Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
This is just the beginning. See how many more scandals come out.
Chances are all the mess that's gonna be uncovered from the last 8yrs, over the period of coming months/years, will outdo any corruption done before. The entire nation is in shambles because of false inflation to make the public and investors feel good. Now it's all going bust.
Good Job Musharraf and Team A! Bravo!
Reason is simple, army does not want repeat of Nawaz situation where after dismissing Karamat, he thought he could do anything he wanted. This is there way of showing respect to Musharraf despite what the civilian govnt may think or do. Why do you think Zardari and co. keep talking about stability and not rocking the boat by trying to go head to head against Mush? They know on whose side Kayani and generals will be when the lines are drawn.
It is ok to support Mush but one should have certain morals and principles in life. That is hardly a justifiable reason for holding on so stubbornly to the army house.
It has much more of a symbolic import than simply a matter of residence GA.
I agree whole-heartedly.
Even in an institution like the army once you are an ex serviceman you are treated like an ex. Case in point: Mush's treatment of Hamid Gul, a retired general who (despite his controversies) must be atleast 10 years his senior in service. Kayani should stop acting like a sissy and tell him straight like a man, "Sir you are no longer the army chief. You are a retired general now so get the hell out of the army house. ab meri sharafat ka itna naajaiz faida mut utthao because I know how to use the danda".
We all know about Mush's chikkut and dheet nature but by seemingly not pressing hard on the issue, Kayani has lost all respect in my eyes. The whole thing does not reflect too good on him. It makes him look impotent at worst and beghairat or chamcha at best.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
do you think it is merely a matter of chamchagiri? if he is a chamcha or doesnt have a spine he wouldnt have taken actions that were ostensibly running contrary to Mush's desires. For example replacement of some of Mush's appointments, calling back officers etc.
i think the army has curtailed its operational presence, but doesnt want to go back all the way, atleast not so fast as to signal a withdrawal in the face of civilian forces. In that respect Musharraf and Kiyani are mere personalities, who are of less importance than will of the institution itself. Musharraf remains a representative of that institution as the president and head of the country, the uniform is not significant so long as the army keeps him where he is.
It is a matter of pride for the army, and their future role in governance. They want to preserve their legacy, and wont let Musharraf go in a way as to deter future army takeovers. The army gains just as much by being in power, if not more, than any particular personality at the helm.
They might phase him out, but with an appearance of him relinquishing power of his volition, and it will have everything with the army's desire to stay lords and masters, rather than any foreign agendas.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
ravage, can you explain why every time the PPP gets close to a resolution of the judges or impeachment of Musharraf, a US senator shows up and urges the PPP to establish a working relationship with the president?
ravage, can you explain why every time the PPP gets close to a resolution of the judges or impeachment of Musharraf, a US senator shows up and urges the PPP to establish a working relationship with the president?
Spock bhaijan. Are you suggesting that Great Zardari, the leader of PPP, is taking orders from the USA and is not making his own decisions?
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
Yes, and you are forgetting I am not Zardari's Aalsi.
ravage, can you explain why every time the PPP gets close to a resolution of the judges or impeachment of Musharraf, a US senator shows up and urges the PPP to establish a working relationship with the president?
you continue to misunderstand what Im saying. Whether or not Musharraf is the favoured emissary of the US doesnt explain why he is housed by the military in the Army house.
if it is the US support alone that deters PPP then Musharraf wouldnt need to stay in the Army house would he?
that the PPP is so influenced by a bunch of US senators is a crime in itself, at par with Musharraf taking 3am dictations. However, can you point to any pressure on Kiyani et al to keep him residing in Army house, and what incentives are offered?
If the army didnt want him housed where he is, we would know by now.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
^ Yeah, but you are forgetting I never said its ok for the PPP to be controlled by a bunch of US senator is alright, i detest that as much as I detest Mushy's american pitho-ism. Also, can you tell me who picked Kiyani, and the background of the person who picked him, when it comes to appointing fair, competent and authoritative people. Do you think a dog will force his master out of his kennel?
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
when Kiani was picked, he was regarded as one of the more independent people he could've gone with. that said what you say merely confirms what I have been saying all along: the institution is whats hanging on to power, the institution is protecting him, it isnt about one person being favoured by america.
you say "who promoted him".. ANYONE who replaced Musharraf would have the same baggage, unless there was a coup against him. anyone who kiani promotes I am guessing would have the same applied to him.
you mentioned some senators meeting PPP by the by, and pressuring them to meet Mushie. Care to mention what party affiliations those senators had, and whether that runs contrary to our discussion on this thread on democratic vs republican attitudes and Musharraf's prospects post-Bush?
