when democratic processes render democracy less democratic; such may be the case where democratically chosen politicians intend to abolish democracy.

One would expect that someone or some institution with the means - and authority and public support - steps in to prevent such unfortunate outcome of democratic processes.

The above seems to hold in the case of Turkey.

When the civilian administration is not able or willing to secure public order (see for examples the years leading up to the 1980 military coup) or such administration intends to replace the people's right to deliberate upon and adopt the laws of the land by Islamic laws that are not subject to democratic control (what seemed to be the case in the early years of the 90s when the military executed a 'soft coup') the military takes over, restores public order and democratic rule, and leaves for the barracks.

As Thomas L. Friedman, in his book 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree' rightfully points out, the Turkish military are an exception to the rule that generals once in power want to stay there forever. When the mission is completed, Turkish generals always leave.

Note: Turkey, by the way, has no official religion. Although a large majority of its population may be considered Muslim, Turkey is not a Muslim country - and certainly not an 'islamist' state. Furthermore, while the Turks do not hold the caliphate, that is the temporal and spiritual leadership of the Muslim global community (they abolished it after establishing the Turkish Republic), Turkey's largest city, Istanbul, is home to Patriarch Bartholomew I who is the internationally recognized spiritual leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians.

To
victoria
If you define a muslim according to the principles and teaching of allah and his prophet then surely Turkey is not a islamist nation.but if you define muslim according to the principles of mr Mustafa kamal pasha then really they are muslim.Now depends upon you which version of islam do u want?A religious islam or an irreligious islam.

just to clarify- iin case differnt conclusions may be reached (as of course they are)

what i understood from that is that turkey IS NOT an "islamist" (fox news invented word) government- it is a democratically elected government (by muslims) of leaders who are muslims, also a reaction to the dictatorship of the militarists who ruled the secular party.

if there is any truth to this hypotheses, the military is still trying to coerce and frighten the elected officals with their show of power-
is that in keeping with what we conceive a democracy to be?

well, we shall see.
personally i think not.
but in light of the exiled ex pm in pakistan and the upcoming elections, i think the question is a valid one and bears some consideration.

so, no- i can think of alot more assinine questions.

well, in the case of turkey it has seemed to be something of an obstacle-
i just read this hypotheses on the israeli raid blog here-

"Some believe the raid was arranged by Israel and the Turkish military to remind the newly elected Islamist government of PM Erdogan and President Gul who runs the Middle East show."

(i hate that concoted word 'islamist')

its certainly possible

Sometimes yasss....sometimes no.
Depends.
On many other things.
COULD THERE BE A MORE ASSININE QUESTION?

Sometimes yasss....sometimes no.
Depends.
On many other things.
COULD THERE BE A MORE ASSININE QUESTION?
TRYING TO AVOID DISCUSSION ON ISRAEL OR SOMETHING? AFRAID?

Sometimes yasss....sometimes no.
Depends.
On many other things.
COULD THERE BE A MORE ASSININE QUESTION?
TRYING TO AVOID DISCUSSION ON ISRAEL OR SOMETHING? AFRAID?

Sometimes yasss....sometimes no.
Depends.
On many other things.
COULD THERE BE A MORE ASSININE QUESTION?
TRYING TO AVOID DISCUSSION ON ISRAEL OR SOMETHING?

NO POWER ELITE WANTS DEMOCRACY!!!

Consider the electoral districts in USA [Texas comes to mind among others] the power elite wants to perpetuate its own power, even through fradulent manipulation of voting, wheather by funny borders on districts, or by fraud, or other mischivious efforts [most illigal],

The thing which did not come up in this discussion is that large military enables even democratic governments to exert pressure on other foreign States, with no regard to democratic principles, but to turn these foreign states into lapdogs/proxies. The clearest example of this is the machinations of USA/Israel CABAL with respect to Palestanians since the Suez crisis.

