A military is not a debating society. Serving officers express disagreements through the chain of command, not through newspapers, television or social media.
ByLt Gen (retd.) Tariq Khan | October 2026
Disagreement is not disobedience — and retirement is not a muzzle.
There is a curious habit in Pakistan: when a retired military officer expresses an unpopular opinion, people ask, “Why didn’t you say that when you were serving?”
The answer is simple: because I was serving.
A military is not a debating society. Serving officers express disagreements through the chain of command, not through newspapers, television or social media. They are expected to speak frankly—not merely tell superiors what they want to hear.
The obligation is to say what they need to hear.
As George Washington put it, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” In a military, however, that speech must occur before the order is given—not halfway through an operation via a television panel. The forgotten virtue of disagreement.
A military that cannot tolerate professional disagreement before a decision is made is not disciplined; it is merely a uniformed audience.
A competent commander listens, considers the arguments and decides. Sometimes the junior officer is right. Sometimes the commander is right. Occasionally, both are wrong. Once the decision is made, however, discipline requires lawful orders to be executed.
That is not hypocrisy. That is command.
You are entitled to your opinion; your superior is entitled to his decision.
And the latter normally wins. Otherwise, armies would become expensive debating clubs with uniforms.
“But why didn’t you resign?” Sometimes an officer does resign. But resignation is not an automatic trapdoor. Its acceptance and timing remain matters for the competent authority.
More importantly, not every disagreement requires resignation.
There is a difference between believing a decision is wrong and believing one must abandon the service because of it. Officers need not agree with every decision; they must serve professionally despite disagreement. General George S. Patton said, “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” The military solution is to think clearly, argue honestly and then follow the lawful decision.
Silence was part of the profession. Serving officers traditionally avoided public political argument. This did not mean they lacked political opinions. It meant the institution had to remain publicly neutral. The Army could not have every general publicly supporting or attacking different politicians and policies. The result would be confusion, not discipline.
Political restraint allowed individuals to hold opinions while preserving the institution’s neutral public posture.
Then came retirement.
Retirement changes the equation. A retired officer is no longer in the chain of command, issuing orders or exercising military authority. He is a citizen. Retirement does not erase confidentiality or national-security obligations, but within those limits, a retired officer has the ordinary civic right to express an opinion.
Retirement does not erase confidentiality or national-security obligations, but within those limits, a retired officer has the ordinary civic right to express an opinion
The Constitution does not say: “Freedom of expression available to everyone except people who once wore a uniform.” You cannot insist that someone is retired while expecting him to remain permanently silent like a serving officer. John Stuart Mill wrote, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” A retired officer may contribute usefully—not because he is infallible, but because he can speak without appearing to represent the institution.
The great retrospective fallacy. People often assume that every officer involved in an institutional decision agreed with it. That is not how professional institutions work.
An officer may argue against a decision, have his argument rejected, implement it and later say publicly:
“I disagreed with that decision.” There is no contradiction. Indeed, it would be disturbing if every retired officer claimed to have supported every decision made during his service.
The test is not whether you disagreed
The real questions are:
Did he speak honestly when required?
Did he make his case through the proper system?
Did he respect the authority to decide?
Did he execute lawful orders?
And after retirement:
Does he speak as a citizen rather than for the institution he left?
Those are the proper tests.
The uniform does not extinguish the citizen
Military service does not extinguish citizenship.
A man does not surrender his brain or conscience at the cantonment gate. What he does surrender while serving is the public expression of opinions when that could compromise his institutional role.
That is different.
Military discipline requires knowing when to speak, where to speak and when to remain silent. Retirement restores the right to speak as an individual citizen.
One final distinction
I accept accountability for anything I actually said or did. But I reject being judged for opinions people assume I should have expressed publicly while serving. The public saw decisions, not necessarily the arguments behind them. They saw obedience, not necessarily disagreement.
Disagreement is not disobedience.
Obedience is not agreement.
Silence in service is not proof of consent.
And speaking after retirement is not disloyalty.
It is simply the difference between being a serving officer and being a citizen.
The uniform demands discipline. The Constitution protects citizenship.
Leave a Reply