Or is Carl Levin also Bush's pitthoo.
lol and how did you arrive at this conclusion? With that said, your own opinion of Kiani doesnt necessarily mean its factual. Kiani cant dare say a thing against his maibaap, i.e. Musharraf.
Not really, this whole show of taking of the wardi was done at the orders of the US, I already posted the link, it came a few days after Bush clearly said ‘take off your uniform’, just to present an image of instigating a transition to democracy, which never really happened. If they were so adament about democracy they’d tell Musharraf to just resign, which they wont because they back him.
He was just one amongst the many. Just today Aitezaz said the same thing, everytime there is some progress, a US senator comes and forces the PPP to normalize relationships with the presidency. Like I said, there is a reason why he is referred to as Busharraf. 
Such was conventional wisdom on these pages, and media when he was named.
Note the identity of these posters, I doubt any of them would have a vested interest in overstating his creds.
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showpost.php?p=5488120&postcount=47
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=270023
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showpost.php?p=5348266&postcount=16
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=265543
Try reading what I write when responding. How is this remotely related to the text you are quoting? I speak of the army’s reluctance, as an institution, to wean itself off power, and you speak of Bush’s desire for democracy?
US senators coming and “forcing” PPP to do anything is not what we disagreed about. It was whether there is a fundamental difference between democrats and republicans about Musharraf, and whether this is limited, as you said before, to Bush and his republican kabeenah.
Neither Bob Casey, nor Carl Levin are republicans. They are prominent democrats, who shape democratic foreign policy (Levin is the head of Senate Committe on Armed Services). Previous visits where it was alleged that US is pressuring pakistani politicians to stick with Mush also had prominent democrat politicians like Kerry/Biden/Harry Reid.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
thanks, if that is true, great news indeed! poor musharraf So ravage, what happened, why is Musharraf vacating the army house now?
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
Musharraf to vacate Army House in July
LAHORE: President Pervez Musharraf will move to President House in Islamabad in July, Geo News reported on Thursday. According to the channel, security arrangements are being made in President House for Musharraf, who currently resides at Army House in Rawalpindi. The president’s Camp Office at Army House will be closed after he moves to the President House, the channel added. daily times monitor
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
The US should build him a new bunker now :)
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
I could ask you the same Spock. Why is Musharraf vacating the army house now (if the report is true)? Has Bush left already?
For the record, I said this:
They might phase him out, but with an appearance of him relinquishing power of his volition, and it will have everything with the army's desire to stay lords and masters, rather than any foreign agendas.
It is all about the army wanting to go on its own terms, without the appearance of being forced out. Even this article mentions that the Camp Office at army house will stay vacant when he leaves, an apparently deferential act in itself.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
I guess they are getting ready for the democrats already Poor Busharraf, no more army house to live in. Without this American support, he couldn’t have gone on with less than 15% approval ratings.
I could ask you the same Spock. Why is Musharraf vacating the army house now (if the report is true)? Has Bush left already?
For the record, I said this:
They might phase him out, but with an appearance of him relinquishing power of his volition, and it will have everything with the army's desire to stay lords and masters, rather than any foreign agendas.
It is all about the army wanting to go on its own terms, without the appearance of being forced out. Even this article mentions that the Camp Office at army house will stay vacant when he leaves, an apparently deferential act in itself.
ravage, the article doesn’t mention that army house will stay vacant. It just says that president’s camp office at the army house will be closed.
Personally I don’t think that the army, at least at this stage, want to be the lords and masters. Kiyani may have respect for his retired colleague and former boss but he seems to be trying his best to stay neutral and out of political arena.
The greatest threat to the current political process, in my opinion, comes from the politicians, not uniformed soldiers.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
i agree, kiyani has stayed relatively out of politics, which may be interpreted as him wanting the army to be neutral or him having the same relationship with musharraf as rafiq tarar. it is unlikely that someone with as much power as kiyani would want to be a tarar.
At the same time I dont understand the root for this deference beyond the standard protocol. at this stage, if Musharraf does vacate it in a month and kiani takes his place, I guess we could stick with the being nice towards his former boss idea. we'll see when/if the vacating happens.
Re: Why is the dictator still sitting in the army house
Petition filed against Musharraf for illegally occupying the Army House
A petition has been filed in Supreme Court against President Musharaf’s stay in the Army House pleading the court to issue orders to the president to vacate the Army House. Secretary General of Save Judiciary Movement Jameel Akhtar has filed he petition in the Supreme Court Lahore Registry through his counsel Barrister Farooq Hassan. The petitioner in his petition under Article 184 A pleaded to the court that President Musharraf has been retired as the Army Chief so he can not reside in the Army House. “He has illegally occupied the Army House since Nov. 15, 2007,” the petitioner said.