The apex of this abuse of military power by so called democracies, spans the history of the world from WWII, France in Algiers etc, England in IRan, India, and other parts of the old Empire, the USA in Iran [1953], Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Columbia, Chile, etc. the 700+ bases spread over 130 Sovereign States maintained by the USA Defence Department [with CIA etc help] is not to insure democracy, but to insure subservience. The gruesomeness of the military power in democracy is the history of Iraq since the Kuwait War - probable deaths due to UK/US bombardment, sanctions and invasions over 1 000 000, with the subsequuent partial bankrupcy of the USA government [citizens' need comes after the need of the armed forces -all with borrowed funds].

OF course, THE QUESTION IS with respect to the Decider and the Democratic Congress, is whether they constitute democratic principles or dictatorial power? Are they for the people by the people or paid retainers of K-street powers [esp the military industrial complex, including all contractors serving the war machine in any capacity, plus such wonders of human rights as AIPAC, etc]. If they are paid ratainers [seems so from their actions] then we have a figurative civil government where the Military calls the shots [Gen Petreus] with the bribe moneys of the related industries/service coorporations "helping" the civilians in government [in elections and or after].

One of the greatest military officers in USA history and later president was the first [in modern times] to caution the nation about the danger of military dependency in a DEMOCRACY.

It appears that Ike's warning fell on DEAF EARS - or rather on selfcentered and paid for POLITICIANS' intentional amnesia [of history's lessons].

The Answer therefore to the QUESTION [posed above]: Is a strong military the path to a strong and democratic state, or is it an obstacle"

Strong military not only does not lead to democracy, but strong military leads to CORRUPTION OF DEMOCRACY.

Pakistan is squeezes between an actual military dictatorship, and a potential Islamist dictatorship. Tragically for the Pakistani people, the so called record of their recent so-called democratic leaders; Bhuto the father, Mrs. Benazir, and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, was characterised by graft, corruption and heavy-handedness; hardly the traits of desirable democratic rule.
The question remains, as whom represents the interests of the Pakistani people first, and who can serve best the stability of the Asian sub-continent?. Would it be, another quasi-Taliban rule in Pakistan, or a bullwark against such a possibility?.
The return of Mrs. Benazir or Mr. nawaz Sharif to politics in Pakistan, will only drag the country in a couple of years down the road, to the floodgates of Islamic extremism. Therefore, so long as the Pakistani Army can keep the extremists at bay, democracy can come second to Pakistani concerns.

Pakistan is squeezes between an actual military dictatorship, and a potential Islamist dictatorship. Tragically for the Pakistani people, the so called record of their recent so-called democratic leaders; Bhuto the father, Mrs. Benazir, and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, was characterised by graft, corruption and heavy-handedness; hardly the traits of desirable democratic rule.
The question remains, as whom represents the interests of the Pakistani people first, and who can serve best the stability of the Asian sub-continent?. Would it be, another quasi-Taliban rule in Pakistan, or a bullwark against such a possibility?.
The return of Mrs. Benazir or Mr. nawaz Sharif to politics in Pakistan, will only drag the country in a couple of years down the road, to the floodgates of Islamic extremism. Therefore, so long as the Pakistani Army can keep the extremists at bay, democracy can come second to Pakistani concerns.

Pakistan is squeezes between an actual military dictatorship, and a potential Islamist dictatorship. Tragically for the Pakistani people, the so called record of their recent so-called democratic leaders; Bhuto the father, Mrs. Benazir, and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, was characterised by graft, corruption and heavy-handedness; hardly the traits of desirable democratic rule.
The question remains, as whom represents the interests of the Pakistani people first, and who can serve best the stability of the Asian sub-continent?. Would it be, another quasi-Taliban rule in Pakistan, or a bullwark against such a possibility?.
The return of Mrs. Benazir or Mr. nawaz Sharif to politics in Pakistan, will only drag the country in a couple of years down the road, to the floodgates of Islamic extremism. Therefore, so long as the Pakistani Army can keep the extremists at bay, democracy can come second to Pakistani concerns.

