Air Commodore (Retd) Shahid Khan
Toronto; 4th May 2022
It is interesting to witness senior military officers assume a self-appointed role of political pundits after retirement. They argue against a Parliamentary form of government based on the premise that all politicians are incompetent, corrupt, and hence unsuited to lead Pakistan. They favor a Presidential form of governance which is quite understandable. These officers have spent a lifetime in an authoritarian system where a single individual exercises absolute power over unquestioning subordinates. They are disciplined and regimented minds, trained to obey and be obeyed. They genuinely believe that good governance requires firm, disciplinary measures enforced by a solitary Commander. Quite interestingly, this belief is shared by Pakistani businessmen, industrialists and landlords who likewise seek unquestioning obedience from an enslaved workforce. Proponents of the one-man military rule, either directly or by proxy, conveniently ignore the fact that the nation has been subjected to such dictatorial governance multiple times and that the results have always been disastrous. Their persistence in the belief that civilians cannot govern Pakistan is the result of a very logical but unfortunate reason…………
A military mind lacks the intellect and education necessary for understanding democracy, politics, and governance.
This is a highly provocative statement which needs explanation.
The bedrock of military recruitment is ‘selection of the average’. All candidates are subjected to an exceptionally well-developed series of tests and exams that evaluate both their physique and intellect. The results invariably conform to a Gaussian distribution; individual capabilities of each aspiring cadet lie within the classic ‘bell’ curve of probability theory. Those whose intellectual ability lies at either end of the bell curve are rejected. Low IQ is not acceptable because of its inability to understand orders whereas high IQ individuals are dismissed because they have a propensity to question and challenge them. Selecting mediocrity is essential to the military recruitment process.
It is, however, not enough.
The selected averages need to be put through an extremely grueling training program. The primary aim of a military academy is to break down the individuality of each cadet and reshape it into conformal thinking of a group. Cadets are forced to relegate, to the background, their individual bonds of love, loyalty and associations and instead form a new, enduring, bond with a group of complete strangers which is then sealed with an oath pledging unswerving loyalty.
In addition to shaping character, cadets also undergo training in their chosen branch of warfare. These consist of both classroom and field exercises designed to enable the cadet to perform the arduous tasks of a professional soldier, seaman or airman. This job-specific training is ascribed the label of ‘education’ and, to lend legitimacy to this, paper degrees from civilian universities are handed out to graduating cadets. Further degrees of higher learning are bestowed upon officers when they attend staff and war colleges. These paper degrees are awarded during ornate convocation ceremonies in which military uniforms are replaced with academic gowns and peaked caps with mortarboards. In this devious, contrived manner, military training is equated with university education. Professional warriors are forced into the mistaken belief that they are scholars; that they stand intellectually at par with the civilian alumni of institutions of higher learning.
This is a grievous error.
The Military trains. Schools, colleges and universities educate. A military mind is never educated. It is conditioned. It is instructed. It is told. It is given direction. The designation of Staff and War College instructors tells it all; they are the “Directing Staff”. These instructors are not scholars or professors; their only qualification is that they have graduated from the same institution earlier and their sole purpose is to direct subordinate officers’ minds into the same channeled thought that they have earlier been directed into. The training imparted in military institutions relates specifically to military affairs and warfare; intellectual discourse is not part of any syllabus. Exposure to civilian disciplines is superficial and limited to short auditorium lectures by guest speakers from different walks of life, whirlwind tours of industry and fleeting visits to government institutions. Every paper exercise and war game is preplanned, its outcome predetermined and, upon conclusion, a “Staff” solution which has been endorsed and approved over time is handed out. All problems are defined, each solution is known; there can be no novel outcomes. Maverick thought and renegade solutions are rejected outright or, at best, dismissed after perfunctory debate.
Military minds are, from basic training onwards, taught one fundamental precept. In any conflict between two adversaries, one must win and the other has to lose. Failure is punishable by death or disgrace or both. In a military encounter, there can never be a ‘win-win’ outcome. A stalemate is as bad as failure. Victory can only be ensured if military minds conform to proven tactics and strategies. Creative minds possessing original thought are eased out of the system. Interestingly, this is when the issuance of the paper degree acquires meaning. It enables a retiring officer to qualify for a civilian job based on that paper. This, incidentally, was the original purpose of distributing them but has morphed into the delusional belief that a degree in ‘war studies’ is equal to that in other fields of learning.
In stark contrast to military training, civilian institutes of learning force an awakening of dormant intellect. Professors challenge and provoke minds.
