Casual Discussion A military is only for war

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
GEN Ayub Khan, president of Pakistan 1958-1969, was a simple man. His solutions to complex issues could sometimes take your breath away. On page 101 of Friends Not Masters — his autobiography written while in office — he complains that student indiscipline is rampant because “there are far too many students and not enough buildings, laboratories, and libraries”.

His suggested fix: “One instructor on a platform with a loudspeaker can take a very large body of students at one time, and just half an hour a day should build up their bodies and minds, and take the devil out of them.”

Actually, the business of purging devils is called exorcism, not education and sending PT masters to colleges or universities is absurd. But Ayub Khan’s charming modesty buys him reprieve. He readily admits that: “I was not a very bright student, nor did I find studies a particularly absorbing occupation.” In 1926, his father, a risaldar-major in the British Army, paid his fees for the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst where “life was spartan” and there was much rough and tumble among cadets. In keeping with the academy’s tradition to create a privileged officer class, he was duly assigned a British soldier as orderly.

Ayub’s cockeyed views on education owes to Sandhurst where physical drill and discipline came first and foremost. This would ensure that “the cadet has a graceful carriage, stands easy and erect, and shows by his bearing that he is manly and self-reliant. Mr Molesworth, an English authority, has said: The contrast between Hyperion and a Satyr is scarcely more striking than that which exists between the loutish bearing of a Lancashire lad and the firm, respectful, and self-respecting carriage of the same person after he has been disciplined and polished by the drill.”

Had Sandhurst-trained UK officers run British organisations they too might have failed like PIA, PSM, etc.
Hyperion (a deity who holds the cosmos in place) rather than Satyr (a goat-like man) was how the handsome young Ayub thought of himself. Although he never won any war, a strong self-image encouraged him into becoming the world’s first self-declared field marshal. It also gave him sufficient confidence to launch the coup of 1958, dismiss president Iskander Mirza from office, and spend the next decade steering the country. While these were years of extraordinary movement, they were not always in the right direction.

Ayub firmly hitched Pakistan to the American wagon and, flush with American weapons, launched Operation Gibraltar. This started the 1965 war but with all options gone he had to end it inconclusively. He irreversibly alienated East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In 1968, widespread agitation finally ended his so-called Decade of Development. Nevertheless Ayub Khan is popularly rated higher than the generals who succeeded him: Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq, and Pervez Musharraf.

Fortunately, British military academies have produced very few Ayub-like putschists. Certainly several British officers must have had Ayub-sized egos. Many an officer must have preened himself before a mirror and seen Hyperion there. But a military coup in the British system was and remains unthinkable. Why?

Successful societies know that those who fight wars well are not always best suited for running industries, academia, or government. Therefore British military officers, whether serving or retired, are not given preferential treatment outside of their specific skills. It is broadly realised that men in uniform can be heroic fighters in wartime but in other situations they can be just as clueless and bureaucratic as their civilian counterparts.

Imagine for a moment that the British military ran Britain or had a big hand in running it. Would British Airways survive cut-throat competition if its CEO was a retired RAF air marshal rather than some tech-savvy hi-fi business type? In working out complicated Brexit policy options, would a retired lieutenant general negotiate British interests better than a PhD in economics from Cambridge? Should the British Electricity Authority look for some distinguished electrical engineer or for a British army colonel instead? And would a Royal Navy admiral — serving or retired — be best placed to protect Britain’s interests in North Sea oil?

Fortunately for Britain, such an experiment has never been tried and military officers are not automatically made heads of organisations upon retirement. Else the result would be a graveyard of failing or flailing institutions similar to chronically sick organisations such as Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, Suparco, Wapda, PCSIR, and countless others. In these places merit is regularly superseded not just at the very top but inside departments as well.

Military mindsets undeniably contain some exceptional qualities. The testing conditions of war require that militaries develop a spectrum of capabilities stretching from command and control to logistics and materiel management. Many develop their own engineering and medical facilities that are very useful when a natural or man-made disaster strikes. In fact, most countries have legislation requiring armed forces to support civilian authorities during emergencies and war.

