National defence university of pakistan and other pakistani military matters

NOVEMBER 6, 2019 BY OMAR ALI - 17
COMMENTSON REVIEW: THE ARMY AND
DEMOCRACY BY AQIL SHAH
Review: The Army and Democracy by Aqil Shah
Book review as receieved from Major Amin
This is an interesting book and what the author wants to
say is something I have always believed and
said. However it is essential to examine in detail what Mr
Aqil Shah has to say and offer some humble analysis .
On page- ix , would like to offer some comments on Mr
Ahmad Mukhtar :–

Mr Mukhtar has been an industrialist who belongs to a
town close to the military garrison town known as
Kharian cantonment.He has always maintained good
relations with the army like any good business man and
,frankly like most politicians in this world has no
substance. Just like most generals worldwide are men
without substance !
Firstly I do not agree with Aqil Shahs argument about Mr
Jinnah on page-3 , nor with Aqil Shahs view that military
coups and adventurism were not inevitable in Pakistan:–
We hold the view that Mr Jinnah the so called founder of
Pakistan apart from British Raj , had inflicted the
unkindest cut on Indian Muslims of Bengal and Punjab in

1916 and thereby by doing this had destabilized future
politics of Indian Muslims for all times to come,Pakistan
being the worst affected.
In the Lucknow Pact of 1916, without asking the Bengali
Muslims or the Punjabi Muslims, he reduced Bengal
Muslim majority in legislature from 52 to 40 % and in
Punjab from 54 to 50 %.
This grave strategic imbalance destabilized Indian
Muslim and later Indo Pak Muslim politics in post British
Pakistan , leading to Pakistans first martial law in 1958.
The following figures below summarise this imbalance
graphically :–

If Aqil Shah has to analyse events as they happened
dispassionately and in a detached manner he first himself

has to intellectually set himself free from self created
prisons of hero worship or Jinnah worship.
This is our first major disagreement with Mr Aqil Shah.
Our second major disagreement with Mr Aqil Shah is
with regard to his argument that both Pakistan and India
inherited a similar British colonial legacy. As Mr Shah
claims on page-3 of his book :–

Page-4 , cannot agree with Aqil Shah about military
threat. Kashmir war was initiated by Pakistans political
leadership and was entirely avoidable:–
What kind of threat is Mr Aqil Shah talking about ? Did
not expect this from a sagacious analyst like Mr Aqil
Shah.
Again on page 4 Mr Aqil Shah misses the point totally.
The first , original and unpardonable sin was Lucknow
Pact of 1916 , almost entirely the handwork of Mr Jinnah

that planted seeds of unjust tampering with ethnicity and
, with just electoral majority of the Bengali Muslims.
Language was only the tip of the iceberg ! The real issue
and the basic bone of contention was the Bengali due
ethnic majority in votes that was sabotaged and derailed
by no one other than Pakistans minority west wing
politicians , supported by west wing civil servants and
military establishment. This Aqil Shah misses altogether !

Pakistani and foreign analysts always miss the point that
electoral tampering was first pioneered at Lucknow in
1916 and was all along the ideology of non Bengal Muslim
political elite of India and later Pakistan.
On page 5 Aqil Shah while discussing Pakistani military
starts quoting Huntington but totally misses the essential
fact that Pakistani military was obsessed by British
colonial gimmick known as “Martial Races Theory”. The
issue all along was not just superiority of military as an
institution but ethnic superiority of the west wing soldiers
over the “low caste Dravidian Bengali East wingers”.

