6 ms·

Can someone knowledgeable explain to me why the military keeps intervening. Is this basically the same situation as Turkey had where the military was commanded

Can someone knowledgeable explain to me why the military keeps intervening. Is this basically the same situation as Turkey had where the military was commanded on Turkey’s founding by the Ataturk to prevent a religious fundamentalist takeover of the country, and so whenever they felt the elected government was becoming too “religious”, they deposed the government (now of course erdogan is in control, because he ensured to infiltrate the military after having a bad experience with them in the past.)

dmurray 3y ago
Those seem like very ideologically pure motives to attribute to a political decision. Maybe the generals just think they'd like to run the country for a while, and they've promised their colonels positions of power, and the colonels have promised their lieutenants promotions, and so on all the way down.
- sashank_1509 3y ago
  These personal reasons would always exist. I’m curious about the justification they would provide to the rest of the world about why they intervened? That gives the moral basis for their use of power. I personally think, even if good rewards existed without a justification to provide that is consistent with their morality/ history of the country it would be very hard for the military to depose a government like they do in Pakistan. Though I suppose now that it has happened so many times in Pakistan, there is good precedent and this justification is less necessary.
  - johntiger1 3y ago
    Does it matter? Hitler/Stalin/Mao also had 'good reasons' that they claimed for for doing the things they do. End of the day, the military is clinging to power
    - sashank_1509 3y ago
      No, I’d say you’re completely wrong on that part. Hitler/ Stalin/ Mao is a very bad example of institutions clinging to power through pure force. Each of those examples, had grand visions of what was right and why they were justified to completely take over the government. I would even venture that in each of those cases there was broad popular support at the start which led to the complete overthrow of the government. An incident where power was taken to rule a country just because you could without any great moral basis was probably Pinochet in Chile, not many examples of this case exist.
      - ethbr0 3y ago
        Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia As near as I can tell, he started from "Take over the government" and surfed his way there by reading (and stoking populist energy) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xscsu_QGbLg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xscsu_QGbLg
  - vishnugupta 3y ago
    > there is good precedent and this justification is less necessary I guess this is more or less the reason. They probably see themselves as the first line of defence in internal security unlike at other democratic countries. The repeated military intervention in internal matters has set off a positive feedback loop where those capable enough and wanting to bring positive impact join the military. So remaining institutions (civil services, police, law& order, politics etc.,) continue to erode and get more corrupt.
victor106 3y ago
I am sorry to say but at this point Pakistan is a failed state. It’s fascinating to see how India just leaped ahead of Pakistan even though they both got independence at the same time and were essentially the same people divided based on religion. I hate to say this but maybe there’s something to be said about religion here.
- EricHolden12 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "I would rather live in Pakistan despite it allegedly being a “failed state” according to you over India any day of the week." Can you give reasons for this? I have never been to either country, but I know many people who travelled all over india, but allmost none, who traveled in Pakistan, because as a westener you cannot even travel in many places there at all, or in others without police guiding you (and you paying them).
    - EricHolden12 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - roncesvalles 3y ago
    >I would rather live in Pakistan despite it allegedly being a "failed state" according to you over India any day of the week. That's understandable if you're Pakistani and have a nostalgia for home, or perhaps some special affinity for their cuisine, but is nonsensical otherwise. >I’m sure many Indians will agree. So you might hear sometimes in Indian social media or op-eds the phrase "I'd rather live in Pakistan" (and to a greater degree "You should go live in Pakistan") but that's almost always used provocatively, because of how ridiculous it is. I don't even think that most Indian Muslims would prefer Pakistan over India.
    - EricHolden12 3y ago
twardowski 3y ago
[dead]
incomingpain 3y ago
Pakistan is the only true Muslim country in the world. There is no 'too religious'. I think you're missing the much larger picture. All of the conflict in that area is connected. Turkey is melting down because of their public positions on various matters; especially Xinjiang; not to mention poor decisions around fiscal policy. Pakistan and Khan mess. Super happy they finally arrested him. We shall see how it goes, I'm optimistic it should stabilize pakistan. Karakoram highway is a huge deal. The probability it doesn't get blown up is quite low. Kashmir matters no doubt, but this will make talks between the 2 nuclear powers never happen. Khalistan/Punjab, I must admit I'm surprised how many gurdwars are flying the khalistan flags here in Canada. It's their last chance for at least a generation if they want it to happen. It's not going to happen this time, they likely popped this movement. Some entity pushed it too soon. Ladakh conflicts... Basically China isn't happy about a road being built toward them in ladakh. 250,000 indian troops vs 60,000 chinese troops accidentally collided... 3 times. But dont worry it was just 'melee' or 'skirmish' and was no big deal... India proceeded to ban all of china's internet things. China has been a sleeping tiger for decades and they wake up to attack india? Interesting. Not saying they are wrong, but China also understands why and what's going on. Everything points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/02/why-erdogan-has-abandoned-the-uyghurs/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/02/why-erdogan-has-abandon... But more importantly we are 4 days away from the turkish election. Erdogan is likely to lose.
- EricHolden12 3y ago
  >Pakistan and Khan mess. Super happy they finally arrested him. We shall see how it goes, I'm optimistic it should stabilize pakistan. Hahahahahahahaahahahahahaha. By this, your definition of stabilize is that the USA is again more firmly in command of Pakistan as a country. Khan is an antagonist who tried and failed to get Pakistan to be truly independent and not controlled by any other nation. Pakistan is unfortunately a pawn in geopolitical moves, and with his arrest the stooges in place will happily bend and dance for the powers that be as long as they can pocket a tidy sum.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  The first line is a strong claim, and KSA as well as Iran would disagree. Pakistan may say the have Sharia, but hadd is rarely enforced as far as I know. Theft is common and so are gangs.
Haga 3y ago
[dead]
ryzvonusef 3y ago
they consider themselves the only adult in the room, even though mentally they are just a hair older than any of the other actors
ryzvonusef 3y ago
here is a 7 minutes video in english on the topic, if you woul like to watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTy5giEpodk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTy5giEpodk
- sashank_1509 3y ago
  Feels more like a polemic against the Pakistan military. For example unlike how presented in the video there was majority public support for the first military coup of 1958 in Pakistan because that was a period of serious political turmoil. Pakistan went through 4 prime ministers in 2 years and the public was agitated by the unstable economy especially regarding water canal issues and it seemed like the military could come in and bring some stability.
  - ryzvonusef 3y ago
    It's the closest thing to an answer to OP's question I could find, that was in English.