Pakistan is squeezes between an actual military dictatorship, and a potential Islamist dictatorship. Tragically for the Pakistani people, the so called record of their recent so-called democratic leaders; Bhuto the father, Mrs. Benazir, and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, was characterised by graft, corruption and heavy-handedness; hardly the traits of desirable democratic rule.
The question remains, as whom represents the interests of the Pakistani people first, and who can serve best the stability of the Asian sub-continent?. Would it be, another quasi-Taliban rule in Pakistan, or a bullwark against such a possibility?.
The return of Mrs. Benazir or Mr. nawaz Sharif to politics in Pakistan, will only drag the country in a couple of years down the road, to the floodgates of Islamic extremism. Therefore, so long as the Pakistani Army can keep the extremists at bay, democracy can come second to Pakistani concerns.

MikeB

I'm not sure if I got my information from MSM or not since I'm not sure who that is?

Pakistan is a mess politically, which is exactly what I was saying, and I agree that many in Pakistan view Musharraf is a tool of the US (did I say otherwise?) and want him out.

Pakistan clearly has a portion of their population that supports the Taliban, and there are many Islamist that would love to topple Musharraf and form an Islamic State, but is there anywhere in the Middle East, or for that matter, the world (with a significant Islamic population), where that isn't true to varying degrees?

The US did not radicalize Pakistan. The Taliban enjoyed support from the Pakistan government prior to 911 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban government. Northern Pakistan didn't suddenly go "Taliban" because of the US invasion. Maybe you believe that the attacks against India by radical Islam also are a result of the invasion of Afghanistan? Pakistan's ISI has long been known for training and funding of Islamic terrorist organizations attacking India. India considers Pakistan to be conducting a proxy war against their country. Is this also due to the invasion of Afghanistan (or Iraq)? Maybe radical Islam suddenly appeared in 2002. Maybe the conspiratist were right, Darth Vader (Cheney) planned the attack on 911.

Pakistan is a politically diverse country that elected a women to the position of Prime Minister (Bhutto). Bhutto, a leftist, is still a popular figure in Pakistan. I'm betting that most of their population (much like Turkeys) isn't stupid, and therefore, is frightened by the prospect of a Taliban style rule, but I grant you it's a possibility, albeit, a small possibilty.

In addition, al-Qaeda's attacks against Muslim civilians especially in Iraq has hurt their cause immeasurably so don't expect the general population (or the military) of Pakistan to support his band of killers to overthrow Musharraf, and, in fact, support of terrorism and suicide bombings is waning in Muslim countries in general (read the latest Pew poll).

I believe (but I'm not sure) that Pakistan is the only Islamic country in the world that possesses nuclear weapons. Iran could become the second (a frightening thought).

To be honest, Mike, I'm not really sure what you disagreed with except where I said Pakistan will return to democratic rule (which I believe will happen in the future).

Tom Wonacott, with all due respect, you don't know what your talking about. Likely you have been getting your news from the MSM which simply reprints the utter rot passed out by our clueless government. Pakistan, once the securalists of the military leave, will turn into a theocracy very much along the lnes of the Talibran in Afghanistan. The vast majority of the populous wants just that and the polarization caused by our mess in Iraq and Afghanistan has been making the most radical of Islamists appear to be that nations heros. Musharraf is viewed as a tool of the U.S. and the West. He is loathed by most of the people. Once he gives up cotrol of the military, he wont last a year. Forget it. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, aren't the only legacies left us by the incompitence of Bush-Cheney. It will also be several nuclear armed theocratic Islamist governments.

PG

Musharraf is clearly on the hot seat in Pakistan. According to Pakistani law, Musharraf illegally heads the military while serving as the Prime Minister. He recently deported for the second time a former Prime Minister of Pakistan (Sharif) when he returned from exile to challenge Musharraf in the coming elections. He tried to strike a deal with Bhutto (another former Prime Minister) that will allow her to share power, but the talks reportedly stalled. Any agreement between these two is tenuous at best anyway. Regardless, Bhutto plans to return to Pakistan (also from exile) after the elections. The political parties of Bhutto and Sharif have threatened to resign from parliament and boycott the coming Presidential elections.

Musharraf also fired a popular Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who was reinstated later by the same court and many Pakistanis consider his response to the Red Mosque incident too heavy handed which caused a backlash of suicide bombings and denunciations from the Pakistan’s Islamist (including Bin Laden in a released tape today). In addition, many in the US believe that not enough is being done by Musharraf to counter the growing Islamic “state” in northern Pakistan led by the resurgence of al-Qaeda (for example: Obama’s remarks).

