Pakistan has formally introduced a major change in its defence command structure with the creation of the post of Chief of Defence Forces (CDF). The new position consolidates operational coordination and leadership oversight of the Army, Navy, and Air Force under a single office, replacing the previously ceremonial role of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC).
The reform was enacted through constitutional and legislative amendments passed by Parliament in late 2025. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, who continues to serve as Chief of Army Staff (COAS), has been appointed as Pakistan’s first Chief of Defence Forces, in accordance with the newly enacted legal framework.
This development marks one of the most significant reorganizations of Pakistan’s military command since independence.
What the CDF Is and What It Is Not
The Chief of Defence Forces is designed to act as the principal military adviser to the civilian leadership while ensuring joint planning, coordination, and operational integration among Pakistan’s three armed services. Unlike the earlier CJCSC role, which largely functioned as a coordinating and advisory post without direct authority, the CDF position carries substantive command and strategic coordination responsibilities.
Tenure and Authority
Under the new legal framework, the Chief of Defence Forces serves a five-year term, with the possibility of extension by the government. The CDF simultaneously holds the position of Army Chief, a feature that has attracted both support and concern.
Advocates argue that continuity at the top enables long-term strategic planning, particularly in complex security environments. Critics warn that extended tenures risk excessive concentration of power and underline the importance of institutional checks and balances.
Why the Reform Was Introduced
Security analysts note that the reform reflects changing realities of modern warfare rather than a sudden political shift. Contemporary conflicts increasingly rely on joint operations, integrating land, air, naval, cyber, and intelligence capabilities. Counterterrorism operations, border security, and regional deterrence require faster coordination than silo-based command structures allow.
Pakistan’s military has been engaged for decades in counterterrorism and internal security operations, often requiring real-time coordination between air and ground forces. The CDF framework institutionalizes what had already been practiced informally in many operations.
Internationally, unified command structures are widely viewed as improving operational efficiency, strategic clarity, and crisis response.
Parliamentary Process and Political Debate
The legislation establishing the CDF was passed through Parliament as part of a constitutional amendment and accompanying changes to military service laws. While the government framed the reform as an administrative and structural necessity, opposition parties criticized the speed of the process and raised concerns regarding parliamentary oversight and civilian supremacy.
Contrary to claims that no debate took place, the issue was discussed in both houses of Parliament. However, critics argue that the depth of deliberation did not match the scale of the reform. Supporters counter that defence-related structural changes in Pakistan have historically been passed through expedited procedures to avoid politicization of national security matters. This tension reflects an ongoing debate in Pakistan about balancing military efficiency with democratic accountability.
International Response
International reaction to Pakistan’s defence restructuring has been measured rather than celebratory. Major global and regional partners, including China, the United States, and several Middle Eastern countries, have continued military and diplomatic engagement with Pakistan following the reform, signaling acceptance of the new framework.
At the same time, international analysts and media outlets have raised questions about civil-military balance, centralization of authority, and long-term implications for democratic governance. These concerns are not unique to Pakistan and are commonly raised whenever significant military restructuring occurs in politically sensitive environments.
No credible international reporting confirms claims that the reform dramatically altered Pakistan’s global standing overnight; rather, it is viewed as an evolutionary change whose impact will unfold over time.
India and the Regional Context
India has not issued a formal, detailed government statement directly responding to Pakistan’s CDF framework. Commentary on the issue has largely come from analysts and media discussions rather than official policy declarations.
Given the longstanding rivalry between the two countries, regional observers naturally assess how changes in Pakistan’s command structure could affect deterrence stability. However, there is no verified evidence that the CDF’s creation has altered the strategic balance in South Asia in the short term.
Economic and Strategic Continuity
One argument advanced by proponents of the CDF model is that unified military leadership may offer greater strategic continuity for long-term international projects and defence partnerships. Pakistan has historically faced disruptions in policy implementation due to political transitions.
Supporters believe that clearer command structures could reassure international partners that defence cooperation and security-related projects will remain insulated from frequent political change. Critics caution, however, that economic stability depends primarily on governance, institutional reform, and civilian policymaking rather than military structure alone.
Conclusion
The establishment of the Chief of Defence Forces represents a structural reform, not a declaration of military dominance or a departure from constitutional governance. It reflects Pakistan’s attempt to modernize its command system in response to evolving security challenges.
Whether the CDF framework strengthens national security while maintaining democratic accountability will depend not on the title itself, but on how the role is exercised, how civilian oversight is maintained, and how institutional boundaries are respected. As with many reforms of this scale, its true impact will only become clear over time, through transparency, performance, and adherence to constitutional norms.
The writer can be contacted babargorsi@gmail.com