dmurray 3y ago

Those seem like very ideologically pure motives to attribute to a political decision. Maybe the generals just think they'd like to run the country for a while, and they've promised their colonels positions of power, and the colonels have promised their lieutenants promotions, and so on all the way down.

sashank_1509 3y ago
These personal reasons would always exist. I’m curious about the justification they would provide to the rest of the world about why they intervened? That gives the moral basis for their use of power. I personally think, even if good rewards existed without a justification to provide that is consistent with their morality/ history of the country it would be very hard for the military to depose a government like they do in Pakistan. Though I suppose now that it has happened so many times in Pakistan, there is good precedent and this justification is less necessary.
- johntiger1 3y ago
  Does it matter? Hitler/Stalin/Mao also had 'good reasons' that they claimed for for doing the things they do. End of the day, the military is clinging to power
  - sashank_1509 3y ago
    No, I’d say you’re completely wrong on that part. Hitler/ Stalin/ Mao is a very bad example of institutions clinging to power through pure force. Each of those examples, had grand visions of what was right and why they were justified to completely take over the government. I would even venture that in each of those cases there was broad popular support at the start which led to the complete overthrow of the government. An incident where power was taken to rule a country just because you could without any great moral basis was probably Pinochet in Chile, not many examples of this case exist.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia As near as I can tell, he started from "Take over the government" and surfed his way there by reading (and stoking populist energy) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xscsu_QGbLg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xscsu_QGbLg
- vishnugupta 3y ago
  > there is good precedent and this justification is less necessary I guess this is more or less the reason. They probably see themselves as the first line of defence in internal security unlike at other democratic countries. The repeated military intervention in internal matters has set off a positive feedback loop where those capable enough and wanting to bring positive impact join the military. So remaining institutions (civil services, police, law& order, politics etc.,) continue to erode and get more corrupt.

victor106 3y ago

I am sorry to say but at this point Pakistan is a failed state. It’s fascinating to see how India just leaped ahead of Pakistan even though they both got independence at the same time and were essentially the same people divided based on religion. I hate to say this but maybe there’s something to be said about religion here.