Of course, Musharraf can get away with all this because he enjoys the backing of the powerful military which he keeps happy with US funding to fight the “global war on (Islamic) terror”. The US supported dictatorships in the cold war to counter the spread of communism, and today the same strategy is used to keep Islamist out of power (which obviously didn‘t work in Gaza).

To get back to the PG question, a strong military generally is used to keep a dictator in power (North Korea comes to mind), but there are examples of military dictatorships that eventually were converted to democratic states such as South Korea and Chile. At any rate, securing the military’s support is vital to a dictatorship, or single party rule (China).

Turkey presents an interesting case. Turkey’s military “guards” their democracy and has seized power (anti democratically) when they believe that Turkey’s secular state was threatened, but Turkey has remained a democratic state, and recently, the moderate Islamist party was reelected to power.

Finally, Pakistan will return to democratic rule in the future, but it will remain a troubled country plagued by tribalism and the self interest of its many factions far into the future.

Dear Friends:
I would like you all to go back and take world history, USA history, literature American and world, Business, Medicine, Computer and Business history all over or for the first time. Each nation will have history take that. It is written from each nations perspective.

Now facism get a clue!!!!! Hitler destroyed or tried to Europe. He was not even the entire german army. That is facism and dictatorship.

Dog in a bun get with it.

Burning bush is a biblical story not the present one for the world or political purpose of any nation. A hero is in the making and you are a blind bat.

God Bless America land of the free.

For a State to exist it is necessary that it be able to threaten its citizens as to follow the wishes of the Ruling Elite. Thus, any modern state will have a strong military, and pseudo military, a.k.a. national police force, enforcing compliance.

To have democracy, as others have observed, it is necessary to have a rule of law, an institution to enact the law, and an institution to execute the law, and an institution to rule on the actions of the executive.

The Rule of law demands an expression of the basic tenets applicable to all public actions [and perhaps to individual actions] this confining notion is the CONSTITUTION. [but what if the CONSTITUTION IS NOT for the eople by the people?]

In the modern world the most democratic state is indubitably Switzerland, where the citizen has the most power regarding laws affecting his/her society.

Where the military is under civil rule within the law of the land, it does not gurantee either democracy nor rule of law - the best example is the USA at present, and indeed for the last 50 years or so where international law [part of the constitution of USA as per Supreme Court] was regularly broken by attacking many sovereign states. Nor does the government [Congress President] seem to have any interest in following the wishes of the population either with respect to Iraq, nor with respect to health care, nor new orleans, etc.

Where the Military is the ruler, the idea of democracy still can prevail [not under General Musharraf]. The rule of law within the legal frame work of the Roman Empire was followed under Marcus Aurelius, wherein he applied some very "liberal" ideas as expressed in Meditations.

Now, where the executive is corrupt, but the Judicary can still rule, some semblence of rule of law applies [Pakistan]. However, if the judiciary only acts at the convenience of the "process" where the cost of "process" is extremely high [e.g. UK, USA, Canada] demagoguery prevails both in law and out of law. [that is a citizen has right only if he has funds/or backer with funds] and the process can take lifetimes with motions, delays, appeals, retrials etc. Where the judiciary can not start the "process" itself corruption will be rampart where the politics is corrupt [Waco, Gueat Bay, Gonzales, IRaqi contracts, illigal wars,. ad infinitum]. This does not mean that corruption of democracy can not occur where the court can start proceeding on its own behalf [France, Italy to some extent].

The major fault of "for the people, by the people" is that a large % of the people do not have the time, inclanation and familiarity with "elections, the issues within elections, etc" while at the same time they do not have the funds to play in K-street with impunity [as do NRA, AIPAC, pharmacological assoc, car manufactureres, etc], thus the loss of DEMOCRACY/RULE OF LAW. Thus we come from "democracy" to fascism from the time of Eisenhower to the Bush years of today.

