Who do you think is a better General if there are only two candidates musharraf and kayani?
You may wana consider musharraf’s post 9/11 handling and then leading pakistan and bringing it to next 11 countries but also defaming army by posting verdi wale in all departments..
On the otherhand kayani dealing with the mess and restoring the mujahid army perception (in process) also showing a pro democratic strategy with this corrupt govt. NO one man decisions(not capable or ?)
I personaly confused about kayani leadership skills .some time i feel like he is much more wise than musharraf but other time i see him as an incompetent general who have no idea of how to respond. Expample ..post osama operation.
Agreed..this may not be the best deal for pakistan but when you are on someone elses table you cannot dictate but you have to find a middle way. Coming to balochistan its always been like this (balochistan in the shadow of afghanistan). If you hav good relationship with india and america balochistan would be fine. And i admire his int relationship specially with arab countries.
Musharraf was good for PPP as he agreed to whitewash all past crimes of Benazir and Zardari, and was bad for the rest of the country, as this act of his put the country back by another 10 years from an economical perspective.
Fits like a tee to Zulfikar Bhutto. He was a ‘general’ without a wardi. Pakistan’s first and only civilian chief martial law administrator. Plus, he invented more ways to get rid of political opponents than any one else. He tried to remain in power at all costs…squashed the public verdict in 1970, and defrauded the public in 1977.
Egypt is getting almost $2 billion as military and civilian aid since 1979 (Camp David Agreement), and Turkey demanded around 50 billion for giving NATO access to their bases for carrying out attacks on Iraq (which was subsequently voted out by Turkish parliament).
As far as Musharraf is concerned, one telephone call did the trick. Even Colin Powell was surprised by Musharraf agreeing to almost all his demands. We have got around 7.5 billion dollars (since the WoT began), but have wasted over 50 billion dollars of our infrastructure (due to terrorism and destruction of roads).
Musharraf started attacking tribals with the FCR in place (hence punishing whole tribes for the crimes of a few) effectively pushing the tribes towards the militants, allowed drone strikes (which ally allows that?), gave military bases and allowed passage of NATO supplies free of cost.
The same guy started work on cantonments (in Sui and Marri areas) and Gwadar port without consulting the people of Balochistan. Later on the way he handled Captain Hammad issue pushed the Bugtis on the way to confrontation. A committee under Shujaat was formed which had pacified the situation to some extent, but Musharraf had Bugti killed. Hence pushing the province into abyss.
I personally believe he had a role in the formation of MMA as well. The mullahs who had never got more than a couple of seats were given the government in KP, that was basically a bargaining chip that he used with the western world. "Support me or the mullahs will take over the country".
Kayani is trying to stabilize and pacify the country which was handed over to him in abysmal condition.
The difference between Musharraf and Kayani is that the former was involved in politics, and he did everything he could to remain in power at the detriment of the country and on the other hand we have a professional army man who is trying to bring the country back from the black hole where Musharraf has pushed the country into.
The difference between Musharraf and Kayani is that** the former was involved in politics,** and he did everything he could to remain in power at the detriment of the country and on the other hand we have a professional army man who is trying to bring the country back from the black hole where Musharraf has pushed the country into.
the former was involved in politics
And Kayani is more involved in business .
if there are only two candidates musharraf and kayani?
