Myth number 1: Article 243 equals "army rule". Reality: The army is the largest service in Pakistan’s threat environment. That is geography, not conspiracy. Yes, the battlespace is land-heavy – India-centric land threats, western CT (counterterrorism) operations and internal security. The ‘army dominance’ argument confuses size with intention. To be certain, unified command is not unitary ownership.
Myth number 2: The CDF-model (Chief of Defence Forces) equals "uniformed supremacy". Reality: The CDF model is the global standard for coherent command as modern warfare rewards unity of command, not committees.
The UK has a chief of defence staff. France integrates command through the CEMA (Chef d’Etat-Major des Armees). The US chairman joint chiefs is the principal military adviser. None are dictatorships. They are democracies optimising for battlefield speed.
Myth number 3: An army-origin CDF would control transfers, postings and promotions in the air force and navy leading to resentment and affecting morale. Reality: The amendment does not rewrite service promotion boards, career pyramids or internal command chains. It places operational coordination in one node, not HR control of the air force or navy.
Myth number 4: Article 243 is "person-specific".Reality: Armies do not rewrite commands to praise a general. Nations rewrite command when the threat spectrum accelerates beyond bureaucratic layering.
Attributing structural military reform to a single individual is analytically weak and historically shallow. Command reform takes years of planning, inter-service study and threat modelling.
Myth number 5: Constitutional embedment equals "rigidity". Reality: Constitutional embedment is stability, not rigidity. The defence command should not swing every electoral cycle, ministry or crisis. When a state locks in a command structure, it signals continuity to allies and overmatch to rivals.
Myth number 6: Ending CJCSC means ending jointness. Reality: Ending CJCSC means ending duplication, not jointness. The truth is that the CJCSC has never commanded troops or war plans. Jointness happens through integrated planning and unified command — not through an unused title. Removing redundancy sharpens joint operations.
Myth number 7: Article 243 reduces civilian oversight. Reality: Civilian control stays where it always was — with the prime minister. Article 243 (amended) changes internal military wiring, not democratic oversight. Speed in battle does not eliminate civilian supremacy. Article 243 changes how the military fights, not who the military answers to. Improved command is not diminished oversight.
In short, Article 243 is not about "who rules the military"; it is about "how wars are run" in an age where missiles, drones and cyber strikes move faster than committees can assemble.
Article 243 is not a power question; it is a speed question. Modern wars are won by command clarity, not committee consensus.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. He posts saleemfarrukh and can be reached at: farrukh15hotmail.com
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.