Finally democracy is unable to operate [even representative democracy, the current notion world wide] when the population within the state is so large that a representaive can only serve a small couterie of ""electors" else the representative institution has to be so large that it becomes a rule of a mob. Consider China India with representative government a "congress" of 1300 each representing 1 000 000 people, or a "congress of of ??? size" enabling the representative to understand the views of his area. HUMANLY UNMANAGABLE.

Based on the above cursory examination my conclusion is that Democracy to be viable includes informed and interested electors, a constitution reflecting democratic principles, a judiciary which is independent and can act on its own, where the COST of judiciary process is affordabole by most of the citizens, and a military which respect the rule of law, both national and international. [The USA/UK military is in dire need of reform to qualify for a democratic society]

BobL-VA - But that's the whole point. They weren't a professional army, they were a citizen army. And, as for being weak, our citizen soldiers have beat the toughest professional armies in the world. Where you get into trouble is with those professional soldiers. They either are the obedient dogs of some political hack or they take it into their own mind to run things. Professional solders are out of touch with ordinary citizens. Witness the twits of the British General staff that wasted millions of British boys during the great wars, sending them to die based on some new plan they got into their heads. This is what the Second Amendment is all about, it was an attempt to leave override any future leaders use or establishment of a professional military. The Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and a few other places, places with the healthiest and longest living democracies, all have similar systems. I regard the professional armed forces of our country with alarm. The Pentagn sorts sent soldiers into Iraq with no armor on Humvees, refused to buy a working anti-RPG and anti-IED system from Israel (instead awarding an obscenely lurative contract to some corporate cronie), and have wasted the lives of thousands of our sons and daughters on silly schemes that anyone with an ounce of common sense could ahve predicted wouldn't work. We need the draft back and we need to do away with the "volunteer" army. At the same time, we need to downsize the Pentagon by a considerable amount.

Democracy has three pilars: all equally important for general governance of a democratic nation. The pillars are -

1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judiciary

The 4th pillar is 'Free' press - media, also called the Fourth Estate, responsible for its 'watchdog' role.

A military is maintained for security purposes - mostly external. It is not at all supposed to interfere in internal affairs of a democratic state - including the internal security which is left in 'safe' hands of police and para-military forces.

Therefore, a 'strong' military is and will always be an obstacle in establishment and sustenance of democracy as we have seen that happening frequently in 'failed' democracies like Pakistan.

Thus, if General Musharraf is really serious and sincere about bringing back democracy to Pakistan, he needs to shed his uniform and implement all the basic 'rules' of democracy.

MikeB,

I'm pretty sure using George Washington and what we call the Continental Army is not a good analogy here. First, it wasn't a strong army, if it was an army at all. We refer to it aa an army because they were on the winning side of a revolution. (Thank you France) However, the British described them as traitors, terrorists and revolutionaries. Also, it should be noted they weren't exactly a strong force. With few exceptions their manpower, training, arms and battle outcomes were not even really adequate. They spent most of the Revolution running from the British who had only sent over a small force to squash the rebellion. Britian had a formidable army at the time, but they weren't exactly a democracy yet either.

Simply put, democracy is not pretty. It is messy because it is free. It is not by its nature particularly safe unless those living under democracy grant some measure of respect to one another's innate dignity and to their own sense of morality (as they define it for themselves, which of course in a democracy is itself a messy proposition). Yes, there must be rule of law, but that rule does not force conformity, does not bar disagreement or conflict of logic or lifestyle.

Any military organization requires a substantial measure of conformity. It cannot be effective without it. On first examination, a strong military is the antithesis of democracy.

And yet, if the military's mission is to serve, rather than to rule, and if that mission is understood and accepted by its leaders as well as the citizenry, the military is a force to protect the democracy, to insulate it from hostile forces that would destroy it. The point is, it has to work within the democratic structure, not undermine it, and that requires civilian oversight and civilian institutions with superior political power to control it.

Bottom line, however, is that a military's value to a democracy is determined solely by whether the military's leaders and career troops are committed to democracy. Let's face it, if the military wants to take over, there's nothing a citizenry with no arms or inferior arms can do to stop them. If the military has no history of supporting democracy, or if it is predominantly career personnel rather than fairly short-term "citizen soldiers," I don't trust them.

