How Asim Munir’s promotion to Field Marshal sets a dangerous precedent for Pakistan – Firstpost

The promotion of General Asim Munir to the position of Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff has been one of the most pivotal developments in South Asian geopolitics in recent times. While his ascent may appear as part of routine institutional progression, a closer and more critical academic inquiry suggests that the elevation is not only emblematic of the enduring power dynamics within the Pakistani military establishment but also indicative of a more personalist drive embedded in the matrix of military strategy and political manipulation.

The recent Pahalgam terror attack and the resurfacing of tensions between India and Pakistan cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the strategic orchestration that served to amplify Asim Munir’s profile and fortify his legitimacy as the only plausible candidate for the coveted role of Field Marshal, which he ultimately achieved, though as propaganda to cover up humiliation caused by India’s Operation Sindoor.

This argument does not rest solely on conjecture or coincidence but rather draws from the deeper theoretical understandings of power and perception in international relations. By analysing this development through the lens of realist scholarship and the constructivist school of thought, a clearer picture emerges of how self-interest, narrative construction, and elite manipulation converge to produce outcomes that shape the course of regional stability and military politics.

Strategic Conflict as a Tool for Institutional Advancement

From a realist perspective, particularly that of Hans Morgenthau’s classical realism, power remains the central concern of political action, and the pursuit of national—or, in this case, institutional—interest becomes the decisive factor in all strategic behaviour. Morgenthau asserted that political actors, whether state leaders or generals, are guided by a relentless quest for power maximisation and survival.

The rise of Asim Munir must therefore be evaluated not merely in the language of military merit or strategic necessity but rather as the outcome of an internal power calculus where elite positioning, narrative control, and manufactured legitimacy play dominant roles.

The Pahalgam attack, while outwardly appearing as an act of terror that disrupted regional peace, functioned politically as a catalyst in heightening tensions and drawing attention to the necessity of a strong, decisive, and experienced leader within Pakistan’s security apparatus.

Munir, with his background in military intelligence and experience in counterterrorism, was thereby cast in the public domain as the indispensable figure who could respond effectively to emerging threats—a narrative that greatly benefitted from the orchestration or at least the opportunistic capitalisation of such conflict incidents.

Furthermore, the recent flare-up between India and Pakistan—marked by aggressive rhetoric, cross-border skirmishes, and media-driven narratives—served to reinforce the urgency for military preparedness and operational continuity, which again tilted the balance in favour of Munir’s candidacy.

These escalations were not random or externally induced phenomena but rather deeply embedded within a pattern of internal military strategy designed to manipulate public sentiment and political decision-making. In this context, conflict was instrumentalised not as a failure of diplomacy but as a means of consolidating domestic power and securing individual advancement.

If one is to accept that the timing of these events was coincidental, then one must also accept an implausible detachment of military leadership from strategic orchestration—a notion incompatible with both the structure and history of Pakistan’s military-intelligence complex.

Constructing Legitimacy Through Narrative and Perception

Constructivist theorist Alexander Wendt provides another valuable framework to interpret these developments. Wendt argues that anarchy is what states make of it, suggesting that international structure is not merely defined by material capabilities but by the intersubjective meanings that actors attach to their actions.

The narratives built around General Munir’s promotion, including the portrayal of him as a counterterrorism expert and stabilising force, did not arise in a vacuum. These narratives were socially constructed and diffused through military-aligned media outlets, intelligence briefings, and political discourse to reshape the perception of both threat and leadership within Pakistan. The terror incidents and border conflicts functioned as discursive events that facilitated the construction of Munir’s identity as the most suitable figure for the role of Field Marshal.

The discursive framing of these incidents as existential threats to national security served to displace alternative candidates and justify a decision that might otherwise have been seen as institutionally controversial or politically motivated. In this sense, the incidents were not only strategic in the materialist sense but also ideationally powerful in reconstructing the preferences of key actors, including civilian leadership and military stakeholders. Constructivism allows us to see how these events were interpreted, narrated, and infused with meaning in ways that ultimately benefitted a singular actor within a complex institutional framework.

It is important to note that the institutional strength of the Pakistani army often camouflages the personalist ambitions that animate its leadership. While formally structured and rule-bound, the promotion processes within the army remain susceptible to internal lobbying, strategic posturing, and elite collusion.

Munir’s elevation was marked by a degree of controversy and political resistance, which was quickly neutralised by a sequence of events that heightened national insecurity and positioned him as uniquely capable of addressing these challenges. Whether these events were directly orchestrated or merely manipulated post facto is secondary to the fact that they served a particular internal logic aimed at facilitating his rise.

The Personalisation of Power in Pakistan’s Military Politics

Furthermore, the military’s role in Pakistan’s broader political structure cannot be ignored. For decades, the army has functioned as a parallel state, intervening not only in matters of defence but also in civilian governance, economic policy, and media regulation.

Within this militarised political culture, promotions are not merely administrative events but political acts with wide-ranging implications. As such, the promotion of Munir must be understood not only in terms of personal ambition but also as a calculated manoeuvre that reshaped the national security discourse to align with his leadership profile.

The convergence of internal interest and external conflict raises serious questions about the ethical and strategic dimensions of civil-military relations in Pakistan. It also signals a dangerous precedent wherein regional peace and bilateral stability can be subordinated to individual career ambitions.

If the promotion of a single general can be facilitated through such high-stakes manoeuvring, then the broader institutional integrity of the military becomes compromised, not in appearance, but in its underlying rationale and operational logic.

While the realism of Morgenthau and the constructivism of Wendt provide divergent explanations, both point to the critical role of agency, interest, and narrative in shaping geopolitical outcomes. In Munir’s case, power was both the means and the end. His promotion was not merely an outcome of institutional merit or leadership succession norms but a carefully curated political project that drew upon existing regional tensions, constructed new security narratives, and manipulated both perception and practice in favour of a pre-determined outcome.

The use of incidents such as the Pahalgam terror attack and the India-Pakistan conflict in this project illustrates the extent to which strategic violence and ideological construction can be employed to achieve narrow personal goals under the guise of national interest.

Nevertheless, the elevation of Asim Munir to the highest echelons of military power must be interpreted through a critical, interdisciplinary lens that combines the structural insights of realism with the interpretive tools of constructivism.

Only then can we appreciate the complex interplay between individual ambition, institutional power, and regional conflict that continues to define the political landscape of South Asia. The incidents leading up to his promotion were not isolated events but were part of a larger choreography designed to produce a singular political outcome—an outcome that reflects not the impersonal logic of security but the deeply personal calculus of power.

Tehmeena Rizvi is a Policy Analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University. Her areas of work include Women, Peace, and Security (South Asia), focusing on the intersection of gender, conflict, and religion, with a research emphasis on Kashmir, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.