But what can keep a military from wandering into civilian and administrative affairs during peacetime? At the end of World War II powerful militaries in the Western world were flush with victory. Adoring publics showered rose petals upon hero generals who, at some point, could have asserted themselves and become dangerous. That is why president Harry Truman had to sack Gen Douglas MacArthur. The political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in 1957 that asserting civilian control is crucial and requires professionalising the military by setting it apart from the rest of society while teaching it to execute but not formulate policy.

Although military men in the age of electronic warfare have to be smarter and better informed than their predecessors, a graduate from some military academy is no substitute for those who have spent their careers honing specific skills in academia, industry, commerce, and a plethora of technical fields.

All Pakistani institutions are desperately short of competence and sorely need the right people in the right places. Retired officers when put at the head of organisations can make cosmetic changes and may superficially improve institutional discipline but not much else. Soldiers should stick to what they are good at and paid for — fighting wars rather than running businesses or making movies.

 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Agree with this 4000% , military men should do what they've been trained and paid to do.

Here in Indonesia ex-military men runs the country from Food security, fisheries, HR, rural development and even medical
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,633
Reactions
5 18,324
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Agree with this 4000% , military men should do what they've been trained and paid to do.

Here in Indonesia ex-military men runs the country from Food security, fisheries, HR, rural development and even medical

Military should also not be given too much power.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Military should also not be given too much power.
True, advanced societies have a clearly defined govermental post having it's own responsibility and things to do. However in most country , especially developing ones. the military is a must and can do all agencies, which degrade their main objective to fight and win wars.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
GEN Ayub Khan, president of Pakistan 1958-1969, was a simple man. His solutions to complex issues could sometimes take your breath away. On page 101 of Friends Not Masters — his autobiography written while in office — he complains that student indiscipline is rampant because “there are far too many students and not enough buildings, laboratories, and libraries”.

His suggested fix: “One instructor on a platform with a loudspeaker can take a very large body of students at one time, and just half an hour a day should build up their bodies and minds, and take the devil out of them.”

Actually, the business of purging devils is called exorcism, not education and sending PT masters to colleges or universities is absurd. But Ayub Khan’s charming modesty buys him reprieve. He readily admits that: “I was not a very bright student, nor did I find studies a particularly absorbing occupation.” In 1926, his father, a risaldar-major in the British Army, paid his fees for the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst where “life was spartan” and there was much rough and tumble among cadets. In keeping with the academy’s tradition to create a privileged officer class, he was duly assigned a British soldier as orderly.

Ayub’s cockeyed views on education owes to Sandhurst where physical drill and discipline came first and foremost. This would ensure that “the cadet has a graceful carriage, stands easy and erect, and shows by his bearing that he is manly and self-reliant. Mr Molesworth, an English authority, has said: The contrast between Hyperion and a Satyr is scarcely more striking than that which exists between the loutish bearing of a Lancashire lad and the firm, respectful, and self-respecting carriage of the same person after he has been disciplined and polished by the drill.”


Hyperion (a deity who holds the cosmos in place) rather than Satyr (a goat-like man) was how the handsome young Ayub thought of himself. Although he never won any war, a strong self-image encouraged him into becoming the world’s first self-declared field marshal. It also gave him sufficient confidence to launch the coup of 1958, dismiss president Iskander Mirza from office, and spend the next decade steering the country. While these were years of extraordinary movement, they were not always in the right direction.

Ayub firmly hitched Pakistan to the American wagon and, flush with American weapons, launched Operation Gibraltar. This started the 1965 war but with all options gone he had to end it inconclusively. He irreversibly alienated East Pakistan from West Pakistan. In 1968, widespread agitation finally ended his so-called Decade of Development. Nevertheless Ayub Khan is popularly rated higher than the generals who succeeded him: Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq, and Pervez Musharraf.

Fortunately, British military academies have produced very few Ayub-like putschists. Certainly several British officers must have had Ayub-sized egos. Many an officer must have preened himself before a mirror and seen Hyperion there. But a military coup in the British system was and remains unthinkable. Why?

Successful societies know that those who fight wars well are not always best suited for running industries, academia, or government. Therefore British military officers, whether serving or retired, are not given preferential treatment outside of their specific skills. It is broadly realised that men in uniform can be heroic fighters in wartime but in other situations they can be just as clueless and bureaucratic as their civilian counterparts.