The strong military presence in democracy is a problematic situation. Just like what had happened in Indonesia and other third world countries which are not prepared to welcome the democracy. The most dangerous things is the option that the elite will use in the election. They might use the military to mock the people or threaten that the chaos will occur if they don't choose the elite. It's all leave to the hand of the elite. IF they can't get the positions, I believe that they will use everything in their hands to worse the situation, including the military might.

The same question can be asked about the US strong military invasion in Iraq to promote democracy.

JERUSALEM TEMPLE, FATHER OF DEMOCRACY
( From NATAN PAPER : JERUSALEM TEMPLE versus Al-QAIDA
http://jerusalem-4thtemple-natan.blogspot.com : )

Let Caliph Omar and Caliph Abd el-Malik build Al-Aqsa (638) and Dome of the Rock (688) wherever they want (even on the spot of the ancient Jewish Citadel which overlooked and protected the Temple)…

But, NOW, it is the Jews’ Duty to restore the Jerusalem Temple -Father of Planet Democracy- on its authentic Site, indicated (downstream) to David by YHWH :
See at www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org : the first and unique Scientific Study of the TEMPLE RELIGIOUS HYDRAULIC SYSTEM which has been miraculously preserved, to this very day, in the rocky underground of the Jewish Citadel (nowadays Haram) and which can be checked by any one in Jerusalem...
This grandiose, innovative, unique (and totally ignored ! ) antique religious HYDRAULIC SYSTEM, installed from King Solomon to King Herod, with meticulous underground cascades, had been, thus, designed to constitute the “Water Tower” which stored and provided, DOWNSTREAM, by sole gravitation, the Jerusalem Temple with the live Source Waters of Etam :
These purifying living Waters had to EVER FLOW, without the least interruption, according to the meticulous exacting Jewish Religious Prescriptions, in order to allow daily Purifications of ALL ISRAEL, as required in the Cult of the TEMPLE by YHWH.

WHY -by God!- should the Jews rebuild -now!!- the TEMPLE of JERUSALEM ???

TWO ANSWERS :
1/-- FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN *GOD*
2/-- FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN *GOD*

1/-- FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN *GOD* :
--- BECAUSE the TEMPLE is an eternal and irreducible Prescription given to Moses as Sign of Covenant between God and Mankind, a magnetized Prescription definitely fulfilled by David and Solomon, and fully enlightened by Jesus.
Under the pressure of historical and persecution events, and in order to ensure the survival of Judaism, the Rabbis, for two millenaries, had to put the disappeared magnetic TEMPLE into spiritual brackets (which they did manage quite cleverly and efficiently).
But NOW that Israel is reborn unconsciously, Time has come to restore the TEMPLE of JERUSALEM in its full Splendour and Meaning, as the necessary Moral Compass and Consciousness of Human Community :
Indeed, individual and collective Rites are the ONLY mental and cohesive procedures which maintain vivid the Moral Fundamentals, intimate motors of all Human Societies on this Planet (or on the next Planets to harbour Mankind).

2/ -- FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN *GOD* :
--- BECAUSE among ALL Mythologies, Religions or Ideologies invented by Mankind to guide the Organization presiding to their daily Life and to inspire the political Legislation of their Social Ruling, ONLY the TEMPLE of JERUSALEM did actually engender the founding Moral Concepts of DEMOCRACY, which germinated in the Judeo-Christian Civilizations, and which are, willy nilly, progressively blossoming all over the Planet ; (or, at least, are being, sooner or later, acknowledged as the ultimate universal reference benchmark, as, only, DEMOCRACY can ensure and guarantee an unrestrained Human Creativity which is the condition of Progress).
- In other words : from Mankind Genome the Jerusalem Temple Cult intuitively extracted and expressed Mankind’s Destiny or Finality. -
And the nowadays secular Rites, even shaded off from their original Rites, constantly need to reassess and refuel their genuine Roots Power, in order to be able to accomplish their unconscious Tasks.

