I am amazed by the ongoing debate on General Kayanis extension. In fact, continuation of a competent and successful commander in a war or a warlike situation is a necessity. I am not aware if any country had retired a successful general during the World War II because of advanced age or completion of tenure. The competent commanders were, in fact, recalled from retirement, even from exile in Siberia. Obviously, victory and survival are the decisive factors in a war. Oft-repeated saying No one is indispensable is a misnomer, especially if only a particular available person is the most suitable choice for a specific circumstance. General Tikka Khan, for instance, had replaced his failed predecessor just in time to save Sialkot during the 1965 War. May I remind your readers that for centuries, there was no fixed tenure for a competent, successful and loyal army commander in the empires of subcontinent. We inherited the tradition of a fixed tenure of Army Chief from the British colonization in a long period of peace. It should only be followed under normal circumstances and not during a war. I humbly appeal to my compatriots to kindly desist from debate or comments on the matter that may embarrass the Army Chief and the Army itself to the glee of our enemies. This is particularly important at a time when the country is facing serious multifarious internal as well as external threats, war and warlike. Not only are our security and nuclear assets under threat but our very survival as a nation is at stake. Let us not repeat history of Baghdad when the intellectuals were busy debating trivial issues at the cost of planning defence of the realm while Mongol hordes of Helagu Khan were at the gate of capitol. -ENGR. M. AKRAM NIAZI, Rawalpindi Cantt, July 29.