Imagine for a moment that the British military ran Britain or had a big hand in running it. Would British Airways survive cut-throat competition if its CEO was a retired RAF air marshal rather than some tech-savvy hi-fi business type? In working out complicated Brexit policy options, would a retired lieutenant general negotiate British interests better than a PhD in economics from Cambridge? Should the British Electricity Authority look for some distinguished electrical engineer or for a British army colonel instead? And would a Royal Navy admiral — serving or retired — be best placed to protect Britain’s interests in North Sea oil?

Fortunately for Britain, such an experiment has never been tried and military officers are not automatically made heads of organisations upon retirement. Else the result would be a graveyard of failing or flailing institutions similar to chronically sick organisations such as Pakistan Steel Mills, PIA, Suparco, Wapda, PCSIR, and countless others. In these places merit is regularly superseded not just at the very top but inside departments as well.

Military mindsets undeniably contain some exceptional qualities. The testing conditions of war require that militaries develop a spectrum of capabilities stretching from command and control to logistics and materiel management. Many develop their own engineering and medical facilities that are very useful when a natural or man-made disaster strikes. In fact, most countries have legislation requiring armed forces to support civilian authorities during emergencies and war.

But what can keep a military from wandering into civilian and administrative affairs during peacetime? At the end of World War II powerful militaries in the Western world were flush with victory. Adoring publics showered rose petals upon hero generals who, at some point, could have asserted themselves and become dangerous. That is why president Harry Truman had to sack Gen Douglas MacArthur. The political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in 1957 that asserting civilian control is crucial and requires professionalising the military by setting it apart from the rest of society while teaching it to execute but not formulate policy.

Although military men in the age of electronic warfare have to be smarter and better informed than their predecessors, a graduate from some military academy is no substitute for those who have spent their careers honing specific skills in academia, industry, commerce, and a plethora of technical fields.

All Pakistani institutions are desperately short of competence and sorely need the right people in the right places. Retired officers when put at the head of organisations can make cosmetic changes and may superficially improve institutional discipline but not much else. Soldiers should stick to what they are good at and paid for — fighting wars rather than running businesses or making movies.

Absolute rubbish from that Karachi based, Indian pandering "Dawn" which would have been shut down long ago in countries like Turkey and or in countries like UK suffocated by economic monopolies. President Ayub Khan was the BEST leader Pakistan has ever had. He is the closest thing we came to getting out own Kemal Ataturk. I will take pleasure in ripping this article later.



 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Absolute rubbish from that Karachi based, Indian pandering "Dawn" which would have been shut down long ago in countries like Turkey and or in countries like UK suffocated by economic monopolies. President Ayub Khan was the BEST leader Pakistan has ever had. He is the closest thing we came to getting out own Kemal Ataturk. I will take pleasure in ripping this article later.



He's got a point though, advanced societies generally don't have militaries intervening at every sectors of life. They are trained and paid accordingly so that they fight and win wars.

Having the military running all things are a sign of a corrupt society.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Actually, the business of purging devils is called exorcism, not education and sending PT masters to colleges or universities is absurd. But Ayub Khan’s charming modesty buys him reprieve. He readily admits that: “I was not a very bright student, nor did I find studies a particularly absorbing occupation.” In 1926, his father, a risaldar-major in the British Army, paid his fees for the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst where “life was spartan” and there was much rough and tumble among cadets. In keeping with the academy’s tradition to create a privileged officer class, he was duly assigned a British soldier as orderly.





this is very relatable in Indonesia and myself personally, I could clearly remember how when I entered university we have infantries from a local military base all over the place, sometimes yelling at new students.

In Indonesia , the Army is always there to "welcome" new university students in the first day at the campus. they defend their presence there in the name of "instilling national values".