On page-6 Aqil Shahs rationalizations about Pakistani
military adventurism and Bonapratism is an exercise in
extreme oversimplification of a highly complex
sociopolitical issue :–
Aqil Shahs projection of Pakistan Armys citadel of
pedantry known as NDU is inaccurate (page-9), I first saw
NDU when my father attended a course known as armed
forces war course there in 1974-75. Later as an army
officer I saw and heard a great deal more about NDU.
From what I heard and saw NDU far from being a

forward looking institution was another higher academy
where officers attended courses and indulged in far
superior and sophisticated forms of apple polishing and
intellectual sucking-up as compared to staff college.
Nomination to NDU was by the military secretarys
branch in general headquarters, another bastion of
pedantry and parochialism where many decisions were
taken based on personal likes and dislikes.
In 1999-2001 the Pakistan Army was shaken by a massive
scandal where records were tampered with bribes etc at
the military secretarys branch. The scandal as was, as is
the norm, was covered up.
LTG Tariq Khan described his war course experience in
NDU as disappointing where he was graded B grade by a
bunch of vindictive directing staff and a sectarian set up,
as he discussed with this scribe in 2011-14 many times.
Brigadier Khalid of my regiment described nominations
to war course based on personal whims and likes and
dislikes of the military secretary in army headquarters
and these as per Khalid could be sectarian , ethnic or
various shades of parochial ! Khalid specifically quoted

one lieutenant general in Musharraf era who as Military
secretary was extremely biased and selective in
nominating officers from a particular sect or ethnicity to
the war course.
Intellectual stagnation and bigotry was such at NDU that
as per Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail during the time
when one LTG Javed Hassan was commandant of NDU ,
uttering the word Kargil was banned , as Javed had
commanded a disastorous operation at Kargil in 1999 !
Thus as per Kaiser Tufail, an air force officer attending
course in NDU by mistake uttered the word Kargil in a
model discussion and was banished from attending the
course at NDU.
Aqil Shahs premise on page 10 that Pakistani military
picked up supporting Jihadists due to insecurity is also
incorrect :–

The first Pakistani use of religion in war was in Kashmir
in October 1947 and this was pioneered and led by a
totally civilian and democratic leadership. The second
misuse of religious card in proxy wars was in 1974 in
Afghanistan and this again was led by a totally civilian
and democratically elected political leadership.
It is mind boggling how our Huntington quoting Aqil
Shah comes up with such ideas !
Pakistan’s Afghan war proxy card was initiated by
Bhutto, but was then picked up by a pariah military

usurper who was politically and internationally isolated
and there was no threat to Pakistans national security.
Pakistan’s Kashmir proxy war was also picked up as a
useful war by Pakistans military elite as the Soviet Afghan
war was over and a closed matter and Pakistani military
needed another proxy war to perpetuate its political and
foreign policy dominance.
Aqil Shahs analysis ignores the most crucial fact that
India was controlled by the British using minority ethnic
groups from northwest, particularly Punjab from 1885
onwards and in 1947 the British divided India and created
a more controllable strategic base in northwest known as
Pakistan. The Pakistani military and civil service were
seen as strategic partners of the British and of the
Americans after 1954 against USSR in the global power
game.
In 1979 the USA and Pakistani military picked up Islam
and Jihad as a useful strategic condom to be used against
the USSR and then discarded.
While Huntintgon and many others may be quoted by
researchers like Aqil Shah, the hard fact remains that

Pakistans political development was distorted and
derailed first by politicians like Mr Jinnah who had
sabotaged Bengali Muslims at Lucknow in 1916 and then
by Liaquat Ali Khan who particularly delayed
constitution making etc.
Pakistan was never a tangible objective of Mr Jinnah till
1940 when a British viceroy Linlithgow suggested to him
that he must have a slogan.
What was created in 1947 was not a nation state but a
geopolitical creation to serve as a super base against
USSR.
While technically a nation Pakistan was a unique state
where the political establishment was not willing to hand
over power to the majority ethnicity. Delay in constitution
making as a result enabled the Pakistani military to take
over power and from 1958 Pakistan was not a state but an
army with a state. With of course British and later US
support as they saw this arrangement as geopolitically
useful.
This line of thinking figures nowhere in Aqil Shahs overly
simplistic narrative.