Incidentally, in this respect, one may note the naïve and generous impulse of some US Presidents who made the same misleading Ideology Error :
that is to say : Among ALL the main Mythologies, Religions or Ideologies invented by Mankind, TWO are radically NOT compatible, and will NEVER be compatible, with the Concepts of DEMOCRACY :
1/ ISLAM, for Koranic reasons
2/ MARXISM, for Scientific reasons

Natan 2007

The question is very relevant to muslim around the world.but better is to ask from west that what sort of goverment they could live easily without waging war with world of islam.It is west for whom the democarcy and military goverment have meaning for muslim and a true muslim both are useless system of goverment as the question is how to adjust the will of ruler with the will of Allah?
other hand democarcy needed the mature public opinion based onfeedom from all ism.is it possible that muslim can be above from all ism?
for a muslim around the world security is major issue and both these cannot provide to muslim at all.see the case of iraq or Turkey,Egypt,morocco stc.every where democartic principle are working on the tune of western defined limitation of a regime in muslim world.In term of pakistan whthere it is military or democarcy the question is which suit the west and america ?Right now in pakistan for pakistani America is more powerfull that military and Allah.so what the two time bread provider will say that is final form of goverment.

On the other side of this equation is the obvious example of George Washington and the Continental Army. These have been called "citizen soldiers", but soldiers they were and they fought the professional forces of the British and their Prussian allies to a standstill, and in time, the French, the Spanish, the Japanese and the Germans. Once you get past the modern day bedwetters that are so easily manipulated by the Brady Foundation, Gun Control Inc., Carl Rove, James Carville and similar politcial operatives, there are STILL plenty of these citizen soldiers around. They exist in places like Sweden, Norway and Denmark, too. The lesson is to beware of "volunteer armies" and "professionals", removed from the common people and their concerns. And, "yes", I would bring back the draft in a heartbeat. If we had a draft, Iraq would have been impossible and the Taliban and Bin Laudin wouldn't even exist. We wouldn't have a dumb jock, playing President, that handed out contracts and engaged in "nation building" before the war was won. We wouldn't have nuts talking about bombing Iran, either. This country would only fight if our existance depended upon itor we were attacked and, then, would wage war without qualms and without resorting to subcontractors like Blackwater - not for oil and certainly not for Halliburton's profit nor Bush's political hide, but for our survival. That is the only reason to fight a war and that burden is something to be shared by every citizen. You cannot do that with a professional army nor a "volunteer" army.

On the other side of this equation is the obvious example of George Washington and the Continental Army. These have been called "citizen soldiers", but soldiers they were and they fought the professional forces of the British and their Prussian allies to a standstill, and in time, the French, the Spanish, the Japanese and the Germans. Once you get past the modern day bedwetters that are so easily manipulated by the Brady Foundation, Gun Control Inc., Carl Rove, James Carville and similar politcial operatives, there are STILL plenty of these citizen soldiers around. They exist in places like Sweden, Norway and Denmark, too. The lesson is to beware of "volunteer armies" and "professionals", removed from the common people and their concerns. And, "yes", I would bring back the draft in a heartbeat. If we had a draft, Iraq would have been impossible and the Taliban and Bin Laudin wouldn't even exist. We wouldn't have a dumb jock, playing President, that handed out contracts and engaged in "nation building" before the war was won. We wouldn't have nuts talking about bombing Iran, either. This country would only fight if our existance depended upon it and, then, would wage war without qualms and without resorting to subcontractors like Blackwater - not for oil and certainly not for Halliburton's profit nor Bush's political hide, but for our survival. That is the only reason to fight a war and that burden is something to be shared by every citizen. You cannot do that with a professional army nor a "volunteer" army.

Is a strong military the path to a strong and democratic state, or is it an obstacle?

Posted by David Ignatius on September 19, 2007 9:35 AM

There is a definitive answer to this question. The answer is yes, maybe or no.

I'm not sure I would use the words democracy and Pakistan in the same paragraph. Hence, prefacing this question with Pakistan probably wasn't the best choice of countries.

In a non-industrialized country has a strong military had anything to do with the promotion of democracy? Of course not. In the Industrialized world has a strong military been responsible for strong democracies? Not in the creation of them. Strong militaries have been used effectively to help preserve them.