EricHolden12 3y ago
[flagged]
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "I would rather live in Pakistan despite it allegedly being a “failed state” according to you over India any day of the week." Can you give reasons for this? I have never been to either country, but I know many people who travelled all over india, but allmost none, who traveled in Pakistan, because as a westener you cannot even travel in many places there at all, or in others without police guiding you (and you paying them).
  - EricHolden12 3y ago
    [flagged]
- roncesvalles 3y ago
  >I would rather live in Pakistan despite it allegedly being a "failed state" according to you over India any day of the week. That's understandable if you're Pakistani and have a nostalgia for home, or perhaps some special affinity for their cuisine, but is nonsensical otherwise. >I’m sure many Indians will agree. So you might hear sometimes in Indian social media or op-eds the phrase "I'd rather live in Pakistan" (and to a greater degree "You should go live in Pakistan") but that's almost always used provocatively, because of how ridiculous it is. I don't even think that most Indian Muslims would prefer Pakistan over India.
  - EricHolden12 3y ago

twardowski 3y ago

[dead]

incomingpain 3y ago

Pakistan is the only true Muslim country in the world. There is no 'too religious'. I think you're missing the much larger picture. All of the conflict in that area is connected. Turkey is melting down because of their public positions on various matters; especially Xinjiang; not to mention poor decisions around fiscal policy. Pakistan and Khan mess. Super happy they finally arrested him. We shall see how it goes, I'm optimistic it should stabilize pakistan. Karakoram highway is a huge deal. The probability it doesn't get blown up is quite low. Kashmir matters no doubt, but this will make talks between the 2 nuclear powers never happen. Khalistan/Punjab, I must admit I'm surprised how many gurdwars are flying the khalistan flags here in Canada. It's their last chance for at least a generation if they want it to happen. It's not going to happen this time, they likely popped this movement. Some entity pushed it too soon. Ladakh conflicts... Basically China isn't happy about a road being built toward them in ladakh. 250,000 indian troops vs 60,000 chinese troops accidentally collided... 3 times. But dont worry it was just 'melee' or 'skirmish' and was no big deal... India proceeded to ban all of china's internet things. China has been a sleeping tiger for decades and they wake up to attack india? Interesting. Not saying they are wrong, but China also understands why and what's going on. Everything points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/02/why-erdogan-has-abandoned-the-uyghurs/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/02/why-erdogan-has-abandon... But more importantly we are 4 days away from the turkish election. Erdogan is likely to lose.

EricHolden12 3y ago
>Pakistan and Khan mess. Super happy they finally arrested him. We shall see how it goes, I'm optimistic it should stabilize pakistan. Hahahahahahahaahahahahahaha. By this, your definition of stabilize is that the USA is again more firmly in command of Pakistan as a country. Khan is an antagonist who tried and failed to get Pakistan to be truly independent and not controlled by any other nation. Pakistan is unfortunately a pawn in geopolitical moves, and with his arrest the stooges in place will happily bend and dance for the powers that be as long as they can pocket a tidy sum.
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
The first line is a strong claim, and KSA as well as Iran would disagree. Pakistan may say the have Sharia, but hadd is rarely enforced as far as I know. Theft is common and so are gangs.

Haga 3y ago

[dead]

ryzvonusef 3y ago

they consider themselves the only adult in the room, even though mentally they are just a hair older than any of the other actors

ryzvonusef 3y ago

here is a 7 minutes video in english on the topic, if you woul like to watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTy5giEpodk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTy5giEpodk

sashank_1509 3y ago
Feels more like a polemic against the Pakistan military. For example unlike how presented in the video there was majority public support for the first military coup of 1958 in Pakistan because that was a period of serious political turmoil. Pakistan went through 4 prime ministers in 2 years and the public was agitated by the unstable economy especially regarding water canal issues and it seemed like the military could come in and bring some stability.
- ryzvonusef 3y ago
  It's the closest thing to an answer to OP's question I could find, that was in English.