Again on page 16 Aqil Shah is over simplistic in saying
there was a bias against Bengali recruitment in the
army. There was no bias against the Bengalis in the army
but General Ayub Khan who had usurped power in 1958
sabotaged Bengali recruitment. Aqil Shah ignores the fact
that the army is run by likes and dislikes of its chief and
in this case it was Ayub Khan alone who sabotaged
Bengali recruitment as he saw Bengalis as a political
threat since they were Pakistans majority ethnic group.
On page 25 Aqil Shah terms Shuja Nawaz’s analysis as
“rich” although Shuja Nawaz’s book crossed swords
contains the totally fallacious claim that British Indian
Army was mostly Punjabi Muslim from Rawalpindi
division.
On page 46 Aqil Shah renames general Iftikhar Khan as
iftikharuddin :–

On page -54 our author terms the Bengal Army that
rebelled in 1857 as a Bengali Army whereas the Bengal
Army that rebelled in 1857 was named the Bengal army,
but it was mostly UP and Bihar origin and had practically
no Bengalis:–
Aqil Shah also misses the point that Pathans were a small
minority in British Indian Army and Punjabi Muslims
only became preferred after 1918 as the Sikhs who
dominated the British Indian Army till 1918 had created
political problems for British in WW One. so they were no
longer as trusted.
It is expected from a decent scholar, in this case one
groomed and educated in a reputable US university. to at

least be correct in his facts. However sadly Mr Aqil Shahs
book contains several factual inaccuracies. All entirely
avoidable if Aqil Shah had been a little more careful
rather than endlessly quoting western analysts ! Like on
page -72 Aqil Shah fallaciously claims that Bengalis had a
majority in constituent assembly of Pakistan :–
Mr Aqil Shah , sadly your facts are incorrect. 11 non
Bengalis were elected on Bengal seats and there were 22
Bengalis in the 79 member first constituent assembly of
Pakistan.
Mr Aqil Shah nowhere mentions that Pakistans political
leaderships mindset was so petty that the conflict between
Mr Jinnah and premier Liaquat Ali Khan originated over
no lofty principle but over conflict of seating plan of ladies
, where liaquats wife clashed with Mr Jinnahs sister over

who was senior in seating protocol in a party hosted by
Liaquat on the occasion of Mr Jinnahs birthday in
December 1947. How was democracy to mature in such a
country , Mr Aqil Shah does not question. This fateful
incident was mentioned in Liaquats biography by Kazem
Raza published around 1997-98 but Aqil Shah has not
even listed this book in his bibliography.
Another issue with the book is that it has no bibliography
and a reviwer or serious reader has to carry out the
painful exercise of scanning through the author’s end
notes !
One serious issue that one finds with Mr Aqil Shahs
argument throughout the whole book is that he finds no
space for the first sin and original crime to disenfranchise
the Bengalis at Lucknow in 1916. Thus on page-102 Shah
again mentions Bengali under representation but fails to
mention that Pakistan’s so called founding fathers had
delivered the first and most fatal stab on Bengali
representation in 1916. He also fails to mention clearly
that Bengalis were disenfranchised by Pakistans
manipulated politicians in 1956 :–

And yet goes on quoting from western arm chair
philosophers while totally forgetting Kazem Raza etc
whose books were published and available all along the
time span when he carried out this research. If Mr Aqil
Shah had just glanced through Mc Graths book
“Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan “¸ he could have
avoided many serious factual errors in his book.
On page 103 Aqil Shahs basic facts are sadly wrong again
as Akhnur was not the only road link between India and
Kashmir :–

Hamid was promoted full general as chief of staff and not
lieutenant general as stated on page 106 :–
He again demotes Hamid on page 113 :–
Regarding armys mishandling of East Pakistan , I totally
agree with Mr Aqil Shah as he stated on page 117 :–
On page 154 Aqil Shahs facts are wrong.
Even the British were meddling and infiltrating civil
service with nominated candidates from armed forces
entering through back door without examinations based

on push and pull. There was a pre Zia military quota in
civil services dating back to Ayub Khans period and
continued by ZA Bhutto.
In 1947 a totally novice military man Ghayur Khan was
thrust over my grandfathers head in ministry of defence
just because he was muslim league leader sardar nishtars
brother. Other characters like son of a railway station
master in good books of british officials joined foreign
service in British era , and so did Sultan Khan who was
son in law of a minor states ruler.
Throughout sons and sons in law and relatives and EX
ADCs were joining the prestigious civil services (CSP,
PFS) etc and this loot party did not start in 1980 as Aqil
Shah claims.
On page 156 Shah discusses Symington amendment but
fails to note that Pressler amendment effectively allowed
Pakistan to hoodwink sanctions and Pakistans nuclear
weapons were actually acquired in Reagan era with secret
US blessings since it was feared that USSR may invade
Pakistan and Pakistan needed an effective deterrent.