Not only is a strong military the path to a strong and democratic state, i.e. a government of the people, by the people, for the people, I would say a strong military is the boulevard, the Champs-Élysées, so to speak, that invariably leads to one.

What matters most, really, is only that the right person be found or put, at the top of any given social ladder. Indeed, whenever necessary, both military advice and military power can be acquired, by such a God given person, from innumerable outside sources.

A net advantage of a strong military is that it makes it possible to destroy a democracy in order to save it, just as it makes it possible to destroy a country before one busies oneself with its reconstruction.

It is regrettable that we, in the West, never got around to showing the world that this was undoubtedly the path par excellence leading to any strong, democratic state. I therefore suggest the following convincing list be used extensively as a reminder, to all nations, of how countries have been so successfully transformed by a strong military.

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Marshal Idi --------------------------------Uganda (coup)
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia (coup)
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba (coups vs elected government)
Branco, General Humberto --------------------- Brazil (coup)
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti (coup vs elected Aristide)
Diem, Ngo Dihn --------------------------------- Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ---------------------------- Liberia (coup)
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Marcos, Ferdinand ------------------------------- Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador (coup)
Mobutu Sese Seko ------------------------------- Zaire
Montt, General Efrain Rios --------------------- Guatemala
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza --------------- Iran
Papadopoulos, George -------------------------- Greece (coup)
Park Chung Hee --------------------------------- South Korea (coup)
Pinochet, General Augusto --------------------- Chile (coup)
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji (coup)
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------ Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. -------------------------- Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. ------------------------- Nicaragua
Stroessner, Alfredo ----------------------------- Paraguay
Suharto, General --------------------------------- Indonesia (coup)
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas ----------------------- Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------ Argentina (coup)
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ---------------------- Pakistan

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.

Military & Politics-disaster Guaranteed

Military is an institution of the state that has to work under civil administration elected by the people while military is run by public money and supervised by public representatives.Military by training and culture is not suited for governance and diplomacy. Pakistani military which has inherited its culture and practices from British Indian military is a robust fighting machine with colonial way of thinking where military was not subservient to cilian authority.

Strong military and the role of generals in Pakistan's politics is a history of shame and disgust.General Ayub the father of all military dictators benificary of US largess under Eisenhover's administartion act as bulwark against spread of communism and chinese designs.His used to fancy himself as medival conqueror and his desire to stay in power through brute force divided the country on ethenic lines of East and West Pakistan.He was forced to resign in the face of public protests but passed on power to another general Yahya Khan. Yahaya Khan's military terrorized the populace of East Pakistan with ruthless killings documented by UN observers.The strong military under an all power ful general lost eastern wing of the country and 90,000 troops surrender to India.

Bhutto first democratically elected prime of Pakistan brought these soldiers back.Bhutto started the nuclear program in Pakistan in the face of extreme opposition from US which is now the pride of Pakistan military and most effective deterent against any agression.

Zia Ul Haq another miltary dictator usurp power in 1977 and led Pakistan into Afghan war against Soviets.He became an instant favorite of the US as he played host to Afghan mujahideen and let guns,drugs and extremism take roots in Pakistan.He encouraged ethenic and sectarian forces to take centre stage in order to marginalize mainstream political forces.The present extremism and talibanism in Pakistan has its roots is Zia years.His eleven years institutionalize guns and bigotry in the country.Despite massive influx of foreign aid and government's claims of high economic growth not a single project of national importance can be pointed out.

Musharaf the publicity loving general has seven years of absolute power in Pkaistan with unabated whole hearted US backing economically,militarily and diplomatically.He has failed to maintain law and order in the country be it restive Baluchistan,militant north waziristan,commercial capital Karachi or even Islamabad.Bomb blasts target killings and religious extremism is rampant and state is but a sorry spectator.

Hundreds of army personnels are in custody of militants in north Waziristan and government is negotiating their release through local elders.Intelligence agency personnel and elite commandos are being targetted and killed in high security areas in Rawalpindi.News headlines screaming of mutilated bodies of army soldiers found in Miransha is a cause of concern and despair for common man.

This is the brief history of events in Pakistan with the current situation worse than ever under Musharaf, a man devoid of legitimacy and public support.