Ministry of Education and Culture Collaborates with TNI Fostering Student Nationalism
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
A list on the world's most stable countries

A list on world's most prosperous countries

A list on world's most advanced societies

A list on world's most innovative countries

A list on world's most Tech savvy countries

A list on world's best country when it comes to human rights

A list of world's happiest countries

A list on world's best education

A list on world's most competitive countries


There's a reason why you wouldn't find Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Iraq ,NK ,Egypt.
All of those countries in the list have built a system where they only accept the best people to handle specific task and issues, where they hailed to contribute their knowledge gained from Universities and advanced academia instead of soldier from barracks to do the job done.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
He's got a point though, advanced societies generally don't have militaries intervening at every sectors of life. They are trained and paid accordingly so that they fight and win wars.
True. Very true. and who said Pakistan, Iran, India, Jordan, KSA, Myanmar, Nigeria and even Turkey are advanced societies? I was born and brought up in UK. I am well aware that the country of my birth is in the category of "advanced society". I am also aware that it did not arrive here ready made but has gone through centuries of sculpting, sometimes traumatic, sometimes harsh to get where it is. The year might be 2020 but not all countries, not all peoples are on the same developmental continuum.

So to apply the present of UK or Norway to the present of Pakistan or Turkey or India is preposterous. Sure if you want to beat a stick go ahead. The reality is each country is at differant point on the developmemt continuum and must chart it's own path to the end goal. There is no single definitive path to reach "advanced country". Each to it's own. As long as progress is being made it is good. To give a twist to what Deng said "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." as long as a country develops a prosperous society all is well. Whether that is done through democracy, quasi-democracy, one party state etc is irrelevant.

Having no economic opportunity but a ballot box means fcuk to the average poor citizen.
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Universities and advanced academia instead of soldier from barracks to do the job done.
Some of the greatest leaders who shaped countries and destinies of millions were "simple soldiers". To name a few. Napoleon and Ataturk. Anybody who has read European history will know how profoundly Napoleon shaped France and Europe generally. We don't need to go far to see how Ataturk is literally father of modern Turkish Republic. Ask the Turks here. He was a "simple soldier".
 

Kaptaan

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,734
Reactions
4,072
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
And most famous of all who birthed US of A? Certainly NOT a farmer, tinker, tailor, scientist but a SOLDIER. Lest you forget George Washington of USA was a soldier before becoming President. Who is that below? Yes a Lieutenant Colonel Washington from the barracks.

1602366119411.png
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
True. Very true. and who said Pakistan, Iran, India, Jordan, KSA, Myanmar, Nigeria and even Turkey are advanced societies? I was born and brought up in UK. I am well aware that the country of my birth is in the category of "advanced society". I am also aware that it did not arrive here ready made but has gone through centuries of sculpting, sometimes traumatic, sometimes harsh to get where it is. The year might be 2020 but not all countries, not all peoples are on the same developmental continuum.

So to apply the present of UK or Norway to the present of Pakistan or Turkey or India is preposterous. Sure if you want to beat a stick go ahead. The reality is each country is at differant point on the developmemt continuum and must chart it's own path to the end goal. There is no single definitive path to reach "advanced country". Each to it's own. As long as progress is being made it is good. To give a twist to what Deng said "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." as long as a country develops a prosperous society all is well. Whether that is done through democracy, quasi-democracy, one party state etc is irrelevant.

Having no economic opportunity but a ballot box means fcuk to the average poor citizen.

I like to take S. Korea as an example, the ROK Army used to be in this category in the 70s and 80s, making coups here and there, cracking down on students and academia and their own. This is brought under control though after the fall of Chun's military Junta. Now we saw how S. Korea develop into a very advanced economy and politically stable countries.

My point is, no country will be successful if it continue to rely on people who just doesn't cut. I quote Pervez Hoodhboy here:

Successful societies know that those who fight wars well are not always best suited for running industries, academia, or government. Therefore British military officers, whether serving or retired, are not given preferential treatment outside of their specific skills. It is broadly realised that men in uniform can be heroic fighters in wartime but in other situations they can be just as clueless and bureaucratic as their civilian counterparts.
Imagine for a moment that the British military ran Britain or had a big hand in running it. Would British Airways survive cut-throat competition if its CEO was a retired RAF air marshal rather than some tech-savvy hi-fi business type? In working out complicated Brexit policy options, would a retired lieutenant general negotiate British interests better than a PhD in economics from Cambridge? Should the British Electricity Authority look for some distinguished electrical engineer or for a British army colonel instead? And would a Royal Navy admiral — serving or retired — be best placed to protect Britain’s interests in North Sea oil?


what are the use of Government agencies, Forestry, fisheries, education etc, if in the end Soldiers are called to finish a job they don't even gave an undertsanding.