Shah fails to note that Mr Bhutto himself was a military
discovery and a classic case of Pakistani military
manipulating a politicians rise to power , whereas his
father had even failed to win a single seat from his home
constituency of Larkana.
Shahs analysis of armys islamist bugs is realistic but he
fails to note that It was a civilian politician Mr ZA Bhutto
who inflicted the unkindest cut on Pakistans civil society
by pioneering constitutional amendment to declare
Ahmadis non Muslims.
Aqil Shah is not honest in his analysis of BB. While the
army under General Baig decisively ensured holding of
1988 elections. BB instead of being grateful and at least

positive towards General Baig started snubbing him and
wanted to replace him .
The unkindest cut in degradation of quality of leadership
of Pakistan Army was by appointing an officer , Ayub
Khan. as chief by Liaquat Ali khan in 1951. Ayub Khan
had been accused of tactical timidity in Burma and should
never have been promoted to high office. The other
disaster was the appointment of a highly mediocre officer
(Zia) with no war record by ZA Bhutto in 1976, but these
mistakes figure nowhere in Aqil’s analysis.
The removal of army officers job security and right to
service in congenial circumstances without fear of
arbitrary removal was removed by an elected prime
minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951. This institutionalized
“spinelessness” in Pakistan Army. But Shah has no time
for these matters.
Shah is unduly harsh on the army (page-171) for
removing BB, whereas he totally ignores Ghulam Ishaq
Khan. a civilian who was most instrumental in removal of
Benazir in 1990 as well as retirement of General Baig in
1991.

Shahs knowledge about Pakistans so called Taliban
Insurgency is limited (page 269):–

As a matter of fact this insurgency was fabricated by
Musharraf junta to fool the Americans and to divert their
attention towards FATA with dual aim of hiding vast bulk
of Afghan insurgents in Baluchistan and milking the US
taxpayer of 1.2 Billion US Dollar per year known as
coalition support fund.
The author has no worthwhile conclusions. Two factors
that he throughout misses out are that Pakistan Armys

constituency is Northern Punjab and it has kept this area
relatively much better developed than rest of Pakistan. He
has failed to note that the army killed 90 % people in non
Punjabi areas in 1977 agitation and when it came to
killing people in Lahore the army refused and three
brigadiers were sacked and finally this factor led to
martial law.
The second major factor that Shah has ignored is that
British colonial legacy preprogrammed Pakistan with a
life script for military rule particularly with the history of
British colonial legacy in Punjab.
The book is interesting but unfortunately it offers no
worthwhile conclusion.
It appears that the party in Pakistan will continue and
Pakistani generals will favour their relatives and
favourites for all times to come and organizations like
Fauji Fertiliser and PIA will be citadels of generals
relatives and in-laws. Pakistans nuclear deterrent
guarantees that the loot party would continue while
scholars like Aqil Shah will continue to write books (with
several inaccuracies) that few people in Pakistan read.

