In every nation, there exists a sacred myth—the story a people tell themselves about who they are and who protects them. In Pakistan, that myth has long centered on the soldier: the stoic, selfless guardian of the realm, standing alert at the border, poised to defend the homeland against existential threats. This myth remains intact at the level of sepoys and fighter pilots, where danger is real and the salaries are not. But at the higher rungs—among those decorated with medals for bureaucratic cunning rather than battlefield valor—the myth curdles into farce. The generals still wear the uniform, but what they serve now is not the nation, but themselves.

This distinction is not semantic—it is structural. The common Pakistani soldier, airman, and officer remains a figure of legitimate public respect. Their sacrifices are real. Their courage, especially in the face of Indian aggression that often targets civilians, is rooted in a sincere sense of duty. They do not posture for press conferences or manage narratives from marble-clad compounds. They see themselves as protectors of 240 million people, animated by patriotism—not by power, property, or perks. They stand ready to fight and die for Pakistan, even as their own children live without steady electricity and safe drinking water.

But this noble instinct is entirely divorced from the motivations of Pakistan’s military high command. Today’s generals increasingly resemble a caste of khaki-clad oligarchs—real estate moguls with a side hustle in national defense. With stakes in everything from housing societies to cereal brands, the military’s upper crust has turned defense into a business model and patriotism into a PR strategy. They do not lead the nation; they extract from it. Their weapons are not aimed at enemies abroad, but at dissenters at home. Their most frequent deployments are not to borders, but to boardrooms.

Take, for instance, their conduct during the latest flare-up with India. A few missiles here, a few counterstrikes there—enough bloodshed to provoke global headlines, but not enough to disrupt the business of militarised governance. The Indian strikes, brutal and cynical, were meant to provoke—and they succeeded. But Pakistan’s response was not statecraft; it was stagecraft. A........

© Middle East Monitor