Enigma of the Defence Budget

Would someone correct me if I erroneously suggest that specifics of the defense budgets are never discussed in open congress sessions in the US too? AFAIK, this practice is followed by most countries including India, UK and France too.

I have heard her name before I doubt that I have ever read her but from her intro it appears that she has a track record of a respected journalist then why she did not do her math. A 4-percentage increase in the defense budget clearly shows the rate of inflation and yearly increases in the army personal salaries. So in real term there is no increase in the defense budge from the last year.
So here is my math:
Current Budget 223 B
Last years budget 193 B
Another 23 B per revised estimate so the total last year’s budget was 216 B. The current budget is only 7 billion more which is about <4% increase over the last year. What is the problem then? Inflation in Pakistan is approx 10% so we may see another revised estimate to cover for the inflation.

“The second question being asked is why Pakistan now needs a huge defence budget that is close to four per cent of its GDP, when India is spending 2.8 per cent?”

I am amazed at people who make such wild claims.
Pak spending 4%
India spending 2.8%

Both buy equipment in the international market.
Dollar = Indian RS 45.
Dollar = Pak Rs. 59.
That’s why the Pak percentages are higher.

“The question of maintaining the eighth largest standing army in the world, when huge undisclosed amounts on the nuclear option are disbursed, becomes critical, for the simple reason that the nuclear deterrent capability was meant to substantially reduce the need for such a large conventional force.”

Nobody ever said that nuclear deterrent capability was to reduce the conventional forces. In fact, it is a downright childish argument. Unless you link the reduction of conventional forces to better relations with India and reduced tension in Kashmir, your argument would always fall flat. There is no history and not even India has reduced its conventional forces because it is nuke ready. The PPP in 1977 used this argument to promote the Nuke option in the international community and the army slammed ZAB’s head on the walls in Adialla.

Here is the problem with Pakistan Journos, first they don’t research any thing then they write wild things in their articles thus opening themselves up for ridicule. Finally, the politico journalists like Sherry Rehman write about the military budgets when their own party is not in power. I bet that Ms. Rehman would not have bothered to write this much if the PPP was in power.
Charlatans!

A quarter of the budget?.That`s a lot of moola.However, in light of terrorists and inflamatory mullahs lurking in pakistan, not including the need to step in if sectarian violence gets out of hand, it is imperative to maintain a large armed force to maintain order or act as a deterrent.A necessary cost for pakistan.The citizenry has no choice but to grin and bear it.

sherry:

nice to see you here and welcome to chowk:)

this is the crux of the matter Despite defence absorbing more than a quarter of the national wealth, the subject, unlike debt servicing, has become inured from public debate and exempt from any parliamentary accountability.

the militray is not only the gods, it is also the prophets and the companions to boot!

t

ps: please continue your jehad against the hudood ordinance