0
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
CATEGORIESBOOK REVIEWS, MAJOR
AMIN, PAKISTANTAGSAQIL SHAH, PAKISTAN ARMY
17 Replies to “Review: The Army and Democracy by Aqil
Shah”
1. thewarlock
NOVEMBER 6, 2019 AT 6:04 AM
“On page 5 Aqil Shah while discussing Pakistani military
starts quoting Huntington but totally misses the essential
fact that Pakistani military was obsessed by British
colonial gimmick known as “Martial Races Theory”. The
issue all along was not just superiority of military as an
institution but ethnic superiority of the west wing soldiers
over the “low caste Dravidian Bengali East wingers”.”
I repeat once again:

Nothing in S Asia makes sense except in the light of
Steppe:AASI ratio
Jai Shree Ameen. May the Skyfather’s Chokolingam
smile upon you
S Asia needs a racial enlightenment
Btw, HM pointed out that he believes I was overthinking
how Westerners, particularly American Whites, look at
different subtypes of S Asians. Razib echoed that in a
recent post.
That view is certainly valid when applied broadly to
United States, especially given that my experiences are
colored by Americans quite familiar with desis, given that
I was raised in the NYC metro area.
But I will content that I wouldn’t underestimate the racial
discerning prowess of whites. This can be seen even going
back to the British. While the Martial Race Theory was
certainly part of the broader geopolitical “divide and
conquer” broad strategy. The physical anthropology used
to back it up was based upon discernible phenotypic
considerations made by Western anthropologists. On the
most diverging ends, say a Punjabi Bollywoodoid Khatri

vs. a Tamil Scheduled caste, the differences are quire
apparent, even to the seemingly non-discerning eyes of
White American folks (Obama voice).
3+
Reply
1. Pavocavalry
God bless you my dearest sir
0
Reply
2. Bengalistani
NOVEMBER 6, 2019 AT 12:20 PM
Yes, race is an important issue which has influenced the
modern south Asia. British people(according to their
writings) literally believed that the fair skinned “Indo-
Aryan” race is superior to the dark dravidian(and
related) races.They believed that indo aryans brought
culture to south Asia.
They also believed that the situation of the subcontinent is
something like that of Africa whose northern portion is

inhabited by some superior fair skinned caucasoid race
and the southern part is inhabited by some inferior dark
race.
I believe that an important reason for establishing
Pakistan is to secure the existence of Indo Aryans who are
a “superior race”.
India(which is too diverse to be a true nation) was
probably established for social and political experiments
by the western world and some indo aryans were also
kept within India so that india can be Aryanized.
The British actually united India and did not divide India
as many people claim. But they also promoted sectarian
divides most probably for social experiments and may be
for population control. Almost all major problems right
now of this subcontinent are directly/indirectly
contributions of the British rule and the racialized caste
system.
if i am not wrong, vast majority of Indians are dravidian
looking and not Aryan. Ironically, though westerners
have a tendency to belittle Indians on a racial basis,
Indians often glorify westerners and try to imitate these

“superior” people. They often draw the Hindu gods and
historical indian personalities as caucasian-looking fair
skinned people.
Most probably, christianity(specially catholicism) was
also introduced in this subcontinent for promoting
european supremacy
May the British sky father have mercy on those who
glorify him <3
0
Reply
2. Arjun
I couldn’t parse this sentence: “The real issue and the
basic bone of contention was the Bengali due ethnic
majority in votes that was sabotaged and derailed ”
Omar Ali, could you expand on this aspect of the
Lucknow Pact ? I always thought it was just some give
and take (perhaps more give than take) between Congress
and Muslim League over electoral “adjustments”. Are
you saying Mr. Jinnah threw Bengali Muslims under the
bus to secure more benefits for Punjabi Muslims ?

1+
Reply
1. pavocavalry
NOT PUNJABI MUSLIMS AT ALL BUT ONLY UP
MUSLIMS WHO GOT 35 % WHICH WAS OF NO USE
TO THEM- MR JINNAH BECAME PERSONA NON
GRATA IN PUNJAB FOR MANY YEARS AND ALSO
HARMED PUNJABI MAJORITY BY REDUCING IT
TO 50 % – AS A RESULT PUNJABI MUSLIMS
FORMED UNIONIST PARTY TO ALLY WITH HINDU
AND SIKH RURAL CLASSES–TO UNDERSTAND
LUCKNOW PACT you need to read :– (1) PATHWAY
TO PAKISTAN by Ch Khaliquzzaman (2) Murder of
History in Pakistan which has complete chapter on
Lucknow Pact and (3) Separatism among Indian Muslims
by Francis Robinson (4) Raj Mohan Gandhis
UNDERSTANDING THE MUSLIM MIND – also
explores it in detail in chapters on Fazlul Haq etc—
BASICALLY MUSLIM MAJORITY PROVINCES

