Behind the Barracks: Why Change is Coming to Pakistan's Military
1. The Army's Dilemma: Power vs. Popularity
Pakistan’s army is often portrayed as invincible, with a
thick skin that deflects criticism. But here’s the truth: the institution
thrives on popularity as much as power. In recent years, this popularity has
declined due to political entanglements, economic struggles, and internal
strife. And who’s the central disruptor? None other than Imran Khan.
While external threats exist—terrorism, a simmering
insurgency in Balochistan, and tensions with India—the internal divide, fueled
by Khan’s narrative, has destabilized the military's grip. The rank-and-file
soldiers, many of whom resonate with Khan's populist message, pose a silent yet
significant challenge to the army leadership.
2. Why Change is Inevitable
History offers a lesson. Every powerful military leader—Ayub
Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf—was eventually forced to adapt or exit. Even
dictators couldn’t escape the underlying democratic spirit of Pakistan’s
people. Today, General Asim Munir faces a similar predicament.
The military's habit of “course correction” is real.
Soldiers' voices travel up the chain of command, whether it's about broken
barracks or growing dissatisfaction with leadership. The ground reality can no
longer be ignored.
3. Extensions and Erosion of Authority
The specter of military extensions looms large.
Historically, extensions have weakened army chiefs rather than empowering them.
Munir, despite wielding immense institutional power as a former ISI and MI
chief, faces mounting internal pressure. If history repeats itself, his
overextended tenure might create more cracks than cohesion within the army's
command structure.
4. Politics: The Double-Edged Sword
The army’s involvement in politics is no secret. Today, it
operates more like a political party than a defense institution. Yet, political
maneuvers are yielding diminishing returns. Pakistan’s economic crisis, rising
insurgency, and Imran Khan’s unrelenting popularity have left the army
stretched thin.
On one hand, the military leans on the PML-N government for
legal cover (e.g., military trials, censorship laws). On the other, it realizes
that PML-N can’t guarantee long-term stability. This transactional relationship
is fragile and unsustainable.
5. The Path Forward: A Transactional Peace
Here’s the crux: the army needs Imran Khan, and Khan needs
the army. But this relationship won’t mend itself without compromise. Khan’s
party, PTI, must offer something concrete:
- Governance:
Deliver stability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
- Stability:
Ease political tensions and avoid mass protests.
- Respect:
Tone down hostile rhetoric against military leadership.
Without these steps, the cycle of retaliation and resistance
will continue, and Pakistan will remain stuck in a political deadlock.
6. A Fragile Stability
The military isn't sentimental. It’s transactional. If the
PTI can align its strategy with the army's needs—governance, stability, and
respect—there’s a path forward. Otherwise, the military might shift its bets
towards the PPP in the next cycle.
Wajahat Saeed Khan concludes with a reminder: Pakistan’s
army isn’t just a defense force; it’s a political animal with survival
instincts. And when cornered, it knows how to pivot. But this time, the stakes
are higher, and the margin for error is razor-thin.
In short, the army’s survival hinges on its ability to
adapt, and Imran Khan remains a central figure in this unfolding saga. Both
sides must make concessions, or Pakistan risks deeper instability.
This is the mirror Wajahat holds up to us. It’s not just
about the army or politics—it’s about the collective resilience of a nation
caught between power struggles and the hope for a better future.
Comments
Post a Comment