They denounce tradition, they incite students to rebel against established norms. They sow doubt, destroy beliefs, force questions. They encourage debate, examine novel thoughts and brash new theories; Civilian schools do not train minds; if anything, they untrain them and open them up to thinking, exploring and discovering. Military academies are designed to destroy individuality and inculcate group behavior. Civilian schools work in an exact opposite sense. They aim to push independent thought to extreme limits. They promote individuality; they identify genius and make it blossom.
They do more.
Civilian education extends well beyond the classroom. It is not limited to lecture halls and classrooms alone; a vast amount of learning takes place outside them. Valuable lessons are learnt on campuses; in libraries, fraternities, auditoriums, smoke filled rooms, cafeterias, on verdant lawns, in dance halls, even in cars parked in dimly lit alleys. Uniformity is shunned, audacity encouraged, hunger awakened, tastes sharpened, minds blown. Bright, eager, young questioning adults come together to explore the world that they inhabit in the hope that they will change it for the better. This is an education that a military institution will never be able to impart.
Civilian degree holders live in a very different world compared to that of their uniformed counterparts. Their professional knowledge and intellectual capabilities are constantly tested and challenged. They have the privilege and, indeed, the need, to better themselves in their chosen field of expertise. The age or the date on which they acquired their professional degree has no meaning for civilians. They can move ahead in their profession at will. A Pakistani military officer has no such option. His career path is irrevocably linked to his commissioning date and, irrespective of his mental abilities and personal study, his progress up the military pyramid is purely a function of time. In Pakistan, a bright military mind can only overtake a dimwitted superior when the latter retires or dies.
Intellectual excellence is not the aim of any military in general and those of the third world in particular; their job is to fight and hopefully win wars. In contrast, the armed forces of the developed world have to apply themselves intellectually as they design new weapon systems and develop new concepts of warfare. Third world militaries do not have this requirement. For them, change takes place only when they acquire new weapons and incorporate foreign developed employment techniques. Theirs is a world of tradition, ritual and routine. They are conditioned to follow orders, respect authority, conform to disciplinary standards and shun originality. Third world military training does not include discussions on ethics or morality. There is no need to understand the philosophy of Socrates or Kant or the economics of John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith. For them Chaos is unpredictable behavior and String is a piece of twine; they can remain blissfully unaware that these are brilliant theories that pertain to mathematics and physics. The Third World can never have officers who propound novel strategies or develop original concepts. The Third World will never have a Captain Mahan or a Lieutenant Colonel Douhet or a Colonel Boyd.
This does not mean that a military man cannot become proficient in an alternate discipline; that a General can never become an astute political leader. Given the right training and exposure, every military person can stand shoulder to shoulder with a civilian in any field of human endeavor. It however takes time, a very long time. Just as it takes a protracted and arduous career spanning decades to become a General; it takes a similarly long time to become a political leader. This fact is sadly lost upon Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals. They believe that one can become proficient in performing the duties of a civilian overnight. To understand why they believe so, it is necessary to turn to the subject of social psychology.
It is necessary to understand the Dunning – Kruger Effect.
In 1999, two psychologists, David Dunning and Justin Kruger published their ground-breaking work under the somewhat lengthy but descriptive title; “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.” The essence of that proven and well-respected theory is that an incompetent man cannot know he is incompetent. The reasoning is elegantly simple; intellect needed to recognize incompetence is exactly that needed to be competent. An unkind but more graphic explanation of the Dunning-Kruger theory of cognitive bias is that ‘a stupid person can never know that he is stupid’. Recognizing stupidity requires brains.
In 2018, the Dunning-Kruger effect was tested in the specific field of politics. During that exhaustive research, it was proven conclusively that individuals who know very little about politics and government invariably overestimate their knowledge of these disciplines.
In postulating their theory, David Dunning and Justin Kruger were simply endorsing facts that have existed since times immemorial. ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’, ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’ are age old, time proven phrases. Even a genius of the stature of Albert Einstein recognized that “the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know”. Unfortunately, such enlightenment is alien to military minds especially in the third world. Involvement of the military in politics is doubly damaging because it not only proves the paucity of intellect of the uniformed individual and brings into disrepute the institution of the Military but more importantly, it stunts national development.
Pakistan has a proud military heritage. We have some of the world’s finest soldiers, sailors and airmen. We are professional warriors that are admired and respected worldwide. We must remain so. Our forte is excellence in combat. We have no business shaping society. Even Allah, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen not to force societal change.
“Verily, Allah does not change the state of a People until they change themselves.” (Al Quran 13:11)