WERE DESTABILISED AND muslim minority provinces
benefitted to only LIMITED extent.
0
Reply
3. Scorpion Eater
Dear Major Amin
No post of yours is complete until it does not berate the
martial races theory and the damage it had wrought on
the Pakistani army. It is obvious to keen readers that
there a personal angle to it.
Will you be kind enough to elaborate more on your own
experience in the army, and the reasons you hold such a
deep grudge against the senior army staff.
Of course if you live in Pakistan and such a foolhardy step
can have repercussions, we will understand if you choose
to keep quiet.
Thank you
A long time reader and well wisher
0
Reply

1. pavocavalry
my views are clearly expressed in various publications my
dear brother. there is no mystery nor any ambiguity.
appreciate your moral support.
0
Reply
4. Saurav
I am a bit puzzled on Major Amin view on Jinnah.
Broadly folks fall into two categories.
A) Jinnah fought for Indian muslim rights, and got it
correct by creating Pakistan.
B) Jinnah by creating Pakistan divided the muslim
community into 2, which weakened Muslims of the
subcontinent.
Seems like somehow Mr Amin doesnt fall into either
category. Would appreciate if he expands on his view on
Jinnah
0

Reply
1. pavocavalry
you need to study the available data/books in detail– (1)
the position was that UP Ashrafia as well as UP Bihar
Hindu Rajputs etc despised Bengalis (2) same was case in
Punjab Bombay and in Muslim Ashrafia (3) However
demographically Bengalis were the majority (4) This was
first sabotaged at Lucknow in 1916 successfully and
Bengal Muslims remained unstable politically (5) This
was sabotaged by Liaquat who sabotaged and delayed
constitution making for 9 years till 1956 (6) In 1956
bengalis were forced at gun point to accept 50 % seats (7)
same continued till 1970 elections (8) rest your thoughts
about dividing muslims (9) no muslim politician could
imagine that indian army would overrun east bengal (10)
here bengali muslims need to thank indian army (11)
countries are not created by god but by mean mortals
who make policy
0
Reply

5. pavocavalry
somehow west wingers thought that they would carry on
(2) general yahya khan being non punjabi and non pathan
and non urdu speaking finally accepted demography
which jinnah and all muslim leaders till 1969 had
sabotaged (3) this opened pandoras box (4) lastly if
bengalis had due share in the army things could have
been more balanced but that was sabotaged by ayub khan
(5) my father was GSO2 Operations of 16 Division that
carried out military action in north west bengal and states
that wishful thinking was such that pakistan army
thought as late as june 1971 that indian army could not
overrun east bengal.
0
Reply
6. Mohan
Crazy how steppe:aasi plays such an important role in
even Pakistani history. The funny thing is I would trust a

Bengali or Tamil with anything academic, scientific, or
medical related over a Punjabi or Haryanvi. Not to
mention personal safety or violence. I’d take my chances
in Bangladesh or Tamil Nadu any day before I venture at
night into a north Indian or Pakistani city.
Being a martial race sounds like such a chore…
0
Reply
7. Razib Khan
The funny thing is I would trust a Bengali or Tamil with
anything academic, scientific, or medical related over a
Punjabi or Haryanvi.
no doubt!
0
Reply
1. thewarlock
Gujus aka India’s “good jews” occupy a funny place in
between lol

I always find it interesting that AASI doesn’t seem to
negatively impact IQ and Steppe doesn’t raise, much to
the chagrin of white supremacists.
1+
Reply
8. Scorpion Eater
Major Amin, what is your ethnicity? Are you a Urdu
speaker. (I am deliberately avoiding the M word). It does
appear so.
You can’t possibly be a Punjabi based on the hostility you
show towards them.
Sorry to be a little nosy, but now my curiosity is really
aroused. What exactly is your pique against Pak army?
Something personal?
0
Reply
1. thewarlock