Here's a good video by Caspian Report on how Egyptian military rule over the Political, economical spectrum of the country ended up hurting the common man.
watch from 6:29

the Egyptian military runs the country, not only they paid no taxes, they're killing competition by proving contracts to companies linked to the military and it's officials thereby making the economy stagnated because there's no employment...all of the jobs are done by conscripts soldiers.

Here's a quote from Carnegie

WHY IS THE EGYPTIAN MILITARY SO INVOLVED IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES?​

Until the military’s takeover in 2013, its economic activity functioned to keep the senior officer corps happy and loyal to the president, by allowing them perks.

Sisi, however, has a different calculation. He is looking to reinforce the political legitimacy of his regime domestically and to show Western governments and foreign investors that Egypt means business. He wants to demonstrate credibility. He’s shown his contempt openly for the civilian agencies of his own state. He feels he can only trust the military to do the job on time, within budget.

This doesn’t mean he actually has an economic vision. He doesn’t understand how the economy works, how to get it going, how to generate jobs and growth, how to increase revenue in a sustainable way. But the military is following orders. If he tells it to go build a new city in the sand somewhere, it builds a new city in the sand.

So the military sinks enormous amounts of capital into unproductive projects, often damaging relationships with the private sector because the military takes over management of and the income from these projects. In some cases it’s actually producing things like steel and cement. This crowds out private businesses, which dominate these sectors.

So the political consequences are proving to be negative as well as positive. The economic consequences are increasingly negative, because Egypt is borrowing heavily to fund these projects.


this sounds very similar (although varying in practice ) on many developing countries.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Some of the greatest leaders who shaped countries and destinies of millions were "simple soldiers". To name a few. Napoleon and Ataturk. Anybody who has read European history will know how profoundly Napoleon shaped France and Europe generally. We don't need to go far to see how Ataturk is literally father of modern Turkish Republic. Ask the Turks here. He was a "simple soldier".
And most famous of all who birthed US of A? Certainly NOT a farmer, tinker, tailor, scientist but a SOLDIER. Lest you forget George Washington of USA was a soldier before becoming President. Who is that below? Yes a Lieutenant Colonel Washington from the barracks.

I beg you to differ
First your country is not an active war, sure Pakistan is in conflict with India over some lands, Indonesia have aconflict with China over some waters but it's non-life threatening, you're at peace time which require different approach than that of of a country at war such as Napoleon during it's Napoleonic wars or Mustafa Kemal Pasha during the turbulent times of the early Turkish Republic

Second, we're living in an age where power are not measured by brute forces alone, but by other metrics such as Economic, quality of life, education etc. This is a no brainer during the times of George Washington or Napoleon. where powers and success of a country are measured by it's standing armies, numbers of wars won and territories.

Third, even though the nation are commanded by simple soldiers, there's been a clear power sharing mechanism, for example during the times of the early US independence this have been quite an issue.
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it".[5] Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.
Source wikipedia

The United States Constitution placed considerable limitations on the legislature. Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an executive from starting a war. Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 26 that it would be equally as bad for a legislature to be unfettered by any other agency and that restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, continued Hamilton's argument that distributing powers among the various branches of government would prevent any one group from gaining so much power as to become unassailable. In Federalist No. 48, however, Madison warned that while the separation of powers is important, the departments must not be so far separated as to have no ability to control the others.

again quoting Mr.Pervez
At the end of World War II powerful militaries in the Western world were flush with victory. Adoring publics showered rose petals upon hero generals who, at some point, could have asserted themselves and become dangerous. That is why president Harry Truman had to sack Gen Douglas MacArthur. The political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in 1957 that asserting civilian control is crucial and requires professionalising the military by setting it apart from the rest of society while teaching it to execute but not formulate policy.

the Military is an instrument, not a player, they're there to do what the incumbent government saw fit for them to do, unfortunately in many countries such as yours and mine (albeit on lesser terms) , they are the players themselves.
 