He is a Woke Jatt Rajput Gujar Serbian Aryan.
Descended to be great, he manifests it by standing up to
the bullies for the well being of others. It is his arya heart
of gold. Nobleness is not just in the namesake of his creed
but also the defining trait of his identity.
He is an R1a. I can sense it. It is a power in my indigenous
shaman bones.
0
Reply
9. Pavocavalry
Questioning is not a polite form of conversation – passing
sweeping judgements is also in bad taste – and hiding
behind nicknames makes the conversation pointless
0
Reply
10. Pavocavalry
Rather than concentrating on relevant matters – labelling
people is in bad taste – just because someone’s

grandfather was in ministry of defence in New Delhi
before partition. Does not make that person Urdu speaker
and then unnecessarily bringing ethnicity in pure
intellectual matters ! Ludicrous! My uncle serving in ISI
narrated that in 1950s we were asked to ensure that
Bengali Hindu demand of joint electorate is not accepted
so that ISI could easily target Bengali Hindus as a distinct
minority group.
11. Scorpion Eater
LoL. Peace Major. Sorry to trigger you. It’s just that
something stirred inside me seeing the great name of Pak
army getting sullied like this �
And I dont hide behind nicknames. Just a prudent
precaution in the times we live. Privacy is a precious
commodity in the age of Internet.
0
Reply
12. Pavocavalry

LTG tariq Khan is personally known to me as well as brig
khalid who is my unit officer – rest all points are hard
irrefutable facts – in serious discussion “specific issues”
should be addressed rather than questions about ethnicity
of an author which is in bad taste and that too from
anonymous users hiding behind nicknames ?
Intelligence Review: Directorate S ?The CIA and
Americas Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001-
2016-Steve Coll -Allen Lane- Penguin ... Agha .H .Amin ,
Major (Retired) 07 April 2018
by Agha H Amin | Apr 8, 2018
Paperback

$19.99$19.99
German and American Views on ISI OF PAKISTAN
by Agha H Amin | Oct 9, 2019
Paperback
$19.00$19.00
MILITARY POLITICS IN PAKISTAN REVIEWED:
JOURNAL OF BOOK REVIEWS
Paperback
$19.00$19.00

BOOKS ON RUSSO GERMAN WAR 1914-17: Journal
of Book Reviews
Paperback
$19.99$19.99
Indian Military Review: October 2019
by Agha H Amin and Raugh Jr, Dr Harold E | Oct 3, 2019
Paperback
$19.00$19.00

Peter Mansoors Surge Reviewed: Journal of Book
Reviews
Paperback
$19.99$19.99
Callous Indifference-Crisis in Command-US Army
Afghanistan and White House
by Agha H. Amin | Oct 5, 2015
4.0 out of 5 stars 1
Paperback
$9.00$9.00
Journal of Book Reviews- Money land by Oliver Bullough

Paperback
$9.99$9.99
Intelligence Review: How Corruption is destroying
Military Effectiveness of United States of America (US
Military Corruption) (Volume 54)
by Agha H Amin and Thomas J Miller | Dec 15, 2015
Paperback
$13.00$13.00
Journal of Book Reviews: The Spy and the Traitor by Ben
Macintyre Reviewed
by Agha H Amin | Sep 25, 2018

Paperback
$19.99$19.99
NAPOLEON AS SEEN BY THREE BIOGRAPHERS:
JOURNAL OF BOOK REVIEWS
Paperback
$19.00$19.00
India Pakistan Afghanistan Military Review: An Infantry
Direct Participant Remembers Bara Pind Battles-Low
Price Black and white version
by Agha H Amin | Jan 25, 2018
Paperback

$19.99$19.99
Atlas of Muslim Conquest,Empires and Failure in India-
Volume 2: 165 Years of Loot, Rapine,Intrigue and finally
Extinction -Mahmud Ghaznavis 1021 Expedition till
demise of Ghaznavi Dynasty in 1186
by Agha H Amin | Aug 30, 2018
Paperback
$19.99$19.99
Allure of Battle-Journal of Book Reviews: a massive
military history book reviewed
by Agha H Amin | Nov 17, 2018
Paperback

$19.99$19.99
Movie and Film Review: Drone - Lots of Questions and
lack of attention to simple details (July 2017)
by Agha H Amin | Jul 19, 2017
Paperback
$9.99$9.99
13 Lancers Leading Tank Squadron commander
recollects battle of Bara Pind
by Khwaja M Nasir and Agha H Amin | Sep 21, 2018
Paperback
$19.99$19.99

GENERAL MAP OF THE TO DEPICT SHASHDARAK
BLAST 05 SEPTEMBER 2019
GENERAL MAP OF THE TO DEPICT SHASHDARAK
BLAST 05 SEPTEMBER 2019

BLAST NEAR NATO/ISAF HQ AND US EMBASSY
https://www.rferl.org/a/kabul-blast-embassy-
district/30147505.html
At least 12 people have been killed -- including a
U.S. and a Romanian soldier -- and dozens more
injured when a car bomb struck a checkpoint on
September 5 in a neighborhood of Kabul that
houses the embassies, government buildings, and
local NATO headquarters.
The fundamentalist Taliban claimed responsibility
for the late-morning attack.
It is the second major Taliban attack in the Afghan
capital this week as U.S. and Taliban officials are
said to be in an intense final phase of efforts toward
a peace deal to end their 18-year conflict.
Another Taliban car bombing later on September 5,

in a neighboring province, reportedly killed at least
four civilians.
The Taliban, which is pressing for the departure of
U.S. and other international troops in the
negotiations, claimed that foreigners were among
the dead in the September 5 attack in Kabul. Taliban
spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid tweeted that the
suicide bomber had killed 12 "foreign invaders."
Reports said the checkpoint that was targeted was
near the headquarters of NATO's Resolute Support
mission.
NATO said in a statement later in the day that two
members of that mission, a Romanian and an
American, "were killed in action today in Kabul."
Romanian authorities have confirmed that a
Romanian soldier on "a mixed patrol mission" was

among the dead and another Romanian was
seriously wounded.
Romanian President Klaus Iohannis condemned the
attack and stressed his country's "profound
commitment to combating terrorism at the
international level."
A large plume of smoke rose over the blast and
sirens blared as first responders rushed to the
scene.
Interior Ministry spokesman Nasrat Rahimi said a
minibus packed with explosives had detonated on a
main road in the Shash Darak district at around
10:10 a.m. local time.
Ten civilians were dead and 42 others were injured
in the attack, Rahimi later tweeted.

Later reports put the number of injured at more than
100.
Agreement Reached 'In Principle'
Quoting a spokesman for Kabul's police chief, AP
suggested the attack was also not far from offices
of Afghan national-security authorities.
A draft agreement to end years of war in
Afghanistan was said to have been reached "in
principle" recently between U.S. and Taliban
representatives after nine rounds of talks involving
U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been briefing
Afghan officials on its terms.
But completion of the deal is reportedly still
contingent on final approval from U.S. President
Donald Trump and assent among Taliban leaders.

The Afghan government is also said to be weighing
its position on the agreement.
Afghan presidential Waheed Omer, who was talking
to reporters at the time of the September 5
explosion, said the deal was proceeding with
"excessive speed" and warned of difficult times
ahead, according to AP.
A Taliban suicide attack late on September 2 killed
at least 16 people and injured more than 100 others,
also in eastern Kabul. The dead in that attack
included another Romanian.
So far in 18 such attacks in the Afghan capital this
year, at least 209 people have been killed and more
than 1,000 others injured, according to dpa.

National defence university of pakistan and other pakistani military matters

National defence university of pakistan and other pakistani military matters

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to National defence university of pakistan and other pakistani military matters

Similar to National defence university of pakistan and other pakistani military matters (20)

More from Agha A

More from Agha A (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

National defence university of pakistan and other pakistani military matters