KKF 2.0

Well-known member
Messages
354
Reactions
825
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Turkey - again - is a very special and sometimes even confusing case study. It's a well-known fact that the Turkish Military is a bastion of Kemalists. This hasn't changed a bit in almost two decades of AKP winning one election after another. The bond between Kemalism on the one hand and Militarism/Interventionism on the other hand is still alive in present day. The average Turkish Kemalist continues to be heavily in favor of our military intervening in civil politics so much so that toppling the freely elected government is yet an option for many of them. They might not state this sentiment publicly but this militaristic "fetish" of die-hard Kemalists doesn't go extinct even though history is full of lessons showing us that this kind of military take-over does not work out in the long term.

And, to top it all off, this attitude is very much against the core principles of Atatürk's civil revolution. He achieved his goals by using military means - no doubt about it - but the the second he was in charge of Turkey, he made something very clear: military men should not have a say in civil politics.

Atatürk himself took off his military uniform, which he had worn day and night during the war, the second he became a civil politician. And he NEVER wore it again after the proclamation of the republic. Demanding a military intervention is very much against Atatürk's ideas and his dreams as a civilian.

5b8eb4338931f0b5b7808660c5d67d16.jpg


Atatürk became a civilian after the Independence War. He never again wore his miliatary uniform during the rest of his life as a politician.


ee84ae1b63c07b55c424b50d5b5acb46.jpg
 

KKF 2.0

Well-known member
Messages
354
Reactions
825
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I like to take S. Korea as an example, the ROK Army used to be in this category in the 70s and 80s, making coups here and there, cracking down on students and academia and their own. This is brought under control though after the fall of Chun's military Junta. Now we saw how S. Korea develop into a very advanced economy and politically stable countries.

My point is, no country will be successful if it continue to rely on people who just doesn't cut. I quote Pervez Hoodhboy here:





what are the use of Government agencies, Forestry, fisheries, education etc, if in the end Soldiers are called to finish a job they don't even gave an undertsanding.

Here's a good video by Caspian Report on how Egyptian military rule over the Political, economical spectrum of the country ended up hurting the common man.
watch from 6:29

the Egyptian military runs the country, not only they paid no taxes, they're killing competition by proving contracts to companies linked to the military and it's officials thereby making the economy stagnated because there's no employment...all of the jobs are done by conscripts soldiers.

Here's a quote from Carnegie




this sounds very similar (although varying in practice ) on many developing countries.
This is why the Turkish government put an end to the economic activities of the military. The military is NOT a company.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,777
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Turkey - again - is a very special and sometimes even confusing case study. It's a well-known fact that the Turkish Military is a bastion of Kemalists. This hasn't changed a bit in almost two decades of AKP winning one election after another. The bond between Kemalism on the one hand and Militarism/Interventionism on the other hand is still alive in present day. The average Turkish Kemalist continues to be heavily in favor of our military intervening in civil politics so much so that toppling the freely elected government is yet an option for many of them. They might not state this sentiment publicly but this militaristic "fetish" of die-hard Kemalists doesn't go extinct even though history is full of lessons showing us that this kind of military take-over does not work out in the long term.

And, to top it all off, this attitude is very much against the core principles of Atatürk's civil revolution. He achieved his goals by using military means - no doubt about it - but the the second he was in charge of Turkey, he made something very clear: military men should not have a say in civil politics.

Atatürk himself took off his military uniform, which he had worn day and night during the war, the second he became a civil politician. And he NEVER wore it again after the proclamation of the republic. Demanding a military intervention is very much against Atatürk's ideas and his dreams as a civilian.

5b8eb4338931f0b5b7808660c5d67d16.jpg


Atatürk became a civilian after the Independence War. He never again wore his miliatary uniform during the rest of his life as a politician.


ee84ae1b63c07b55c424b50d5b5acb46.jpg
This is why the Turkish government put an end to the economic activities of the military. The military is NOT a company.

That's what I mean, I don't mind army interfere when the very foundation of a state is under attack , for Turkey this is Kemalism, for the US it's Liberalism etc.

What I don't like is when Armies suddenly interfere in day to day affairs of a state, I mean like armies suddenly having a say in agriculture, infrastructure etc. Or even having an active role in the foreign policy of a state.

Armies should focus on only one thing, to fight and win wars (with occasional HADR).
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom